# What's your controversial classical music opinion?



## prlj

Here's my biggest one:

I don't care for the sound of sopranos. At all. If a piece features a soprano, I'm out. If I were ever rich enough to do this, I would love to commission a recording of Beethoven 9 with none of the soprano parts included. If every soprano voice were suddenly dropped from all classical rep, nothing of value would be lost. 

So, what are your controversial opinions about classical music?


----------



## advokat

I don't care for the people who do not like sopranos. At all. If there is an anti-soprano music lover in the audience, I am out. If every soprano hater were suddenly dropped from the face of the earth, nobody of value would be lost.


----------



## Rogerx

I just don't have one, let's say I don't like Mozart ( I love him by the way.) I simply wood not buy anything form him on record. ( This is just a example)


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

prlj said:


> Here's my biggest [controversial classical music opinion]:
> 
> I don't care for the sound of sopranos. At all.


That's a personal preference or matter of taste, not an opinion.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

It's a good thing that classical music is a niche interest. The larger a community gets, the worse the quality of discussion becomes.


----------



## perempe

Brahms' symphonies were inspired by steam locomotives.


----------



## fluteman

Wagner's operas are too long and repetitive to sit all the way through, in the audience or in the pit orchestra. Wagner can only be digested in bite-sized pieces: scenes, overtures, preludes.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Many think that opera is dreadful - absolute rubbish - and that people, in and of themselves, are wonderful... It's actually the other way round...


----------



## fbjim

At the end of the day, it's all show business.


----------



## Luchesi

When I was younger I thought that music before 1550 was uninteresting, extremely predictable and therefore quite dull (the musical toolbox for the composers hadn't been sufficiently expanded yet).

But in here, watching the preferences of the connoisseurs of early music I've realized that the music that has come down to us is definitely worth the time and effort. It's only logical that what would survive for all those centuries is mostly excellent for expression (when we come to appreciate what comprises that excellence). 

It's a long path, and there are interesting questions, like what basics and fundamentals did the composer have to work with and what did he develop in his struggles.


----------



## Waehnen

My controversial opinions on classical music are:


Opera Buffa is mostly awful -- unless it´s Don Giovanni, The Marriage of Figaro or Die Zauberflöte
The 7th Symphony by Mahler is totally self-centered music born out of vanity and hubris, resulting in an Ode To Mediocrity
Neoclassicism is the easiest form of classical music to create: let´s just hop around, somewhat dancing and leave the brain and expression at the hatrack


----------



## Animal the Drummer

John Eliot Gardiner's Bach recordings are wildly overrated, technical _tours de force_ with the soul of a sewing-machine.


----------



## RobertJTh

Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music.
Elgar's symphonies are better than Mahler's.
There should be a worldwide temporary ban on new Mahler performances and recordings.
Verdi is just another dime a dozen Italian opera composer.
German organ music is better than French organ music.
German music is better than French music.
Bruckner scholars are lunatics
Tchaikovsky wrote nothing but sentimental kitsch.
Dvorak is second rate Brahms
Handel is the most overrated baroque composer ever.
Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez is the worst piece of music in the history of mankind.
Reger was the greatest musical genius of the early 20th century


----------



## Kreisler jr

- Most "received wisdom" is pretty much spot on. There are some pieces and composers that are under/overrated but overall several centuries of reception, scholarship and practice have divided wheat and chaff reasonably well.


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> - Most "received wisdom" is pretty much spot on. There are some pieces and composers that are under/overrated but overall several centuries of reception, scholarship and practice have divided wheat and chaff reasonably well.


Yes, the naysayers help us to not get overly enthusiastic about just a few composers (Mozart especially).


----------



## pianozach

This might be a bit too overreaching, but I think that *the auditory spectrum and the visual spectrum are just parts of a larger spectrum*. Sound and light both travel in waves, so why not?


----------



## Becca

pianozach said:


> This might be a bit too overreaching, but I think that *the auditory spectrum and the visual spectrum are just parts of a larger spectrum*. Sound and light both travel in waves, so why not?


Apples and kumquats, they are completely different and non-overlapping spectra ... light is an electromagnetic wave/photons while sound is a compression wave requiring some sort of atmosphere for propagation


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> This might be a bit too overreaching, but I think that *the auditory spectrum and the visual spectrum are just parts of a larger spectrum*. Sound and light both travel in waves, so why not?


Sounds and images have become more important than the sense of smell (50 to 100 mya). What kind of art can arise from around smells? When your faithful fido returns home s/he can not only smell what had been cooking days before, but s/he can also smell the different metals of the pots and pans. It must be frustrating.

There are opinions about the tasting arts.


----------



## advokat

Beethoven wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music.
Mahler's symphonies are better than Elgar's.
There should be a worldwide temporary ban on new Elgar performances and recordings.
Wagner is just another dime-a-dozen German opera composer.
French organ music is better than German organ music.
French music is better than German music.
Elgar scholars are lunatics
Britten wrote nothing but sentimental kitsch.
Brahms is a second rate Dvorak
Haydn is the most overrated classical composer ever.
Schubert's 4th symphony is the worst piece of music in the history of mankind.
Reger was the worst composer of the 20th century

See? It is easy. Controversies are cheap and puerile.


----------



## Bulldog

Animal the Drummer said:


> John Eliot Gardiner's Bach recordings are wildly overrated, technical _tours de force_ with the soul of a sewing-machine.


Some folks claim that Bach's music inhabits the world of the sewing-machine, so Gardiner is in good company.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> Sounds and images have become more important than the sense of smell (50 to 100 mya). What kind of art can arise from around smells? When your faithful fido returns home s/he can not only smell what had been cooking days before, but s/he can also smell the different metals of the pots and pans. It must be frustrating.
> 
> There are opinions about the tasting arts.


Smell - or our ability to detect and react to certain chemicals (also taste) is not only a very old sense, but one of the ones with the strongest associations with memory and emotion. Unfortunately this hasn't borne much fruit in the form of smell-based art...


----------



## Luchesi

advokat said:


> Beethoven wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music.
> Mahler's symphonies are better than Elgar's.
> There should be a worldwide temporary ban on new Elgar performances and recordings.
> Wagner is just another dime-a-dozen German opera composer.
> French organ music is better than German organ music.
> French music is better than German music.
> Elgar scholars are lunatics
> Britten wrote nothing but sentimental kitsch.
> Brahms is second rate Dvorak
> Haydn is the most overrated classical composer ever.
> Schubert's 4th symphony is the worst piece of music in the history of mankind.
> Reger was the worst composer of the 20th century
> 
> See? It is easy. Controversies are cheap and puerile.


Yes, it's easy to forget that you need to place yourself there...to most straight-forwardly appreciate developments in musical history.
Do we want overlooked 60's pop music today?, I mean would we buy it? (collecting is something else)..


----------



## pianozach

Becca said:


> Apples and kumquats, they are completely different and non-overlapping spectra ... light is an electromagnetic wave/photons while sound is a compression wave requiring some sort of atmosphere for propagation


True. No argument here. I get it: Sound waves travel through a medium. If there is no medium then there will be no sound.

The *visual spectrum*, as you're aware, is just a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, which extends was beyond the ultraviolet and infrared.

Just as dogs and cats can hear beyond the range of sound the typical human can hear, I also thing that some animals (such as dogs and cats and bats) can SEE beyond the range or the visual spectrum a typical human can see.

But I digress.

Just as beyond 'violet' there is ultraviolet, then x-rays and gamma rays, when you go the other direction, beyond 'red', there are microwaves and RADIO WAVES. (And beyond gamma rays are *mega-giga-ultra-death rays *that are more and more ionizing.) 

But I do love that beyond *Radio Waves* are *mega-giga-super-long waves*, with the wavelength increases in size, eventually approaching infinity; and the longer these waves are, the more they dissolve into nothingness because once half the wavelength λ2 gets more or less bigger than the radius of the entire universe, they cannot really interact with anything. Yes, I took an accelerated physics class back in the 20th Century (as part of getting my Biological Science certificate), so I'm still vaguely aware of how sound and light work.

So . . . *humans, under special circumstances, CAN hear radio-frequency pulses in the range of 2.4MHz to 10GHz* (corresponding to radio frequencies and microwaves - wait, maybe it's 2MHz to 12GHz?) as buzzes, clicks, hiss or knocking at apparent auditory frequencies of 5kHz and higher (very high-pitched). In fact, the human auditory response to pulses of radiofrequency (RF) energy, (or RF hearing), is a well established phenomenon.


----------



## Bruce

The historically informed performance movement is a fad, and will die out in a few decades. Historically informed performances will then become a niche market, rather than mainstream.


----------



## science

-- Anyone who claims to like classical music should take Renaissance and medieval music seriously too. 

-- Ditto post-1968 music. 

-- We focus way too much on composers and even eras, not enough on particular works. 

-- It is inappropriate for an educated adult in the 21st century to have a romantic attitude to art or music. 

-- Many people who "love classical" would be even happier with New Age music if it had the same prestige. 

-- People should clap between movements if they want to.


----------



## Shaughnessy

RobertJTh said:


> Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music.
> Elgar's symphonies are better than Mahler's.
> There should be a worldwide temporary ban on new Mahler performances and recordings.
> Verdi is just another dime a dozen Italian opera composer.
> German organ music is better than French organ music.
> German music is better than French music.
> Bruckner scholars are lunatics
> Tchaikovsky wrote nothing but sentimental kitsch.
> Dvorak is second rate Brahms
> Handel is the most overrated baroque composer ever.
> Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez is the worst piece of music in the history of mankind.
> Reger was the greatest musical genius of the early 20th century


This reads like an audition piece for the national touring company of "Hurwitz - The Musical"


----------



## RobertJTh

advokat said:


> See? It is easy. Controversies are cheap and puerile.


Just having fun with some gross overstatements. Don't take it too seriously. The only thing I really stand behind is the last line about Reger.


Shaughnessy said:


> This reads like an audition piece for the national touring company of "Hurwitz - The Musical"


Except that Hurwitz loves Dvorak (more than Brahms), Tchaikovsky and Handel - and I suspect he likes the Concierto de Aranjuez too. But I do agree with him on the Bruckner people!


----------



## mikeh375

Robert, Reger was a lousy musician but excellent lingerie designer....oh hang on


----------



## Shaughnessy

RobertJTh said:


> Except that Hurwitz loves Dvorak (more than Brahms), Tchaikovsky and Handel - and I suspect he likes the Concierto de Aranjuez too. But I do agree with him on the Bruckner people!


I never let facts or truth or veracity or reality or eye-witness testimony get in the way of a joke - I saw my opportunity and I had to take it - Your post was better written than the others - I got the fact that you were doing a riff on Hurwitz and our posts were both better when coupled together - A solid set-up paired with a solid punch-line. We should turn pro...


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

RobertJTh said:


> Just having fun with some gross overstatements. Don't take it too seriously. The only thing I really stand behind is the last line about Reger.


I found some of Reger's works like his clarinet quintet and piano concerto somewhat inaccessible, but your statement made me curious and I think I'll give him another chance. What is it about Reger that makes you consider him the greatest?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

fluteman said:


> Wagner's operas are too long and repetitive to sit all the way through, in the audience or in the pit orchestra. Wagner can only be digested in bite-sized pieces: scenes, overtures, preludes.


I cannot agree more. I'll go even further and say that Wagner is best digested by curating one's own very abridged version of his operas. Even in bite-sized pieces, I cannot sit through a whole single act of any of his operas. There is too much dull music.

In fact, I'll go even further and say that opera is second rate classical music, second rate to absolute, symphonic music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

By the way, a similar thread we did some time ago Your unpopular opinion


----------



## Roger Knox

The chromatic harmonica and accordion are underrated as classical musical instruments.
Sleepers, Awake!


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

science said:


> -- It is inappropriate for an educated adult in the 21st century to have a romantic attitude to art or music.


What do you mean?


----------



## Kreisler jr

4chamberedklavier said:


> I found some of Reger's works like his clarinet quintet and piano concerto somewhat inaccessible,


These two are actually among the more accessible Reger works, esp. the clarinet quintet, I think. 
You could also try the last two quartets (I think op.109 and 121), the Telemann variations for piano, the Mozart and Hiller variations for orchestra and the "Böcklin suite", the latter is probably the most picturesque orchestral piece.


----------



## Bernamej

RobertJTh said:


> Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music.
> Elgar's symphonies are better than Mahler's.
> There should be a worldwide temporary ban on new Mahler performances and recordings.
> Verdi is just another dime a dozen Italian opera composer.
> German organ music is better than French organ music.
> German music is better than French music.
> Bruckner scholars are lunatics
> Tchaikovsky wrote nothing but sentimental kitsch.
> Dvorak is second rate Brahms
> Handel is the most overrated baroque composer ever.
> Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez is the worst piece of music in the history of mankind.
> Reger was the greatest musical genius of the early 20th century


Waw, it’s like my demon voice got out and spoke in public !


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

One more:
I think musical scales are a bigger factor than melodies (or more specifically, the specific horizontal configuration of the notes) in determining the "mood" or "emotion" that a piece of music evokes. That's why 12-tone/chromatic music tends to sound "unsettling" to many people.

Time for some math. Let's review permutations and combinations. Say you are given a set of things, and you want to make a subset of those things. It's a permutation if the things in your subset are ordered in a specific way, and it's a combination if their order doesn't matter.

If you calculate a little bit, you'll notice that once a musical scale has more than 6 notes, the number of possible combinations start to go down, but the no. of permutations start to go up. In other words, scales with less notes have less unique melodies that can be produced (which is obvious), but more possible scale variants. If my assertion that scales are more important than melody in determining "mood" is true, and if it is also true that each scale is associated with a certain "mood", then it follows that music constructed using the 12 tone scale only has one general "mood" associated with it, even though it has the greatest no. of unique melodies that can be produced. (Note that the 12 tone scale has no variants since it already contains all 12 notes)


----------



## Roger Knox

Roger Knox said:


> The chromatic harmonica and accordion are underrated as classical musical instruments.
> Sleepers, Awake!


Two Flutes, One Trumpet: Re post #33, I cannot really agree with your choice of icon, though I will allow that Wagner's opera _Tristan and Isolde_ with a harmonica orchestra might be pushing things a tad too far!


----------



## Bernamej

4chamberedklavier said:


> I found some of Reger's works like his clarinet quintet and piano concerto somewhat inaccessible, but your statement made me curious and I think I'll give him another chance. What is it about Reger that makes you consider him the greatest?


I’m not an expert but to me Reger is an amazing composer, quite incredible. Has so many ideas it boggles the mind.


----------



## Kreisler jr

science said:


> -- Many people who "love classical" would be even happier with New Age music if it had the same prestige.


This is not an opinion but a claim about "many people" (whatever this is supposed to mean, like a few (could still be many)? or a significant minority or even a majority of classical listeners?) I find highly doubtful. Because "many" classical listeners are opera fans and opera seems about as far from New Age as possible (but I might have a totally wrong idea of NA music).


----------



## Bernamej

All harpsichord and organ music should be transcribed for piano ASAP and recorded on piano ASAP.


----------



## progmatist

Salieri's music is better than Mozart's.



advokat said:


> French organ music is better than German organ music.


Perhaps not so controversial. Saint-Saens' Organ Symphony is the most well known Organ Symphony.


----------



## Roger Knox

Roger Knox said:


> Two Flutes, One Trumpet: Re post #33, I cannot really agree with your choice of icon, though I will allow that Wagner's opera _Tristan and Isolde_ with a harmonica orchestra might be pushing things a tad too far!


Though the harmonica and accordion have long been associated with humour, intentional or otherwise, let me add that I'm serious about both instruments and don't want to disrupt the thread.


----------



## EvaBaron

• Mozart deserves more credit for composing such masterpieces under his circumstances
• Beethoven’s emperor is way below the level of the 3th and 4th piano concertos
• Heifetz has the best recordings of the major violin concertos and it’s not even close 
• The violin is the best instrument, not the piano
• Classical music is often too repetitive


----------



## RobertJTh

4chamberedklavier said:


> I found some of Reger's works like his clarinet quintet and piano concerto somewhat inaccessible, but your statement made me curious and I think I'll give him another chance. What is it about Reger that makes you consider him the greatest?


Hindemith said Reger was "the last giant in music", and there's something mesmerizing about his output, the incomprehensible flow of inspiration and the extremely high standards he set for himself and his works. And the fact that his style is rather hermetic makes that vast oeuvre even more mysterious and tantalizing.


Kreisler jr said:


> These two are actually among the more accessible Reger works, esp. the clarinet quintet, I think.
> You could also try the last two quartets (I think op.109 and 121), the Telemann variations for piano, the Mozart and Hiller variations for orchestra and the "Böcklin suite", the latter is probably the most picturesque orchestral piece.


The orchestral works are a good place to start - and his works in variation form in general. The main criticism about Reger's music always has been that "it has no tunes". Maybe there's some truth in it, but it's not that he couldn't write beautiful melodies, he just wasn't interested in making those the main highlights of his compositions. "Melodies are overrated" would be another controversial opinion...
But that quality (or the lack thereof) makes that the works he wrote using other people's melodies always have been the most popular. The variation works for piano or orchestra, the choral variations and fantasies for organ have always been in the repertoire, while abstract and maybe more important works like the piano and violin concertos, the string quartets and the rest of the chamber music and the vocal works struggle to be accepted.
One of my favorite (and I think most accessible) works by Reger is his "Symphonischer Prolog" for orchestra, a big romantic piece for large orchestra. And it has been recorded... twice, with one recording being cut. Some of his other lesser known works have only single recordings or haven't been recorded at all!



Bernamej said:


> I’m not an expert but to me Reger is an amazing composer, quite incredible. Has so many ideas it boggles the mind.


Rather than a Brahms imitator (really, have the people who regard him as such even listened to his works from the years 1907-1910, when he came very close to atonality, he was just as modern as Schoenberg!) he was a modern day Schubert, an inexhaustible source of inspiration.


----------



## Becca

Music theory is a joke.


----------



## fluteman

EvaBaron said:


> • Mozart deserves more credit for composing such masterpieces under his circumstances
> • Beethoven’s emperor is way below the level of the 3th and 4th piano concertos
> • Heifetz has the best recordings of the major violin concertos and it’s not even close
> • The violin is the best instrument, not the piano
> • Classical music is often too repetitive


I'm a Heifetz record collector, though back in my LP acquiring days I stopped short of getting all of his LPs, which struck me as a dorky thing to do. His "major" concerto discography, i.e., Bach Double (with Erik Friedman), Mozart 3 and 4, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Bruch 1, Vieuxtemps 5, Dvorak, Glazounov, Sibelius and Prokofiev 2, stands alone to this day, imo. Not all are recorded ideally, but still.


----------



## Kreisler jr

EvaBaron said:


> • Mozart deserves more credit for composing such masterpieces under his circumstances


His circumstances were mostly pretty good overall. Many other composers had less money, worse health and/or more pressure.


----------



## fbjim

When it comes to questions of interpretation, performance, and even developments in contemporary music, people sometimes care too much about "What Bach might think", "What Beethoven might think", etc. They're dead, we need to think for ourselves.


----------



## Highwayman

RobertJTh said:


> Rather than a Brahms imitator (really, have the people who regard him as such even listened to his works from the years 1907-1910, when he came very close to atonality, he was just as modern as Schoenberg!) he was a modern day Schubert, an inexhaustible source of inspiration.


I consider Reger as the true heir to Brahms but he has a very personal language of his own and I can`t possibly imagine someone mistaking the music of the former with the latter even though there might be some similarities.


----------



## EvaBaron

fluteman said:


> I'm a Heifetz record collector, though back in my LP acquiring days I stopped short of getting all of his LPs, which struck me as a dorky thing to do. His "major" concerto discography, i.e., Bach Double (with Erik Friedman), Mozart 3 and 4, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Bruch 1, Vieuxtemps 5, Dvorak, Glazounov, Sibelius and Prokofiev 2, stands alone to this day, imo. Not all are recorded ideally, but still.


I think instead of Dvorak you mean Tchaikovsky? He never recorded the Dvorak unfortunately, I’m sure it would have been my favorite recording of it


----------



## premont

Becca said:


> Music theory is a joke.


Yes, but a practical joke


----------



## EvaBaron

Kreisler jr said:


> His circumstances were mostly pretty good overall. Many other composers had less money, worse health and/or more pressure.


You’re right about the financial situation for most of his life anyway and his health, but the pressure was very big. He almost always had multiple commissions and he was so extremely prolific it’s insane. The number of symphonies, operas, violin sonatas, piano concertos and string quartets he wrote is unmatched by any composer that lived as long as he did. Give any composer 6 weeks to write 3 symphonies and the composer would probably freak out and then maybe finish one symphony. Mozart wrote his last 3 symphonies in 6 weeks and they’re arguably the greatest symphonies composed in the 18th century. Let’s not forget the Linz symphony, written in 4 days and extremely good. He wrote so many masterpieces in incredibly short time, and he never rewrote anything unlike for example Beethoven and Bruckner. His handwriting wasn’t messy and he already had the music in his head when he composed so the first draft was almost always the final draft. Let’s not forget his prime was just beginning and he died young. If he would have lived as long as Beethoven or Bach he would be considered the greatest composer ever.


----------



## fluteman

EvaBaron said:


> I think instead of Dvorak you mean Tchaikovsky? He never recorded the Dvorak unfortunately, I’m sure it would have been my favorite recording of it


You're right. I was thinking not of the Tchaikovsky, but of the Dvorak Op. 81 Quintet with Piatigorsky et al. I rank that piece much higher in the pantheon of my personal preferences than the violin concerto.


----------



## BachIsBest

EvaBaron said:


> • Classical music is often too repetitive


What music is less repetitive? Certainly nothing that I hear on the radio.


----------



## Coach G

My controversial opinions:

1. Edvard Grieg was a great composer with a very sound hit-to-miss ratio. His grand trifecta: the Piano Sonata, Piano Concerto, and String Quartet, are as good in their genre as any from the Romantic era.
2. Philip Glass is the greatest living American composer.
3. As "Egyptian" operas go, "Akhnetan" is more fun than "Aida".
4. As "Chinese" operas go, "Nixon in China" is more interesting than "Turandot".
5. Music critics should be more concerned with how a performance makes them feel as opposed to how well the musician or musicians follow the letter of the score, or how "technically flawless" they were.
6. Composers such as Arnold Schoenberg and John Cage aren't so bad given an even chance.
7. While the core of the Classical Music repertoire rightly belongs to Europe, Americans should take more time to celebrate our own rich, diverse, and wonderful classical music heritage starting with William Billings and Gottschalk, moving on to The Boston Classicists, Ives, Florence Price, Scott Joplin, William Grant Still, Ulysseus Kay, Aaron Copland, Virgil Thomson, Henry Cowell, Walter Piston, William Schumann, Roy Harris, Ellen Taffe Zwillich, Joan Tower, Jennifer Higdon, Adolphus Hailstork, Joseph Schwartner, Alan Hovhaness, Lou Harrison, George Rochberg, Samuel Barber, and so many more.
8. It's possible that we read too much Cold War politics into the music of Shostakovich.
9. Beethoven's 6th "Pastorale" Symphony was his finest because it shows that the angry and psychologically wounded master from Bonn also had a very sentimental, Romantic, friendly, and easy-going side to his personality.
10. Samuel Barber's "Knoxville: Summer of 1915" is my favorite piece of music.


----------



## Couchie

Wagner is probably greater than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, but out of historical tendencies and a predilection against anti-semitism, we pretend otherwise.


----------



## Doublestring

Haydn and Mozart wrote a lot of mediocre routine music, however they can't beat Telemann in that department.
Bartok is a more important composer than Vivaldi, Haendel, Mendelssohn, Strauss or Elgar.
Johann Pachelbel, Tomaso Albinoni, Gustav Holst, Carl Orff and Aram Khatchaturian don't belong in any list of great composers. They were one-hit wonders.
Minimalism is music of minimal quality.
The most underrated composers are Lassus, Ligeti and Villa-Lobos.
Women composers like Maria Szymanowska, Louise Farrenc, Amy Beach, Cécile Chaminade, Germaine Tailleferre, Lili Boulanger, Sofia Gubaidulina and and Kaija Saariaaho deserve a lot more recognition.
Composers like Varèse, Ligeti, Lutoslawski and Xenakis should be allowed on the radio. Radio makers are underestimating their audience, and that's a disaster for the recognition of modernist music.
_Fantasía para un Gentilhombre_ is Rodrigo's best guitar concerto.
Andres Segovia was an influential pedagogue and arranger for the classical guitar, but he didn't play that well himself. The best guitarists are Pepe Romero, John Williams, Julian Bream, Manuel Barrueco, Roland Dyens and Ana Vidovic.
Glenn Gould is a fraud.
Anna Netrebko, Angela Gheorgiu, Cecilia Bartoli and Elina Garanca are much better singers than Maria Callas.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

1) The most famous pieces by Shostakovich are his worst garbage and shouldn't have made it into the repertoire.
2) Context doesn't make bad music good.
3) Magnum opuses are generally a big failure.
4) Chamber music is generally more musically interesting and better crafted than orchestral music.
5) The most musical composer in the repertoire was Debussy and no one has managed to pin him down more than superficially.
6) Only Mahler has surpassed Beethoven in the symphonic cycle department.
7) The greatest symphony ever composed is Webern's followed closely by Debussy's La Mer.
8) Anyone who doesn't listen to contemporary either is not prepared or doesn't want to know in what age they live in.
9) Bach is not better than Rameau or Purcell. 
10) The last great opera composer were both drama and music are in equal terms was Berg.


----------



## advokat

science said:


> -- Anyone who claims to like classical music should take Renaissance and medieval music seriously too.
> 
> -- Ditto post-1968 music.
> 
> -- We focus way too much on composers and even eras, not enough on particular works.
> 
> -- It is inappropriate for an educated adult in the 21st century to have a romantic attitude to art or music.
> 
> -- Many people who "love classical" would be even happier with New Age music if it had the same prestige.
> 
> -- People should clap between movements if they want to.



yes
no
yes
no
 yes
 yes


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Couchie said:


> Wagner is probably greater than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, but out of historical tendencies and a predilection against anti-semitism, we pretend otherwise.


He only wrote 4hr operas, so his music is less accessible than the other composers mentioned. Which stops him contending for the top spot.


----------



## advokat

Richannes Wrahms said:


> 1) The most famous pieces by Shostakovich are his worst garbage and shouldn't have made it into the repertoire.
> 2) Context doesn't make bad music good.
> 3) Magnum opuses are generally a big failure.
> 4) Chamber music is generally more musically interesting and better crafted than orchestral music.
> 5) The most musical composer in the repertoire was Debussy and no one has managed to pin him down more than superficially.
> 6) Only Mahler has surpassed Beethoven in the symphonic cycle department.
> 7) The greatest symphony ever composed is Webern's followed closely by Debussy's La Mer.
> 8) Anyone who doesn't listen to contemporary either is not prepared or doesn't want to know in what age they live in.
> 9) Bach is not better than Rameau or Purcell.
> 10) The last great opera composer were both drama and music are in equal terms was Berg.



No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No


----------



## Kreisler jr

Richannes Wrahms said:


> 1) The most famous pieces by Shostakovich are his worst garbage and shouldn't have made it into the repertoire.
> 2) Context doesn't make bad music good.
> 3) Magnum opuses are generally a big failure.


These are all very vague without examples as it's anyone's guess what the statements could be about. E.g. for which (classical) music is regularly claimed that it is good because of context? and which wannabe Magna Opera (here's you're Latin tutor) are failures? St. Matthew, Creation, Missa solemnis, Tristan...?



> 6) Only Mahler has surpassed Beethoven in the symphonic cycle department.


This should be "Not even Mahler..."


> 8) Anyone who doesn't listen to contemporary either is not prepared or doesn't want to know in what age they live in.


If I had Xanadu amounts of money I'd completely ignore the Kali Yuga age I live in, not mainly because of music, though...



> 10) The last great opera composer were both drama and music are in equal terms was Berg.


Not controversial


----------



## Kreisler jr

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> He only wrote 4hr operas, so his music is less accessible than the other composers mentioned. Which stops him contenting for the top spot.


Also that many people are not that interested in opera and others consider a certain versatility necessary for the greatest composers.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> Also that many people are not that interested in opera and others consider a certain versatility necessary for the greatest composers.


I have walked out from 2-3 Wagner Operas at the half time due to the length. I just cannot.


----------



## Aerobat

I have one that I know my colleagues in the Opera forum hate! I don't agree with the view that modern Operatic singers can't sing properly. I enjoy much of the modern style, far more than I enjoy listening to ancient recordings with dreadful sound quality - the sort of quality where even the woodwind appears to have vibrato. That's not to say that I don't appreciate good recordings of singers from before I was born, but I just can't get excited over something from the pre-war era where the audio reproduction is so poor that you really can't tell what that voice actually sounded like.


----------



## Merl

Here's one I share with a friend and fellow TCer...

The technical standard of modern string quartet playing is vastly superior to what it was 70+ years ago. These days performers consider a thing called 'intonation' and that the audience might want to hear a performance that is in tune (that one should ruffle a few feathers over in shellacland). 😈


----------



## Forster

Becca said:


> Music theory is a joke.


...and we're waiting for the punchline.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Merl said:


> Here's one I share with a friend and fellow TCer...
> 
> The technical standard of modern string quartet playing is vastly superior to what it was 70+ years ago. These days performers consider a thing called 'intonation' and that the audience might want to hear a performance that is in tune (that one should ruffle a few feathers over in shellacland). 😈


I think the other technical standards (except solo singing, and maybe solo violin and piano) are even more vastly superior today. The best 1940s string quartets (like Budapest) were pretty good. Woodwind solos or ensembles from that time were often quite horrible (of course there are also far fewer recordings of such music than string quartets).
And the most obvious improvement, even since the 1960s and 70s is choral singing.


----------



## Waehnen

Merl said:


> Here's one I share with a friend and fellow TCer...
> 
> The technical standard of modern string quartet playing is vastly superior to what it was 70+ years ago. These days performers consider a thing called 'intonation' and that the audience might want to hear a performance that is in tune (that one should ruffle a few feathers over in shellacland). 😈


I have a recording by the Juilliard Quartet on Brahms String Quintets and it sounds so out of tune that I cannot listen to it. Published by Sony! Quite unbelievable.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Most "received wisdom" is pretty much spot on. There are some pieces and composers that are under/overrated but overall several centuries of reception, scholarship and practice have divided wheat and chaff reasonably well.


depends on what you mean by "received wisdom from several centuries of reception". Today, there's so much 'attempt by people to falsify history' or misconception regarding it, we need be specific what we mean by it in each case.


Kreisler jr said:


> If you're trying to belittle me, say that I am harping some received wisdom (which is usually reasonable, because I don't think a random smartass on the internet knows better than 200 years of experts and musicians).


For instance, for quoting stuff from this book recently I've been implicitly called "a random smartass on the internet who knows better than 200 years of experts and musicians"-







.
Also btw,


hammeredklavier said:


> a certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread (something for us to think about):
> "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will. In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> He only wrote 4hr operas


Das Rheingold, Der fliegende Holländer, Wesendonck Lieder?


----------



## fluteman

Aerobat said:


> I have one that I know my colleagues in the Opera forum hate! I don't agree with the view that modern Operatic singers can't sing properly. I enjoy much of the modern style, far more than I enjoy listening to ancient recordings with dreadful sound quality - the sort of quality where even the woodwind appears to have vibrato. That's not to say that I don't appreciate good recordings of singers from before I was born, but I just can't get excited over something from the pre-war era where the audio reproduction is so poor that you really can't tell what that voice actually sounded like.


Your colleagues might legitimately argue that singers from 100 years ago more accurately or authentically represent the style(s) of singing prevalent when 19th and early 20th century operas were composed and first performed. But that's it. Opinions on matters of musical style are just that, opinions, and nothing more.
My own opinion is that the onset of amplification and recording has had a major impact on western singing styles. But that is just my opinion.


----------



## Agamenon

fluteman said:


> Wagner's operas are too long and repetitive to sit all the way through, in the audience or in the pit orchestra. Wagner can only be digested in bite-sized pieces: scenes, overtures, preludes.


That's matter of taste, it´s not an opinion. For me, Wagner´s operas are too short and innovative works.


----------



## Agamenon

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> He only wrote 4hr operas, so his music is less accessible than the other composers mentioned. Which stops him contending for the top spot.


4 operas? Absurd.

Opinion: *Verdi and Puccini operas are failed orgasms.*


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> depends on what you mean by "received wisdom from several centuries of reception". Today, there's so much 'attempt by people to falsify real history' or misconception regarding it, we need be specific what we mean by it in each case.


What attempts to "falsify real history" are there? And which conspiracists do this for what purpose?

What I mean is roughly the following: Comparably little is (grossly) overrated or underrated, if you take as basis a mixture between frequency in concerts/on stage and on recordings/radio, columns in New Grove, MGG etc., number of scholarly publications etc.

It's also historically more stable than many people believe. I have here Alfred Einstein's "Greatness in Music" (publ. 1941). Einstein (*1880) starts with a skeptical stance and as an example for the fleeting favors of fame he mentions plaster busts in a Munich concert hall. He isn't sure about the original set around 1811 but says that there were Michael Haydn and Cimarosa included (and not yet Beethoven) and then tells us that when he was a youngster around 1890 these busts were of Bach, Handel, Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn. And then the conductor Felix Mottl added busts of Liszt and Wagner.
Sure, even around 1900 one might have have sorely missed Brahms and Bruckner. Einstein adds some more information from early 19th century writers on opera who were totally wrong in their estimations.
*But these Munich Odeon busts seem to prove the opposite point to me*. In ~130 years we might quibble a little with Gluck and Weber and of course the busts are German/Austria centered (that's a feature for a 19th century German hall, not a bug) but in general we could sign such a list of great 1700-1890 German composer in 2022 as we could have 80 years ago when Einstein wrote. It's not that any of the names is unknown and the few we might miss were so recent in 1890 that it's understandable. [And even 1830 it would probably already have been the first 6 or same names of the current list, so we are at almost 200 years of stability for them.]
If people who stress the randomness and stark changes in appreciation were correct, we would barely remember half of these names and sorely miss others.
Similarly, almost all conventional tales (and this is what I *don't* mean with received wisdom) are hugely exaggerated. Neither JS Bach or Mozart were not appreciated in their time (it's just that some of today's people get mad because Bach was only considered one of the 3-5 most important composers in Germany, not by far the most important, or that Mozart's didn't get a 1000 fl stipend for life by the Emperor just like that ). Mahler was not forgotten in mid-century Austria and Germany, not even with an antisemitic ban for more than a decade at a time when his music could have been become more established. His music was controversial but it was performed in 1950s Vienna and elsewhere; they didn't need Bernstein for a re-discovery.


----------



## Philidor

Music wouldn't have developed in another way if Mozart had not lived.


----------



## hammeredklavier

(Regarding _"received wisdom from several centuries of reception"_), I think the _"how"_ matters, not just the _"what"_. For example, have a look at the book I cited in the previous post, or
TH 276 — Tchaikovsky insists that Haydn's "nice and pretty" music ought to be played more often in the Russian Musical Society concerts.
TH 298 — referring to an unspecified symphony in G major by Haydn, Tchaikovsky calls it "an ancient but still splendid piece of music!"
Isn't this "received wisdom" (from Tchaikovsky) too? Subjectivity can come into play in how we interpret things like this (and similar utterances by the Schumanns, Berlioz, Hanslick, A.B. Marx, Liszt, Wagner, etc).


Kreisler jr said:


> And which conspiracists do this for what purpose?











What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


An assertation that - oh, I dunno - Michael Haydn has had as much impact on the development of Western music, or as much repute as Beethoven is just factually wrong. different composers were "innovative", "influential", "inventive" with different things, under different circumstances. It's...




www.talkclassical.com




There haven't been "conspiracists", but "experts" themselves are also "fans of things" and they tend to be biased by their listening experiences, personal preferences, etc; (some of them interpret history based on them and try to pass off as facts); since there's so much music to listen to, and so little time. Also, btw, if an artist did not have his music printed, he would not have become widely-known on the long run. We have to take these factors into account as well. (I'm not trying to suggest any artist is "overrated" here, btw)


----------



## fluteman

Agamenon said:


> That's matter of taste, it´s not an opinion. For me, Wagner´s operas are too short and innovative works.


Opinions are all there can be on matters of taste, which this undeniably is. There is no proof for mine or yours, which are equally valid.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

The difference in aesthetic sensibilities required to appreciate tonal and atonal music are so vastly different (in my opinion of course), and I think that's why more conservative listeners often think that atonal listeners are just fooling themselves a la emperor's new clothes. It's not that atonal/modernist listeners are only pretending to like the music, rather, what they're looking for in the music is different from what conservative listeners are looking for.

On the other side, modernist fans also shouldn't pretend that atonal and tonal music are to be appreciated the exact same way. It's not very helpful when it comes to musical recommendations, and I think it might even turn people away from modernist music.

e.g. let's say someone new to classical with more conservative sensibilities (but doesn't state it) asks for recommendations, someone recommends something by Schoenberg, and this new classical fan listens to it and leaves feeling confused & let down, and would probably not want to listen to more. People need to specify whether they're looking for tonal or atonal music, it would save some trouble.


----------



## Shaughnessy

I'm feeling kind of nostalgic for the good old days when it didn't matter whether you failed your psych eval - all that really mattered was passing the breathalyzer test.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

List of some highly regarded major works that are actually a very long bore:

Bach's Matthaus and Mass, a lot of samey textures of overly crammed counterpoint.
Haydn's Oratorios, like you needed more Haydn than a 20 min witty symphony or quartet.
Mendelssohn's Lobgesang shows how retro-conservative an artist can become, ditto Elijah.
Mahler 8th is the worst, especially considering how good previous and later works are.
Wagner's Tristan, the apex of shouting over fortissimo chromatic sludge.
Strauss' Salome and Elektra, same thing as Tristan only fatter and of worse quality.
Schoenberg's Moses und Aron: insufferable religious uncanny uglyness throughout.
Boulez' Pi selon Pli: Stravisnky was right on this one, doesn't work as a whole.
Stockhausen's Operas: batshit insane stories set to out of date synth noises.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> When it comes to questions of interpretation, performance, and even developments in contemporary music, people sometimes care too much about "What Bach might think", "What Beethoven might think", etc. They're dead, we need to think for ourselves.


You can perform their work in any way you like, but if you do make changes to it, you still have to acknowledge them. (eg. add a note, "Mozart played on modern instruments")




Levin on Mozart's fortepiano


----------



## Waehnen

’The Western classical and modern concert music’ as I Iike to call it is such a huge and diverse phenomenon and field that I think controversy is inevitable, it even should be encouraged and thus different opinions should be valued.

What a boring place this world would be if everyone were just nodding, ”Yes, Beethoven was the greatest of them all. Case closed!”

For many of us here this music is absolutely necessary in conducting our lives. I feel I could not live without this music. So it is not wonder that I sometimes feel strongly about certain things. It is inevitable for us sentient beings, right?

As long as we behave decently toward each other, some bolemic expression ought to be tolerated. I welcome it!


----------



## hammeredklavier

EvaBaron said:


> His handwriting wasn’t messy and he already had the music in his head when he composed so the first draft was almost always the final draft.


Not any more than his professional colleagues did for theirs. (They too "composed with craftsmanship", under similar conditions and circumstances, at a similar pace, for each composition, without making much correction/revision).





"When he arrived at the projected A on beat 3 of the basses - it remains un-notated in the original bar - he will have realized that a presumably undesired 6-4 had been created. Also, as originally conceived, bar 30 does not provide an opportunity for a further 'Christe' entry, and would have brought to an end Mozart's alternate 'Kyrie' and 'Christe' entries at one bar intervals (bars 27, 28, 29). So, in changing the D minor 6-4 to F major 6-3, Mozart adapted the alto part, shortened the tenor 'Christe' entry that began in bar 28 by adding rests and introduced a further tenor 'Christe' entry on the third beat." - Simon P. Keefe, Mozart's Requiem: Reception, Work, Completion, p.128-129.





Btw, speaking of "myths" and "half-truths" about composers,








What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


But nobody's asking about them, but about the ones that do. Those who know anything about the ninth at all and who find it a curate's egg are a distinct minority. The question concerned the majority. "Stravinsky was never moved by the choral finale to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which he...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Luchesi

Waehnen said:


> ’The Western classical and modern concert music’ as I Iike to call it is such a huge and diverse phenomenon and field that I think controversy is inevitable, it even should be encouraged and thus different opinions should be valued.
> 
> What a boring place this world would be if everyone were just nodding, ”Yes, Beethoven was the greatest of them all. Case closed!”
> 
> For many of us here this music is absolutely necessary in conducting our lives. I feel I could not live without this music. So it is not wonder that I sometimes feel strongly about certain things. It is inevitable for us sentient beings, right?
> 
> As long as we behave decently toward each other, some bolemic expression ought to be tolerated. I welcome it!


Yes, anything that makes me think - coming across the Internet, is at least worth a read, I feel. I find the opinions to be so harmless in my life, but not everybody feels that way.
Feeling, and then feeling some more.
I bet I can make you feel bad, for a least about 20 minutes or so, if I post a reply that's one of the nastiest you've ever received. It's all very instinctual. Think about how you would automatically feel..
I understand why we shouldn't talk about politics. It would be totally fruitless and nobody's mind would be changed... but I think we should explore religion (or making music a religion) because it's so much a part of our living and thinking, - and yet for other people it's such a foreign subject, compartmentalized away. In this sense, religion bundles up so many important topics into one bundle.


----------



## Waehnen

Luchesi said:


> Yes, anything that makes me think - coming across the Internet, is at least worth a read, I feel. I find the opinions to be so harmless in my life, but not everybody feels that way.
> Feeling, and then feeling so more.
> I bet I can make you feel bad, for a least about 20 minutes or so, if I post a reply that's one of the nastiest you've ever received. It's all very instinctual. Think about how you would automatically feel..
> I understand why we shouldn't talk about politics. It would be totally fruitless and nobody's mind would be changed... but I think we should explore religion (or making music a religion) because it's so much a part of our living and thinking, - and yet for other people it's such a foreign subject, compartmentalized away. In this sense, religion bundles up so many important topics into one bundle.


It would be OK to talk about religion but it quite often leads to dogmatism — religious dogmas claiming to be the only dogmas around and others being heretic dogmas.


----------



## progmatist

BachIsBest said:


> EvaBaron said:
> 
> 
> 
> • Classical music is often too repetitive
> 
> 
> 
> What music is less repetitive? Certainly nothing that I hear on the radio.
Click to expand...

Repetition is what creates form. Music with no repetition is utterly without form. Most people can't stomach free form jazz.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Bernamej said:


> All harpsichord and organ music should be transcribed for piano ASAP and recorded on piano ASAP.


And all harpsichords destroyed


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Merl said:


> Here's one I share with a friend and fellow TCer...
> 
> The technical standard of modern string quartet playing is vastly superior to what it was 70+ years ago. These days performers consider a thing called 'intonation' and that the audience might want to hear a performance that is in tune (that one should ruffle a few feathers over in shellacland). 😈


Interesting. I wouldn't know since I never listen to any recordings 70+ years old.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Agamenon said:


> That's matter of taste, it´s not an opinion. For me, Wagner´s operas are too short and innovative works.


It sure _is an opinion_, an opinion held by me as well.

_Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge _

In my case, my opinion of Wagner's music is based on having heard a lot of his music several times.


----------



## starthrower

Too much old and conservative music is played over and over again in live performance. For example, I'm very excited to have tickets to see the great violinist, Gil Shaham but I wish he was playing something more recent than the Beethoven concerto. I'd prefer something from 1930 or later such as he performed on his two volume CD set.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Merl said:


> The technical standard of modern string quartet playing is vastly superior to what it was 70+ years ago. These days performers consider a thing called 'intonation' and that the audience might want to hear a performance that is in tune (that one should ruffle a few feathers over in shellacland). 😈


Here is a more controversial opinion for you: Most historical recordings marketed as "legendary recordings" are garbage.


----------



## Malx

starthrower said:


> Too much old and conservative music is played over and over again in live performance. For example, I'm very excited to have tickets to see the great violinist, Gil Shaham but I wish he was playing something more recent than the Beethoven concerto. I'd prefer something from 1930 or later such as he performed on his two volume CD set.


I saw him play the Britten Concerto at the Barbican in London with the LSO under Osmo Vanska and mighty impressive he was too.

LSO/Vänskä review – engaged eloquence and powerful expressivity


----------



## DaveM

pianozach said:


> This might be a bit too overreaching, but I think that *the auditory spectrum and the visual spectrum are just parts of a larger spectrum*. Sound and light both travel in waves, so why not?


It’s perfectly possible here :


----------



## mmsbls

Mozart is the most underrated composer on TC.

Orchestral concerts should consist of a CPT work, a modern work, and a contemporary work.

Renaissance music is much, much, much better than many classical music listeners believe.


----------



## fluteman

4chamberedklavier said:


> The difference in aesthetic sensibilities required to appreciate tonal and atonal music are so vastly different (in my opinion of course), and I think that's why more conservative listeners often think that atonal listeners are just fooling themselves a la emperor's new clothes. It's not that atonal/modernist listeners are only pretending to like the music, rather, what they're looking for in the music is different from what conservative listeners are looking for.
> 
> On the other side, modernist fans also shouldn't pretend that atonal and tonal music are to be appreciated the exact same way. It's not very helpful when it comes to musical recommendations, and I think it might even turn people away from modernist music.
> 
> e.g. let's say someone new to classical with more conservative sensibilities (but doesn't state it) asks for recommendations, someone recommends something by Schoenberg, and this new classical fan listens to it and leaves feeling confused & let down, and would probably not want to listen to more. People need to specify whether they're looking for tonal or atonal music, it would save some trouble.


That's all reasonable enough, but perhaps a bit superficial. It bothers me that we're now deep into the 21st century, and whenever someone here mentions modern or atonal music, the example cited is nearly always Schoenberg. Yes, he was a great early innovator of the modern era, but in many ways he stands as a "one off", even when compared with Berg and Webern. His influence on future generations was significant, but not nearly as significant as he himself hoped for and thought justified. It would be hard to argue that his near-contemporary and rival Stravinsky did not have a far greater impact on the modern era. Schoenberg lived long enough to recognize all this and was quite bitter and disillusioned about it.
If you consider something I might recommend to this hypothetical new classical music fan, John Corigliano's Red Violin concerto (adapted from his Academy-award winning film score), you can hear atonal elements and the influence of both Stravinsky and Schoenberg. But I would argue the influence of Stravinsky is far greater.


----------



## golfer72

Waehnen said:


> My controversial opinions on classical music are:
> 
> 
> Opera Buffa is mostly awful -- unless it´s Don Giovanni, The Marriage of Figaro or Die Zauberflöte
> The 7th Symphony by Mahler is totally self-centered music born out of vanity and hubris, resulting in an Ode To Mediocrity
> Neoclassicism is the easiest form of classical music to create: let´s just hop around, somewhat dancing and leave the brain and expression at the hatrack


Man you dont quit do you? Still hating on Mahler 7 LOL!


----------



## Sid James

I've had a few controversial opinions, this one's probably the main one:

"The young Boulez said that opera houses should be destroyed. I wouldn't care much if opera as an artform disappeared from the face of the earth, but I think that the buildings should be put to good use."

That puts it in a nutshell, but its a quote from a longer post I wrote here:









Seriously, what do we mean when we say...


Certainly not, even if we just narrow things down to economics. Let's face it, money talks. Opera companies are arguably music's biggest white elephants, so they can always do with more of it. Any resistance to changes like this on theoretical grounds in the past has vanished in the face of...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Wigmar

I think listening to a Mahler symphony is a stressful experience. Music should 'per se' harmonize the human soul, but not so with Mahler, except for the adagietto.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Haydn's Oratorios, like you needed more Haydn than a 20 min witty symphony or quartet.


"Ah se dire io vi potessi" www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3FmutW4vJw&t=1m40s
(the slow movement of the Op.76 No.5 quartet)
"Quel tuo visetto amabile" www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tjk4WZexBM
(the slow movement of the 100th symphony)
+ various "sturm und drang" moments, such as "Ach, das Ungewitter" www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBdAAN9JIBc
"Svanisce in un momento" youtube.com/watch?v=P00c-Sacsu0
some may think it's what makes his vocal music distinct from the other Classicists' in style (I think it's a good thing too),
while some others may think otherwise (it's subjective anyway);

"in the majority of Haydn’s quartets, cantabile sections and decorative passage-work alternate with a regularity that simply cannot be tolerated in the genre, an effect which gives to thematically constructed works a false air of concertante music and enfeebles the work of the composer in the interests of the first violinist. . . . Secondly, in many places, the melodic style of Haydn’s quartets comes distinctly close to vocal music. He harks back [sic] to the The Creation and The Seasons even when he is not actually working with such archaic melodic forms. Many of Haydn’s adagios and andantes are veritable cavatinas from beginning to end, the first violin reduced to being a substitute for a singer. The only thing missing is the text." -Alexander Dmitryevich Ulïbïshev, 1843


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

RICK RIEKERT said:


> That's a personal preference or matter of taste, not an opinion.


Quite right.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Opinion: 
Bolero is useful to play when interrogating prisoners.

Preference:

Any music featuring bagpipes and I'm outta there.


----------



## Waehnen

golfer72 said:


> Man you dont quit do you? Still hating on Mahler 7 LOL!


I am about to reach the milestone where I am able to tone it down a bit! Listened to the 6th by Barbirolli last night and was filled with joy and excitement. It sure helped in my recovery.


----------



## Merl

Bagpipes are not a musical instrument, just an instrument of torture.


----------



## Bastien

Mozart is the greatest Composer!
He has the greatest number of masterpieces in multiple genres and the greatest range of emotions.
If you don't realize it, you're not paying attention.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Waehnen said:


> What a boring place this world would be if everyone were just nodding, ”Yes, Beethoven was the greatest of them all. Case closed!”


Why?


----------



## fluteman

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Opinion:
> Bolero is useful to play when interrogating prisoners.
> 
> Preference:
> 
> Any music featuring bagpipes and I'm outta there.


Respectfully, no. Your 'opinion' is capable of empirical proof or disproof, so long as one settles on a precise definition of "useful". Therefore, it is a hypothesis that can be tested, not merely an opinion. 

This forum is going to be a lonely place if we lose the contributions of our resident scientists. Sigh.


----------



## Waehnen

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Why?


It is wonderful us human beings are not all the same! The world is a much better place that way. Someone prefers Miles Davis, someone Beethoven, someone 70’s Disco. The way it ought to be.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Waehnen said:


> It is wonderful us human beings are not all the same! The world is a much better place that way. Someone prefers Miles Davis, someone Beethoven, someone 70’s Disco. The way it ought to be.


Agreeing about something is not being the same though...


----------



## mmsbls

Merl said:


> Bagpipes are not a musical instrument, just an instrument of torture.


Q: Why do pipers march?
A: To get away from the noise.


----------



## Waehnen

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Agreeing about something is not being the same though...


When it comes to music, I think it is. Beethoven does not have the same response in everyone’s temperament, psyche and cognition.


----------



## Roger Knox

Becca said:


> Music theory is a joke.


No it isn't.


----------



## Forster

Roger Knox said:


> No it isn't.


Oh yes it is!

Like panto.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Waehnen said:


> When it comes to music, I think it is. Beethoven does not have the same response in everyone’s temperament, psyche and cognition.


If human perceptions disagreed [much] more, communal music making would cease to be possible. Would you prefer humanity to be even more "diverse" in this way, or are you postulating that we should be content with the present level of discord in music appreciation among humans?


----------



## Waehnen

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> If human perceptions disagreed [much] more, communal music making would cease to be possible. Would you prefer humanity to be even more "diverse" in this way, or are you postulating that we should be content with the present level of discord in music appreciation among humans?


I am happy with the levels of agreement and disagreement on music we have now. There is certainly correlation to the balance of many other aspects of the human life and society because it is all based on us humans who are formed of psychology, physiology, sociology.

Humanity, society and even everyday life needs people who are not like me!


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Waehnen said:


> Humanity, society and even everyday life needs people who are not like me!


We can certainly agree about that


----------



## Bunky

prlj said:


> Here's my biggest one:
> 
> I don't care for the sound of sopranos. At all. If a piece features a soprano, I'm out. If I were ever rich enough to do this, I would love to commission a recording of Beethoven 9 with none of the soprano parts included. If every soprano voice were suddenly dropped from all classical rep, nothing of value would be lost.
> 
> So, what are your controversial opinions about classical music?





prlj said:


> Here's my biggest one:
> 
> I don't care for the sound of sopranos. At all. If a piece features a soprano, I'm out. If I were ever rich enough to do this, I would love to commission a recording of Beethoven 9 with none of the soprano parts included. If every soprano voice were suddenly dropped from all classical rep, nothing of value would be lost.
> 
> So, what are your controversial opinions about classical music?


I understand your point. My ear is sensitive to pitch, so in soprano range the pain is more acute if the singer is even slightly off. But every soprano has her good nights and not-so-good 
nights. Also, my ear gravitates to the orchestra, and the voice is just another...well, voice! If I like the piece, the singers are secondary.


----------



## Laraine Anne Barker

prlj said:


> Here's my biggest one:
> 
> I don't care for the sound of sopranos. At all. If a piece features a soprano, I'm out. If I were ever rich enough to do this, I would love to commission a recording of Beethoven 9 with none of the soprano parts included. If every soprano voice were suddenly dropped from all classical rep, nothing of value would be lost.
> 
> So, what are your controversial opinions about classical music?


How interesting. Does that even include Emma Kirkby?


prlj said:


> Here's my biggest one:
> 
> I don't care for the sound of sopranos. At all. If a piece features a soprano, I'm out. If I were ever rich enough to do this, I would love to commission a recording of Beethoven 9 with none of the soprano parts included. If every soprano voice were suddenly dropped from all classical rep, nothing of value would be lost.
> 
> So, what are your controversial opinions about classical music?


How interesting. I do get where you are coming from, but can you elucidate? And does that even include Emma Kirkby? My personal biggest hate (apart from the 20th and 21st centuries) is Wagner. And I can tell you why: too noisy and unmelodious.


----------



## progmatist

starthrower said:


> Too much old and conservative music is played over and over again in live performance. For example, I'm very excited to have tickets to see the great violinist, Gil Shaham but I wish he was playing something more recent than the Beethoven concerto. I'd prefer something from 1930 or later such as he performed on his two volume CD set.


That's for good reason. Unlike just a few decades ago, much of the classical audience only wants to hear Beethoven and Brahms. There's not enough of us who prefer more modern and challenging works to keep the Classical institution afloat.


----------



## Merl

I can't stand the sound of ukuleles either.


----------



## DaveM

progmatist said:


> That's for good reason. Unlike just a few decades ago, much of the classical audience only wants to hear Beethoven and Brahms. There's not enough of us who prefer more modern and challenging works to keep the Classical institution afloat.


I don’t think that’s what is keeping the ‘Classical institution’ afloat.


----------



## hammeredklavier

.


----------



## Waehnen

Laraine Anne Barker said:


> How interesting. Does that even include Emma Kirkby?
> 
> How interesting. I do get where you are coming from, but can you elucidate? And does that even include Emma Kirkby? My personal biggest hate (apart from the 20th and 21st centuries) is Wagner. And I can tell you why: too noisy and unmelodious.


With rather many classical singers the problems is that people let them sing if they are technically cabable even if the sound quality is not particularly enjoyable. Especially those vocalists whose vibrato is so wide that it seems to encompass at least the major second interval. 

But great classical vocalists with great intonation and a pleasant sound quality are of course a great enjoyment.

Just like with Mahler — you do not have to like it all, but you should not reject it all either. Do your homework, reject what you must and enjoy the rest.


----------



## Becca

progmatist said:


> That's for good reason. Unlike just a few decades ago, much of the classical audience only wants to hear Beethoven and Brahms. There's not enough of us who prefer more modern and challenging works to keep the Classical institution afloat.


That ain't necessarily so ... e.g. take a look at the Los Angeles Philharmonic season schedule.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Becca said:


> *That ain't necessarily so* ... e.g. take a look at the Los Angeles Philharmonic season schedule.


No offense, but I'm fairly certain that the lyrics are actually -

Well, it ain't necessarily so
Well, it ain't necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
De debble's a villun,
But it ain't necessarily so!

It's from "Porky and Bess"...


----------



## Luchesi

Shaughnessy said:


> No offense, but I'm fairly certain that the lyrics are actually -
> 
> Well, it ain't necessarily so
> Well, it ain't necessarily so
> Dey tells all you chillun
> De debble's a villun,
> But it ain't necessarily so!
> 
> It's from "Porky and Bess"...


huh?🎷


----------



## Shaughnessy

Luchesi said:


> huh?🎷


Sometimes I write something for the express purpose of making Becca laugh - She has a delightfully girlish laugh - This is one of those times...


----------



## Luchesi

Shaughnessy said:


> Sometimes I write something for the express purpose of making Becca laugh - She has a delightfully girlish laugh - This is one of those times...


You reminded me of the way this guy improvises... it might make you laugh;


----------



## Malx

Merl said:


> Bagpipes are not a musical instrument, just an instrument of torture.





Merl said:


> I can't stand the sound of ukuleles either.


So I take it you don't want a copy of my 'George Formby with the Ecclefechan Pipe Band plays Wagner's greatest hits' CD


----------



## Sid James

The place of 20th century (particularly post-1950ish) music has definitely been a point of contention on this forum, but out there in the real world I think its not such a big issue. Its normal that people want different things from music and will choose the music which suits them the most. There are so many areas of specialisation within classical now compared to 50 years ago that its like going into a supermarket and getting what you want.

I think there are definitely points where certain strands of post-1950's music diverges strongly from the mainstream (e.g. aleatoricism and post-serialism). If listeners are motivated to go down those sorts of paths, I'm sure they will invest whatever effort and time is needed to maximise their understanding and enjoyment of the music. Its the same as anything else, especially in terms of recreational pursuits, people will put effort into something if they are motivated to do so.

As regards this forum, I think that a lot of the cause of animosity surrounding 20th century music have been more about poor communication on the internet than anything else. Quite a few times on this forum during my early years here, I was told that I simply don't measure up, I'm not a genuine classical listener. It could be that I don't collect enough, I don't listen to certain things, my taste was all wrong, I'm not a musician, whatever. I just put that down to narcissism which is prevalent on the net - the need for some people to have the rest of the world become reflections of themselves. Its absolutely ridiculous on the face of it, but at times has been the norm around here.

I think its no longer possible to argue that there's an archetypal classical listener - maybe there isn't even a set of archetypes - because every listener is unique. We're well into the digital age now, and anyone can download music or access it on streaming or youtube. If you're in any city of a decent enough size, you'll be able to enjoy a variety of music from ensembles specialising in different types of classical. Generally speaking, compared to the years of my youth, music is much less tribal and more anything goes. Most people just mix things up according to their needs.

Over the years here, I've realised that a lot of the more polarising debates here (particularly regarding 20th century classical) aren't going to reflect these things that are going on in reality. It took a long while for me to come to the realisation that there is often a huge difference between real world and online communication.


----------



## Roger Knox

Forster said:


> Oh yes it is!
> 
> Like panto.


No, I don't find this funny.


----------



## Forster

Roger Knox said:


> No, I don't find this funny.


You're not obliged to.

The OP hasn't been back to confirm the extent to which this is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek post, but I'm not the only one who has responded with levity. If you're serious in your objection to Becca's "controversial opinion", why not expand on it, giving Becca a chance to respond to your objection?


----------



## mikeh375

Becca said:


> Music theory is a joke.


Well if it is, it's a good one and one you need to know to be a great comedian......


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> Well if it is, it's a good one and one you need to know to be a great comedian......


 I'm wondering what people would have to learn in order to enjoy and benefit from music theory. What is the fun of it?

First
learning to read notation (somewhat better then how a first grader reads sentences and understands grammar).

Second
learning to effortlessly recognize how the moving parts in a piece move (as expected from theory). 

Generally speaking, proximity and directionality, all the conforming to the general flow (with surprises here and there). 

It's fascinating for me to see all this, so logical, on paper. Just like in any other technical subject. For example, how much would you need to know in order to appreciate a 16 day forecast from atmospheric physics, or memorizing directions beyond Earth in the night sky? Not applicable/relevant to anything else in your life? It's probably the same with music theory. These topics are very interesting and very involved the more and more you know, but how would someone know if they're not a musician or a weather hobbyist or a backyard astronomer?

Then, I think, what are some deep subjects that I have no interest in? Genetics and the workings of DNA, I've never cared about it..


----------



## Shaughnessy

Forster said:


> You're not obliged to.
> 
> The OP hasn't been back to confirm the extent to which this is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek post, but I'm not the only one who has responded with levity. *If you're serious in your objection to Becca's "controversial opinion", why not expand on it, giving Becca a chance to respond to your objection*?


Probably because, like most of us, he's scared of her...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> it's just that some of today's people get mad because Bach was only considered one of the 3-5 most important composers in Germany, not by far the most important


Btw, I'm sorry to quote you again (I'm just curious): "I grant all kinds of technical contrapuntal wizardry singling Bach out but I don't see how even a rather modest Telemann cantata like "Du aber Daniel gehe hin" or the choruses from the Passion section of Messiah (to stick with the best known, there are plenty of other examples) are not in the same range of expression and gravitas (or Schütz for music 100 years earlier). Of course, unlike inverted triple mirror fugues, "emotional depth" or gravitas are rather vague attributes." -Kriesler jr.
Do you still stand by this? If Telemann, "Schütz for music 100 years earlier" (whatever this means) are in the same range of expression and gravitas as Bach, who from that period are not?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I'm wondering what people would have to learn in order to enjoy and benefit from music theory. What is the fun of it?
> 
> First
> learning to read notation


I can't agree with that. First, or at least simultaneous with learning notation, is learning solfège, i.e., recognizing notes, intervals and harmonies by ear. When I sang in an adult chorus, with an elaborate formal audition process just to get in, the director strictly insisted that for each new piece, everyone had to have their parts completely memorized in two weeks, so serious rehearsals could then begin. A few members were talented composers and arrangers, some sang or taught music professionally, many others could hardly read music at all. But all had to be able to sing their parts with no score and no errors. Even those weakest with notation had well-trained ears after years of choral singing, and even with my training in music theory and experience in reading scores, I was hard-pressed to sing as well as some of them routinely did.

As we discussed earlier, neither Luciano Pavarotti nor Paul McCartney could read music at all. I agree that notation is important, both in practical performance and as an instructional aide, but the score is not the music.


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> What attempts to "falsify real history" are there? And which conspiracists do this for what purpose?
> 
> What I mean is roughly the following: Comparably little is (grossly) overrated or underrated, if you take as basis a mixture between frequency in concerts/on stage and on recordings/radio, columns in New Grove, MGG etc., number of scholarly publications etc.
> 
> It's also historically more stable than many people believe. I have here Alfred Einstein's "Greatness in Music" (publ. 1941). Einstein (*1880) starts with a skeptical stance and as an example for the fleeting favors of fame he mentions plaster busts in a Munich concert hall. He isn't sure about the original set around 1811 but says that there were Michael Haydn and Cimarosa included (and not yet Beethoven) and then tells us that when he was a youngster around 1890 these busts were of Bach, Handel, Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn. And then the conductor Felix Mottl added busts of Liszt and Wagner.
> Sure, even around 1900 one might have have sorely missed Brahms and Bruckner. Einstein adds some more information from early 19th century writers on opera who were totally wrong in their estimations.
> *But these Munich Odeon busts seem to prove the opposite point to me*. In ~130 years we might quibble a little with Gluck and Weber and of course the busts are German/Austria centered (that's a feature for a 19th century German hall, not a bug) but in general we could sign such a list of great 1700-1890 German composer in 2022 as we could have 80 years ago when Einstein wrote. It's not that any of the names is unknown and the few we might miss were so recent in 1890 that it's understandable. [And even 1830 it would probably already have been the first 6 or same names of the current list, so we are at almost 200 years of stability for them.]
> If people who stress the randomness and stark changes in appreciation were correct, we would barely remember half of these names and sorely miss others.
> Similarly, almost all conventional tales (and this is what I *don't* mean with received wisdom) are hugely exaggerated. Neither JS Bach or Mozart were not appreciated in their time (it's just that some of today's people get mad because Bach was only considered one of the 3-5 most important composers in Germany, not by far the most important, or that Mozart's didn't get a 1000 fl stipend for life by the Emperor just like that ). Mahler was not forgotten in mid-century Austria and Germany, not even with an antisemitic ban for more than a decade at a time when his music could have been become more established. His music was controversial but it was performed in 1950s Vienna and elsewhere; they didn't need Bernstein for a re-discovery.


"[And even 1830 it would probably already have been the first 6 or same names of the current list, so we are at almost 200 years of stability for them.]"

I think that's because they all used the same 'simpler' harmony that music fans are attracted to (tonalities easily learned in the earliest years).


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I can't agree with that. First, or at least simultaneous with learning notation, is learning solfège, i.e., recognizing notes, intervals and harmonies by ear. When I sang in an adult chorus, with an elaborate formal audition process just to get in, the director strictly insisted that for each new piece, everyone had to have their parts completely memorized in two weeks, so serious rehearsals could then begin. A few members were talented composers and arrangers, some sang or taught music professionally, many others could hardly read music at all. But all had to be able to sing their parts with no score and no errors. Even those weakest with notation had well-trained ears after years of choral singing, and even with my training in music theory and experience in reading scores, I was hard-pressed to sing as well as some of them routinely did.
> 
> As we discussed earlier, neither Luciano Pavarotti nor Paul McCartney could read music at all. I agree that notation is important, both in practical performance and as an instructional aide, but the score is not the music.


How did Pavarotti prepare for a role? He listened to recordings? Someone taught him the notes? He remembered earlier performances? 

McCartney would play, listen and expertly correct and improve. It is quicker if you can do it like that, mostly spontaneously.

Scores are the only source of the original score. Someone memorized or played it ...and copied it and distributed it. 

Long ago, scores were memorized, as a proud tradition.


----------



## pianozach

golfer72 said:


> Man you dont quit do you? Still hating on Mahler 7 LOL!


There is some subjective justification for that.

That 1st movement is monstrously long. Hell, the entire Symphony clocks in at 80 minutes. [I could drive to Las Vegas in 7 Mahler symphonies.]

And there's a bass trombone solo. There's that. At least it wasn't a viola solo.


----------



## pianozach

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Opinion:
> Bolero is useful to play when interrogating prisoners.
> 
> Preference:
> 
> Any music featuring bagpipes and I'm outta there.


Aren't you glad they don't make *Soprano Bagpipes*?


----------



## progmatist

Becca said:


> That ain't necessarily so ... e.g. take a look at the Los Angeles Philharmonic season schedule.


But then the Los Angeles market is larger than most. An orchestra in a smaller city performing overly adventurous works won't be around very long.

EDIT: the classical radio station in the vast majority of US cities, if one exists at all will play mostly baroque and classical On the rare occasions they play romantic, or even more rarely modern pieces, they won't delve very deep into the repertoire..


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> How did Pavarotti prepare for a role? He listened to recordings? Someone taught him the notes? He remembered earlier performances?


No doubt all of those methods.


Luchesi said:


> McCartney would play, listen and expertly correct and improve. It is quicker if you can do it like that, mostly spontaneously.


It certainly worked for him.


Luchesi said:


> Scores are the only source of the original score. Someone memorized or played it ...and copied it and distributed it.
> 
> Long ago, scores were memorized, as a proud tradition.


Music is what is memorized, not scores. Mozart famously never got around to writing down the keyboard part for a couple of his works, as he performed that part in concert himself, and didn't need a score as he had it all in his head.


----------



## pianozach

pianozach said:


> Aren't you glad they don't make *Soprano Bagpipes*?


Never mind.

They do.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> No doubt all of those methods.
> 
> It certainly worked for him.
> 
> Music is what is memorized, not scores. Mozart famously never got around to writing down the keyboard part for a couple of his works, as he performed that part in concert himself, and didn't need a score as he had it all in his head.


Heh. Why did Mozart write anything down? Musicians could have memorized his music and passed it down, I guess. What a game of telephone that would have been! But interesting to consider..


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Mozart famously never got around to writing down the keyboard part for a couple of his works, as he performed that part in concert himself





Bruce said:


> The historically informed performance movement is a fad, and will die out in a few decades. Historically informed performances will then become a niche market, rather than mainstream.


Here's a video that covers both topics, HIP and Mozart's writing for the keyboard (in works like K.537)-




Malcolm Bilson: "There are sketches of Mozart, and incomplete scores of Mozart. In Piano Concerto K. 537, he didn't even bother to write in the left hand, but there's never a single bar without these articulation slurs—because they are what makes the music speak—and that's what they thought in the 18th century. Music is like speech and it must be inflected properly."


----------



## hoodjem

RobertJTh said:


> Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music.


You are a genius. Truer words were never spoken. I love you.

Here's mine: 

J. Haydn is the most under-rated classical composer ever.


----------



## hoodjem

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Preference:
> Any music featuring bagpipes and I'm outta there.


Here's a joke I heard years ago in Scotland--

"What's the definition of perfect pitch?



The ability to throw one's bagpipes into the rubbish bin, without hitting the sides."


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

hoodjem said:


> Haydn is the most under-rated classical composer ever.


Joseph, or Michael?


----------



## hammeredklavier

4chamberedklavier said:


> Michael






MH319/i,ii




MH407/vi


----------



## Luchesi

RobertJTh said:


Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music."

Music fans who say this must've found better symphonies, chamber works, concertos and operas from one of Mozart's contemporaries. Haydn's concertos are more worthy of study and performance than all those of Mozart?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Heh. Why did Mozart write anything down? Musicians could have memorized his music and passed it down, I guess. What a game of telephone that would have been! But interesting to consider..


In genres and traditions other than European classical, music is routinely passed on by what you call a game of telephone, with nothing written down. Of course, European classical music gradually became so elaborate and complex, the notation system developed out of practical necessity. Consider that Mozart and Beethoven were still masterful improvisers, but Debussy and Ravel demanded strict following of their scores, which is really a modern development in classical music.


----------



## FrankE

They're all cover bands.


----------



## ORigel

hoodjem said:


> You are a genius. Truer words were never spoken. I love you.
> 
> Here's mine:
> 
> Haydn is the most under-rated classical composer ever.


I would say that Dvorak is. Haydn is underappreciated but generally acknowledged as one of the greatest composers. Dvorak has a few superhits...and for the vast majority of the classical music world, that's it.


----------



## ORigel

Luchesi said:


> RobertJTh said:
> 
> 
> Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music."
> 
> Music fans who say this must've found better symphonies, chamber works, concertos and operas from one of Mozart's contemporaries. Haydn's concertos are more worthy of study and performance than all those of Mozart?


It might mean that, other than a few masterpieces like (say) the Clarinet Concerto, Mozart's works are "bland" and "mediocre"? (Not my position)


----------



## ORigel

CPE Bach's Magnificat is better than his father's.

On the whole, Dvorak was a greater symphonist than Brahms.

Beethoven's Fourth Symphony is better than his Third.

If people appreciated chamber music, they would rate Beethoven's middle period string quartets (Razumovskies, Harp, and Serioso) over Beethoven's middle period symphonies (nos. 3-8).

The only early music composers you would ever need are Monteverdi and Gesualdo.

Michael Haydn wrote more appropriate sacred music than his brother Joseph.

Raff's symphonies deserve to be in the standard repertoire.

Mozart is a second-rate Mendelssohn (okay, this one is a joke)


----------



## Luchesi

ORigel said:


> It might mean that, other than a few masterpieces like (say) the Clarinet Concerto, Mozart's works are "bland" and "mediocre"? (Not my position)


I think it's a conclusion all about the language of music of his time. 

It might strike us as bland because the harmonies and rhythms and forms are quickly digested and forgotten, even if you're new listener.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> In genres and traditions other than European classical, music is routinely passed on by what you call a game of telephone, with nothing written down. Of course, European classical music gradually became so elaborate and complex, the notation system developed out of practical necessity. Consider that Mozart and Beethoven were still masterful improvisers, but Debussy and Ravel demanded strict following of their scores, which is really a modern development in classical music.


I don't remember the details of who and why, but back in 13th? century there was no need for key signatures, but there was a need for slurs and phrasing. They invented small symbols and arrows and flow lines.

The notation today would've been difficult to conceive of, because it depicts more modern sound relationships (which they probably would have found unpalatable and horrible to follow or sing or play).


----------



## Becca

Verdi was a hack composer, the only operas worth keeping are Falstaff and (maybe) Otello.


----------



## Becca

...and the most enjoyable Falstaff opera was not written by Verdi.


----------



## Xisten267

Here are some:


Some valid criteria to evaluate music include technical details, lenght, influence, originality, musicality, and expression, and they may not be objective (with the exception of the first two), but aren't totally relative either;
Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are awesome and deserve their fame;
True admirers of Beethoven recognise the greatness of works such as the _Pastoral_ symphony, the _Triple_ concerto, the _Creatures of Prometheus_ ballet and the Mass in C because they know that the composer of Bonn was multifaceted and had an amazing lyrical side;
Mendelssohn's _Lobgesang_ is an astonishing and progressive symphony, one of his finest works, being very original in form and orchestration;
99% of people who hate Wagner do so due to extramusical reasons;
Listeners who pay too much attention to lyrics tend to have bad taste;
Newcomers to classical music tend to have a bias toward the most popular pieces and composers because that's what they know, and veterans in classical music tend to have a bias against the most popular pieces and composers because they want to believe that the time and effort they invested exploring the genre were not in vain;
To have a profound knowledge of music theory does not necessarily makes anyone a good musician or listener, although it helps.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Becca said:


> ...and the most enjoyable Falstaff opera was not written by Verdi.


Indeed, lass, 'twas written by "the pride of Dublin" himself - Michael William Balfe. Good on you for being acquainted with his work.

Also recommended - "The Maid of Artois" and "The Bohemian Girl".


----------



## Becca

Shaughnessy said:


> Indeed, lass, *'twas written by "the pride of Dublin" himself - Michael William Balfe*. Good on you for being acquainted with his work.
> 
> Also recommended - "The Maid of Artois" and "The Bohemian Girl".


Hmm, I'll have to check that one out sometime 😁


----------



## Shaughnessy

Becca said:


> Hmm, I'll have to check that one out sometime 😁


Here's the link to the label authorized full release - 



https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfibsLLQzU00up_oLm6AeyE4a2HtgOkOM



Irish composer paired with an Italian librettist based on a literary work created by a _sasanach_ - Opera doesn't come any more authentic than that.


----------



## DaveM

J. Haydn wrote a lot of mediocre music which is one reason why Mozart‘s works sounded even better in comparison. At over 60 piano sonatas and over 100 symphonies, less would have been better. During the period when LPs were giving way to CDs, I bought an LP album with all the Haydn piano sonatas thinking that I wanted to become familiar with them and thinking that it would be a long time until they came out on CD. I was totally underwhelmed by them and can count on a few fingers how many I somewhat liked.

Fwiw, Michael Haydn, in spite of the current hard sell, didn’t do much better.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> didn’t do much better.


I'm still waiting (for you to prove your knowledge), btw-


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm still waiting (for you to prove your knowledge), btw-


Ordinarily, I would love to listen to 40 unidentified excerpts from Haydn Catholic Music, but I think I have a root canal to go to.


----------



## Roger Knox

I have nothing that spectacular to go to, but I just sit here wondering -- how much more of this Haydn Family Feud, or whatever it is?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Johann Evangelist Haydn >>>> Joseph & Michael Haydn
Especially when it comes to vocal works


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> I think I have a root canal to go to.


Let's try to understand each other. What do you look for in the music? Harmonic complexity like Mozart's? Recently I posted this excerpt in the thread "Augmented triad and the Tristan chord", because of the memorable 18th century use of the augmented triad. Check out the chromatic contrapuntal motion that leads to the V6/5 on the third beat of bar 268. On the way, you hear all kinds of harmonies;
9th chord harmonies in bar 265,
augmented triad harmony on the third beat of bar 266,
major 7th chord harmony on the first two beats of bar 267,
half-diminished 7th chord harmony on the third beat of bar 267,
minor-minor 7th chord harmony (+ the non-chord tone C#) on the first two beats of bar 268,
(which aren't actual chords btw, since they're results of contrapuntal motion).


hammeredklavier said:


>


And howabout this; youtube.com/watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=11m41s the tonic pedal clashing against the 7th chords in bars 217~220; "i - vii°4/2 - V7/iv - iv - vii°4/3 - V7 - i"


hammeredklavier said:


> consists of colorful "chords" arising from non-chord tones (marked in red) and "inner lines" contributing to their occurrence. (the harmony in the strong beat (bar 258) implies "D, F, Ab, C", a "half-diminished 7th chord", which resolves to the dominant 6/5 in Eb, in the next beat. And due to the movement of the alto voice line, the next beat contains the non-chord tone, 'Eb', which clashes against the dominant 6/5 in Eb, resulting in a momentary sonority, "D, Eb, F, Ab, Bb", and so on...)


----------



## ORigel

Xisten267 said:


> Here are some:
> 
> 
> Some valid criteria to evaluate music include technical details, lenght, influence, originality, musicality, and expression, and they may not be objective (with the exception of the first two), but aren't totally relative either;
> Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are awesome and deserve their fame;
> True admirers of Beethoven recognise the greatness of works such as the _Pastoral_ symphony, the _Triple_ concerto, the _Creatures of Prometheus_ ballet and the Mass in C because they know that the composer of Bonn was multifaceted and had an amazing lyrical side;
> Mendelssohn's _Lobgesang_ is an astonishing and progressive symphony, one of his finest works, being very original in form and orchestration;
> 99% of people who hate Wagner do so due to extramusical reasons;
> Listeners who pay too much attention to lyrics tend to have bad taste;
> Newcomers to classical music tend to have a bias toward the most popular pieces and composers because that's what they know, and veterans in classical music tend to have a bias against the most popular pieces and composers because they want to believe that the time and effort they invested exploring the genre were not in vain;
> To have a profound knowledge of music theory does not necessarily makes anyone a good musician or listener, although it helps.


I disagree about the Wagner one. I hardly ever listen to Wagner because I don't have a long-enough attention span, and generally avoid listening to operas.


----------



## ORigel

DaveM said:


> J. Haydn wrote a lot of mediocre music which is one reason why Mozart‘s works sounded even better in comparison. At over 60 piano sonatas and over 100 symphonies, less would have been better. During the period when LPs were giving way to CDs, I bought an LP album with all the Haydn piano sonatas thinking that I wanted to become familiar with them and thinking that it would be a long time until they came out on CD. I was totally underwhelmed by them and can count on a few fingers how many I somewhat liked.
> 
> Fwiw, Michael Haydn, in spite of the current hard sell, didn’t do much better.


I like the later piano sonatas of Haydn. Almost every string quartet from Op. 20 onwards is a masterpiece. Haydn has more great symphonies than anyone else (22, 26, 31, 44, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 59, 60, 82, 83, 88-104). He sounds so much better than typical Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> typical Mozart.


The harmonies-




K.247/iv




K.247/i


----------



## DaveM

ORigel said:


> I like the later piano sonatas of Haydn. Almost every string quartet from Op. 20 onwards is a masterpiece. Haydn has more great symphonies than anyone else (22, 26, 31, 44, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 59, 60, 82, 83, 88-104). He sounds so much better than typical Mozart.


I agree that there are some very good Haydn works. I just find there to be a lot of ‘fluff‘ also. Beyond that, I’ll take Mozart over him in almost every category of works. Of interest is that at Haydn’s memorial service, Mozart’s Requiem was played.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Of interest is that at Haydn’s memorial service, Mozart’s Requiem was played.


"He was buried the next day, and the following day Michael Haydn's Requiem Mass was sung for him. The turmoil of war, including disruption in the conveyance of news, resulted in sparse attendance at both of these events. But two weeks later, Mozart's Requiem was performed in Haydn's memory in the Schottenkirche." www.google.ca/books/edition/Playing_Before_the_Lord/E0SWAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=haydn&pg=PA250


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

While on the topic of Haydns. It's funny how often Google gets all the portraits wrong.


----------



## ORigel

DaveM said:


> I agree that there are some very good Haydn works. I just find there to be a lot of ‘fluff‘ also. Beyond that, I’ll take Mozart over him in almost every category of works. Of interest is that at Haydn’s memorial service, Mozart’s Requiem was played.


I prefer Haydn's string quartets and symphonies to Mozart's, on the whole. I also regard Haydn's _The Creation_ as the best work between 1750 and 1800 excepting a few of Mozart's operas.


----------



## Wigmar

ORigel said:


> I prefer Haydn's string quartets and symphonies to Mozart's, on the whole. I also regard Haydn's _The Creation_ as the best work between 1750 and 1800 excepting a few of Mozart's operas.


Although Mozart created many wonderful works, Haydn's string quartets appear to me as some of the very finest works ever written.


----------



## prlj

Laraine Anne Barker said:


> How interesting. I do get where you are coming from, but can you elucidate? And does that even include Emma Kirkby? My personal biggest hate (apart from the 20th and 21st centuries) is Wagner. And I can tell you why: too noisy and unmelodious.


It's just the range in general. Same with piccolo, and some flute and high clarinet parts. I find the soprano range to be overwhelmingly piercing and unpleasant to listen to. It's grating if it goes on too long. It's just not for me, but it's unfortunately unavoidable.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Tannhauser Act 1 *Paris version* is the best single act of any Wagner opera in large part because of the overture and the following ballet music.


----------



## BachIsBest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Tannhauser Act 1 *Paris version* is the best single act of any Wagner opera in large part because of the overture and the following ballet music.


Actually, it's either Act III of _Tristan und Isolde _or Act II of _Parsifal, _but we all make mistakes sometimes, so I'll forgive you for your error_._


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't know which version that is but I find the silly singing with harp by Tannhäuser "Frau Venus lass mich ziehn" (or sth like that) very anticlimactic after the ouverture (or orgy, so it's probably post coitum omne animal triste...)


----------



## Floeddie

Xisten267 said:


> Here are some:
> 
> 
> Newcomers to classical music tend to have a bias toward the most popular pieces and composers because that's what they know, and veterans in classical music tend to have a bias against the most popular pieces and composers because they want to believe that the time and effort they invested exploring the genre were not in vain;


That bias comes from mass marketing and general cultural hype. I've always loved classical music since childhood, but I will admit that I am no CM expert of any kind. TC is full of new discovery for me, and I like music from Gregorian chants up to the present day, of CM and all forms of Western music. As with anything, musical likes come from repetitive exposure, and social acceptance. I am retired, and I hope to spend the next 20 or so years filling in the gaps. So excuse me if I am a rube, but you will find that I am a quick study. Admittedly, there are other types of non CM that I am not so much enamored with, but there is so much that is grea,t that it astounds me even today. Please be patient, as Rome wasn't built in a day.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

BachIsBest said:


> Actually, it's either Act III of _Tristan und Isolde _or Act II of _Parsifal, _but we all make mistakes sometimes, so I'll forgive you for your error_._


Where is the controversy in this?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't know which version that is but I find the silly singing with harp by Tannhäuser "Frau Venus lass mich ziehn" (or sth like that) very anticlimactic after the ouverture (or orgy, so it's probably post coitum omne animal triste...)


I think that's Dir Tone Lob! Die Wunder sei'n gepriesen. I actually like it. And I believe the orgy was only added by Wagner in the Paris version.


----------



## Laraine Anne Barker

Waehnen said:


> With rather many classical singers the problems is that people let them sing if they are technically cabable even if the sound quality is not particularly enjoyable. Especially those vocalists whose vibrato is so wide that it seems to encompass at least the major second interval.
> 
> But great classical vocalists with great intonation and a pleasant sound quality are of course a great enjoyment.
> 
> Just like with Mahler — you do not have to like it all, but you should not reject it all either. Do your homework, reject what you must and enjoy the rest.


I too hate vibrato that draws attention to itself. It makes me want to yell, "For God's sake stay on the note!" I never got anywhere with Mahler, or Wagner I'm afraid, and sometimes with twentieth century music I think somebody's having a laugh at our expense. For instance, after one twentieth century work on the radio, the announcer told listeners what it was and ended that it could just as well have been called Symphony on One Note. One thing I hate is that some people seem to think in Renaissance and Mediaeval times people who sang had less than pleasant voices, so that's how they present the music.


----------



## Floeddie

I prefer cellos over violins because of tonal differences, the vocal range is easier on my ears. The timbre of the Cello is emotionally more satisfying than that of the violin. IMO.

I have some minor mid-range hearing loss in my left ear, so cello concertos help fill that void, but I like piano over stringed instruments quite a bit of the time. The timber of a high quality grand piano is pleasing to me.


----------



## premont

Opera doesn't need to be banned, as long as I'm free to ignore it.


----------



## progmatist

Laraine Anne Barker said:


> I too hate vibrato that draws attention to itself. It makes me want to yell, "For God's sake stay on the note!" I never got anywhere with Mahler, or Wagner I'm afraid, and sometimes with twentieth century music I think somebody's having a laugh at our expense. For instance, after one twentieth century work on the radio, the announcer told listeners what it was and ended that it could just as well have been called Symphony on One Note. One thing I hate is that some people seem to think in Renaissance and Mediaeval times people who sang had less than pleasant voices, so that's how they present the music.


A few years ago, I told the opera singer I regularly accompanied not to immediately go into vibrato when holding a long note. Rather hold it steady at first, then gradually build into the vibrato.


----------



## BachIsBest

Laraine Anne Barker said:


> I too hate vibrato that draws attention to itself. It makes me want to yell, "For God's sake stay on the note!" I never got anywhere with Mahler, or Wagner I'm afraid, and sometimes with twentieth century music I think somebody's having a laugh at our expense. For instance, after one twentieth century work on the radio, the announcer told listeners what it was and ended that it could just as well have been called Symphony on One Note. One thing I hate is that some people seem to think in Renaissance and Mediaeval times people who sang had less than pleasant voices, so that's how they present the music.


It's funny, but this vibrato is more of a modern thing. As you listen to older and older recordings you notice that singers in the past had less and less vibrato, to the point that in our earliest available recordings the vibrato is quite subtle. See this, for example






I would say many fans of Wagner would consider most Wagner recordings made in the past twenty years near-unlistenable due to the wobbly voices.


----------



## Yabetz

BachIsBest said:


> Actually, it's either Act III of _Tristan und Isolde _or Act II of _Parsifal, _but we all make mistakes sometimes, so I'll forgive you for your error_._


You're both wrong. It's Act III of _Die Walküre. _


----------



## Coach G

Xisten267 said:


> Some valid criteria to evaluate music include technical details, lenght, influence, originality, musicality, and expression, and they may not be objective (with the exception of the first two), but aren't totally relative either;


Agreed; and while we all might concede the greatness of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Wagner, etc; we can all recognize that there is an element of subjectiveness or "taste" that is also a factor even in regards to a "masterpiece". Even so, tastes can also change over time.



Xisten267 said:


> Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are awesome and deserve their fame;


Agreed. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are my own "Big Three". I came to Beethoven in my youth, attracted to the heroism. I came to Bach in the 40s as middle-age often compells people to become more contemplative and concerned with the meaning of life; and I was drawn to Bach's religious vision. Now in my 50s, I'm taken with Mozart who I like just for the craftsmanship, the seamless quality, balance and beauty.



Xisten267 said:


> True admirers of Beethoven recognise the greatness of works such as the _Pastoral_ symphony, the _Triple_ concerto, the _Creatures of Prometheus_ ballet and the Mass in C because they know that the composer of Bonn was multifaceted and had an amazing lyrical side;


Agreed, and Beethoven's "Pastorale" (Symphony #6) is my favorite because it shows that while Beethoven definately had a side to him that was conflicted and angry; he also had a side that was warm and friendly.



Xisten267 said:


> Mendelssohn's _Lobgesang_ is an astonishing and progressive symphony, one of his finest works, being very original in form and orchestration;


Neither agree nor disagree as I've never heard _Lobgesang_.



Xisten267 said:


> 99% of people who hate Wagner do so due to extramusical reasons;


Not sure. There were plenty of great composers and classical musicians that we can find all kinds of reasons to dislike to the point of avoiding their music. There were lots of philanderers who were bad to their women; lots who were abusive to the people who were close to them, and lots who we know have expressed opinions on race, religion, or politics that don't sit well with us. There is no need to name names or go into detail because we all know who they are. I'm here to celebrate the music and not the misdeeds of the person who makes it. Apart from the "extramusical" reasons that exist, I do think that Wagner is a special case. Almost everyone likes the excerpts (i.e. _Ride of the Valkyries_, _Forest Murmurs_, _Seigfried's Rhine Journey_, _Tannhauser Overture_, _Isolde's Love Song_, etc.) but to be a sincere lover of Wagner's very long operas is very challenging for most people, although there are some people who are sincere Wagnerians and have found all sorts of meaning in it; and that seems to be a world that not everyone is inclined to be a part of; sort of like the _Star Wars_ fanatics, or those _Lord of the Rings/_JRR Tolkien folks. As I see it; there are sincere classical music fans like me who are somewhat different from the general public, and then there is a subset of opera fans who are even more different from the average classical music fan, and then there are sincere Wagner lovers who are a subset within a subset and those folks are really "out there."



Xisten267 said:


> Listeners who pay too much attention to lyrics tend to have bad taste;


Disagree. I try to make myself very aware of the lyrics which is hard to do with classical music when the only language you speak properly is English and the majority of songs and operas are in Italian, German, or Russian. In this sense, I think I miss a lot even when I'm following along with a translation which can never capture the nuances of the original. As a fan of jazz, easy listening, and country music I love songs that seem to marry the words and the music into a perfect union. The lyrics are important because they tell a story and I think that great singers such as Frank Sinatra are great not just because of the phrasing but also because they are aware of the story and the feelings that are associated with the words as well as the music.



Xisten267 said:


> Newcomers to classical music tend to have a bias toward the most popular pieces and composers because that's what they know, and veterans in classical music tend to have a bias against the most popular pieces and composers because they want to believe that the time and effort they invested exploring the genre were not in vain;


Disagree, sort of. When I was started with classical music as a teenager back in the 1980s, I was of course, focused on the heart of the repertoire because that's where we all pretty much have to start out. If I did have a bias in regard to orchestral music; the warhorse symhonies of Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Mahler, and Shostakovich (oh, very much, Shostakovich); and I would blast _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ by Richard Strauss or _Rite of Spring_ on my stereo the way that other teenage boys would blast rap or heavy metal. What took me a very long while to appreciate and enjoy was chamber music and piano music which bored me; and especially if it was some really pretty and elegant piano music by somewhat like Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Grieg, or Debussy. Now I find that my moods are often more favorable to the soothing and intimate sounds of chamber music and piano music as opposed to the big and noisy orchestral music that was most of what I listened to during my youth.

On the flip side, I can't say what most "veterans" think about the "popular pieces" but as a "veteran of classical music" all my favorite composers and their most popular works still make up what I believe to be the finest music there is. If I were to list my favorite composers and their works it would make for a boring list comprised mostly of the heavy-hitters from the Austro-German ranks: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. I also think, though, that part of the process of liking classical music is the joy of discovery so we all like to find composers and works that are off the beaten path; and finding a good piece of music by a tier two or tier three composer also gives us a sense that we are rooting for the underdog. There's a "sportive" element to classical music where we latch on to particular composers who may see underrated and unsung, and we like to lend our support to the little guy, the amateur who is no Beethoven or Mozart, but remains in the contest, trying to create something beautiful against all odds. In my case, I have a large collection of classical music by our own American composers from William Billings to Gottschalk, to the Boston Classicists, to Ives, Copland, Barber, Hovhaness, Cage, Carter, Florence Price and William Schuman and Philip Glass. Some of it is very fine, pretty good, not bad, and some of it is banal, derivative, mystifying and unmemorable. But it's the joy of discovery and the history that makes it fun to explore the incredibly diverse field of American composers who could never compare to the likes of Europe but still, every once in a while, had something interesting to say.



Xisten267 said:


> To have a profound knowledge of music theory does not necessarily makes anyone a good musician or listener, although it helps.


Agreed. My knowledge of music theory is very limited. At my age, I have neither the time nor vigor to go deeper into it. It's been a wonderful journey and I can only say how the music makes me feel. I imagine that being able to really understanding the inner craftsmanship of great composers such as Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, or Schoenberg; would greatly enhance the experience.


----------



## Wigmar

hoodjem said:


> You are a genius. Truer words were never spoken. I love you.
> 
> Here's mine:
> 
> J. Haydn is the most under-rated classical composer ever.


After having listened extensively to many string quartets of Haydn, the first thought coming to mind was that he is indeed under-rated. The second thought: Haydn ranked over Mozart. To me, Haydn becomes even greater day after day 🎼


----------



## DLOinQUEENS

Mediocre works by famous composers are considered great solely because of the composer’s fame, while great works by obscure composers are considered mediocre simply because of the composer’s obscurity.


----------



## EvaBaron

DLOinQUEENS said:


> Mediocre works by famous composers are considered great solely because of the composer’s fame, while great works from obscure composers are considered mediocre simply because of the composer’s obscurity.


What mediocre works of famous composers are considered great?


----------



## Yabetz

Floeddie said:


> I prefer cellos over violins because of tonal differences, the vocal range is easier on my ears. The timbre of the Cello is emotionally more satisfying than that of the violin. IMO.
> ...


I would agree in part, but I love violins too. The cello is much better suited for solo work though, in my opinion. One maybe semi-controversial opinion is that the viola is a beautiful instrument and terribly underrated and underutilized historically.


----------



## DLOinQUEENS

EvaBaron said:


> What mediocre works of famous composers are considered great?


For example: Tchaikovsky’s 2nd symphony has 65 recordings available on Idagio, many from the world’s greatest orchestras and conductors, while symphonies of equal, if not superior merit, have only a handful of recordings (if that), and hardly any with the world’s top orchestras and conductors. Now Tchaikovsky’s 2nd is a fine work, not terrible by any means, but if it had been written by any number of obscure composers with works of equal merit, it would not have 65 recordings. Its merit, therefore, rests largely on the fame of its composer rather than on the substance of the work itself.


----------



## Becca

DLOinQUEENS said:


> For example: Tchaikovsky’s 2nd symphony has 65 recordings available on Idagio, many from the world’s greatest orchestras and conductors, while symphonies of equal, if not superior merit, have only a handful of recordings (if that), and hardly any with the world’s top orchestras and conductors. Now Tchaikovsky’s 2nd is a fine work, not terrible by any means, but if it had been written by any number of obscure composers with works of equal merit, it would not have 65 recordings. Its merit, therefore, rests largely on the fame of its composer rather than on the substance of the work itself.


A big part of it is the insane idea of completism - someone must record _all_ of the symphonies ... or concerti, or quartets, or ...


----------



## EvaBaron

DLOinQUEENS said:


> For example: Tchaikovsky’s 2nd symphony has 65 recordings available on Idagio, many from the world’s greatest orchestras and conductors, while symphonies of equal, if not superior merit, have only a handful of recordings (if that), and hardly any with the world’s top orchestras and conductors. Now Tchaikovsky’s 2nd is a fine work, not terrible by any means, but if it had been written by any number of obscure composers with works of equal merit, it would not have 65 recordings. Its merit, therefore, rests largely on the fame of its composer rather than on the substance of the work itself.


It doesn’t rest largely on the fame of the composer, it rests largely on the greatness of his symphonies after that, particularly the last 3. If he had only written that symphony, it would receive maybe slightly more recordings if it would have been written by an obscure composer


----------



## Xisten267

EvaBaron said:


> It doesn’t rest largely on the fame of the composer, it rests largely on the greatness of his symphonies after that, particularly the last 3. If he had only written that symphony, it would receive maybe slightly more recordings if it would have been written by an obscure composer


Also, many symphonies by obscure composers tend to be stylistically derivative of the major composers, while Tchaikovsky's 2nd symphony is strikingly original and already has his unique,
unmistakable style. It seems that this doesn't matter to some listeners, but to others it does.


----------



## Becca

It used to be said that Tchaikovsky wrote 3 symphonies and perversely numbered them as 4, 5 & 6


----------



## mmsbls

RobertJTh said:


> Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music.


I don't know if that's true, but he did write more stunningly beautiful works in a very wide variety of genres than any other composer. If the former statement is somewhat true, perhaps it's because he is so revered as a composer that people recorded every work he wrote even when he was absurdly young. 



hoodjem said:


> J. Haydn is the most under-rated classical composer ever.





Wigmar said:


> After having listened extensively to many string quartets of Haydn, the first thought coming to mind was that he is indeed under-rated. The second thought: Haydn ranked over Mozart. To me, Haydn becomes even greater day after day 🎼


When I first started listening to Haydn, I enjoyed his music, but I was a bit surprised that he seemed to be so highly regarded. The more I listened to his symphonies, string quartets, and vocal works, the higher he rose in my esteem. I certainly vastly underrated him during my early listening period.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't think Haydn is underrated, maybe this was the case until around 40 years ago and there is an almost unavoidable bias towards nicknamed and famous pieces because the oeuvre is so huge but overall today his music is established, highly respected and frequently played and recorded.

For Mozart the fact that he had to suffer through two anniversaries (or maybe already 1956) in the age of mass media and popular culture has probably been a mixed blessing. Of course, all this nonsense and half-truths (or falsehoods) like in "Amadeus" cannot really hurt his major works and his standing but in some respects it backfires. (But it is also worthwhile to consider how much bigger especially the 1991 anniversary was compared to Bach 2000, or who even remembers Haydn, Handel, Mendelssohn 2009, unfortunately C*vid panic ruined Beethoven 2020 but I don't think it would have been close to Mozart.)


----------



## Kreisler jr

DLOinQUEENS said:


> Mediocre works by famous composers are considered great solely because of the composer’s fame, while great works by obscure composers are considered mediocre simply because of the composer’s obscurity.


This occasionally happens but it's more complex than that. There often seem to be trivial things that make a difference. Because this was mentioned, the small scale, repetitive but colorful, overall rather suite-like 2nd symphony by Tchaikovsky is frequently recorded, I guess partly because it is numbered with the symphonies. Whereas his 4 orchestral suites are comparably obscure works and so are some of his symphonic poems. Go figure.

I think it also depends on how many "great works" there are. A dozen string quartets by the teenaged Schubert are somewhat frequently recorded by world class quartets but 3 piano sonatas and 3 piano quartets (all IMO easily as good as most of the early Schubert works) by 14-15 yo Beethoven are virtually ignored. Because there are (more than) enough mature Beethoven quartets and sonatas, so nobody needs to bother with comparably uninteresting juvenilia.

There is also the opposite phenomenon, that a work by a great composer is held to a higher standard and found wanting because the composer has done considerably greater things, e.g. Beethoven's triple concerto and maybe also some of Mozart's concerti.


----------



## ORigel

DLOinQUEENS said:


> For example: Tchaikovsky’s 2nd symphony has 65 recordings available on Idagio, many from the world’s greatest orchestras and conductors, while symphonies of equal, if not superior merit, have only a handful of recordings (if that), and hardly any with the world’s top orchestras and conductors. Now Tchaikovsky’s 2nd is a fine work, not terrible by any means, but if it had been written by any number of obscure composers with works of equal merit, it would not have 65 recordings. Its merit, therefore, rests largely on the fame of its composer rather than on the substance of the work itself.


I love Tchaikovsky 2. Now Tchaikovsky 3-- that's an almost mediocre work!


----------



## hammeredklavier

DLOinQUEENS said:


> For example: Tchaikovsky’s 2nd symphony has 65 recordings available on Idagio ...











Here's what I wrote in the opera subforum as a reply to OffPitchNeb's comment ("Do we really need another Aida, La Boheme, Figaro, Fidelio, on disc, etc., why that slot can be given to Pfitzner's Palestrina, Busoni's Doktor Faust, Enescu's Œdipe, Martinu's Julietta, Faccio'S Amletto, Cherubini's, Spotini's, Mercadante's, Glinka's, Rimsky-Korsakov's many once blockbusters?"):

+ Der Schulmeister MH204, Der englische Patriot MH285, Beschluss-Arie MH295, and especially Die Ährenleserin MH493 (1788), which is said to contain greater boldness of chromatic language, Lied-like qualities of the northern tradition (as opposed to coloratura) than Haydn's earlier works, and 3 instances of homage to Mozart's Don Giovanni.

*Die Wahrheit der Natur MH 118 (1769)* - Pt. 1: Ich suche die Natur
"Ich suche die Natur. Edle Wahrheit! Zeig die Wege, wo ich selbe finden kann. Mach das Mark des Geistes rege, zeig mir deine Tritte an. Lass mich finden, aus was Gründen eine Kunst beträchtlich sei. Weg mit Schmink' und Tandelei! Ich suche die Natur.
I seek Nature. Noble Truth! Show the ways where I can find the same. Stir the spirit's depths; show me your steps. Let me find for what cogent reasons an art merits consideration. Away with decoration and ostentation! I seek Nature."


----------



## Yabetz

Though I love them both, I kind of prefer Bach's Johannes-Passion to the Matthäus-Passion. My favorite recording of it is Helmuth Rilling et al from 1984. I've never heard a HIP recording of either of those works that I like.


----------



## Luchesi

EvaBaron said:


> It doesn’t rest largely on the fame of the composer, it rests largely on the greatness of his symphonies after that, particularly the last 3. If he had only written that symphony, it would receive maybe slightly more recordings if it would have been written by an obscure composer


If we read the musical analysis in words and musical terms, we can compare symphonies, whether they're famous or obscure. I don't know what would be discovered. In Tchaikovsky's time it gets more involved, but that's what we want?


----------



## progmatist

Becca said:


> It used to be said that Tchaikovsky wrote 3 symphonies and perversely numbered them as 4, 5 & 6


From what I understand, he wrote what would become his "Symphony No. 7" before he wrote the Pathetique Symphony.


----------



## Coach G

I like all six of Tchaikovsky's canonical symphonies as well as _Manfred_. Eugene Ormandy and his Philadelphians recorded them all sometimes more than once, as well as the withdrawn _Symphony #7_. While some people on this thread have idenified _Symphony #3 "Polish"_ in five movments as the weak link, it has all the Tchaikovsky trademarks: beautiful melodies, colorful orchestration, drama (or melodrama) and sad, Russian, soulfulness. And I say, what more do you want?


----------



## Merl

Carmina Burana is the most overrated piece in CM but for a hugely overplayed intro and one beautiful song. The rest sounds like a bad, noisy musical.


----------



## hammeredklavier

4chamberedklavier said:


> While on the topic of Haydns. It's funny


It's also funny only 2 people voted in this-








How many of these excerpts are music by Mozart?







www.talkclassical.com




I wonder if our dear DaveM has seen it. Btw, I still stand by the things I said in the other thread; the attitude "I only care for what's popular, I don't really care much for the era anyway" should NOT be passed as "insight" in the matters. If you can't give a good attempt at identifying the "excerpts", it partly shows you aren't familiar enough with the composer's music (ie. you haven't given the time and effort) and have limited qualification to judge. Obviously, if you've had far more exposure, ie. time spent listening to A than B, there's a greater chance you'll be biased toward A. (At least; how do you know if you're prejudiced or not?)


hammeredklavier said:


> _unfairly_ _ignored_? I didn't say that. I just said he's _ignored_, and I used the phenomenon as an example to explain my views of people's conception of greatness or profundity. It makes us question what is inherent in Mozart's music that objectively sets him apart from Haydn. (One of few figures in history who actually knew both their music intimately, Schubert, actually said he wanted to be like the latter.)
> Of course I myself will always root for Mozart, but I'm not the kind to indulge in "blind idolatry" so I can't help but thinking - what if people were taught from youth to think subjectively that—
> -In terms of dissonance, chromaticism, and vocal-writing, Mozart isn't really that special.
> -Haydn's requiem of 1771 isn't sketchy like Mozart's (which gets disappointing with its jubilant Sanctus and all the parts "not sounding like Mozart"), the structure of Haydn's Dies irae, which incorporates the Confutatis and Lacrimosa, is dramatic in a way Mozart's is not.
> -At least Haydn didn't write fluff like Cosi fan tutte, and "potboiler" concert pieces of Alberti bass.
> -Mozart's early works can't match Haydn's in terms of harmony and counterpoint,
> etc.


----------



## Torkelburger

My controversial opinion is that Neoclassicism is NOT the easiest form of classical music to create, but that it is just as difficult as most any other in order to be done well; and that it has been written by the some of the absolute best composers of the 20th century (and still today); and that it does not leave the brain at the hatrack in the slightest, nor is it lacking in expression if one so desires.


----------



## Waehnen

Torkelburger said:


> My controversial opinion is that Neoclassicism is NOT the easiest form of classical music to create, but that it is just as difficult as most any other in order to be done well; and that it has been written by the some of the absolute best composers of the 20th century (and still today); and that it does not leave the brain at the hatrack in the slightest, nor is it lacking in expression if one so desires.


For me mainstream neoclassicism often represents undesirable and predictable things because it is my default setting. If I just start composing without any pondering, dance-like neoclassicist stuff just comes out. I can generate it forever. So that’s me.

It is of course obvious that there are neoclassical masterpieces. And not all neoclassical pieces of music stick to just one aesthetic or just one method or technique.

So the borders are not clear-cut.

I am a great admirer of Symphony of Psalms which is neoclassicism for sure. But I do not consider The Rite of Spring neoclassicism. I do not consider Rhapsodie Espagnole neoclassicism. Do you?

I have to admit though that when it comes to many composers, I like their output at their most non-neoclassicist. This applies to Prokofiev, Nielsen, Shostakovich and the like. Whereas the neoclassicism of Ravel has never bothered me and I love the music. So it is a matter of circumstance and taste as well.

Just a friendly reminder that the opinions on this thread were supposed to be controversial (and polemic).

But I do apologize should someone find my controversial opinion offensive or hurtful. That was not the point at all.


----------



## Torkelburger

Waehnen said:


> For me mainstream neoclassicism often represents undesirable and predictable things because it is my default setting. If I just start composing without any pondering, dance-like neoclassicist stuff just comes out. I can generate it forever. So that’s me.


But that’s a problem with your composition skills, not with neoclassicism. There is nothing inherent to neoclassicism that precludes desirable or unpredictable outcomes. If you don’t like the results of “not pondering”, then start pondering when you compose. With all due respect, you don’t speak for everyone. Some people might have minimalism “come out” when they are “not pondering”, or they might have neoromanticism “come out” and can generate neoromanticism “forever”.

I’m not sure where you get that neoclassicism is “dance” music. They aren’t dance pieces. Nor is it all nor mostly motor rhythms just chugging away needlessly. I could write neoclassical pieces all day long and not write a single dance or motor rhythm. You're just presenting a strawman, although I guess you do admit later in your post that there is more than one aesthetic.



Waehnen said:


> But I do not consider The Rite of Spring neoclassicism. I do not consider Rhapsodie Espagnole neoclassicism. Do you?


I agree, The Rite of Spring was about 10 years prior to Stravinsky’s Neoclassical period and Rhapsodie Espagnole is way too early as well with no characteristic traits of the early/mid 20th century style.



Waehnen said:


> Just a friendly reminder that the opinions on this thread were supposed to be controversial (and polemic).


I just thought now was a good as a time as any to jump in on what you seem to harp on over several threads on this site quite regularly. If you are going to harp on such a thing (that I care about) so vigorously, then I may as well start defending it with the same amount of vigor.


----------



## Luchesi

My question might seem controversial. This question arises out of my own attempts at composing. When a composer begins writing an atonal piece is he hearing atonal combinations of sounds in his head (he's heard before in snips), or does he see the new sounds on the page (jewels of dissonance), or is he slightly 'pleased' when he hears accidental tonal sounds?


----------



## Waehnen

Torkelburger said:


> But that’s a problem with your composition skills, not with neoclassicism. There is nothing inherent to neoclassicism that precludes desirable or unpredictable outcomes. If you don’t like the results of “not pondering”, then start pondering when you compose. With all due respect, you don’t speak for everyone. Some people might have minimalism “come out” when they are “not pondering”, or they might have neoromanticism “come out” and can generate neoromanticism “forever”.


I don´t actually think there is a problem at all. I can easily start the pondering and avoid the "dance-like neoclassicism" that comes out. "Please have something to say" is the first principle I have.

Never would I suggest that it is a given that "composers not pondering would generate dance-like neoclassicism forever". But I can tell you this: I have listened to enough of compositions from beginners and it is quite often the shostakovichian irony with dance-like rhythms (if not compulsive dodecaphony). You have to admit there is this topos of a kind of new classicism with dance rhythms that is easy to generate. A romantic long melody line is immediatedly harder to create. But to dance around in short sequences and phrases, it seems easy to me.



Torkelburger said:


> I’m not sure where you get that neoclassicism is “dance” music. They aren’t dance pieces. Nor is it all nor mostly motor rhythms just chugging away needlessly. I could write neoclassical pieces all day long and not write a single dance or motor rhythm. You're just presenting a strawman, although I guess you do admit later in your post that there is more than one aesthetic.


Maybe you are correct in that I should change the criticism of the supposed neoclassicism to the criticism of the mediocre dance-like hopping around of so much 20th century music.

You must know what I am talking about so please help me in finding the right words. I am happy to quit using the term neoclassicism in reference for the thing I am trying to express.




Torkelburger said:


> I just thought now was a good as a time as any to jump in on what you seem to harp on over several threads on this site quite regularly. If you are going to harp on such a thing (that I care about) so vigorously, then I may as well start defending it with the same amount of vigor.


Your input is most welcome and I thank you for it.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^
Thanks, this can be our dance suite example from Schoenberg;

“...the notion (of Schoenberg’s) very chromatically egalitarian musical
language is romantic and idealistic, but 
it's also a theoretical contradiction in terms.”


----------



## Luchesi

Controversial. What were the limits of JSB's skills at improvising? skip to 9:20 minutes in..

We should remember, “With every creative person there is an inventor at odds with the museum curator — and most of the startling things that happen in music are the result of some momentary gain by one at the expense of the other.”


----------



## progmatist

Torkelburger said:


> My controversial opinion is that Neoclassicism is NOT the easiest form of classical music to create, but that it is just as difficult as most any other in order to be done well; and that it has been written by the some of the absolute best composers of the 20th century (and still today); and that it does not leave the brain at the hatrack in the slightest, nor is it lacking in expression if one so desires.


As I mentioned in another thread: Leonard Bernstein recounted the first time he heard Prokofiev's Classical Symphony, he started laughing uncontrollably. He found the juxtaposition of the classical style with modern tonalities hilarious.


----------



## Torkelburger

Waehnen said:


> "Please have something to say" is the first principle I have.


That’s fine, but even pieces from the actual Romantic Era itself weren’t always written with the intention of “saying something” profound, insightful, or of importance, etc. Like a dance (waltz), march, etc. or etudes (meant for study). There is nothing wrong, either, with writing music just for the sake of wanting to make attractive/interesting sounds (and they don’t necessarily have to be “beautiful” sounds), and that’s all.

Using music as a soapbox and being “self-concerned” is indeed a Romantic and Neoromantic ideal, but music can do other things that are just as interesting, IMO. There is something to be said for conciseness, for example, when appropriate. And wit. And ardor. Irony, humor, fervor, pride, and earnestness. All kinds of things.



Waehnen said:


> Never would I suggest that it is a given that "composers not pondering would generate dance-like neoclassicism forever". But I can tell you this: I have listened to enough of compositions from beginners and it is quite often the shostakovichian irony with dance-like rhythms


Not in my personal experience. In my experience, especially on this site, beginners mostly write Classical Period pastiche, rather poorly, followed by Romantic Period pastiche.
In fact, there is an example there now (in the Today’s Composers forum). I hate to throw him/her under the bus, but user Couchie has posted a thread of one of their beginner pieces and it is Romantic pastiche. A Cello Concerto sketch of just a few bars in the vein (according to Couchie) of Russian Romantics.

As should be no surprise to anyone (please forgive my rudeness, I will try and write a very helpful, encouraging, and supportive post in Couchie’s thread later) it is the usual, standard fare every novice uses when writing Romantic music. It is mostly triads in chromatic mediant relationships (interspersed with diatonic triads) scored in “pads” with a melody on top of it that “connects the dots” between the chords (with some chromatic passing notes thrown in) so that the “melody” lands on chord tones or suspensions/appoggiaturas, etc. that seems to try to resemble Wagner or Mahler mostly. You see this all the time with film composers (Elfman, Silvestri, Shore) who have very limited knowledge about this. Someone once played for me a “Cello Concerto” by Howard Shore they had pirated, and it was this EXACT thing. After TEN minutes of this NON-STOP I said, please turn this off.

People who write like that don’t know what else to do and can’t develop anything further. It’s also EASY and cheap.



Waehnen said:


> (if not compulsive dodecaphony).


I guess I’ll take your word for it, but that’s really hard to believe. Since Wuorinen and Boulez died, I don’t know anyone, and I mean anyone who writes 12-tone music other than myself, one colleague from college, and Colin Matthews. Many people pretend to, or at least to be experts on it, but as soon as they spew The Myth of Non-repetition for the millionth time (which about 99.9% of people do), you know they are not being honest with you.



Waehnen said:


> You have to admit there is this topos of a kind of new classicism with dance rhythms that is easy to generate.


Why pick on neoclassicism though? Bad music is bad music, no matter the style. I just showed you how badly written Romantic music is easy. There are users on this site who will argue actual “respected” Romantics like Bruckner write easy and cheap music. Bad Gregorian Chant is easy. Bad Minimalism is easy. Bad John Cage avant-garde rip-offs are super-easy. Lutoslawski avant-garde rip-offs are super-easy. Penderecki avant-garde rip-offs are super-easy. Bad Mozart pastiche is easy. The list goes on and on. Why the beef with neoclassicism?



Waehnen said:


> A romantic long melody line is immediatedly harder to create.


Not always. At least not from my experience. And the kind of writing Elfman, Shore do, I could write a long, melody line in 10 minutes easily.
In fact, since I am a shameless self-promoter (and need views, just kidding) here is one of my film scores for a film I wrote in 1999 at age 24. If memory serves me, I wrote this music in probably about an hour. After the opening intro chords, the theme starts at 0:35 and DOES NOT STOP until the very end. That’s 2:20 of non-stop melody. I could have gone on for eternity if you’d like. It isn’t fantastic romantic chromatic melody to stop the presses, (it's chromatic at the climactic modulation at 2:03). But it wouldn’t have mattered, you can add chromatic notes and it wouldn’t change a thing. It’s EASY. Can do it in your sleep. And all the “meat and potatoes” are there. Augmentation, diminution, imitation in inversion, etc.






Also, I can think of several long melody lines in neoclassical works that are very well written (there are plenty more):
Bartok’s Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste (Mvt I)
Hartmann’s Symphony No. 6 (Mvt. II-Toccata variata)
Walton’s Symphony No. 2 (Mvt. I—the second theme of the sonata-allegro form)

If we ever start a separate thread at some point, I may analyze the Walton.



Waehnen said:


> But to dance around in short sequences and phrases, it seems easy to me.


Short sequences and phrases are not exclusive to classical or neoclassicism. Romantic music is quite often in very simple phrases as well. You should know this. I think you do. I just don’t understand the prejudice.



Waehnen said:


> You must know what I am talking about so please help me in finding the right words.


I think I know. I’m not sure I agree. At least not with everything. Let me see. Here I think are some points and I’ll see if I agree…

You don’t like (20th century) music that “dances” around. I think you mean like, Dumbarton Oaks or something? Or like Copland’s chamber music? Stuff like that? I don’t think 1) those are easily written, and 2) there is not anything wrong with a “dance”.
I mean, look at this piece. It’s a waltz (even titled so—even as a first movement to a symphony which has other movements based on romantic dances too). Written by a master composer, IMO. Listen to the whole thing. It “dances” but no way was it easily written. Nor does it sound banal. He’s doing several things here. Like the Walton, he is “spoon-feeding” modernity through a recognizable, “likeable” form. He is also being extremely ironic, because it is not Viennese at all (just the middle part). It’s not “saying anything”, but it doesn’t need to. Those are enough reasons. Plus, it sounds really good (IMO). It’s true to the original form in that it’s ABA and the contrasting “true waltz” section transforms perfectly back to the modern part at the end ever so slightly and masterfully.






You don’t like (20th century) music that “doesn’t say anything”. I strongly disagree with this one. I already stated why. But here are two examples of excellent music that say nothing.










The music in question is easily written. I also disagree with this. There are all kinds of bad music that is easily written. And just because something is easily written, doesn’t make it bad either.



Waehnen said:


> I am happy to quit using the term neoclassicism in reference for the thing I am trying to express.


I think that would be more helpful. I haven’t thought yet of any term to replace what you’re trying to say, though.



Waehnen said:


> Your input is most welcome and I thank you for it.


Thanks. So that we don’t de-rail further, we can perhaps start another thread elsewhere if you wish to discuss any further. If not, that’s fine too.


----------



## Waehnen

Torkelburger said:


> That’s fine, but even pieces from the actual Romantic Era itself weren’t always written with the intention of “saying something” profound, insightful, or of importance, etc. Like a dance (waltz), march, etc. or etudes (meant for study). There is nothing wrong, either, with writing music just for the sake of wanting to make attractive/interesting sounds (and they don’t necessarily have to be “beautiful” sounds), and that’s all.
> 
> Using music as a soapbox and being “self-concerned” is indeed a Romantic and Neoromantic ideal, but music can do other things that are just as interesting, IMO. There is something to be said for conciseness, for example, when appropriate. And wit. And ardor. Irony, humor, fervor, pride, and earnestness. All kinds of things.
> 
> 
> Not in my personal experience. In my experience, especially on this site, beginners mostly write Classical Period pastiche, rather poorly, followed by Romantic Period pastiche.
> In fact, there is an example there now (in the Today’s Composers forum). I hate to throw him/her under the bus, but user Couchie has posted a thread of one of their beginner pieces and it is Romantic pastiche. A Cello Concerto sketch of just a few bars in the vein (according to Couchie) of Russian Romantics.
> 
> As should be no surprise to anyone (please forgive my rudeness, I will try and write a very helpful, encouraging, and supportive post in Couchie’s thread later) it is the usual, standard fare every novice uses when writing Romantic music. It is mostly triads in chromatic mediant relationships (interspersed with diatonic triads) scored in “pads” with a melody on top of it that “connects the dots” between the chords (with some chromatic passing notes thrown in) so that the “melody” lands on chord tones or suspensions/appoggiaturas, etc. that seems to try to resemble Wagner or Mahler mostly. You see this all the time with film composers (Elfman, Silvestri, Shore) who have very limited knowledge about this. Someone once played for me a “Cello Concerto” by Howard Shore they had pirated, and it was this EXACT thing. After TEN minutes of this NON-STOP I said, please turn this off.
> 
> People who write like that don’t know what else to do and can’t develop anything further. It’s also EASY and cheap.
> 
> 
> I guess I’ll take your word for it, but that’s really hard to believe. Since Wuorinen and Boulez died, I don’t know anyone, and I mean anyone who writes 12-tone music other than myself, one colleague from college, and Colin Matthews. Many people pretend to, or at least to be experts on it, but as soon as they spew The Myth of Non-repetition for the millionth time (which about 99.9% of people do), you know they are not being honest with you.
> 
> 
> Why pick on neoclassicism though? Bad music is bad music, no matter the style. I just showed you how badly written Romantic music is easy. There are users on this site who will argue actual “respected” Romantics like Bruckner write easy and cheap music. Bad Gregorian Chant is easy. Bad Minimalism is easy. Bad John Cage avant-garde rip-offs are super-easy. Lutoslawski avant-garde rip-offs are super-easy. Penderecki avant-garde rip-offs are super-easy. Bad Mozart pastiche is easy. The list goes on and on. Why the beef with neoclassicism?
> 
> 
> Not always. At least not from my experience. And the kind of writing Elfman, Shore do, I could write a long, melody line in 10 minutes easily.
> In fact, since I am a shameless self-promoter (and need views, just kidding) here is one of my film scores for a film I wrote in 1999 at age 24. If memory serves me, I wrote this music in probably about an hour. After the opening intro chords, the theme starts at 0:35 and DOES NOT STOP until the very end. That’s 2:20 of non-stop melody. I could have gone on for eternity if you’d like. It isn’t fantastic romantic chromatic melody to stop the presses, (it's chromatic at the climactic modulation at 2:03). But it wouldn’t have mattered, you can add chromatic notes and it wouldn’t change a thing. It’s EASY. Can do it in your sleep. And all the “meat and potatoes” are there. Augmentation, diminution, imitation in inversion, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I can think of several long melody lines in neoclassical works that are very well written (there are plenty more):
> Bartok’s Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste (Mvt I)
> Hartmann’s Symphony No. 6 (Mvt. II-Toccata variata)
> Walton’s Symphony No. 2 (Mvt. I—the second theme of the sonata-allegro form)
> 
> If we ever start a separate thread at some point, I may analyze the Walton.
> 
> 
> Short sequences and phrases are not exclusive to classical or neoclassicism. Romantic music is quite often in very simple phrases as well. You should know this. I think you do. I just don’t understand the prejudice.
> 
> 
> I think I know. I’m not sure I agree. At least not with everything. Let me see. Here I think are some points and I’ll see if I agree…
> 
> You don’t like (20th century) music that “dances” around. I think you mean like, Dumbarton Oaks or something? Or like Copland’s chamber music? Stuff like that? I don’t think 1) those are easily written, and 2) there is not anything wrong with a “dance”.
> I mean, look at this piece. It’s a waltz (even titled so—even as a first movement to a symphony which has other movements based on romantic dances too). Written by a master composer, IMO. Listen to the whole thing. It “dances” but no way was it easily written. Nor does it sound banal. He’s doing several things here. Like the Walton, he is “spoon-feeding” modernity through a recognizable, “likeable” form. He is also being extremely ironic, because it is not Viennese at all (just the middle part). It’s not “saying anything”, but it doesn’t need to. Those are enough reasons. Plus, it sounds really good (IMO). It’s true to the original form in that it’s ABA and the contrasting “true waltz” section transforms perfectly back to the modern part at the end ever so slightly and masterfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t like (20th century) music that “doesn’t say anything”. I strongly disagree with this one. I already stated why. But here are two examples of excellent music that say nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The music in question is easily written. I also disagree with this. There are all kinds of bad music that is easily written. And just because something is easily written, doesn’t make it bad either.
> 
> 
> I think that would be more helpful. I haven’t thought yet of any term to replace what you’re trying to say, though.
> 
> 
> Thanks. So that we don’t de-rail further, we can perhaps start another thread elsewhere if you wish to discuss any further. If not, that’s fine too.


I appreciate your post a lot and will comment on it more thoroughly next week. For now just a few comments: I do agree there are many ways of creating EASY music. Your example of neoromantic easy music is excellent.

I do not really categorically dislike easy music, though.

The reason why I have talked about the issue of ”20th century dance-like hopping around” is because out of purely subjective reasons I dislike that kind of hopping, dance-like music, and to be honest, I am frustrated that geniuses like Prokofiev hop around so much. When I listen to new music I have fingers crossed: ”Please don’t hop around like a grasshopper…”

I admire and adore composers who never ever hop around: Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Debussy, Sibelius, Kokkonen, Ligeti, Salonen, Saariaho…

I admire a lot or some of the music of those who SOMETIMES hop around: Haydn, Mozart, Mahler, Nielsen, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rautavaara, Messiaen, Aho…

So, in all honesty, it is just something about me and my personal taste. Nothing more. I admit it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Waehnen said:


> I admire and adore composers who never ever hop around: Bach,


I have no idea what you mean by that. Taking Bach for example, dance movements are abundant in his secular and liturgical vocal music, the B minor mass (such as the "laudamus te"), instrumental suites


> "Just look at the bouncy, boisterous, leaping first variation, with its clever crossing of hands. Then (why not) head over to the leaping eighth variation, with the hands arpeggiating over each other, and its bouncy boisterous triads, and the wonderful eleventh variation, in which (shockingly!) the hands charmingly criss-cross and leap" -Jeremy Denk, on the Goldbergs


----------



## Waehnen

hammeredklavier said:


> I have no idea what you mean by that. Taking Bach for example, dance movements are abundant in his secular and liturgical vocal music, such as the B minor mass (such as the "laudamus te").


It is a delicate thing, a balancing act. I do not dislike all music that has got something to do with dance. Of course not. Dance is beautiful and crucial.

I am starting to realize I hear things a bit differently than many others. Either you get what I mean by now or you do not. I am not sure I can give more explanation.


----------



## Torkelburger

Waehnen said:


> I appreciate your post a lot and will comment on it more thoroughly next week. For now just a few comments: I do agree there are many ways of creating EASY music. Your example of neoromantic easy music is excellent.
> 
> I do not really categorically dislike easy music, though.
> 
> The reason why I have talked about the issue of ”20th century dance-like hopping around” is because out of purely subjective reasons I dislike that kind of hopping, dance-like music, and to be honest, I am frustrated that geniuses like Prokofiev hop around so much. When I listen to new music I have fingers crossed: ”Please don’t hop around like a grasshopper…”
> 
> I admire and adore composers who never ever hop around: Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Debussy, Sibelius, Kokkonen, Ligeti, Salonen, Saariaho…
> 
> I admire a lot or some of the music of those who SOMETIMES hop around: Haydn, Mozart, Mahler, Nielsen, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rautavaara, Messiaen, Aho…
> 
> So, in all honesty, it is just something about me and my personal taste. Nothing more. I admit it.


Thanks for sharing! I love those composers as well. I really like Salonen too, a lot.

Hey, you may want to comment if you have time as well over in the Today's Composers forum in Couchie's Cello Concerto thread. You may want to give him some pointers there since you have experience writing Romantic/Neoromantic music. I commented there a couple hours ago.

For Prokofiev, I'm not sure what would make you happy or change your mind. The only thing I can think of to try (if you haven't already) is his Second Violin Concerto in g minor. I'll post a link here if you want to check out the first few minutes or so. A little hopping I guess here and there. But I know you like the Sibelius, and this has some great modern melody writing in it. Like right at the top, I love how in the second bar he repeats but it's rhythmically displaced and then right after that, he repeats the next phrase but when he descends the second time (D C B A) he makes the B and A as eighth notes so the repeated phrase will descend now to a G. And then rehearsal #6 is really great, kind of romantic really. A long, beautiful, singing melody with a very broad range over a short period of time (it spans over two octaves in just three measures). I'll let you explore (unless you already know the piece).


----------



## FrankinUsa

Umm...you want controversial. I'll go there. 

Gergiev's recordings should be thrown into the garbage. 

I was born in the USA but my parents were Hungarian. Emigrated out of Hungary in 1958\59.


----------



## Waehnen

Torkelburger said:


> Thanks for sharing! I love those composers as well. I really like Salonen too, a lot.
> 
> Hey, you may want to comment if you have time as well over in the Today's Composers forum in Couchie's Cello Concerto thread. You may want to give him some pointers there since you have experience writing Romantic/Neoromantic music. I commented there a couple hours ago.
> 
> For Prokofiev, I'm not sure what would make you happy or change your mind. The only thing I can think of to try (if you haven't already) is his Second Violin Concerto in g minor. I'll post a link here if you want to check out the first few minutes or so. A little hopping I guess here and there. But I know you like the Sibelius, and this has some great modern melody writing in it. Like right at the top, I love how in the second bar he repeats but it's rhythmically displaced and then right after that, he repeats the next phrase but when he descends the second time (D C B A) he makes the B and A as eighth notes so the repeated phrase will descend now to a G. And then rehearsal #6 is really great, kind of romantic really. A long, beautiful, singing melody with a very broad range over a short period of time (it spans over two octaves in just three measures). I'll let you explore (unless you already know the piece).



Yes, the Prokofiev 2nd Violin Concerto is well crafted. For me this music works in seconds, hopping from one rhythmically clearcut situation to another. It is pure music, crafted of ”pure neoclassical elements”, it is like a constellation of geometric patterns and as such, beautiful.

But I cannot help but think: you could have made this more interesting. That is what happens with this kind of music in my brain. It is just that when it comes to western classical or modern concert music, I seem to long for the longer thinking and yes, I seem to long for the expression, breaking the norms of the default compositional style, taking the listener on an unpredictable ride.

Neoclassicism has represented to me ”easyness” mostly and primarily in the artistic, not technical sense. Like you have stated before yourself, you can play around with neoclassical elements without actually having anything to say. And I do not like that at all because you can use all techniques to express something.

It must have something to do with forming one’s own identity as a composer. There is no doubt I limit myself as a listener to an extent because of that —there are things I aim at and things I try to avoid. Composing is hard enough in a world of limitless possibilities so it is understandable that I try to reinforce the path I have found, even unconsciously. So it affects my listening.

I cannot help it at this point, then again it does not bother me. I allow this to myself.

But I will be more appreciative in my talks about this kind of music in the future. I am grateful that you challenged me with so much insight. It is refreshing and I love to update my thinking. Sometimes we need other people in the process!

One more thought: I do not consider myself a neoromanticist in other than my deep attitude. I have musical values that balance themselves out, so I am also a classicist, modernist and a postmodernist. Depends on what I want to express. I actually use neoclassical elements in my constellations when they serve what I want to say. Just like Beethoven visits the fugue or fugettas as an old stricter style every now and then.

There is a strong sense of classical form in me. It is just that ”my classicism” is more like Sibelius’ 3rd Symphony in C than Stravinsky’s Symphony in C. Some would say Stravinsky’s symphony is better but I could never ever say that.


----------



## Yabetz

Controversial opinion: the late Richard Taruskin was right about HIP.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

Conductors are overrated.


----------



## progmatist

Andrew Kenneth said:


> Conductors are overrated.


In the Sydney Opera House, the conductor is critical. The percussionists are buried deep beneath the stage, and can't hear anything going on in the pit. The only way they have of knowing when to play is watching the conductor on a video screen.


----------



## Xisten267

Prokofiev's symphony #4 (both versions), Berlioz's _Grande symphonie funèbre et triomphale_ and Bruckner's symphony #6 are actually wonderful works and deserved to be performed more often.


----------



## Waehnen

Sibelius’ Nightride and Sunrise is an excellent symphonic poem!

(Cannot get more controversial than that, really!)


----------



## Red Terror

I don't know about 'controversial' but I think Enescu, Pettersson, Hartmann, and Bloch should be considered major composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> What attempts to "falsify real history" are there? And which conspiracists do this for what purpose?


I still don't know why they do that. (Maybe to make some composers seem more "significant" than others?)
Cliff Eisen wrote that, - in the dedication letter of certain works Mozart dedicated to a certain contemporary of his, Mozart wrote "They are, indeed, the fruit of a long and laborious *study*".
Actually, the dedication letter was originally written by Mozart in Italian, and Mozart's original writing for that part reads "Essi sono, è vero il frutto di una lunga, e laboriosa *fatica*". ("fatica" means "endeavor" or "effort"). So Eisen cleverly twisted Mozart's word, "endeavor", to "study", to make it seem like Mozart actually seriously studied the contemporary's works (as a crucial step before writing his own), even though there's no actual evidence of that. (Eisen, in his writing, actually uses the twisted sentence to support his claim Mozart did.)
There are other similar writings by guys like Landon (titled "What X Taught Mozart"), Greenberg. They fabricate at every opportunity - "Mozart always said he learned how to write [works of a certain genre] from X", and similarly nonsensical fantasies such as "Mozart never had grasp on 'independence of 4-part voices' in instrumental music before he studied X's works."


----------



## Xisten267

Here are some more:

Classical music has the greatest pieces of music ever, and people who enjoy them do have good taste;
To look for what is good in the arts, and not necessarily for what is new and trendy, is not a "nerdy hobby" nor an "appreciation of ancient relics", but a legitimate position of trying to discover and value the great feats of humankind;
Art is the best evidence of civilization;
Not everything that can't be proven is totally relative;
Total relativism is killing the arts, including music.


----------



## mmsbls

Xisten267 said:


> Here are some more:
> 
> Classical music has the greatest pieces of music ever, and people who enjoy them do have good taste;
> To look for what is good in the arts, and not necessarily for what is new and trendy, is not a "nerdy hobby" or an "appreciation of ancient relics", but a legitimate position of trying to discover and value the great feats of humankind;
> Art is the best evidence of civilization;
> Not everything that can't be proven is totally relative;
> Total relativism is killing the arts, including music.


I like your list. I don't agree with everything on it, but it's interesting.

"Classical music has the greatest pieces of music ever, and people who enjoy them do have good taste"

Classical music has the works I value by far the most. I think many metrics for evaluating music would tend to elevate classical music above other genres. Good taste does seem rather relative to me to the point that it's not a useful description of anyone.

"To look for..."

I agree completely

"Art is the best evidence of civilization"

I think technology contributes much more to civilization, but the existence of art is an excellent indicator of civilization.

"Total relativism is killing the arts, including music."

I actually think relatively few people believe in total relativism. More may believe that art cannot be strictly ranked, but I think the vast majority have no problem with lists of "great" works or composers.


----------



## mmsbls

Vastly too few composers are considered great/high ranking/first class/etc.. The National Basketball Association recently named their 75th anniversary team for their 75th season. The team had 75 players on it - all considered the best of the best. Most hall of fames have more people than years of existence for the sport. Classical music has been around for more than 500 years, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider something on the order of 500 composers great/high ranking/first class/etc..


----------



## Roger Knox

mmsbls said:


> Vastly too few composers are considered great/high ranking/first class/etc.. The National Basketball Association recently named their 75th anniversary team for their 75th season. The team had 75 players on it - all considered the best of the best. Most hall of fames have more people than years of existence for the sport. Classical music has been around for more than 500 years, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider something on the order of 500 composers great/high ranking/first class/etc..


I agree but 500 composers is more than most people can cope with. We should stay away from ranking things of which we have little or no knowledge. I guess that's my controversial opinion: "What you don't know don't rank!"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Xisten267 said:


> To look for what is good in the arts, and not necessarily for what is new and trendy, is not a "nerdy hobby" or an "appreciation of ancient relics", but a legitimate position of trying to discover and value the great feats of humankind;


I'll address your post cause those terms are ones I've been using in other threads, (I take it as an indirect reference to my arguments).
Appreciation of classical music from hundreds years of distant past, essentially attempts to musically sympathize sentiments from its time and place, which are no longer relevant to the modern society, is a undoubtedly a connoisseur interest and will always remain to be. Have you ever felt this way-


Xisten267 said:


> I've been listening to his operas in their entirety in the last weeks and I've never been so bored with this genre in all my life. They sound frivolous and formulaic to me, and some statue sending a guy to hell just because he's a libertine doesn't help. The morals of the stories sound trivial to me ("Such is the end of the evildoer: the death of a sinner always reflects his life" and "women are like that" are silly and retrograde if one asks me). There's something in Mozart that also annoys me: it's everything too happy, pretty and fluffy in his music, even when he goes to minor keys it sounds forced and insincere to me.


"And they told me: “Listen to the pieces, usually also in minor, where you can hear a contained smoldering prefiguring the romantic era”. Those excerpts do indeed exist, but they actually are the most convincing passages of the fact that the emperor has no clothes, as Mozart always follows them with silly kid-stuff. It is like topping off a fresh-herb flavored veal scallopine with Ready Whip." (Arnold Rosner)

I'm just saying the overwhelming majority of people in the world today thinking of this stuff as "way too damn old for our time" are not being unreasonable. Of course, you can get used to something if you spend enough time with it, - if you wear a powdered wig long enough, you'll get used to it. But accusing those people as lazy for not doing it is a weak argument.



Xisten267 said:


> Not everything that can't be proven is totally relative;


My arguments are more subtle than merely being "relativist", btw. Of course there were accepted CP ways of writing harmony, counterpoint, etc.


hammeredklavier said:


> Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.





Xisten267 said:


> Total relativism is killing the arts, including music.


How though? I on the other hand, had discussed the effects of the "excessive focus on the 'usual favorites' and the 'history distortion'" on art: What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!
I also remember your remarks you appreciated how the Grosse fuge sounded like Schoenberg. I'm not sure if you still stand by them. Remember those things were at one time considered to be not music. What are your thoughts on the Beatles' use of Stockhausen techniques?



Xisten267 said:


> Art is the best evidence of civilization;


How are they more vital to the survival of human species than moral principles, scientific technology, political/economic systems, etc, are? But I won't discuss much on this one, since it's outside the scope on topics of music.


----------



## Yabetz

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> 
> I'm just saying the overwhelming majority of people in the world today thinking of this stuff as "way too damn old for our time" are not being unreasonable. Of course, you can get used to something if you spend enough time with it, - if you wear a powdered wig long enough, you'll get used to it. But accusing every one of those people as lazy for not doing it is a weak argument.
> ...


The problem with that is you can use the same argument against listening to hits from Beyoncé or Rihanna from 15 years ago. Nothing would be pertinent but whatever might be released next month. I wouldn't call ignorance of it so much "lazy" as just, well "ignorant" in a non-derogatory way, or "myopic". Or maybe some people just aren't inclined.


> How are they more vital to the survival of human species than moral principles, scientific technology, political/economic systems, etc, are? But I won't discuss much on this one, since it's outside the scope on topics of music.


Since none of the above are physically necessary for survival either, they can also be dispensed with. How can you be sure that artistic creation _isn't _in some way necessary? It seems to be hard-wired into the species along with that moral sense, organizational instinct and scientific inquisitiveness.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Appreciation of classical music from hundreds years of distant past, essentially attempts to musically sympathize sentiments from its time and place, *which are no longer relevant to the modern society*, is a undoubtedly a connoisseur interest and will always remain to be.


But they may still be relevant. True music is timeless, and certain principles, ideals and feelings expressed by it will always be important and inspirational to our society in my view. 



hammeredklavier said:


> I'm just saying the overwhelming majority of people in the world today thinking of this stuff as "way too damn old for our time" are not being unreasonable. Of course, you can get used to something if you spend enough time with it, - if you wear a powdered wig long enough, you'll get used to it. But accusing those people as lazy for not doing it is a weak argument.


The quote you got from me is more than an year old, and anyone who read it in it's context will see that I wasn't in a good moment when I posted it, and that I even apologized for my behavior. At least I was always respectful in the (very few) moments I criticized Mozart - the same is not true for you and your constant attacks on Beethoven in the old days. By the way, nowadays Mozart is one of my favorite composers, and I no longer believe that he is overrated.

About many people not connecting with great music from the past, I agree that it happens, and I think that they will need to make an effort in order to assimilate it. Now looking back, I think that maybe "lazy" was too strong a word for me to use, but I still believe that classical music is not more popular due, at least in part, to many people not wanting to make this effort.



hammeredklavier said:


> How though?


By judging criteria of quality in the arts as irrelevant, therefore discouraging artists and the consumers of their art from observing them. Why would one want to try to create or consume something that has quality and is meaningful if these things are totally relative, and only taste matters? Why would one want to make an effort to assimilate complex and well made works from, say, classical music, progressive rock or jazz, if they are not any better than the last 3 minute four chord catchy song about being disappointed with a girlfriend that this one saw in the internet?



hammeredklavier said:


> What are your thoughts on the Beatles' use of Stockhausen techniques?


In my view, in the arts any technique is valid if it helps to reach expression. So, my thoughts are: "why not"?


----------



## progmatist

Xisten267 said:


> Here are some more:
> 
> Total relativism is killing the arts, including music.


Monetization is killing the arts. Most people only like Beethoven and Brahms, so most new recordings cater to that taste. In rock music, the major labels fired their A&R guys some time ago. If one artist hits it big, the labels order 25 more of the same. Currently most new female vocalists sound like Adele, with that kind of whispery sultry sound.. In the 90s every other guy sounded like Eddie Vedder. In the 80s most guys sang with that kind of nasally, upper-mid range whine.


----------



## DaveM

progmatist said:


> .. Currently most new female vocalists sound like Adele, with that kind of whispery sultry sound..


Adele has a whispery sultry sound?



> In the 90s every other guy sounded like Eddie Vedder.


Green Day, Radiohead, R.E.M. Oasis sounded like Eddie Vedder?



> In the 80s most guys sang with that kind of nasally, upper-mid range whine.


Foreigner, Journey, Guns N’Roses, Queen, Bon Jovi, Metallica have a nasally, upper-mid range whine?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Xisten267 said:


> I even apologized for my behavior. At least I was always respectful in the (very few) moments I criticized Mozart - the same is not true for you


You're exaggerating it, my friend.


hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry about the joke


(and I still feel bad about it; the sarcastic attitude and everything).
I was relatively new to the forum at the time, having seen all kinds of things the net (such as the anti-Mozart Facebook groups of the 2000s), I was overzealous, and I didn't know the true intents of members such as Captainnumber36, Hoodjem, even Woodduck, etc, at the time, and had the wrong impression that they were simply being "obnoxious".
But the point is that those accusations of yours on Mozart have some fair, substantive points (unlike my "jokes", which couldn't get anywhere seriously in substance). You're always entitled to, and free to express them (it's not even "disrespectful" to do it), and do realize that there numerous people in the world today who have far worse versions of yours. Too much Mozart makes you sick / Arnold Rosner



Xisten267 said:


> By judging criteria of quality in the arts as irrelevant, therefore discouraging artists and the consumers of their art from observing them.


So you're saying that's what prevents artists today from creating what you consider "great art"?


----------



## Yabetz

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> Appreciation of classical music from hundreds years of distant past, essentially attempts to musically sympathize sentiments from its time and place, which are no longer relevant to the modern society, is a undoubtedly a connoisseur interest and will always remain to be. Have you ever felt this way-
> ...


Again, does that apply to someone who's still listening to the White Album or Beggars Banquet or Purple Rain? I don't think it can be dismissed as just a connoisseur interest. We're listening to this music because it manifests feats of skill and realized imagination that aren't easily reproduced or mimicked, if it's possible at all. They come fully to life when they are performed and listened to, and the fact that so many of us still get enjoyment out of what was produced decades or centuries ago shows that this music is able to transcend the particularities of the time and place in which it happened to be created. It may be a "nerdy hobby", and I don't care if it is. The "hobby" though does exist for a reason other than solely to have a nerdy hobby.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Yabetz said:


> the fact that so many of us still get enjoyment out of what was produced decades or centuries ago shows that this music is able to transcend the particularities of the time and place in which it happened to be created.


This is actually a complex subject, one that takes pages of posts to discuss. What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


hammeredklavier said:


> Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.





hammeredklavier said:


> Explain the _magic_ of Pachelbel's canon, even after 340 years of its composition, why so many people in the world, even without knowledge of the music theory behind a canon, would go onto youtube to listen to it.
> But of course, it's _way too popular.. way too popular.. _It's why we don't talk like the above sentence. Even though it has withstood the "test of time" more absolutely than most other classical music, by definition.


"it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own." -Forster


----------



## hammeredklavier

Yabetz said:


> Since none of the above are physically necessary for survival either, they can also be dispensed with.






(Millions Saved: Proven Successes in Global Health)

In comparison, what significance do Bach, Mozart have other than being a minority's hobby today?


----------



## Yabetz

hammeredklavier said:


> (Millions Saved: Proven Successes in Global Health)
> 
> In comparison, what significance do Bach, Mozart have other than being a minority's hobby today?


I don't know, the species survived for a long time without it. Also without electric lighting or plumbing or cars or telephones or computers or the printing press...if utility as far as survival is concerned is your criterion. The only real essentials are killing or growing food and finding water. And reproducing. Everything else is so much frou-frou.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I may just not be exposed to enough music, but if there's one thing pop music seems to have over classical, it's catchy rhythms, more complex use of pitchless percussion, and syncopation


----------



## Waehnen

Waehnen said:


> My controversial opinions on classical music are:
> 
> 
> Opera Buffa is mostly awful -- unless it´s Don Giovanni, The Marriage of Figaro or Die Zauberflöte
> The 7th Symphony by Mahler is totally self-centered music born out of vanity and hubris, resulting in an Ode To Mediocrity
> Neoclassicism is the easiest form of classical music to create: let´s just hop around, somewhat dancing and leave the brain and expression at the hatrack


Two of my controversial opinions have been trashed and I do not stand by them anymore. My definitions on the problems have changed and gained necessary accuracy.

Anyone care to trash the only one left?


----------



## Barbebleu

Not really. Mainly because I totally agree although I might even question the inclusion of Don Giovanni and Figaro!


----------



## Yabetz

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> "it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own." -Forster


It's also curious that someone would presume to know my motivations, or suggest that I am seeking to have my tastes validated, or that I want to be part of any "gang". That's dime-store psychoanalysis.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> So you're saying that's what prevents artists today from creating what you consider "great art"?


It seems like one of the reasons to me. But I'm only speculating. Besides, it may be that I just didn't find yet in the arts produced nowadays what I would consider to be truly great.


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> It's also curious that someone would presume to know my motivations, or suggest that I am seeking to have my tastes validated, or that I want to be part of any "gang". That's dime-store psychoanalysis.


No one is presuming any such thing: it's a reflection on personal experience, nothing more.


----------



## fbjim

mmsbls said:


> Vastly too few composers are considered great/high ranking/first class/etc.. The National Basketball Association recently named their 75th anniversary team for their 75th season. The team had 75 players on it - all considered the best of the best. Most hall of fames have more people than years of existence for the sport. Classical music has been around for more than 500 years, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider something on the order of 500 composers great/high ranking/first class/etc..


expanding on this, people spend far too much energy on who constitutes a "first tier/first class/true great" artist. 


what's "killing the arts" is money. "total relativism" is mostly in the realm of theorists and scholars and doesn't really have much to do with how music is created, programmed, broadcast and sold.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> "it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own." -Forster


i wonder if this is an age thing. a _lot_ of younger listeners of art music, including (but not limited to) classical music seem to take an almost iconoclastic joy in seeking out obscure and un-sung works. like anything, this can lead to excess where - to some - anything praised by a consensus of authority figures like historians or professional critics is considered suspect (i think the current slang is "mid" ) by default


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> No one is presuming any such thing: it's a reaction on personal experience, nothing more.


Well then that's the only person you can speak for. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze someone's love of hip hop or jazz or Mahler. They'd have to try to tell me the reasons.


----------



## mmsbls

fbjim said:


> ...what's "killing the arts" is money. "total relativism" is mostly in the realm of theorists and scholars and doesn't really have much to do with how music is created, programmed, broadcast and sold.


I agree on total relativism. We've had a number of discussions on the effect of money on the arts. Could you elaborate on your view (i.e. how is money killing the arts?)?


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> Well then that's the only person you can speak for. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze someone's love of hip hop or jazz or Mahler. They'd have to try to tell me the reasons.


If my "personal experience" includes what I've observed of others, I can "speak for" them too. I don’t think I was referring to any individual on this forum, but I posted that a little while ago, and without the context from which it has been taken, I can't be sure.

I can't of course be held responsible for someone else choosing to quote my words in another context.


----------



## fbjim

mmsbls said:


> I agree on total relativism. We've had a number of discussions on the effect of money on the arts. Could you elaborate on your view (i.e. how is money killing the arts?)?


this is a complicated topic because popular art has always been financially motivated.

edit: edited out a big thing about streaming that wasn't relevant - what it comes down to is that for a lot of reasons these days, it's harder for artists (outside the big Taylor Swift-level ones) to make a living, and when it's hard for artists to make a living these days, you don't get a lot of artists, nor a lot of art.


----------



## mmsbls

fbjim said:


> this is a complicated topic because popular art has always been financially motivated.
> 
> edit: edited out a big thing about streaming that wasn't relevant - what it comes down to is that for a lot of reasons these days, it's harder for artists (outside the big Taylor Swift-level ones) to make a living, and when it's hard for artists to make a living these days, you don't get a lot of artists, nor a lot of art.


Thanks. I wasn't sure if you felt that too much or too little money was the problem. Many feel that artists who produce art in order to become wealthy are not true artists and such art is often not good art. 

I realize that today is very different from earlier times, but do you think your argument applies to classical music?


----------



## prlj

DaveM said:


> Green Day, Radiohead, R.E.M. Oasis sounded like Eddie Vedder?


Just to be pedantic, R.E.M. predated Pearl Jam by about a decade, and Radiohead predated PJ by about five years. Green Day by three.


----------



## prlj

fbjim said:


> this is a complicated topic because popular art has always been financially motivated.


Most has been libido motivated, really.

Edit to add: I include CM in this, too.


----------



## fbjim

mmsbls said:


> Thanks. I wasn't sure if you felt that too much or too little money was the problem. Many feel that artists who produce art in order to become wealthy are not true artists and such art is often not good art.
> 
> I realize that today is very different from earlier times, but do you think your argument applies to classical music?


the reality, i think, is that if you take that approach, it contrarily turns into a situation where only the wealthy can create art, as they have free time and are less bound by financial constraints. 

in fact i wouldn't be surprised that outside fields where one can make a living (notably film scoring) a lot of composers these days come from money, or otherwise have some form of modern non-market-based patronage like university/arts grants and tenure. 

i think a lot of our conception of what constitutes "art music" is music which, in an ideal world, wouldn't be constrained by market forces or economics, but this is more an ideal than a reality, especially nowadays. that's why orchestras ask for donations - the idea they perform a culturally important function which shouldn't entirely live or die based on market popularity - in democracies, though, this in itself can lead to issues where only the popular stuff gets performed because they don't want to be accused of "wasting taxpayer dollars" as has sometimes happened with media blowups over arts funding in the past.


----------



## Yabetz

...


----------



## fbjim

prlj said:


> Just to be pedantic, R.E.M. predated Pearl Jam by about a decade, and Radiohead by about five years. Green Day by three.


also a lot of early Radiohead was inspired by song structures made popular by grunge (most obviously stuff like Creep and My Iron Lung) though they certainly diverged after that


----------



## progmatist

DaveM said:


> Green Day, Radiohead, R.E.M. Oasis sounded like Eddie Vedder?


You seem to have missed the word "other" in the phrases "every other."



DaveM said:


> Foreigner, Journey, Guns N’Roses, Queen, Bon Jovi, Metallica have a nasally, upper-mid range whine?


A different genre of music. Before Hair Metal took over, when New Wave and Modern Rock were king, the nasally upper-mid range whine was indeed dominant.


----------



## DaveM

> A different genre of music. Before Hair Metal took over, when New Wave and Modern Rock were king, the nasally upper-mid range whine was indeed dominant.


This was your post:


progmatist said:


> In the 80s most guys sang with that kind of nasally, upper-mid range whine.


Rock became splintered into all sorts of sub-genres during the 70s to 90s. Your post just said ‘most guys’ and didn’t specify a genre. Maybe you should have been more specific.


----------



## progmatist

DaveM said:


> This was your post:
> 
> 
> Rock became splintered into all sorts of sub-genres during the 70s to 90s. Your post just said ‘most guys’ and didn’t specify a genre. Maybe you should have been more specific.


Perhaps I should have.

But Hair Metal furthers my original point. The Hair Metal band factory of the late 80s, early 90s was almost as insane as the dot com bubble of the mid to late 90s.


----------



## DaveM

prlj said:


> Just to be pedantic, R.E.M. predated Pearl Jam by about a decade, and Radiohead predated PJ by about five years. Green Day by three.


To recap:
I was responding to:


Progmatist said:


> In the 90s every other guy sounded like Eddie Vedder.


My response was: ‘_Green Day, Radiohead, R.E.M. Oasis sounded like Eddie Vedder?_’

Those bands were top bands (often in the top 10 lists) of the 90s. I don’t know what your measure is for the term ‘predated’ because Pearl Jam’s breakout album was in 1991; R.E.M.’s best selling albums started in 1991 and Radiohead’s worldwide single ‘Creep’ was in 1992 followed by their debut album in 1993; Greenday’s breakout album was in 1994.


----------



## Xisten267

One more controversial opinion:


It's no big deal that members of a classical music forum believe that classical music is the best genre of music, nor that they explicitly say that it is, and they shouldn't be "canceled" due to the latter.


----------



## bagpipers

I don't have a hugely controversial classical opinion but the rockers may not like me for saying:

Beatles ,Stones and Who suck

My rock/pop top picks:
Led Zeppelin
Velvet Underground
Talking Heads


----------



## DaveM

bagpipers said:


> I don't have a hugely controversial classical opinion but the rockers may not like me for saying:
> 
> Beatles ,Stones and Who suck


Was that supposed to have a question mark at the end or did you mean The Who?


----------



## bagpipers

DaveM said:


> Was that supposed to have a question mark at the end or did you mean The Who?


I meant the band "The Who" sorry I dropped the "The"


----------



## mikeh375

My potentially controversial opinion (although it's more an obvious one to me), is that young composers who constantly write the sort of music that Mozart et al have already done superbly well, would be better served if they spent their time learning how to actually find and write their own music. Give me the tiniest hint of individuality over tired and often poor pastiche anytime.


----------



## bagpipers

mikeh375 said:


> My potentially controversial opinion (although it's more an obvious one to me), is that young composers who constantly write the sort of music that Mozart et al have already done superbly well, would be better served if they spent their time learning how to actually find and write their own music. Give me the tiniest hint of individuality over tired and often poor pastiche anytime.


I have tried to make that very simple point on Reddit r'Composers a million times.
Trying to explain that there music sounds good but who wants another Mozart/Haydn wannabe.

I have given up LOL and only respond to good compositions.I feel you on this one for sure!


----------



## prlj

DaveM said:


> Green Day, Radiohead, R.E.M. Oasis sounded like Eddie Vedder?


Yes, I completely understand your point with this quote...because you were responding to this:



progmatist said:


> In rock music, the major labels fired their A&R guys some time ago. If one artist hits it big, the labels order 25 more of the same.


My point being, A&R guys weren't "ordering more of the same" with REM, Green Day, etc, because those bands already existed prior to Pearl Jam, and REM, in particular, was far more popular. ("Radio Free Europe," "The One I Love," Stand," etc.)

Your point implied A&R people were signing bands that didn't sound like PJ, which I agree with, but the examples you gave were not indicative of the era, as they were already around and established prior to Vedder.


----------



## fbjim

Since this got brought up in a few times in various threads - 


* Music and art are not "necessary". That's the point and why it's so interesting. Art is what we create when we aren't entirely constrained by the bounds of creating something functional or utilitarian.


----------



## Coach G

bagpipers said:


> Beatles ,Stones and Who suck


I'm not even a big fan of rock-n-roll, but I can recognize the greatness of the Beatles, and not just as a great Rock band but also as musicians who transcended all genres by way of the diverese legions of musicians who covered Beatles' songs: Tony Bennet (_Eleanor Rigby, Something_), Perry Como (_Something, Yesterday_), Andy Williams (_My Sweet Lord_), Jim Nabors (_Something_), The Temptations (_Hey Jude_), Gladys Knight (_Let it Be_), Buddy Rich (_Norwegian Wood_), Benny Goodman (_Yesterday_, _Rocky Racoon_) Ray Charles (_Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday_), Count Basie (_Get Back_), Elton John (_Back in the USSR_), Liberace (_Here, There and Everywhere_), Frank Sinatra (_Yesterday_, _Something_), Elvis Presley (_Hey Jude, Something, Yesterday_), Michael Jackson (_Come Together_), The Jazz Crusadors (_Hey Jude_), Bing Crosby (_Hey Jude_), John Denver (_Mother Nature's Son_), Richie Havens (_Here Comes the Sun_), Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons (_We Can Work it Out_), Johnny Cash (_In My Life_), Mel Torme (_She's Leaving Home_), Engelbert Humperdinck (_Woman_), Mitch Miller and the Gang (_Give Peace a Chance_), and Arthur Feidler and the Boston "Pops" Orchestra (_I Want to Hold Your Hand_, _O-bli-di-bla-da_, _Yellow Submarine_, etc), and the list goes on and on across Rock, Motown, Country, Easy Listening, Jazz, and Classical music. If you want to take the position that the Beatles "suck" that's up to you, but I'm not going to argue against all that.


----------



## bagpipers

Coach G said:


> I'm not even a big fan of rock-n-roll, but I can recognize the greatness of the Beatles, and not just as a great Rock band but also as musicians who transcended all genres by way of the diverese legions of musicians who covered Beatles' songs: Tony Bennet (_Eleanor Rigby, Something_), Perry Como (_Something, Yesterday_), Andy Williams (_My Sweet Lord_), Jim Nabors (_Something_), The Temptations (_Hey Jude_), Gladys Knight (_Let it Be_), Buddy Rich (_Norwegian Wood_), Benny Goodman (_Yesterday_, _Rocky Racoon_) Ray Charles (_Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday_), Count Basie (_Get Back_), Elton John (_Back in the USSR_), Liberace (_Here, There and Everywhere_), Frank Sinatra (_Yesterday_, _Something_), Elvis Presley (_Hey Jude, Something, Yesterday_), Michael Jackson (_Come Together_), The Jazz Crusadors (_Hey Jude_), Bing Crosby (_Hey Jude_), John Denver (_Mother Nature's Son_), Richie Havens (_Here Comes the Sun_), Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons (_We Can Work it Out_), Johnny Cash (_In My Life_), Mel Torme (_She's Leaving Home_), Engelbert Humperdinck (_Woman_), Mitch Miller and the Gang (_Give Peace a Chance_), and Arthur Feidler and the Boston "Pops" Orchestra (_I Want to Hold Your Hand_, _O-bli-di-bla-da_, _Yellow Submarine_, etc), and the list goes on and on across Rock, Motown, Country, Easy Listening, Jazz, and Classical music. If you want to take the position that the Beatles "suck" that's up to you, but I'm not going to argue against all that.
> 
> View attachment 171982
> View attachment 171983
> 
> 
> View attachment 171984
> View attachment 171985


No one saying you can't like the Beatles


----------



## Forster

bagpipers said:


> No one saying you can't like the Beatles


The point being questioned is not whether we can like them or not, but whether they "suck" or not. They don't.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> Since this got brought up in a few times in various threads -
> 
> 
> * Music and art are not "necessary". That's the point and why it's so interesting. Art is what we create when we aren't entirely constrained by the bounds of creating something functional or utilitarian.


Are they not necessary? I can think of functions they serve. They evolved as we evolved and I would say are inextricably bound up with what our modern society needs for survival.


----------



## bagpipers

Forster said:


> The point being questioned is not whether we can like them or not, but whether they "suck" or not. They don't.


It's the controversial opinion thread not controversial fact thread.

Of coarse the Beatles,Stones and The Who had a lot of talent and influenced music greatly.


----------



## Forster

bagpipers said:


> It's the controversial opinion thread not controversial fact thread.


Quite right, but it wasn't me who entered into a discussion about your controversial opinion - you did, in responding to Coach G's objection to your controversial opinion.


----------



## bagpipers

Forster said:


> Quite right, but it wasn't me who entered into a discussion about your controversial opinion - you did, in responding to Coach G's objection to your controversial opinion.


Still not getting what I did wrong ,oh well


----------



## bagpipers

Forster said:


> Quite right, but it wasn't me who entered into a discussion about your controversial opinion - you did, in responding to Coach G's objection to your controversial opinion.


I did not object but encouraged him to think for himself.


----------



## Yabetz

Coach G said:


> I'm not even a big fan of rock-n-roll, but I can recognize the greatness of the Beatles, and not just as a great Rock band but also as musicians who transcended all genres by way of the diverese legions of musicians who covered Beatles' songs: Tony Bennet (_Eleanor Rigby, Something_), Perry Como (_Something, Yesterday_), Andy Williams (_My Sweet Lord_), Jim Nabors (_Something_), The Temptations (_Hey Jude_), Gladys Knight (_Let it Be_), Buddy Rich (_Norwegian Wood_), Benny Goodman (_Yesterday_, _Rocky Racoon_) Ray Charles (_Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday_), Count Basie (_Get Back_), Elton John (_Back in the USSR_), Liberace (_Here, There and Everywhere_), Frank Sinatra (_Yesterday_, _Something_), Elvis Presley (_Hey Jude, Something, Yesterday_), Michael Jackson (_Come Together_), The Jazz Crusadors (_Hey Jude_), Bing Crosby (_Hey Jude_), John Denver (_Mother Nature's Son_), Richie Havens (_Here Comes the Sun_), Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons (_We Can Work it Out_), Johnny Cash (_In My Life_), Mel Torme (_She's Leaving Home_), Engelbert Humperdinck (_Woman_), Mitch Miller and the Gang (_Give Peace a Chance_), and Arthur Feidler and the Boston "Pops" Orchestra (_I Want to Hold Your Hand_, _O-bli-di-bla-da_, _Yellow Submarine_, etc), and the list goes on and on across Rock, Motown, Country, Easy Listening, Jazz, and Classical music. If you want to take the position that the Beatles "suck" that's up to you, but I'm not going to argue against all that.
> 
> View attachment 171982
> View attachment 171983
> 
> 
> View attachment 171984
> View attachment 171985


Yes, but you know, they're already fading from memory.


----------



## bagpipers

My statements about the Beatles have been taken so out of context now it's now completely lost.
But whatever,plus I thought the thread was for controversial opinions not the validation thereof.


----------



## Luchesi

bagpipers said:


> My statements about the Beatles have been taken so out of context now it's now completely lost.
> But whatever,plus I thought the thread was for controversial opinions not the validation thereof.


It's so interesting for me to see musicians in an anonymous forum talk to non-musicians. It shows the whole world of music. It seems to me that it rapidly goes beyond the two separate worlds that the two separate groups have been immersed in. Where else can we see these interactions? I'm thankful for TC.

Both types of music fans want more and more music, they want to learn more and more (in their own way). They want to experience what music can offer them. And of course it's fertile ground for condescension.. I've found that non-musicians are very sensitive to condescension, because in the real world non-musicians are hesitant to show any ignorance ...so I've never come across this phenomenon before. 
Our ensemble plays music and then we have a talkback. The people who stay for the talkback really want to know how music works and the technical details (with examples), so it's a very different situation.

added -
Oh and I forgot my controversial opinion about CM. I thought about it for some time and I just don't have any controversial opinions i can get behind. That seems odd to me because I'm an argumentative individual.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^^^^
I might be so argumentative that I don't realize that my opinions are controversial. And around and around we go..


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Are they not necessary? I can think of functions they serve. They evolved as we evolved and I would say are inextricably bound up with what our modern society needs for survival.


I think art fulfills an important social and cultural function but these aren't what usually get considered "utilitarian". I'm talking more the difference between the creativity involved in, say, inventing a car versus the (supposed) need for humans to fulfill creative impulses generally.


----------



## Luchesi

Yabetz said:


> Yes, but you know, they're already fading from memory.


Yes, without all of the trappings of Beatlemania and the consciousness of the times and their great performances and their memorable personalities etc. on and on, the covers always fall short unless they're performed in exactly the same manner. If you know what I mean..


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I think art fulfills an important social and cultural function but these aren't what usually get considered "utilitarian". I'm talking more the difference between the creativity involved in, say, inventing a car versus the (supposed) need for humans to fulfill creative impulses generally.


Even after hearing all the good arguments on this forum, I still believe that young people need a serious, traditional subject in which they can be creative and personally develop and explore the appreciation of past achievements for the coming decades of their lives. I don't know if we actually disagree or not..


----------



## Forster

bagpipers said:


> My statements about the Beatles have been taken so out of context now it's now completely lost.
> But whatever,plus I thought the thread was for controversial opinions not the validation thereof.


Some members will simply state what they believe to be a controversial opinion. Some will want to challenge opinions that they think aren't controversial; others will want to challenge the opinion.

Threads have a habit of heading off in their own direction; neither the OP nor the rest of us have much control of it!


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> Yes, but you know, they're already fading from memory.


The covers or The Beatles? The Beatles haven't faded from my memory.



fbjim said:


> I think art fulfills an important social and cultural function but these aren't what usually get considered "utilitarian". I'm talking more the difference between the creativity involved in, say, inventing a car versus the (supposed) need for humans to fulfill creative impulses generally.


The arts are a critical vehicle for communication within and across societies. Without the arts as a cultural glue, it's more difficult to maintain a unified community. It has, consequently, implications for societal survival.

It may not have the same utilitarian importance as food and shelter, or the physical fitness required to survive in and manage our environment, but as our societies have become more sophisticated, so has the subtle relationship with the arts.


----------



## fbjim

Like Elvis and Sinatra, I think they're in the case where they're established pop culture icons, though that doesn't necessarily mean people are interested in their music.


----------



## Waehnen

I am frustrated for not having more controversial classical music opinions! It is too easy to mock Opera Buffa and the too wide, intonation denying vibrato of some classical singers!


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> Like Elvis and Sinatra, I think they're in the case where they're established pop culture icons, though that doesn't necessarily mean people are interested in their music.


Generally speaking, adolescent kids use music to communicate with their peers (without words). It's very different than texting and partying. So the last thing they would think about would be performers of ancient history (to them). 

I remember Elvis and his hair and his mannerisms and his performance style and the scandalous atmosphere. Today I don't think it would be scandalous at all to a young person. The styles are long gone (fashion and nightclub performances). Sinatra would be a very old man for a teenager to be listening to.


----------



## ORigel

4chamberedklavier said:


> I may just not be exposed to enough music, but if there's one thing pop music seems to have over classical, it's catchy rhythms, more complex use of pitchless percussion, and syncopation


Also lyrics tailor-fitted to the audience.


----------



## ORigel

Yabetz said:


> I don't know, the species survived for a long time without it. Also without electric lighting or plumbing or cars or telephones or computers or the printing press...if utility as far as survival is concerned is your criterion. The only real essentials are killing or growing food and finding water. And reproducing. Everything else is so much frou-frou.


There are other forms of entertainment than classical music that appeal to a wider fraction of people.


----------



## bagpipers

Forster said:


> Some members will simply state what they believe to be a controversial opinion. Some will want to challenge opinions that they think aren't controversial; others will want to challenge the opinion.
> 
> Threads have a habit of heading off in their own direction; neither the OP nor the rest of us have much control of it!


Like I said previously I respected those that disagreed.


----------



## bagpipers

Luchesi said:


> It's so interesting for me to see musicians in an anonymous forum talk to non-musicians. It shows the whole world of music. It seems to me that it rapidly goes beyond the two separate worlds that the two separate groups have been immersed in. Where else can we see these interactions? I'm thankful for TC.
> 
> Both types of music fans want more and more music, they want to learn more and more (in their own way). They want to experience what music can offer them. And of course it's fertile ground for condescension.. I've found that non-musicians are very sensitive to condescension, because in the real world non-musicians are hesitant to show any ignorance ...so I've never come across this phenomenon before.
> Our ensemble plays music and then we have a talkback. The people who stay for the talkback really want to know how music works and the technical details (with examples), so it's a very different situation.
> 
> added -
> Oh and I forgot my controversial opinion about CM. I thought about it for some time and I just don't have any controversial opinions i can get behind. That seems odd to me because I'm an argumentative individual.


It's all good my friend

I also think it's good for artists/musicians to talk to non artists and musicians I think that was a great point.

We as composers or performers have such irrational viewpoints to the points on things often to the point of absurdity but it's good to have.And the non-musicians are humbling in there knowledge of recording and performances ,they know so much it's amazing.People like me who spend much time making music don't have time to learn about the recordings and performances.We don't have real jobs so we can't afford good recordings or equipment LOL


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> The covers or The Beatles? The Beatles haven't faded from my memory.
> ...


Both. There are probably people in their 80s who fondly remember Bing Crosby and Harry James. They aren't on very many other radars anymore.


----------



## bagpipers

Yabetz said:


> Both. There are probably people in their 80s who fondly remember Bing Crosby and Harry James. They aren't on very many other radars anymore.


I remember Roger Whitaker,I saw him concert a couple times,saw Charlie Daniels too.I remember my parents listening to Sinatra and Como .


----------



## Yabetz

bagpipers said:


> I remember Roger Whitaker,I saw him concert a couple times,saw Charlie Daniels too.I remember my parents listening to Sinatra and Como .


Honestly I think the Beatles are more firmly tied to a specific "area" in time than any of those are. I'm a big fan of a lot of their material, but it's dated and I find it doesn't really reward repeated listening anymore except for the sake of nostalgia. It's the same with Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Sex Pistols, the Talking Heads, Blondie and other former giants of the culture.

Meanwhile a different performance or recording of Bach's choral works or Wagner's _Die Walküre_ can always reveal something new, something I hadn't noticed before.


----------



## Forster

Yabetz said:


> Honestly I think the Beatles are more firmly tied to a specific "area" in time than any of those are. I'm a big fan of a lot of their material, but it's dated and I find it doesn't really reward repeated listening anymore except for the sake of nostalgia. It's the same with Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Sex Pistols, the Talking Heads, Blondie and other former giants of the culture.
> 
> Meanwhile a different performance or recording of Bach's choral works or Wagner's _Die Walküre_ can always reveal something new, something I hadn't noticed before.


Well, they may be fading from your memory, but they're still clocking up sales. I think it matters not whether people listen "for nostalgia" (I'm not sure what that actually means - once a record has been out for release for, say, six months, does it become "nostalgia"?)

Half A Century Later, The Beatles Are Still Scoring New Hits On The Billboard Charts (forbes.com)


----------



## Yabetz

Forster said:


> Well, they may be fading from your memory, but they're still clocking up sales. I think it matters not whether people listen "for nostalgia" (I'm not sure what that actually means - once a record has been out for release for, say, six months, does it become "nostalgia"?)
> 
> Half A Century Later, The Beatles Are Still Scoring New Hits On The Billboard Charts (forbes.com)


I dunno, I'm looking at Billboard charts and don't see the Beatles anywhere. Oddly enough I do see old stuff from Kate Bush, Fleetwood Mac and Guns'N'Roses though.


----------



## fbjim

There was a big Kate Bush revival among kids because "Running up that Hill" was in Stranger Things. Happens occasionally, back in the 90s "Lust for Life" got big again because of Trainspotting.


----------



## Scherzi Cat

Opinion No. 1: Listening to minimalist music is like wearing an ill-fitting shoe that rubs the same spot until it blisters.

Opinion No. 2: 12-tone music of the Second Viennese School is just musical double talk - gibberish that leaves you wondering if you missed some meaning that was not actually there.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Robert Schumann's operatic chops are underrated.


----------



## littlejohnuk1

In my job I listen to people all day. The last thing I want to do is listen to people. I want to hear a DIFFERENT language. Aside from singing in symphonies and some choral I don't want to know.

Also can't abide Liszt and Ravel and Debussy. I detest them. I don't have enough time there's so much more to go at!


----------



## prlj

I would love to hear a version of _*Missa Solemnis*_ minus that violin solo in the Sanctus. I think it would be a much better movement. 

I think if Beethoven had his full hearing, he would have scrapped it, too.


----------



## SanAntone

Not only is Leonard Bernstein's _MASS_ not a mess, but it is one of, if not his, best works.


----------



## eljr

I'd say my insistence that all classical music be respected can cause a row.


----------



## Dreadful_Engines

eljr said:


> I'd say my insistence that all classical music be respected can cause a row.


"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out."


----------



## Kreisler jr

prlj said:


> I would love to hear a version of _*Missa Solemnis*_ minus that violin solo in the Sanctus. I think it would be a much better movement.
> 
> I think if Beethoven had his full hearing, he would have scrapped it, too.


It's better than the violin concerto and romances combined; the most beautiful writing for violin+orchestra by Beethoven and the beginning with the solo violin appearing "from nowhere" is a truly magical effect in a live setting.


----------



## prlj

Kreisler jr said:


> It's better than the violin concerto and romances combined; the most beautiful writing for violin+orchestra by Beethoven and the beginning with the solo violin appearing "from nowhere" is a truly magical effect in a live setting.


If he dropped 90% of it down an octave, I think I could live with it.


----------



## Red Terror

Brahms is sometimes favored over Dvořák due the difficulty of most of his works. Dvořák's oeuvre also comprises complex pieces but he wasn't above writing for the enjoyment of the general public as well—some critics and musicians stupidly hold this against him. Brahm's influence on Dvořák is overstated; it is the latter who had the greatest impact on the former.


----------



## Kreisler jr

prlj said:


> If he dropped 90% of it down an octave, I think I could live with it.


Maybe you have a hearing problem with high pitches? not Beethoven... the whole point of the violin solo is that it's aethereal or "stratospheric", it's the holy spirit coming down from heaven.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Red Terror said:


> Brahm's influence on Dvořák is overstated; it is the latter who had the greatest impact on the former.


Where is influence of Dvorak on Brahms? And in the order of magnitude exhibited by Dvorak's 6th (it all but quotes Brahms' 2nd in the first movement) and 7th?
The influence on Dvorak might still be overstated sometimes, but there was almost no influence in the other direction. Brahms had to meet the demands of a tradition from Schütz through Schumann and his own perfectionism, even in his 20s he was far from the fresh naivite that Dvorak maintained throughout his life.


----------



## ansfelden

Dvorak and Brahms, neighbours who never talk to each other.


----------



## prlj

Kreisler jr said:


> Maybe you have a hearing problem with high pitches? not Beethoven... the whole point of the violin solo is that it's aethereal or "stratospheric", it's the holy spirit coming down from heaven.


Going back to the very first post of this entire thread, that appears to be the case.


----------



## BillT

1) Mozart is mostly boring
2) Wagner's operas are AWFUL
3) Haydn is all fluff


----------



## pianoedvard_b93

1. Grieg is among the greatest composers of all time and that his piano concerto (ALL 3 MOVEMENTS) is one of the single greatest pieces of music in history and is far superior to ANY other piano concerto currently in existence.
2. Opera style singing is more often than not awful to listen to - When holding an E natural means to rapidly bouncing between a C natural and G#.
3. Rachmaninoff is better than Beethoven, and Beethoven is mostly superior to Mozart except for a few Mozart pieces that are among the best music ever.
4. Haydn is very boring.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> 1. Grieg is among the greatest composers of all time and that his piano concerto (ALL 3 MOVEMENTS) is one of the single greatest pieces of music in history and is far superior to ANY other piano concerto currently in existence.
> 2. Opera style singing is more often than not awful to listen to - When holding an E natural means to rapidly bouncing between a C natural and G#.
> 3. Rachmaninoff is better than Beethoven, and Beethoven is mostly superior to Mozart except for a few Mozart pieces that are among the best music ever.
> 4. Haydn is very boring.


Oh and John Williams is just as great as the old giants.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Opera was invented by Italians, but perfected by Germans!

And Porgy and Bess is NOT an opera...oh wait! Gershwin isn't even classical to begin with! Whoops, better stay on topic here.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> 1. Grieg is among the greatest composers of all time and that his piano concerto (ALL 3 MOVEMENTS) is one of the single greatest pieces of music in history and is far superior to ANY other piano concerto currently in existence.
> 2. Opera style singing is more often than not awful to listen to - When holding an E natural means to rapidly bouncing between a C natural and G#.
> 3. Rachmaninoff is better than Beethoven, and Beethoven is mostly superior to Mozart except for a few Mozart pieces that are among the best music ever.
> 4. Haydn is very boring.


Well, I just dropped onto this thread to offer the opinion that Grieg was a truly innovative composer who deserves to be held in high regard.


----------



## Ethereality

BillT said:


> 3) Haydn is all fluff


In response to the hayd speech, I've noticed this understandable sentiment about this composer. However if this is your summary then I'd suggest you may be missing the entire point.


----------



## haziz

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> 1. Grieg is among the greatest composers of all time and that his piano concerto (ALL 3 MOVEMENTS) is one of the single greatest pieces of music in history and is far superior to ANY other piano concerto currently in existence.
> 2. Opera style singing is more often than not awful to listen to - When holding an E natural means to rapidly bouncing between a C natural and G#.
> 3. Rachmaninoff is better than Beethoven, and Beethoven is mostly superior to Mozart except for a few Mozart pieces that are among the best music ever.
> 4. Haydn is very boring.



Except for the the Rachmaninoff is better than Beethoven bit I mostly agree. I do like both Rachmaninoff and Beethoven but the reverse is definitely true for me.


----------



## Ethereality

There are a number of composers around the same level as Beethoven to me, I don't blame one for choosing Rachmaninoff. He was masterful collaborator on form and counterpoint. However at the same time, I might agree. Beethoven wrote some of the best symphonies to man, each becoming more and more profound and tackling complicated music subjects. I have him around spot 15.


----------



## Luchesi

I've realized recently why Bach is my number one. In his keyboard works he never stops singing with his fingers. It's a baroque thing, which he tunes to his own emotional trip of composing. It's not found in later piano composers. The notes don't continuously bop and sing a melodic phrase (in Chopin and later), as I'm remembering anyway..


----------



## Chat Noir

BillT said:


> 1) Mozart is mostly boring
> 2) Wagner's operas are AWFUL
> *3) Haydn is all fluff*


Commiserations on not having heard his string quartets.


----------



## Chat Noir

RICK RIEKERT said:


> That's a personal preference or matter of taste, not an opinion.





Oldhoosierdude said:


> Quite right.


Quite wrong. The majority of opinions are exactly preferences (based upon taste-led personal beliefs), judgements of worth, myths, ideologies, hearsay...


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Chat Noir said:


> Quite wrong. The majority of opinions are exactly preferences (based upon taste-led personal beliefs), judgements of worth, myths, ideologies, hearsay...


My personal preferential opinion of fact is you are both right.


----------



## Chat Noir

Oldhoosierdude said:


> My personal preferential opinion of fact is you are both right.


and upon what is this opinion based sir?

By the way, an additional controversial classical opinion: I think Stravinsky is an overrated, one-trick pony.


----------



## Artran

People shouldn't clap after arias during an opera. It's extremely annoying.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Artran said:


> People shouldn't clap after arias during an opera. It's extremely annoying.


They do it after literally every single number in this one-


----------



## Enthusiast

BillT said:


> 1) Mozart is mostly boring
> 2) Wagner's operas are AWFUL
> 3) Haydn is all fluff


And some members of TC have joined despite been stone deaf.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Chat Noir said:


> By the way, an additional controversial classical opinion: I think Stravinsky is an overrated, one-trick pony.


I could understand overrated but he was certainly a many-trick pony... In fact I'd rather understand not liking Stravinsky because of his chamaeleonic nature adapting so many different styles.


----------



## Chat Noir

Kreisler jr said:


> I could understand overrated but he was certainly a many-trick pony... In fact I'd rather understand not liking Stravinsky because of his chamaeleonic nature adapting so many different styles.


'Adapting' is the word. Less like a Madonna chameleon, more like finding the latest emerging trend, hanging out with its pioneers for a few weeks then stealing their thunder and pretending to be the one who spearheaded it. A chancer.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Chat Noir said:


> and upon what is this opinion based sir?


Beethoven told me


----------



## Chat Noir

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Beethoven told me


I was about to ask: 'and where did he hear it?' Scratch that.


----------



## Chat Noir

Bruckner's 8th symphony is not his best.


----------



## Luchesi

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Beethoven told me


He was left-handed you can't trust him


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Luchesi said:


> He was left-handed you can't trust him


So am I


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> He was left-handed you can't trust him


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


>


You can cheat with a little bit of pedal in this mvmnt. Unless you're playing it too slowly.


----------



## Luchesi

Oldhoosierdude said:


> So am I


Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Glenn Gould, Barenboim, CPE Bach, Paganini were left-handed.

One concept is that the brain of the left-handed child develops slightly differently so that when they start playing an instrument they're connected emotionally more to the left hand than a right-handed child.

Get out of bed on your left foot and you’ll have a bad (unlucky) day, so some hotels align their beds so that you must get out on the right side.


----------



## mikeh375

Oldhoosierdude said:


> So am I


me too


----------



## Kreisler jr

Chat Noir said:


> [Stravinsky]
> 'Adapting' is the word. Less like a Madonna chameleon, more like finding the latest emerging trend, hanging out with its pioneers for a few weeks then stealing their thunder and pretending to be the one who spearheaded it. A chancer.


From which pioneers did he steal?
I am certainly no expert on early 20th century music but I think the trends he set with Petrushka (collage-like with quotations, polyrhythm and -tonality), Le sacre and Les noces ("barbaric folk style"), L'histoire du Soldat (ironic, small scale neoclassicism) were pretty much his own creation. 
In the more general neoclassicism in the 1920s-30s he was one among several, but still pioneering and influential, I think. I don't know enough about the postwar music.


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> me too


Me too. There's a small but important difference in the approaches to the piano, by these different children. But I don't want to make too much out of it. There just seems to be more immediate enjoyment and heartfelt appreciation by the left-handers. The heart's on the left side after all, we 'feel' the music there. lol

Later on it's all merged together, left-handed and right-handed players. But it might have a small effect upon who goes into music and who doesn't.

Added:
Many children try music and find out it's not for them. I'm so lucky that my brother wanted to take lessons, so we got an old piano. But then he hated the lessons and the regimentation. He quit. So, when working nights I would putter around with it during the day if I couldn't sleep (everyone in the family was gone during the day). Oh.. and he's right-handed.


----------



## ribonucleic

I think performing musicians should not have to wear fancier clothing than would be appropriate at a nice restaurant.

I also think solo concerts should have the performer address the audience between works. Short remarks on the work's place in the composer's or the performer's life, a general thank-you for coming... I wouldn't even mind a "This is on my new release from Deutsche Grammophon".


----------



## Chat Noir

ribonucleic said:


> I think performing musicians should not have to wear fancier clothing than would be appropriate at a nice restaurant.


Depends what your definition of 'nice' and 'restaurant' is.


----------



## ribonucleic

Chat Noir said:


> Depends what your definition of 'nice' and 'restaurant' is.


Fair enough.

Let's say "business casual".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Chat Noir said:


> Depends what your definition of 'nice' and 'restaurant' is.


For me, a restaurant that has








hanging on the wall would be "nice".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Oh wow, how am I just discovering this thread?

Let’s see…

- Technical accuracy in modern performance is a substitute for artistry and true understanding of the music, which is why most current recordings will be forgotten years from now

- Most people lack the attention span for great classical music

- People often rationalize rather than admit that some music is simply over their heads (e.g., “Anyone claiming he likes Composer X just says that to sound smart.”)

- Period performance is a symptom of the modern performer’s struggle to remain relevant

- Great recordings continue to circulate for decades because they really are that great, whereas most forgotten recordings truly are crap


----------



## Kreisler jr

ribonucleic said:


> I think performing musicians should not have to wear fancier clothing than would be appropriate at a nice restaurant.


That's exactly what they are wearing, namely variants of classic "evening dress", i.e "black tie" or "white tie". 
Only their attire has not changed since the early 20th century whereas everyone else got more casual...


----------



## prlj

ribonucleic said:


> I think performing musicians should not have to wear fancier clothing than would be appropriate at a nice restaurant.


Our orchestra, along with numerous others, are shedding the tux in favor of an all-black outfit. There are only one or two boomer-like "but it's tradition" holdouts, but the rest of the musicians, and the audiences, are embracing it. 

Same goes for the audience, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care how you dress, so long as you come.


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> That's exactly what they are wearing, namely variants of classic "evening dress", i.e "black tie" or "white tie".
> Only their attire has not changed since the early 20th century whereas everyone else got more casual...


Yuja Wang would have been more of a sensation in the early 1900s. Men were the same back then, so why not... (she says she's more comfortable while playing).


----------



## Becca

prlj said:


> Our orchestra, along with numerous others, are shedding the tux in favor of an all-black outfit. There are only one or two boomer-like "but it's tradition" holdouts, but the rest of the musicians, and the audiences, are embracing it.
> 
> Same goes for the audience, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care how you dress, so long as you come.


Take a look at a recent Gothenburg Symphony concert (gsoplay.se/en), open neck white shirts, no jackets.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

As a singer, the no tie trend I thoroughly endorse. Nothing worse than the feeling of being strangled on stage as you attempt to carry a phrase.


----------



## Luchesi

Brahmsianhorn said:


> As a singer, the no tie trend I thoroughly endorse. Nothing worse than the feeling of being strangled on stage as you attempt to carry a phrase.


Ties do make you look more virile. heh


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

I don´t care for Bach.


----------



## Chat Noir

Brahmsianhorn said:


> As a singer, the no tie trend I thoroughly endorse. Nothing worse than the feeling of being strangled on stage as you attempt to carry a phrase.


What about one of those ties on an elastic like I wore at junior school? Or one of those police ties on a clip that come off when you pull them?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Luchesi said:


> Yuja Wang would have been more of a sensation in the early 1900s. Men were the same back then, so why not... (she says she's more comfortable while playing).


In 1900 Wang would have been apprehend by Vice police or at least brought back to an adult entertainment etablissement 
But AFAIK the idea of (male) musicians in (then) standard evening attire was to make them "invisible". They wore the clothes that were formal but would not draw special attention (like special uniforms might, at that time one would have military personnel in an audience wearing colorful dress uniforms).


----------



## Scherzi Cat

Judas Priest Fan said:


> I don´t care for Bach.


Not an opinion but a preference. Controversial nevertheless. A stoning may be in order. Why not turn it into an opinion by telling us what it is about Bach that makes you dislike him?
For example, I detest Mahler because he is long-winded and overwritten without giving me memorable melodies to keep my interest. That and the fact that so many people think he is fabulous but I cannot stay awake through one of his symphonies irks me.


----------



## Ethereality

As my ex-favorite composer from years ago, I couldn't claim long-windedness has to do with reconsidering Mahler lower, since it's all so catchy to me, and I aptly respect Wagner. Rather it's the fact that he maturingly represents the symbolic and extra-peripheral within the core classical approach, and this seems to not detach him so much from that hall of high standard which he vigorously and strenuously realized, than it does the fundamental understanding of being an intellectual of form, foremost, in that I actually disagree with Brahms on his wording about Mahler, who actually wrote incredible things, although I am almost sure Brahms was using polite doublespeak.


----------



## Scherzi Cat

Ethereality said:


> As my ex-favorite composer from years ago, I couldn't claim long-windedness has to do with reconsidering Mahler lower, since it's all so catchy to me, and I aptly respect Wagner. Rather it's the fact that he maturingly represents the symbolic and extra-peripheral within the core classical approach, and this seems to not detach him so much from that hall of high standard which he vigorously and strenuously realized, than it does the fundamental understanding of being an intellectual of form, foremost, in that I actually disagree with Brahms on his wording about Mahler, who actually wrote incredible things, although I am almost sure Brahms was using polite doublespeak.


That clears it all up. Thank you.


----------



## Becca

Ethereality said:


> As my ex-favorite composer from years ago, I couldn't claim long-windedness has to do with reconsidering Mahler lower, since it's all so catchy to me, and I aptly respect Wagner. Rather it's the fact that he maturingly represents the symbolic and extra-peripheral within the core classical approach, and this seems to not detach him so much from that hall of high standard which he vigorously and strenuously realized, than it does the fundamental understanding of being an intellectual of form, foremost, in that I actually disagree with Brahms on his wording about Mahler, who actually wrote incredible things, although I am almost sure Brahms was using polite doublespeak.


I've gone over that post a few times and still don't understand it


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

Scherzi Cat said:


> Not an opinion but a preference. Controversial nevertheless. A stoning may be in order. Why not turn it into an opinion by telling us what it is about Bach that makes you dislike him?
> For example, I detest Mahler because he is long-winded and overwritten without giving me memorable melodies to keep my interest. That and the fact that so many people think he is fabulous but I cannot stay awake through one of his symphonies irks me.


I can´t really describe why I don´t care for Bach; I guess the pieces I have listened to just don´t do any thing for me. I find his music boring.

As far as Mahler goes, I have been listening to his symphonies lately, and I agree, they can be very long, and from what I can say up till now is, that there are not so many memorable melodies, but his music is intense, and bombastic! And I like bombastic as a (former) Metal head.


----------



## fbjim

I just remember the quote that someone said their mother (?) made about Bach - that he sounded like a cat chasing its tail, hah. 

I kinda get it, and there's a lot times where I don't particularly care to listen to astonishing mastery of fugual form. When I do, though...


----------



## Phil loves classical

Schumann's Piano Sonata #2 is the only great Romantic sonata for that instrument.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Schumann's Piano Sonata #2 is the only great Romantic sonata for that instrument.






S.178 - Andante


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> Schumann's Piano Sonata #2 is the only great Romantic sonata for that instrument.


I understand why you would say that. I've been very impressed when I've gone back to the Sonata. Probably because of the understated drama for the pianist to work with and bring to a height. I haven't found anything like it. It might be because Schumann began composing it when he turned 20. His later works are intentionally(?) more modern sounding.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> I understand why you would say that. I've been very impressed when I've gone back to the Sonata. Probably because of the understated drama for the pianist to work with and bring to a height. I haven't found anything like it. It might be because Schumann began composing it when he turned 20. His later works are intentionally(?) more modern sounding.


Schumann's Sonata 2 was supposedly written after his others.





__





Loading…






en.wikipedia.org


----------



## PaulFranz

RobertJTh said:


> Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music.
> Elgar's symphonies are better than Mahler's.
> There should be a worldwide temporary ban on new Mahler performances and recordings.
> Verdi is just another dime a dozen Italian opera composer.
> German organ music is better than French organ music.
> German music is better than French music.
> Bruckner scholars are lunatics
> Tchaikovsky wrote nothing but sentimental kitsch.
> Dvorak is second rate Brahms
> Handel is the most overrated baroque composer ever.
> Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez is the worst piece of music in the history of mankind.
> Reger was the greatest musical genius of the early 20th century


Yo that Verdi opinion is _whack._ I love all the other controversial opinions...but at a certain point it's like saying your opinion is that humans are meat suits piloted by ant collectives. If Verdi had only ever composed Rigoletto, he'd be among the best composers ever.


----------



## PaulFranz

1. Thill was at best a second-rate tenor. He had a world-class middle voice, but his top was completely technically out of whack. It got white, forceful, and thin. The voice would _détimbrer _in the most important parts!

2. I don't rate Gigli highly at all. His voice in his early career was incredibly light-sounding and hollow to my ears, and in his later career he developed a nasty premature wobble once his voice filled out.

3. Miguel Villabella was a better singer than any other French, Spanish, or Italian lyric tenor ever.

4. Chaliapin. Don't get him. Doesn't seem like he has much voice. Awful low notes, weak top, sometimes unsure in the middle. More interested in acting than in musicality.

5. We are in a blatant cultural freefall right now with respect to all forms of classical music, popular music, singing, painting, sculpture, poetry, literature, oration, acceptable body size, bodybuilding, and architecture.

6. Hippolyte Belhomme should've gotten way more principal bass work than he did. He could hold his own against any of his French contemporaries except maybe Nivette.

7. Oscar Natzka and Juste Nivette are the best profondi of all time.

8. Cesare Siepi overdarkened his voice and had an incipient wobble from the very start of his career.

9. Ezio Pinza's voice was fuzzy and unfocused. He was really not that good at all.

10. Singing Neapolitan rep with no regard for Neapolitan pronunciation makes you look like an absolute idiot.

11. Alveolar French rhotics are superior to uvular ones for classical singing purposes.

12. Even the best singing teachers are 90% useless unless you're a totally lost absolute beginner.

13. "Bel canto" and "verismo" are mostly fictitious concepts that are so vague and have so many interpretations that they are best never used.

14. "Chiaroscuro" was almost certainly originally intended to mean coloring phrases with dynamics (cf. Mancini), not somehow being dark and bright at the same time.

15. Operatic works should be sung and recorded in translation in the language of the local market.

16. Operatic works should NOT be translated if the language they're translated to isn't the local language! Italians singing Russian opera in French in the United States is stupid. Singing Don Carlos in Italian in England is stupid.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Sure, I've got plenty of unpopular opinions and here they are (and I may have posted here already, so I might be just retreading but...):

1. Almost all early classical music (i. e. pre-Beethoven) is lifeless and has no character of its own. Complete lack of individuality. Thank goodness Beethoven came along!

2. John Cage should've been a philosopher of music than a composer.

3. When it comes to Italian opera composers, Rossini or Verdi couldn't carry Puccini's lunchbox.

4. Canada hasn't produced one single great composer that has impacted classical music in any profound way.

5. Glazunov wrote better music than Rimsky-Korsakov.

6. Schoenberg is the most important 20th Century composer.


----------



## dko22

All 19th century piano and violin concertos should be banned from the concert hall to make way for things which actually have some musical content as opposed to empty virtuosity and nauseating kitsch (I'll allow Berwald's piano concerto as he was just making fun of Mozart and perhaps Brahms 2nd as it actually contains some genuine music).


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Scherzi Cat said:


> Not an opinion but a preference. Controversial nevertheless. A stoning may be in order. Why not turn it into an opinion by telling us what it is about Bach that makes you dislike him?
> For example, I detest Mahler because he is long-winded and overwritten without giving me memorable melodies to keep my interest. That and the fact that so many people think he is fabulous but I cannot stay awake through one of his symphonies irks me.


I find nothing to quarrel with in this post.


----------



## prlj

Neo Romanza said:


> 4. Canada hasn't produced one single great composer that has impacted classical music in any profound way.


I'm 51 years old, and I've lived my whole life just miles from the Canadian border. As a lifelong fan of classical music, this little nugget of info has never once crossed my mind...but damned if you're right. 

(Now, my boys Geddy Lee, Neil Peart, and Alex Lifeson have had quite an impact on music...but not classical. 😉)


----------



## Neo Romanza

prlj said:


> I'm 51 years old, and I've lived my whole life just miles from the Canadian border. As a lifelong fan of classical music, this little nugget of info has never once crossed my mind...but damned if you're right.
> 
> (Now, my boys Geddy Lee, Neil Peart, and Alex Lifeson have had quite an impact on music...but not classical. 😉)


Well, there were some good Canadian composers like Claude Vivier, Malcolm Forsyth, Harry Freedman, Colin McPhee, Jean Coulthard, R. Murray Schaffer et. al., but none of them are household names or have had any kind of significant impact on classical music. I think Vivier would be the closest as he's often associated with the Spectralist school of composition, but I wonder if Grisey or Murail got there first? Scelsi could be seen as a proto-Spectralist of sorts.


----------



## prlj

Neo Romanza said:


> Well, there were some good Canadian composers like Claude Vivier, Malcolm Forsyth, Harry Freedman, Colin McPhee, Jean Coulthard, R. Murray Schaffer et. al., but none of them are household names or have had any kind of significant impact on classical music. I think Vivier would be the closest as he's often associated with the Spectralist school of composition, but I wonder if Grisey or Murail got there first? Scelsi could be seen as a proto-Spectralist of sorts.


Well, you've given me some new composers to go check out...thank you!


----------



## Neo Romanza

prlj said:


> Well, you've given me some new composers to go check out...thank you!


I've inadvertently helped you? Wow...I'm glad I could be of some help and you're welcome!


----------



## solutio

4chamberedklavier said:


> One more:
> I think musical scales are a bigger factor than melodies (or more specifically, the specific horizontal configuration of the notes) in determining the "mood" or "emotion" that a piece of music evokes. That's why 12-tone/chromatic music tends to sound "unsettling" to many people.
> 
> Time for some math. Let's review permutations and combinations. Say you are given a set of things, and you want to make a subset of those things. It's a permutation if the things in your subset are ordered in a specific way, and it's a combination if their order doesn't matter.
> 
> If you calculate a little bit, you'll notice that once a musical scale has more than 6 notes, the number of possible combinations start to go down, but the no. of permutations start to go up. In other words, scales with less notes have less unique melodies that can be produced (which is obvious), but more possible scale variants. If my assertion that scales are more important than melody in determining "mood" is true, and if it is also true that each scale is associated with a certain "mood", then it follows that music constructed using the 12 tone scale only has one general "mood" associated with it, even though it has the greatest no. of unique melodies that can be produced. (Note that the 12 tone scale has no variants since it already contains all 12 notes)


Brilliant! And true. It fits the general experience, that 12 tone music is never some sort of liberation of classical music theorie, which it supposed to be. Inversely its a confinement of harmony in one and only "mood".


----------



## solutio

My (non)controversial opinion: We are living still in the music epoch of Spätromantik. Mahler was not its funeral. The "Vier letzte Lieder" were the last songs of Strauss, not of the whole epoch. There is no substacial gap between the Spätromantik and any music so called "contemporary".


----------



## justekaia

EvaBaron said:


> • Mozart deserves more credit for composing such masterpieces under his circumstances
> • Beethoven’s emperor is way below the level of the 3th and 4th piano concertos
> • Heifetz has the best recordings of the major violin concertos and it’s not even close
> • The violin is the best instrument, not the piano
> • Classical music is often too repetitive


I do agree with your 4 first statements, but not with the last one. You seem to assume that classical music has stopped some 100 years ago and that there has been no development since. In order to check your statement you must listen to some of the music that has been composed during the last 100 years. I can assure you it is not repetitive.


----------



## justekaia

Neo Romanza said:


> I've inadvertently helped you? Wow...I'm glad I could be of some help and you're welcome!


I sincerely think you should be more careful with your statements about Canadian composers.
Claude Vivier is obviously a tremendous composer, but there are scores of them in the Canadian school. I will list some of them for your info:
Malcolm Arnold, Nicole Lizée, Cassandra Miller, Linda Catlin Smith, Marc Sabat, Ann Southam. All of them are top class composers. So plse do me a favour and listen to a couple of works of each composer and revert.
If you want advice regarding their best pieces i will be happy to oblige.


----------



## prlj

justekaia said:


> you must listen to some of the music that has been composed during the last 100 years. I can assure you it is not repetitive.


Well, except for Glass.


----------



## HansZimmer

BachIsBest said:


> What music is less repetitive? Certainly nothing that I hear on the radio.


I think that @EvaBaron was thinking about some monothematic movements which use a leitmotif to build the entire melody. The fugues for example are usually monothematic and based on leitmotifs.
The movements based on the sonata form are probably the best ones. I seriously doubt that a composer like Mozart, who used almost always the sonata form, can be accused of being repetitive.


----------



## justekaia

prlj said:


> Well, except for Glass.


I agree Glass is often repetitive. But his string quartets and his operas as well as some of his piano pieces are very original. But Glass is only one of the 500 major composers who composed during the last 100 years.


----------



## prlj

justekaia said:


> But his string quartets and his operas as well as some of his piano pieces are very original.


Oh, I totally agree. I genuinely love Glass, even his ultra repetitive works. I was just sticking with the cheeky tone of the thread.


----------



## justekaia

prlj said:


> Oh, I totally agree. I genuinely love Glass, even his ultra repetitive works. I was just sticking with the cheeky tone of the thread.


yes, i like this thread; it 's open-minded, respectful, cheeky and members have interesting dialogues; it should be the standard for future threads; i hope it will also encourage all those who keep silent who just give a like once in a while to dare give their opinions and share their preferences; classical musical is more vibrant than ever;


----------



## Malx

justekaia said:


> I sincerely think you should be more careful with your statements about Canadian composers.
> Claude Vivier is obviously a tremendous composer, but there are scores of them in the Canadian school. I will list some of them for your info:
> *Malcolm Arnold,* Nicole Lizée, Cassandra Miller, Linda Catlin Smith, Marc Sabat, Ann Southam. All of them are top class composers. So plse do me a favour and listen to a couple of works of each composer and revert.
> If you want advice regarding their best pieces i will be happy to oblige.


I'm not aware of any connection Malcolm Arnold has with Canada.


----------



## justekaia

Malx said:


> I'm not aware of any connection Malcolm Arnold has with Canada.


you are absolutely right and i thank you for the observation; it should be Martin Arnold; my mistake


----------



## Neo Romanza

justekaia said:


> I sincerely think you should be more careful with your statements about Canadian composers.
> Claude Vivier is obviously a tremendous composer, but there are scores of them in the Canadian school. I will list some of them for your info:
> Malcolm Arnold, Nicole Lizée, Cassandra Miller, Linda Catlin Smith, Marc Sabat, Ann Southam. All of them are top class composers. So plse do me a favour and listen to a couple of works of each composer and revert.
> If you want advice regarding their best pieces i will be happy to oblige.


But my main point is that there hasn't been a Canadian of Stravinsky's or Wagner's stature that has impacted classical music as a whole. Anyway, I've heard of several of those composers you mentioned. Of course, Malcolm Arnold isn't a Canadian composer.  I'm still standing by unpopular or "controversial" opinion about Canadian composers.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Scherzi Cat said:


> For example, I detest Mahler because he is long-winded and overwritten without giving me memorable melodies to keep my interest. That and the fact that so many people think he is fabulous but I cannot stay awake through one of his symphonies irks me.


I used to feel exactly the same way about Mahler. Then, in my early 40s, I suddenly got into his symphonies. Really into them. Listening to them for hours a day. The difference is that I never “detested” Mahler. I just never got what all the fuss was about. But I never assumed I knew all there is to know, and that all the adulation from some corners was baseless.

Which ties directly to my earlier statement on this thread: Most people lack the attention span for great classical music, including myself.


----------



## Scherzi Cat

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I used to feel exactly the same way about Mahler. Then, in my early 40s, I suddenly got into his symphonies. Really into them. Listening to them for hours a day. The difference is that I never “detested” Mahler. I just never got what all the fuss was about. But I never assumed I knew all there is to know, and that all the adulation from some corners was baseless.
> 
> Which ties directly to my earlier statement on this thread: Most people lack the attention span for great classical music, including myself.


Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. Perhaps "detest" was a strong word. It sounds like you had a similar issue with Mahler as I. I still do pull up a Mahler symphony on occasion to see if I can "get it". But I am well past my 40s and it may be too late for me. I won't deny that it may be an attention span issue, but I listen to Bruckner and enjoy it. I think the difference is that Bruckner is not widely acclaimed as some great deity of the symphonic form. So I don't expect it to be overwhelmingly amazing and it sounds pretty good.


----------



## Bulldog

Scherzi Cat said:


> Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. Perhaps "detest" was a strong word. It sounds like you had a similar issue with Mahler as I. I still do pull up a Mahler symphony on occasion to see if I can "get it". But I am well past my 40s and it may be too late for me.


It's never too late. I didn't have much appreciation for Mahler's music until I was in my 60's.


----------



## HansZimmer

Roger Knox said:


> So who is "we," who creates public health insurance or public free hospitals? From your icon you seem to be a bit young to be doing that.


It's a generic "we". We = western populations: western countries have all some sort of public healthcare, and there is not so much to debate for the reasons of this choice.

If you are speaking of my avatar (icon??): he is Kevin of Home Alone.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> Are they happy? Some folks lives roll easy.. (Paul Simon)
> My kids are all now over 50 and looking forward to retirement. One of them can retire at 55 from IT. I never forced them into any music. So, they played around with it, but nothing was lasting.
> 
> Other teachers in here might disagree with me (controversial opinion), but I think that young people should be given a choice of learning calculus or learning music. After they understand arithmetic and algebra they should be given a short lecture about what calculus is, the infinities, and what a great achievement it was.
> Within the same time constraints (instead of studying calculus and higher math) they could go on to learning how to play an instrument. Then in their decades of retirement they would have something other than other peoples’ stories on TV and videos and from church, and of course watching spectator sports. (Instead of being creative and feeling self-actualized themselves.)
> 
> The problem is at the age of 12, when it's not yet late to start learning music, there’s no accurate vision of the future by them. How could there be? They need someone with experience to tell them. In my experience, playing music is a dimension of our lives which gets larger and larger every decade as other interests naturally fade somewhat.


I don't know in other countries, but here in Switzerland we have music lessons in elementary schools.

We learn to play the recorder, so we also need to learn to read music.











This is the first piece we learn to play.






We also sing simple songs. Some of them are songs for kids, while others are popular/folk songs easy to sing.

Now, the important things to understand about our school system are two:

The music lessons are very much practice oriented: they are not used to indoctrinate us to subjective values ("classical music is better", "pop music is better", "rock music is better")
The lessons are very light: we don't have tests/exams and once we reach a basic level with the recorder, we don't go further

What I want to say is that even if we admit that music is an important part of our world, classical music not only is not necessary to teach it, but it's even too advanced to be singed and played in mandatory schools: the music lessons are not meant to torture us. The persons who have a great interest for music can learn to play/sing advanced pieces privately.
Some persons don't simply want that the public education gives a basic understanding of music to children: they want an ethical state which indoctrinates children to the subjective values of talkclassical.
Not only this is not necessary, but even the swiss school system is debatable, because while for example math is an essential subject (there is math everywhere), music is not: it's simply a hobby, basically. It's possible to live without music.


----------



## HansZimmer

Andrew Kenneth said:


> Food for thought; from the Australian government website :
> 
> "It seems appropriate to support the existence of, say, a successful string quartet or orchestra if we believe it has a special cultural value. These values are, at base, personal and subjective. ‘I don’t like orchestral music, so why should my taxes subsidise it?’ Nevertheless, we can take a broader view. We could say, yes, Australia should have symphony orchestras even though symphony music is not my personal preference, just as Australia should have Olympic swimmers although I don’t swim, libraries although I buy my own books, public trains although there is no station near me. Ditto for military bands and so on.
> 
> _Industry assistance_ is subsidy given temporarily to assist a musical venture to achieve profitability. Issues of cultural value may or may not be considered relevant. The desired outcome is that the venture is profitable. Such success means that further subsidy is not justified. Conversely, failure to achieve profitability according to plan also may mean that further subsidy is not justified!
> 
> Successful rock groups can become very wealthy. Successful string quartets probably cannot survive from performance-related income.
> 
> Grants to locally successful rock groups to promote themselves onto the international market would be a suitable way to give industry assistance. Success may require spending more money than they may be able to accumulate at home. Industry assistance involves some speculation and risk taking by the government but it should be noted that success in the international sphere brings benefits that go beyond the financial rewards to the group in question.
> 
> _Emerging artists_. Governments also have a practice of supporting ’emerging artists’, whether they are young string quartets or *young hip hop artists*. The objective generally has something to do with helping them enter the profession successfully and the expectations might be that they achieve greater artistic excellence or greater financial viability or both, but certainly higher profile."
> 
> website => Government Arts Subsidies and Other Support - Music In Australia Knowledge Base


Thanks, but I'm not persuaded by the idea that market solutions are not applicable to classical music. In the adult population there are many persons who like it, so the quartets and orchestras can have revenues by simply selling tickets. The kids tend to not like classical music and to prefer other genres for the same reason for which they like cartoons more than serious books: classical music is too serious, they prefer light forms of entertainments.
To bring us to a concert of J.S. Bach in elementary schools had not been a good usage of public money IMO: I don't think that many of us started to listen to classical music. I started to listen to Bach many years later, in adult age.
Does it make so much sense to try to force children (or childish adults) towards serious arts/things? Many of the kids who are now listening to trap music will probably automatically change their interests with maturation: some of them will start to listen to classical music without the need to be forced.

Now, are there data which show that among mature adults (the ones who have money to spend) there is not a stastistically relevant interest for classical music so that the quartets and the orchestras can sell tickets?
Even if they had not great revenues for classical music concerts, they could do other things to get money. For example, they can record soundtracks (in the OST albums I've read "Boston philarmonic", "London philarmonic",...): there is a large market who need their services. They can also play the suite of Star Wars along with Mozart or Beethoven to attract the fans of Star Wars, so they sell more tickets and attract new persons inside the classical music world.

I might also add that if the classical music institutions must survive with their forces, they are encouraged to promote classical music, so the members of talkclassical will be happy. What if pop music is so successfull for the simple fact that it's pushed by the market? Maybe classical music must also be pushed by the market to remain alive! When there are economical interests behind a thing, that thing will be promoted: the humans become ingenious when they want/need to get money.


It's not suprising that the australian government says that they are doing the right thing. The politicians like to have control of things because control is power.


----------



## HansZimmer

I think that many persons are not really worried that classical music is dying (because it's not), but that pop music is more succesfull.
The problem is that it's possible that pop music is so successfull because there are economical interests behind it and therefore it's promoted. Classical music is not promoted because there are not so great economical interests to push it and until the quartets/orchestras and so on will have public funds, they won't have any incentive in pushing it.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I don't know in other countries, but here in Switzerland we have music lessons in elementary schools.
> 
> We learn to play the recorder, so we also need to learn to read music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first piece we learn to play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also sing simple songs. Some of them are songs for kids, while others are popular/folk songs easy to sing.
> 
> Now, the important things to understand about our school system are two:
> 
> The music lessons are very much practice oriented: they are not used to indoctrinate us to subjective values ("classical music is better", "pop music is better", "rock music is better")
> The lessons are very light: we don't have tests/exams and once we reach a basic level with the recorder, we don't go further
> 
> What I want to say is that even if we admit that music is an important part of our world, classical music not only is not necessary to teach it, but it's even too advanced to be singed and played in mandatory schools: the music lessons are not meant to torture us. The persons who have a great interest for music can learn to play/sing advanced pieces privately.
> Some persons don't simply want that the public education gives a basic understanding of music to children: they want an ethical state which indoctrinates children to the subjective values of talkclassical.
> Not only this is not necessary, but even the swiss school system is debatable, because while for example math is an essential subject (there is math everywhere), music is not: it's simply a hobby, basically. It's possible to live without music.


I want what you want. No barriers to the possibility of a kid being able to creatively express himself through the decades.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> According to determined theories, the public expenditure should cover only the services which are objectively essential for the population and for which there are not good market solutions.


This is nonsense economics and ideology. There's an obvious argument that the arts contributes to the public good and music in both schools and for public access is not some 'essentials choice' that has to be made. A government like yours and that of Australia and the UK and the U.S. are not 'currency constrained' and can fund anything they so choose. The only thing ever preventing it is resource space availability; that alone. If the private sector or 'market solutions' doesn't want to invest in classical music on the basis of lack of profit, the sector that doesn't need to make a profit (i.e. that sector which doesn't save in its own currency = the monetary sovereign government) can fund it if it desires. This is not really the 'issue' some will make it out to be because whatever the government spends (since it creates all its spending and gets it from nowhere else, despite the drivel routinely wheeled out) is always adding to private/domestic wealth (which taxation destroys to make fiscal space when necessary). That's how monetary economies work.

Ergo: funding classical music (or anything) is a public purpose choice not a financial issue.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> This is nonsense economics and ideology. There's an obvious argument that the arts contributes to the public good and music in both schools and for public access is not some 'essentials choice' that has to be made. A government like yours and that of Australia and the UK and the U.S. are not 'currency constrained' and can fund anything they so choose. The only thing ever preventing it is resource space availability; that alone. If the private sector or 'market solutions' doesn't want to invest in classical music on the basis of lack of profit, the sector that doesn't need to make a profit (i.e. that sector which doesn't save in its own currency = the monetary sovereign government) can fund it if it desires. This is not really the 'issue' some will make it out to be because whatever the government spends (since it creates all its spending and gets it from nowhere else, despite the drivel routinely wheeled out) is always adding to private/domestic wealth (which taxation destroys to make fiscal space when necessary). That's how monetary economies work.
> 
> Ergo: funding classical music (or anything) is a public purpose choice not a financial issue.


Yes, and uninformed people ask, "How will we ever pay off the National Debt?" It's a misunderstanding, but it influences elections.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Individuals responsible for designing instruments have had a much more profound impact on the history and development of classical music than have individual composers, theorists, critics, etc. The "influence" (and "originality") of individual composers is hardly even relevant to CM as a whole; it is vastly overstated for a number of reasons.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

The future of classical music will be marked by its fusion with other genres (popular music, "world music", electronica, etc.).


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Music theory needs to be deconstructed and reconstructed from the ground up. Music theory only has descriptive, not prescriptive, implications.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Is this one controversial?

Whether or not a given sequence of sounds qualifies as "music" is entirely subjective, and inconsistencies within an listener's determinations of the above are completely understandable. I can listen to bird songs as music today, tomorrow the same sounds may just be pleasant noise. There is no intrinsic set of properties that make a given sound or sequence of sounds unquestionably "musical"; that distinction is dependent on how the listener is _processing _the sound.

One implication of this statement is that the source of a sound (the composer, performer, etc.) as well as the "intent" of the agent responsible for creating the sound, are both entirely irrelevant in making the distinction between music and noise.


----------



## Kreisler jr

"Whether or not a given sequence of *sounds (or visual signs)* qualifies as *"language"* is entirely subjective, [...] There is no intrinsic set of properties that make a given sound or sequence of *sounds (or signs)* unquestionably* "meaningful"*; that distinction is dependent on how the listener is _processing _the sound. 

One implication of this statement is that *the source of a sound (the author, speaker, etc.)* as well as the "intent" of the agent responsible for creating the sound, are both entirely irrelevant in making *the distinction between meaningful language and noise*." 

So I think your idea/argument proves too much. Otherwise language, meaning and understanding would be impossible or at least unlikely. It isn't, therefore something is wrong with the argument. It might still be applicable to music. But certainly more work is needed because it does not work with the minimal substitutions I made.


----------



## Bulldog

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The future of classical music will be marked by its fusion with other genres (popular music, "world music", electronica, etc.).


That is a depressing prospect.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Bulldog said:


> That is a depressing prospect.


Why? gfyawgfyrnfgxy


----------



## Chat Noir

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> There is no intrinsic set of properties that make a given sound or sequence of sounds unquestionably "musical"; that distinction is dependent on how the listener is _processing _the sound.


I somehow feel that view breaks down eventually. Even if I don't like e.g.Brahms all that much, I prefer him to the sound of a road drill (which I'm unlikely to ever find 'musical'). There's an ordinary scientific reason for this.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Music theory needs to be deconstructed and reconstructed from the ground up. Music theory *only has descriptive, not prescriptive, implications.*


People on forums seem to love the phrase in bold. Isn't theory always mostly descriptive and categorisation? It's an explanation of phenomena and principles which already exist. The ideas and practises tend to come before the theory. In any case once theoretical principles are known they can be used prescriptively and have been. A lot actually.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Chat Noir said:


> . In any case once theoretical principles are known they can be used prescriptively and have been. A lot actually.


This is very true.


----------



## Chat Noir

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Individuals responsible for designing instruments have had a much more profound impact on the history and development of classical music than have individual composers, theorists, critics, etc. The "influence" (and "originality") of individual composers is hardly even relevant to CM as a whole; it is vastly overstated for a number of reasons.


I'm not so sure about this. It often matters if a new instrument is even taken up. A composer is often looking for sounds, such as Wagner searching for the sound of the Wagner tuben, and in Wagner's case he shaped this sound as much as the instrument maker; instruments don't create music by themselves. Sometimes, a lot actually through history, an instrument isn't even adopted and just fades into obscurity. Even so-called 'improvements' to existing instruments. The saxophone, which is a great instrument made little impact on classical music.

Instruments like the flute, and all keyed instuments, were driven to improvement because composers wrote music beyond the technical limitations of those instruments. So it is often the composer driving the changes.


----------



## prlj

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The future of classical music will be marked by its fusion with other genres (popular music, "world music", electronica, etc.).


Yes, yes. Bring it on, I say. Richter, Jóhannsson, Shaw, Peter Gregson...so many others already there. Eager for much more...


----------



## Luchesi

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Is this one controversial?
> 
> Whether or not a given sequence of sounds qualifies as "music" is entirely subjective, and inconsistencies within an listener's determinations of the above are completely understandable. I can listen to bird songs as music today, tomorrow the same sounds may just be pleasant noise. There is no intrinsic set of properties that make a given sound or sequence of sounds unquestionably "musical"; that distinction is dependent on how the listener is _processing _the sound.
> 
> One implication of this statement is that the source of a sound (the composer, performer, etc.) as well as the "intent" of the agent responsible for creating the sound, are both entirely irrelevant in making the distinction between music and noise.


Subjective, that's true. 
So, my controversial opinion is that the views of listeners and audiences are rarely relevant. Only the views of the composers and performers are important. Otherwise, we'd have to know a lot about the listeners. The Issues of psychology and sociology become challenging (enervating).


----------



## FrankE

Why did they call the modern period "modern".
Isn't that nowist / currentist and short-sighted?


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> I'm not so sure about this. It often matters if a new instrument is even taken up. A composer is often looking for sounds, such as Wagner searching for the sound of the Wagner tuben, and in Wagner's case he shaped this sound as much as the instrument maker; instruments don't create music by themselves. Sometimes, a lot actually through history, an instrument isn't even adopted and just fades into obscurity. Even so-called 'improvements' to existing instruments. The saxophone, which is a great instrument made little impact on classical music.
> 
> Instruments like the flute, and all keyed instuments, were driven to improvement because composers wrote music beyond the technical limitations of those instruments. So it is often the composer driving the changes.


Yes, it is especially the elite-level composers that have driven the development of instruments. Beethoven demanded a fuller, more powerful sound than the fortepiano of the period could provide. IMO, he was one of the early driving forces of the eventual development of the modern grand.

(Btw, I hope you’re doing okay these days. These little critters are sometimes as or even more important in our lives than some family members. If it’s not too presumptuous, maybe one day you’ll be able to find a little kitten in need of a home.)


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Yes, it is especially the elite-level composers that have driven the development of instruments. Beethoven demanded a fuller, more powerful sound than the fortepiano of the period could provide. IMO, he was one of the early driving forces of the eventual development of the modern grand.
> 
> (Btw, I hope you’re doing okay these days. These little critters are sometimes as or even more important in our lives than some family members. If it’s not too presumptuous, maybe one day you’ll be able to find a little kitten in need of a home.)


Ah! I forgot about Beethoven and his demand for a more robust piano, that's a perfect example. This an exact case of instrument makers being forced to improve instruments according to the composer's requirements. 

The loss of the cat (under those circumstances) has been a heavy blow. I hope too that some day I can make a home for another little companion, but right now it still stings. Thanks for the kind words.


----------



## Roger Knox

It's good to make substantive judgments of music. We need that freedom. But it is not good to be rigid with them.

When I was young, older books declared Italian opera between Monteverdi and Rossini a deficient affair of prima donnas, castrati, and da capo arias. Only foreigners like Handel, Gluck, and Mozart who composed operas in Italian were important. But later as the revival of Italian opera gathered steam, a bewildering number of 17th- /18th-century Italian composers became significant. A substantive judgment helps me: Manfred Bukofzer in _Music in the Baroque_ (Norton, 1947) says the best Baroque Italian opera composers after Monteverdi were Legrenzi, Stradella, and Steffani. That’s held up well as a “rule of thumb” over decades of listening.

But there have been changes. With more performances I’ve appreciated operas of Monteverdi’s successor Francesco Cavalli, which have held the stage well. On the other hand those of the previously more highly-regarded Alessandro Scarlatti have been less successful. And though I find their music wonderful, performances and videos of operas by Legrenzi, Stradella and Steffani are limited for extra-musical reasons. Many of Legrenzi’s works are lost, Stradella’s career was impeded by years on the run, and Steffani had a double life, being a diplomat doing secret work for the Vatican who one day simply disappeared (as portrayed in Cecelia Bartoli’s DVD _Mission_). So I have to be flexible in judging them as _opera_ composers. As for the eighteenth century, I'm still learning and hope to find Italian composers of Pergolesi’s caliber but with longer careers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Roger Knox said:


> It's good to make substantive judgments of music. We need that freedom. But it is not good to be rigid with them.
> 
> When I was young, older books declared Italian opera between Monteverdi and Rossini a deficient affair of prima donnas, castrati, and da capo arias. Only foreigners like Handel, Gluck, and Mozart who composed operas in Italian were important. But later as the revival of Italian opera gathered steam, a bewildering number of 17th- /18th-century Italian composers became significant. A substantive judgment helps me: Manfred Bukofzer in _Music in the Baroque_ (Norton, 1947) says the best Baroque Italian opera composers after Monteverdi were Legrenzi, Stradella, and Steffani. That’s held up well as a “rule of thumb” over decades of listening.
> 
> But there have been changes. With more performances I’ve appreciated operas of Monteverdi’s successor Francesco Cavalli, which have held the stage well. On the other hand those of the previously more highly-regarded Alessandro Scarlatti have been less successful. And though I find their music wonderful, performances and videos of operas by Legrenzi, Stradella and Steffani are limited for extra-musical reasons. Many of Legrenzi’s works are lost, Stradella’s career was impeded by years on the run, and Steffani had a double life, being a diplomat doing secret work for the Vatican who one day simply disappeared (as portrayed in Cecelia Bartoli’s DVD _Mission_). So I have to be flexible in judging them as _opera_ composers. As for the eighteenth century, I'm still learning and hope to find Italian composers of Pergolesi’s caliber but with longer careers.


Good point. Paisiello was a more successful opera composer than Mozart for a good reason. He had traits that could be subjectively seen as more "desirable" than Mozart's.

_"At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music."_





Il barbiere di Siviglia: Ma dov'eri tu, stordito


----------



## prlj

FrankE said:


> Why did they call the modern period "modern".
> Isn't that nowist / currentist and short-sighted?


Exemplified by the even-more-ridiculous-sounding "post-modern."


----------



## Chat Noir

prlj said:


> Exemplified by the even-more-ridiculous-sounding "post-modern."


It's funny that. I remember being at university (in someone else's lectures) and the lecturer asked: 'when did the 'modern' period begin?' And there was a lot of foot-shuffling and tumbleweed passed by. So I offered: 'around the period from Descartes?' And he was fairly satisfied with that _mutatis mutandis. _However as FrankE suggests we did get into the discussion about whether perhaps the 'ancients' (as we call them), such as those people in the Greece of Pericles, thought they actually inhabited the 'modern' world and did 'modern' things.

After all if 'modernism' in culture is represented by the onset the renaissance and enlightenment, Schoenberg can't be 'modernism'. Or maybe he is part of that because it's about very large paradigm changes. As such we'd have to mark our period via two things: industrial revolution and the internet revolution.

It's just names, but 'modernism' is an unfortunate coinage, because after the post-modernism you mentioned, where next? It was indeed short-sighted and a bit presumptuous.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> It's funny that. I remember being at university (in someone else's lectures) and the lecturer asked: 'when did the 'modern' period begin?' And there was a lot of foot-shuffling and tumbleweed passed by. So I offered: 'around the period from Descartes?' And he was fairly satisfied with that _mutatis mutandis. _However as FrankE suggests we did get into the discussion about whether perhaps the 'ancients' (as we call them), such as those people in the Greece of Pericles, thought they actually inhabited the 'modern' world and did 'modern' things.
> 
> After all if 'modernism' in culture is represented by the onset the renaissance and enlightenment, Schoenberg can't be 'modernism'. Or maybe he is part of that because it's about very large paradigm changes. As such we'd have to mark our period via two things: industrial revolution and the internet revolution.
> 
> It's just names, but 'modernism' is an unfortunate coinage, because after the post-modernism you mentioned, where next? It was indeed short-sighted and a bit presumptuous.


When was the first decade of post-modernism in painting? Andy Warhol? or earlier?


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> When was the first decade of post-modernism in painting? Andy Warhol? or earlier?


I don't know. Impressionist was deemed 'modernist' at the time,and then post-impressionism, which was still in the 19th century, is already beyond that.


----------



## Chat Noir

I don't like piano trios/quartets.


----------



## Roger Knox

Chat Noir said:


> I don't like piano trios/quartets.


I'm wondering why. Is it because the overlap in ranges of the strings vs. piano makes the sound muddy? That's a problem of pedaling that a good pianist can control. Or is there another concern?


----------



## Chat Noir

Roger Knox said:


> I'm wondering why. Is it because the overlap in ranges of the strings vs. piano makes the sound muddy? That's a problem of pedaling that a good pianist can control. Or is there another concern?


There's that, which is also just poor recording when it's a recording, but also I feel if the composer isn't happy enough with a string quartet/quintet it's better off just writing for orchestra or some other sort of varied ensemble. There's too much competition between the piano and a string trio/quartet. Such an ensemble was often used to reduce a symphony or concerto for a less expensive performance. Fair enough, but works written specifically for them are not to my taste.


----------



## Luchesi

My controversial opinion for today is

Composers after about Mahler, and especially more modern composers, expect too much from audiences who will only hear one performance. How much is the average listener expected to appreciate from one hearing?

I tune pianos for our small university and sometimes I listen in on rehearsals of some new works. There's a lot going on! If the composer is there there's even more going on. The musicians hear the work many times (they know the inner workings and cleverer parts of the score) and of course the composer knows the work backwards and forwards. But the average listener sitting in the seats doesn't even know what to expect.. There's no score, there's no discussion, there's no repeating of difficult sections..


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> Composers after about Mahler, and especially more modern composers, expect too much from audiences who will only hear one performance. How much is the average listener expected to appreciate from one hearing?


But Mahler!


----------



## Luchesi

Beyonce is Mahler's 8th cousin from Beyonce's great, great grandparents' generation. 

I think I got that right? Or maybe it's;

Beyonce is Mahler's 8th cousin from Beyonce's great, great, great grandparents' generation?


----------



## Neo Romanza

Luchesi said:


> Beyonce is Mahler's 8th cousin from Beyonce's great, great grandparents' generation.
> 
> I think I got that right? Or maybe it's;
> 
> Beyonce is Mahler's 8th cousin from Beyonce's great, great, great grandparents' generation?


Which makes her really nothing and this is all the better for Mahler to not be associated with this talentless twit. Sorry, I couldn't help but say it.


----------



## Chat Noir

Neo Romanza said:


> all the better for Mahler to not be associated with this talentless twit


Is this true? Talentless? I'm sure she has talent, even if it isn't to some listeners' tastes. I'm no great fan of hers, but I'd hardly write her off as talentless!


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> Is this true? Talentless? I'm sure she has talent, even if it isn't to some listeners' tastes. I'm no great fan of hers, but I'd hardly write her off as talentless!


I love asking the question of musicians and non-musicians, what is talent?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

My controversial classical music opinion was deleted.


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> I love asking the question of musicians and non-musicians, what is talent?


Aptitude really I suppose, for whatever it is one aims to do.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> Aptitude really I suppose, for whatever it is one aims to do.


These days, people are saying that you will work 10,000 hours to become an expert in any subject. That's a little simplistic, but it all tends to average out, the good and bad activities, for you to get to that point. In other words there's plenty of time.
I've found that with children playing music, the years from 3or4 to 10 are much more helpful and important than the years from 10 to 15or16 ...and then it goes down from there. 
So for me, I started about 10 or 11 (but not very seriously) and I shouldn't berate myself that I can't play as 'naturally' as well-tutored children who started at three or four to get the music into the brain - while it was very early in the brain organization phenomenon. This phenomenon is easier to detect in musicmaking, but you can also see it in math students (and sports/dance abilities).


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> These days, people are saying that you will work 10,000 hours to become an expert in any subject. That's a little simplistic, but it all tends to average out, the good and bad activities, for you to get to that point. In other words there's plenty of time.
> I've found that with children playing music, the years from 3or4 to 10 are much more helpful and important than the years from 10 to 15or16 ...and then it goes down from there.
> So for me, I started about 10 or 11 (but not very seriously) and I shouldn't berate myself that I can't play as 'naturally' as well-tutored children who started at three or four to get the music into the brain - while it was very early in the brain organization phenomenon. This phenomenon is easier to detect in musicmaking, but you can also see it in math students (and sports/dance abilities).


I started piano lessons aged 8, but didn't get driven like all these young musicians who became virtuoso superstars. Who knows how early music was consciously in my brain before then? There's a mixture of exposure and then actual practise. I worked very hard on the flute and, even if I say so myself, I can play well, but I don't know if I'd have ever made it as a professional flautist. This 10,000 hrs rule (from Malcolm Gladwell's book) is applied everywhere: language learning, music, sporting skills... It's shorthand for: immersed, devoted, willing to put in a lot of effort and practise, curious, etc. Yet it counts out things like aptitude (whatever this is) and getting good teachers, knowing how to efficiently practise and what to practise.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> I started piano lessons aged 8, but didn't get driven like all these young musicians who became virtuoso superstars. Who knows how early music was consciously in my brain before then? There's a mixture of exposure and then actual practise. I worked very hard on the flute and, even if I say so myself, I can play well, but I don't know if I'd have ever made it as a professional flautist. This 10,000 hrs rule (from Malcolm Gladwell's book) is applied everywhere: language learning, music, sporting skills... It's shorthand for: immersed, devoted, willing to put in a lot of effort and practise, curious, etc. Yet it counts out things like aptitude (whatever this is) and getting good teachers, knowing how to efficiently practise and what to practise.


Yes, 'sounds familiar. So now we should consider whether being a world-class instrumentalist and having that sort of life, 'is devoutly to be wish'd'? I went into science, mostly by accident, and I wouldn't change any of that in my life. The inscrutable complexities arise in any field of science and it keeps us all very humble.


----------



## Becca

I think that a big part of the difference for those who start young is in developing 'muscular memory' during physical growth, whether it be sports, dance or performing on an instrument, i.e. the rule doesn't apply so much for those areas (e.g. math, engineering, sciences) which are totally cerebral.


----------



## Chat Noir

Becca said:


> I think that a big part of the difference for those who start young is in developing 'muscular memory' during physical growth, whether it be sports, dance or performing on an instrument, i.e. the rule doesn't apply so much for those areas (e.g. math, engineering, sciences) which are totally cerebral.


I agree though maybe also a sort of reflex memory for even cerebral things. Considering music you get to have a sort of 'muscular reflex' for reading and responding to written scores, which is then transferred to physical action. I note that you wrote 'doesn't apply so much', so I'm not trying to correct you, just expanding.


----------



## verandai

I think starting early in terms of music is especially helpful for developing a musical ear.

I started piano lessons when I was 3, but never spent enough time to take it to a professional level. But I'm still very happy about having started early, because it also developed a good musical ear. I started composing comparably late - practising for myself in my thirties, taking lessons when I was around 40. But I don't feel much of a disadvantage because of my late start. I think much of the disadvantage got compensated by the well trained ear.

Also I think it's quite difficult to learn reading sheets as an adult.


----------



## Roger Knox

verandai said:


> I think starting early in terms of music is especially helpful for developing a musical ear. ...
> I started piano lessons when I was 3, but never spent enough time to take it to a professional level. But I'm still very happy about having started early, because it also developed a good musical ear. ...


Perhaps you were learning the Suzuki method? Anyway I heard the highly-esteemed pianist and pedagogue Gyorgy Sebok say that the most productive years for learning piano were between 3 and 5. Both my brother and I started piano when we were 4 using a particular method for young beginners, and we both have absolute pitch. There is research correlating early piano lessons and absolute pitch. But early lessons aren't the only factor; inherited aptitude is important too.


----------



## DaveM

Roger Knox said:


> ..But early lessons aren't the only factor; inherited aptitude is important too.


I believe in that. I played the violin for a few years as a young kid and had no aptitude for it whatsoever. Then took up the piano and without lessons developed very quickly, especially later on. Had a grandmother who was an excellent pianist, organist and piano teacher. She never taught me, but I’m assuming that some genes were past on..


----------



## That Guy Mick

prlj said:


> Here's my biggest one:
> 
> I don't care for the sound of sopranos. At all. If a piece features a soprano, I'm out. If I were ever rich enough to do this, I would love to commission a recording of Beethoven 9 with none of the soprano parts included. If every soprano voice were suddenly dropped from all classical rep, nothing of value would be lost.
> 
> So, what are your controversial opinions about classical music?


The overuse of sopranos has indeed been damaging to the career opportunities for castratos. Its a shame.


----------



## That Guy Mick

Kreisler jr said:


> - Most "received wisdom" is pretty much spot on. There are some pieces and composers that are under/overrated but overall several centuries of reception, scholarship and practice have divided wheat and chaff reasonably well.


In other words: controversial opinions may have therapeutic value, telling of personal taste, and somewhat interesting or not, but are generally meritless. Where did "received wisdom" get it wrong? You did say "most." Not "all."


----------



## verandai

Roger Knox said:


> Perhaps you were learning the Suzuki method? Anyway I heard the highly-esteemed pianist and pedagogue Gyorgy Sebok say that the most productive years for learning piano were between 3 and 5. Both my brother and I started piano when we were 4 using a particular method for young beginners, and we both have absolute pitch. There is research correlating early piano lessons and absolute pitch. But early lessons aren't the only factor; inherited aptitude is important too.


I don't know which method my first piano teacher used. But I can remember that she also did some hearing training with me (up to identifying chords).

I'm not sure if I can exactly classify my hearing as absolute pitch. I can't identify if a sound is 439 or 438 Hz (only that it's lower than standard). But I can identify multiple notes in a complex chord or melody without a reference. For the piano this works best for me, as I'm used to the sound. For other instruments this may need some repetitions. So I guess it's not really absolute pitch, but I'm happy with it. I definetly wouldn't trade my current hearing for being able to hear only one simultaneous note exactly up to some cents.


----------



## FrankE

Chat Noir said:


> Is this true? Talentless? I'm sure she has talent, even if it isn't to some listeners' tastes. I'm no great fan of hers, but I'd hardly write her off as talentless!


Her mother was an opera singer and coached her singing. Maybe her mother's side is musical and that's how they are related to Mahler.


----------



## verandai

I'll write my controverse opinion in a separate post to make the feedback separable:

_Mahler's 8th symphony is underrated (or undeservingly less appreciated) compared to his other symphonies._


----------



## Roger Knox

verandai said:


> I don't know which method my first piano teacher used. But I can remember that she also did some hearing training with me (up to identifying chords).
> 
> I'm not sure if I can exactly classify my hearing as absolute pitch. I can't identify if a sound is 439 or 438 Hz (only that it's lower than standard). But I can identify multiple notes in a complex chord or melody without a reference. For the piano this works best for me, as I'm used to the sound. For other instruments this may need some repetitions. So I guess it's not really absolute pitch, but I'm happy with it. I definetly wouldn't trade my current hearing for being able to hear only one simultaneous note exactly up to some cents. ...


Absolute (perfect) pitch is being able to identify the pitch (note), not being able to tell the frequency in Hz. With less familiar instruments it may harder, but there's no question -- you have absolute (perfect) pitch. Congratulations!


----------



## Luchesi

Roger Knox said:


> Absolute (perfect) pitch is being able to identify the pitch (note), not being able to tell the frequency in Hz. With less familiar instruments it may harder, but there's no question -- you have absolute (perfect) pitch. Congratulations!


I was going to suggest a thread about absolute pitch. Here's a post from an old one in TC.


[IMG alt="World Violist"]https://www.talkclassical.com/d3/avatars/m/1/1190.jpg?1649835595[/IMG]
* World Violist 
Registered*
Joined May 31, 2007
3,817 Posts
 #5  ·  Dec 15, 2010



Absolute pitch isn't really as great as it seems. I don't have it, but I've heard about people who do, and there are horror stories about people with perfect pitch not being able to listen to some recordings because of different tunings or transpositions or some such thing (William Primrose, the famous violist, had perfect pitch; as such he never transposed Bach's 6th cello suite for viola because the only way to do it well was to go down a fifth, which he couldn't stand to do).

Also, it isn't geniuses who have it. True, geniuses _can_ have it, but there's no correlation. It's just a misconception. It's actually rather common among Chinese people or other nations whose language utilizes pitch.

What's rather fun for me is that I have very good relative pitch and a great pitch memory and so can usually hear a pitch without any reference and tell what pitch it is. It's not absolute pitch; it's just picking a note out of my head to use as a reference, so I can fake absolute pitch. A lot of people think I have it and won't believe me when I say I don't.


----------



## Chat Noir

I also only have relative pitch, it has never been a handicap. Loads of people in good orchestras have relative pitch recognition. I played in an orchestra pit for a ballet company (long time ago as a university student) and only two people said they had perfect pitch. No-one tested it, we didn't care. There's nothing we can do about any of it.

A lot of practice and exposure improves recognition to a high degree. I'm also so accustoned to reading a score and producing the sounds that the connection is strong. I have no doubt it will weaken and fade over time. Again there's little to do about it. So I don't fret about it. It doesn't make one a 'better' musician or a better general listener, though it's very useful for being able to aurally identify the individual elements within harmonies.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> I also only have relative pitch, it has never been a handicap. Loads of people in good orchestras have relative pitch recognition. I played in an orchestra pit for a ballet company (long time ago as a university student) and only two people said they had perfect pitch. No-one tested it, we didn't care. There's nothing we can do about any of it.
> 
> A lot of practice and exposure improves recognition to a high degree. I'm also so accustoned to reading a score and producing the sounds that the connection is strong. I have no doubt it will weaken and fade over time. Again there's little to do about it. So I don't fret about it. It doesn't make one a 'better' musician or a better general listener, though it's very useful for being able to aurally identify the individual elements within harmonies.


If we always sing "Mary Had A Little Lamb" in the same key to ourselves (I do), then we have a quick way for us un-endowed folks to hear any of those notes. 
I use "The Third Man Theme" for more of the notes.

I have only an average ear, so even this is tricky for me. But there's always an instrument nearby...


----------



## HansZimmer

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Music theory needs to be deconstructed and reconstructed from the ground up. Music theory only has descriptive, not prescriptive, implications.


Not exactly. The music theory is basically the result of a millenial (informal) study about how the average human brain process the sounds. You can break the rules, if you want, but if you do so you will lose a great part of the public and your music will become a product of a niche interest.
This mean that the persons who produce music to earn money basically still use the traditional music theory (the one of the common practice period). Why is film music mostly tonal, for example? Do you think that the soundtracks of Star Wars would be equally appreciated by the public if they were avant-garde music and not traditional music?


----------



## verandai

Roger Knox said:


> Absolute (perfect) pitch is being able to identify the pitch (note), not being able to tell the frequency in Hz. With less familiar instruments it may harder, but there's no question -- you have absolute (perfect) pitch. Congratulations!


I'm happy with my hearing anyway, regardless of how it is defined - but thanks anyway! 



Luchesi said:


> Absolute pitch isn't really as great as it seems. I don't have it, but I've heard about people who do, and there are horror stories about people with perfect pitch not being able to listen to some recordings because of different tunings or transpositions or some such thing (William Primrose, the famous violist, had perfect pitch; as such he never transposed Bach's 6th cello suite for viola because the only way to do it well was to go down a fifth, which he couldn't stand to do).
> 
> Also, it isn't geniuses who have it. True, geniuses _can_ have it, but there's no correlation. It's just a misconception. It's actually rather common among Chinese people or other nations whose language utilizes pitch.
> 
> What's rather fun for me is that I have very good relative pitch and a great pitch memory and so can usually hear a pitch without any reference and tell what pitch it is. It's not absolute pitch; it's just picking a note out of my head to use as a reference, so I can fake absolute pitch. A lot of people think I have it and won't believe me when I say I don't.


I also think it is only a small advantage and has also some disadvantages. For example it drove me nuts when I had practised a piece for accompanying a singer on a piano - and she decided on short notice that we have to use an auto-transpose function on an e-piano to move everything a second down. I couldn't tolerate it and she couldn't understand why 

Since then I always make sure that I'll play on a real piano...

Also I don't like it when some radio / tv broadcasts play songs in the wrong key (mostly pop or film music). It sounds different and I don't know why they do it. Just by accident? Only happens sometimes...


----------



## Chat Noir

verandai said:


> Also I don't like it when some radio / tv broadcasts play songs in the wrong key (mostly pop or film music). It sounds different and I don't know why they do it. Just by accident? Only happens sometimes...


This can be annoying. Transposed keys and obviously wrong tempos. I also remember getting the transcribed sheet music for Monk's solo piano, in order that the pianist of the jazz quintet could learn a particular song (Ruby My Dear) and as he played I noticed numerous errors, melodic and harmonic. So for the absolute pitch people it must be hell!


----------



## Luchesi

People ask how well you need to hear to start learning piano tuning? Does having absolute pitch help?

Nope. Less than 5 cents is what you need to learn to 'hear', using a concept similar to heterodyning is what we use. I've never met a person who could hear a difference of less than 4 cents (less than 4 percent of a half step), and yet we need to be even more precise than that. It's always been a curious activity to me.


----------



## Neo Romanza

-Void message-


----------



## Roger Knox

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> My controversial classical music opinion was deleted.


Really? Was it serious, humorous, or a bit of both?


----------



## Roger Knox

verandai said:


> I'm happy with my hearing anyway, regardless of how it is defined - but thanks anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it is only a small advantage and has also some disadvantages. For example it drove me nuts when I had practised a piece for accompanying a singer on a piano - and she decided on short notice that we have to use an auto-transpose function on an e-piano to move everything a second down. I couldn't tolerate it and she couldn't understand why
> 
> Since then I always make sure that I'll play on a real piano...
> 
> Also I don't like it when some radio / tv broadcasts play songs in the wrong key (mostly pop or film music). It sounds different and I don't know why they do it. Just by accident? Only happens sometimes...


Could you please let me know briefly what the German terminology in this area is? Just curious.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Roger Knox said:


> Really? Was it serious, humorous, or a bit of both?


Maybe I had 3 strong beers and was in a black metal mood...sorry people 😇


----------



## verandai

Roger Knox said:


> Could you please let me know briefly what the German terminology in this area is? Just curious.


Sure - but which phrase do you mean? Or just the general German term for "absolute pitch"?


----------



## littlejohnuk1




----------



## Barbebleu

littlejohnuk1 said:


> View attachment 178848


Que? 🤔. Maybe this is in the wrong thread.


----------



## littlejohnuk1

Barbebleu said:


> Que? 🤔. Maybe this is in the wrong thread.


Completely the wrong thread lol


----------



## Barbebleu

littlejohnuk1 said:


> Completely the wrong thread lol


Yeah, been there, done that, bought the T-shirt!


----------



## Waehnen

My previous controversial opinions were trashed, and ever since I have been trying to come up with a new controversial opinion. Finally I came up with something!

My rating of *The Great Wagnerian Trio:

Bruckner*
1st rate composer of the 1st class

*Mahler*
2nd rate composer of the 1st class

*Strauss *(in his own words)
1st rate composer of the 2nd class


----------



## HansZimmer

Supercontroversial opinions coming soon:
1) J.S. Bach is overrated: he's not as good as Mozart and Beethoven, and Mozart is the best among the three. Sure Bach is very good from a technical point of view, but his music, *IN AVERAGE, *is not as valuable for entertainment as the one of Mozart and Beethoven.

2) Film music is as good as classical music, at least the one you find in Oscar/Grammy nominations

3) In classical music there should be the common practice to give a meaning to the pieces, like Vivaldi does in the Four Seasons, otherwise the melodies are meaningless

4) The melody is the most important ingredient of music: the rest is just the condiment. If you have a good melody you can for example enhance your piece with a bit of counterpoints (or other technical tricks) here and there, but if you start with a boring/unexpressive/trivial melody there is not so much you can do to enhance your piece.
This means that the best melodists will always be the best composers.

5) The music of Mozart and Beethoven is beatiful, but not as much as my avatar


----------



## Roger Knox

verandai said:


> Sure - but which phrase do you mean? Or just the general German term for "absolute pitch"?


The German term for absolute pitch.


----------



## EdwardBast

Neo Romanza said:


> There have been an onslaught of new Bruckner recordings over the past 20 years or so. He may not be some kind of "deity", but he is highly revered and his music is loved by many (including myself). I once read a quote from Bruno Walter that described the main differences between Mahler and Bruckner: _"*Mahler spent his life searching for God, and Bruckner found God*"_.


Were this true, and with apologies to H. L. Mencken, then the main contribution of Bruckner's music is "its massive proof that God is a bore."


----------



## verandai

Roger Knox said:


> The German term for absolute pitch.


absolutes Gehör = "absolute hearing" in literal translation


----------



## Roger Knox

Thanks, that is useful.


----------



## Neo Romanza

EdwardBast said:


> Were this true, and with apologies to H. L. Mencken, then the main contribution of Bruckner's music is "its massive proof that God is a bore."


I love Bruckner, but this is funny. Good one.


----------



## Waehnen

Gustav Mahler would have been the greatest symphonist of all time had he edited and cut out 10-25% of the material of each symphony and made the symphonies that much more concise.

(Unfortunately he suffered from The Wagner Syndrome.)


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Roger Knox said:


> Really? Was it serious, humorous, or a bit of both?


Wait...this happens when I'm a bit drunk, although I actually mean it. Don't listen to Russian music unless you suck...You might inspire the universe.


----------



## premont

HansZimmer said:


> Supercontroversial opinions coming soon:
> 1) J.S. Bach is overrated: he's not as good as Mozart and Beethoven, and Mozart is the best among the three. Sure Bach is very good from a technical point of view, but his music, *IN AVERAGE, *is not as valuable for entertainment as the one of Mozart and Beethoven.


Yes, if you want entertainment - it's Mozart. If you want a little more substance - it's Bach, and if you are in between- it's Beethoven.


----------



## Roger Knox

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> ...You might inspire the universe.


That would be cool. I'm taking a 2-month break from TalkClassical to get moving on that.


----------



## EvaBaron

HansZimmer said:


> Supercontroversial opinions coming soon:
> 1) J.S. Bach is overrated: he's not as good as Mozart and Beethoven, and Mozart is the best among the three. Sure Bach is very good from a technical point of view, but his music, *IN AVERAGE, *is not as valuable for entertainment as the one of Mozart and Beethoven.
> 
> 2) Film music is as good as classical music, at least the one you find in Oscar/Grammy nominations
> 
> 3) In classical music there should be the common practice to give a meaning to the pieces, like Vivaldi does in the Four Seasons, otherwise the melodies are meaningless
> 
> 4) The melody is the most important ingredient of music: the rest is just the condiment. If you have a good melody you can for example enhance your piece with a bit of counterpoints (or other technical tricks) here and there, but if you start with a boring/unexpressive/trivial melody there is not so much you can do to enhance your piece.
> This means that the best melodists will always be the best composers.
> 
> 5) The music of Mozart and Beethoven is beatiful, but not as much as my avatar


1. Haven’t heard enough from Bach to be able to say something about this statement
2. Wholeheartedly agree
3. I don’t agree, I think it’s also fun to try and analyse for yourself what the composer means to convey in a piece, movement or certain melody. I realise you said ‘common practice’ which is not the same as all pieces should have meaning but still, I think that pieces that are just fun do have an important place in classical music, maybe more so than others
4. I don’t agree. I love music that has good melodies. But I also love music that has good orchestration, balance, harmony, energy etc. And there are very good pieces where the melody is not the most important factor at all, and where your ‘condiment’ is at the forefront
5. Ehhhh


----------



## Neo Romanza

HansZimmer said:


> Supercontroversial opinions coming soon:
> 1) J.S. Bach is overrated: he's not as good as Mozart and Beethoven, and Mozart is the best among the three. Sure Bach is very good from a technical point of view, but his music, *IN AVERAGE, *is not as valuable for entertainment as the one of Mozart and Beethoven.
> 
> 2) Film music is as good as classical music, at least the one you find in Oscar/Grammy nominations
> 
> 3) In classical music there should be the common practice to give a meaning to the pieces, like Vivaldi does in the Four Seasons, otherwise the melodies are meaningless
> 
> 4) The melody is the most important ingredient of music: the rest is just the condiment. If you have a good melody you can for example enhance your piece with a bit of counterpoints (or other technical tricks) here and there, but if you start with a boring/unexpressive/trivial melody there is not so much you can do to enhance your piece.
> This means that the best melodists will always be the best composers.
> 
> 5) The music of Mozart and Beethoven is beatiful, but not as much as my avatar



1. Not overrated. Rated accordingly. I'm not a huge fan, but I acknowledge this giant's influence. The comparisons with Mozart and Beethoven are laughable at best considering their aims were completely different. Three different composers and each of them were hugely influential. This isn't opinion, this is fact.

2. Film music will never be equivalent or as good as classical music.

3. No...just no.

4. Actually, no, this is incorrect. The melody isn't the only important criteria for music. In a lot of post-war music, the melody became something that just wasn't that important any longer. Texture, atmosphere, mood, etc. became focal points.

5. If you're referring to Hans Zimmer, then thanks, I needed a good laugh today.


----------



## HansZimmer

Neo Romanza said:


> 2. Film music will never be equivalent or as good as classical music.


What does "good" mean? For me the music which moves you is good. There are many persons, including me, that get strong emotions with the music of the major film music composers (John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Thomas Newman, John Barry, Alan Menken,...).

Music is basically poetry made with sounds, and a poem creates subjective emotional reactions. You have to be able to connect with the composer and feel the emotion he was experimenting while composing the piece in order to get pleasure from it.
It's obvious that not all persons are able to connect with a determined composer, so I won't debate about your personal emotions as long as you won't debate about mines.
So, about this point we can simply agree to disagree.

However, I think that your point of view is dogmatic, because with the words "will never be equivalent" you are basically saying that it's impossible to write film music which is as good as classical music. What is this, a religion? Where is the god "classical music"?



> 4. Actually, no, this is incorrect. The melody isn't the only important criteria for music. In a lot of post-war music, the melody became something that just wasn't that important any longer. Texture, atmosphere, mood, etc. became focal points.


I was speaking about my subjective point of view.




> 5. If you're referring to Hans Zimmer, then thanks, I needed a good laugh today.


The avatar is the picture, not the nickname. So, I was referring to Kevin, not to Hans Zimmer.

You will be surprised about the fact that I still have to listen to most of the film scores composed by Hans Zimmer (at the moment I only know The Gladiator and The Lion King).
In short, I can't create any debate about this point because I don't really know the composer.

The only thing I know is that one of my favourite orchestral works is the one of Hans Zimmer for The Lion King. My rate is 10/10. The Gladiator is close.
I can not judge the composer because maybe he has composed a lot of **** after The Lion King and The Gladiator, but I can give my opinions about the two works.

At the moment, I think that Mozart is the best composer I know, because I have listened to a lot of his pieces and I came to the conclusion that if he had walked on a piano like a cat, he would have produced a good melody.
I also have to say that when it comes to judge a composer I don't only take in consideration the pieces in itself, but also the technikal skills. I know that Mozart was able to directly write the music on the paper without playing it and that he was able to compose a symphony in five days. Some of my favourite pieces of music were composed by Mozart in prepubertal age and everytime I listen to them I think that they are impressive considering the age.

So, in few words, I agree with you, because Mozart > Hans Zimmer. The second one needs a computer program for composing music and when he composed the suite of The Lion King was not deaf like Beethoven when he composed the ninth symphony. I don't think that Zimmer will ever become a legend like Mozart and Beethoven, but this doesn't mean that he has not composed extremely moving pieces.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Anyone who claims Bach is overrated is immediately disqualified from making any statements about music that can be taken seriously. Music does not get any better than Bach's.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Waehnen said:


> Gustav Mahler would have been the greatest symphonist of all time had he edited and cut out 10-25% of the material of each symphony and made the symphonies that much more concise.
> 
> (Unfortunately he suffered from The Wagner Syndrome.)


Even if he had done as you suggest, he still would not be as good as Beethoven but it would definitely be an improvement.


----------



## SanAntone

*** delete ****


----------



## Roger Knox

We would do better to commit ourselves to talking about classical music as a kind of art, rather than as a kind of war.


----------



## Becca

The good thing about this thread is that it lets me know whose opinions are worth paying attention to and, more importantly, whose to avoid - assuming that I was in any doubt.


----------



## Roger Knox

Waehnen said:


> My previous controversial opinions were trashed, ...


But doesn't that mean that _as controversial opinions_ they were a success? So, congratulations!


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> The good thing about this thread is that it lets me know whose opinions are worth paying attention to and, more importantly, whose to avoid - assuming that I was in any doubt.


I on the other hand welcome opinions which show people have some personality! We are here to express ourselves and expand our musical world, so speaking out loud is beneficial even if controversial. I value more the opinions of those who occasionally have the guts to disagree with the consensus than those who are just nodding and aiming to agree with the self declared morale and establishment police of the forum.


----------



## Becca

Waehnen said:


> I on the other hand welcome opinions which show people have some personality! We are here to express ourselves and expand our musical world, so speaking out loud is beneficial even if controversial. I value more the opinions of those who occasionally have the guts to disagree with the consensus than those who are just nodding and aiming to agree with the self declared morale and establishment police of the forum.


Then you clearly did not understand what I was saying.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> Then you clearly did not understand what I was saying.


I did understand that you were (again) dividing the forumists into two groups: those in Becca´s favour and those NOT in Becca´s favour. I do not appreciate that kind of writing. That´s all.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Anyone who claims Bach is overrated is immediately disqualified from making any statements about music that can be taken seriously. Music does not get any better than Bach's.


In this poll Mozart and Beethoven are winning against Bach: Who is your favorite classical music composer?

My opinion that the music of Mozart and Beethoven is IN AVERAGE more valuable for entertainment might not be so unpopular.
If you say that Bach is overrated doesn't mean that you are saying that he's a bad composer, but only that there are BETTER composers (like Mozart and Beethoven).

I have still some pieces of Bach between my favourites.


However it's only my personal point of view. OPINIONS. Infact only idiots think that art is objective.
The discussions is infact about OPINIONS, not FACTS, although some persons confuse their PERSONAL OPINIONS with FACTS.


----------



## Becca

Waehnen said:


> I did understand that you were (again) dividing the forumists into two groups: those in Becca´s favour and those NOT in Becca´s favour. I do not appreciate that kind of writing. That´s all.


This only serves to demonstrate that you understood nothing.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> This only serves to demonstrate that you understood nothing.


I am sure that those who are not in your favour 'understand nothing'.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> However it's only my personal point of view. OPINIONS. Infact only idiots think that art is objective.
> The discussions is infact about OPINIONS, not FACTS, although some persons confuse their PERSONAL OPINIONS with FACTS.


Of course it is your opinion. When did I say it is anything different? Your statements about music are only your opinions as are mine. My point was that if your opinion is that Bach is overrated then your opinions about music cannot be taken seriously. Bach can be rated #1 and this is the right rating. No composer is better than Bach. Some are his equal but not one is better.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Music does not get any better than Bach's.





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No composer is better than Bach.


By what criteria?


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Of course it is your opinion. When did I say it is anything different? Your statements about music are only your opinions as are mine. My point was that if your opinion is that Bach is overrated then your opinions about music cannot be taken seriously. Bach can be rated #1 and this is the right rating. No composer is better than Bach. Some are his equal but not one is better.


As you imply, it's just your opinion that Bach is _your_ number 1.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Of course it is your opinion. When did I say it is anything different? Your statements about music are only your opinions as are mine.





> My point was that if your opinion is that Bach is overrated then your opinions about music cannot be taken seriously. Bach can be rated #1 and this is the right rating. No composer is better than Bach. Some are his equal but not one is better.


The statements in the two quotes are contradictory.

To clarify my point of view, I think that there are serious composers and less serious composers and that Bach belongs to the category of the serious composers. However, I simply have PERSONAL preferences between the serious composers.
There are pieces of Bach in the list of my favourite pieces, but the percentage of Mozart's pieces in the list is much larger.


----------



## PeterKC

1. Incidental music is superfluous. (Is that redundant?)
2. I find Reger as interesting as Hindemith.
3. Most ballet music is better without the dancing.
4. Almost all opera is better without the staging.
5. Claude Frank's Bethoven Sonata cycle was one of the better ever recorded. (Despite the abominable dynaflex pressings.)


----------



## neoshredder

Sibelius was the last great Composer.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> By what criteria?


By any reasonable criteria comparing classical composers.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

janxharris said:


> As you imply, it's just your opinion that Bach is _your_ number 1.


I think it's pretty obvious that anything I post here, unless it's a plain fact like Bach was born in 1685, is just my opinion.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> The statements in the two quotes are contradictory.


What is the contradiction?


----------



## Xisten267

I don't claim to be able to give solid support to these opinions, yet I still hold them:

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and Brahms, in chronological order, are the all-time five greatest composers;
Toscanini, Furtwängler, Barbirolli, Karajan and Bernstein, in chronological order, are the all-time five greatest conductors;
Quality in music exists and is not completely subjective (although it's not objective either), and the best indicators to try to measure it are craft, influence, originality and expression;
Orchestral soundtracks can sometimes be considered classical music and can be superb, although none I've heard so far reach the heights of the best of classical music in terms of craft, influence, originality and expression;
John Williams is probably one of the greatest classical music composers alive;
John Cage sucks;
Microtonality and politonality offer great perspectives to the music of the new composers, while atonality doesn't because it has already been extensively developed in the past century;
Much of what is known today as jazz and rock will survive the test of time and may even be considered as part of classical music in the future;
Melody is an important component of music but it isn't the only one that matters;
Richter's Well-Tempered Clavier is Bach for those who actually want to listen to Chopin.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> I don't claim to be able to give solid support to these opinions, yet I still hold them:
> 
> Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and Brahms, in chronological order, are the all-time five greatest composers;
> Toscanini, Furtwängler, Barbirolli, Karajan and Bernstein, in chronological order, are the all-time five greatest conductors;
> Quality in music exists and is not completely subjective (although it's not objective either), and the best indicators to try to measure it are craft, influence, originality and expression;
> Orchestral soundtracks can sometimes be considered classical music and can be superb, although none I've heard so far reach the heights of the best of classical music in terms of craft, influence, originality and expression;
> John Williams is probably one of the greatest classical composers alive;
> John Cage sucks;
> Microtonality and politonality offer great perspectives to the music of the new composers, while atonality doesn't because it has already been extensively developed in the past century;
> Much of what is known today as jazz and rock will survive the test of time and may even be considered as part of classical music in the future;
> Melody is an important component of music but it isn't the only one that matters;
> Richter's Well-Tempered Clavier is Bach for those who actually want to listen to Chopin.


Agree with most of your points (don't really think they are that controversial). Don't really see rock surviving as classical music, though. It just doesn't have the qualities that I think are essential for a musical genre to be considered classical.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Agree with most of your points (don't really think they are that controversial). Don't really see rock surviving as classical music, though. It just doesn't have the qualities that I think are essential for a musical genre to be considered classical.


But some of the most famous albums of rock could be considered "classical" in the future in the sense that they were very influential and significant as musical achievements, thus "classics" of music. I'm thinking in albums such as The Beatles' _Sgt. Peppers_, Pink Floyd's _The Dark Side of the Moon_, Yes' _Close to the Edge_, Led Zeppelin's _IV_, Queen's _A Night at the Opera_ and King Crimson's _In The Court of the Crimson King _for example_._


----------



## Kreisler jr

The survival of music "living" on electronic or digital media is structurally rather different than the survival of music on paper scores or parts. The latter can survive in some archive but the threshold to dig it out, rehearse and perform is comparably high. Of course, some things might not even be stored (AFAIK even for broadway musicals, like Gershwin, from the 1920s or 30s often the complete parts have not survived. Of course, there are piano score or similar, but instrumentation was often done by other musicians, parts apparently got lost when a piece was not on stage any more). 

Whereas for music stored on media, one just needs a device to play them.
It might be instructive to check how much of the popular music of the late 19th and early 20th century, i.e. at the dawn of recording technology has survived and in what way. A lot of this music was clearly considered ephemeral by the people who wrote it and played it. I have heard stories of "revival" bands recreating popular music (like swing style jazz of the 20s) who transcribed instrumental parts from shellac records because there were no band parts to be found.

The (popular) music of the first third of the 20th century would be a good case because almost nobody alive now remembers this music from their own youth (unlike the postwar popular music). How much of this is today known and listened to?


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Of course it is your opinion. When did I say it is anything different? Your statements about music are only your opinions as are mine. My point was that if your opinion is that Bach is overrated then your opinions about music cannot be taken seriously. Bach can be rated #1 and this is the right rating. No composer is better than Bach. Some are his equal but not one is better.


Surely, if one is truly aware of the subjectivity of one's estimations of music composition, then one _would _take as serious other perspectives - even one that holds that JSB is overrated (though I'm not totally clear what that (ie JSB being overrated) actually means)?


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Of course it is your opinion. When did I say it is anything different? Your statements about music are only your opinions as are mine. My point was that if your opinion is that Bach is overrated then your opinions about music cannot be taken seriously. Bach can be rated #1 and this is the right rating. No composer is better than Bach. Some are his equal but not one is better.


Did you feel this way when you were young?


----------



## methuselah

1. Philip Glass is overrated.
2. The tonality of Bach and Mozart is headache-inducing.
3. Beethoven is at his best in _A Clockwork Orange._
4. There is no great American composer. 
5. Schumann was a robot.
6. Feldman was human.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I find Mozart (op. 200 onward) more consistently good than Beethoven.

Bach was one of the few Baroque composers to make counterpoint entertaining, but I think Baroque conventions restricted his music from having a wider range of 'emotional' reactions.

In general I find much of Baroque very dull to listen to. Capital C Classical too but to a lesser extent. My ideal period is probably the early Romantic. Not too harmonically constrained but also still adhering to form. I've been put off by the late Romantic's melodies with little repetition. I like repetition.


----------



## neoshredder

I like Corelli more than Bach. He used emotions in his music more. And preferred an Orchestra more than Bach.


----------



## Bulldog

neoshredder said:


> I like Corelli more than Bach. He used emotions in his music more. And preferred an Orchestra more than Bach.


I have no idea if Corelli had a higher opinion of orchestras than Bach. However, Bach wrote hundreds of works with orchestra. How about Corelli?


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> I have no idea if Corelli had a higher opinion of orchestras than Bach. However, Bach wrote hundreds of works with orchestra. How about Corelli?


The problem I have with Bach is that I mostly like orchestral music, and the orchestral suites don't convince me. Surely not as much as the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven. In the concertos however there are some excellent works.
I'm also not a passionate of vocal music, and some of the works of Bach which are considered "masterpieces" are vocal.

Maybe I need to fit more into organ or vocal music to fully appreciate Bach.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Luchesi said:


> Did you feel this way when you were young?


Depends on what age you're talking about. I've changed my opinions about music several times over my lifetime. But ever since I got into classical music (some 30 years ago), I've held Bach in very high esteem and that esteem has only gotten higher as I've gotten to know his music better, especially his keyboard music. The Goldberg Variations and both books of the WTC are as good as music gets.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

janxharris said:


> Surely, if one is truly aware of the subjectivity of one's estimations of music composition, then one _would _take as serious other perspectives - even one that holds that JSB is overrated (though I'm not totally clear what that (ie JSB being overrated) actually means)?


Music is not entirely subjective (my banging randomly on the piano is not subjectively (unless you want to completely throw away any meaningful evaluation of music) better music than Bach's Goldbergs) but I'm not going to start this discussion here and now - we've beaten this one to death in dedicated threads.

Agree with you on the ambiguity of the statement that Bach is overrated as it wasn't defined what criteria were used to rate him.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> But some of the most famous albums of rock could be considered "classical" in the future in the sense that they were very influential and significant as musical achievements, thus "classics" of music. I'm thinking in albums such as The Beatles' _Sgt. Peppers_, Pink Floyd's _The Dark Side of the Moon_, Yes' _Close to the Edge_, Led Zeppelin's _IV_, Queen's _A Night at the Opera_ and King Crimson's _In The Court of the Crimson King _for example_._


Those albums have already acquired the "classical" status among rock but are not considered classical music and I don't think the passage of time will change this.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> The problem I have with Bach is that I mostly like orchestral music, and the orchestral suites don't convince me. Surely not as much as the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven. In the concertos however there are some excellent works.
> I'm also not a passionate of vocal music, and some of the works of Bach which are considered "masterpieces" are vocal.
> 
> Maybe I need to fit more into organ or vocal music to fully appreciate Bach.


I agree that Bach's orchestral music is not as good as Beethoven's and that is largely the result of the time in which Bach composed. Bach's best is his keyboard music played on the piano. I am not a big fan of vocal music either and still consider Bach one of the greatest based on his keyboard output alone. There are some who consider his vocal output his best - the Mass in B minor and the St. Matthew Passion are two that are often cited as his best.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Music is not entirely subjective


I agree about this, because there is music that is objectively trivial and/or stupid. However the violin concerto of Beethoven is not trivial and/or stupid, so you can prefer it more than any work of Bach without embarassement.


----------



## HansZimmer

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I agree that Bach's orchestral music is not as good as Beethoven's and that is largely the result of the time in which Bach composed. Bach's best is his keyboard music played on the piano. I am not a big fan of vocal music either and still consider Bach one of the greatest based on his keyboard output alone. There are some who consider his vocal output his best - the Mass in B minor and the St. Matthew Passion are two that are often cited as his best.


An other problem is that I don't like the sound of the harpsichord, so I have to listen to the piano versions of the works of Bach.

That said, although there are some pieces that I like in the WTC (if played with piano), I still prefer some piano sonatas of Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> I agree about this, because there is music that is objectively trivial and/or stupid. However the violin concerto of Beethoven is not trivial and/or stupid, so you can prefer it more than any work of Bach without embarassement.


I can't argue with that. it's a much more palatable statement than "Bach is overrated".


----------



## HansZimmer

HansZimmer said:


> An other problem is that I don't like the sound of the harpsichord, so I have to listen to the piano versions of the works of Bach.
> 
> That said, although there are some pieces that I like in the WTC (if played with piano), I still prefer some piano sonatas of Mozart and Beethoven.


However I'm also not a great fan of sonatas for only one instrument. My real interest starts with works for at least 2-3 instruments, and the orchestral music for me is the best genre.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

HansZimmer said:


> An other problem is that I don't like the sound of the harpsichord, so I have to listen to the piano versions of the works of Bach.
> 
> That said, although there are some pieces that I like in the WTC (if played with piano), I still prefer some piano sonatas of Mozart and Beethoven.


No one *has *to listen to the harpsichord (shudders). Every single composition of Bach has been transcribed and performed on the piano by top artists. And I totally get your preference for Mozart and Beethoven's piano music.


----------



## HenryPenfold

My controversial classical music opinion is that as an absolute Mahler and Bruckner nut, I don't think either of them wrote a piece of music as fabulous as Strauss' Ein Heldenleben.


----------



## prlj

Xisten267 said:


> I'm thinking in albums such as The Beatles' _Sgt. Peppers_, Pink Floyd's _The Dark Side of the Moon_, Yes' _Close to the Edge_, Led Zeppelin's _IV_, Queen's _A Night at the Opera_ and King Crimson's _In The Court of the Crimson King _for example_._


"Classics," absolutlely. "Classical," not really, but only because we've defined classical in a different way. But those albums will live on forever, and when 20th Century Music is studied 300 years from now, they'll get (and deserve!) far more discussion than most other "classical" music from the latter half of the century.


----------



## Highwayman

Hildegard is overrated because I don`t like vocal music and she did not compose any orchestral music.


----------



## PeterKC

methuselah said:


> 1. Philip Glass is overrated.
> 2. The tonality of Bach and Mozart is headache-inducing.
> 3. Beethoven is at his best in _A Clockwork Orange._
> 4. There is no great American composer.
> 5. Schumann was a robot.
> 6. Feldman was human.



Ives


----------



## premont

PeterKC said:


> 4. Almost all opera is better without the staging.


And even better without the singing.



> 5. Claude Frank's Bethoven Sonata cycle was one of the better ever recorded.


Agree completely.


----------



## PeterKC




----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Depends on what age you're talking about. I've changed my opinions about music several times over my lifetime. But ever since I got into classical music (some 30 years ago), I've held Bach in very high esteem and that esteem has only gotten higher as I've gotten to know his music better, especially his keyboard music. The Goldberg Variations and both books of the WTC are as good as music gets.


Thanks. If I remember correctly, I read in a few books when I was very young that Bach was exceptionally excellent to study. This was long before I knew anything about why an author would say that. So it's served me very well. lol

If we tell kids that the Greats were great, then at least they have an emotional trip laid out for them (instead of silence, or PC attitudes). Whether or not they continue to agree when they get some experience - is part of growing up. Most people usually come to the consensus, because of the history and the logical development, what I call circulating objectivity.

I usually get some backlash about it.


----------



## Rogerx

HansZimmer said:


> I agree about this, because there is music that is objectively trivial and/or stupid. However the violin concerto of Beethoven is not trivial and/or stupid, so you can prefer it more than any work of Bach without embarassement.


Glad you approve, if you did not it also don't botter me .


----------



## Kreisler jr

Xisten267 said:


> But some of the most famous albums of rock could be considered "classical" in the future in the sense that they were very influential and significant as musical achievements, thus "classics" of music. I'm thinking in albums such as The Beatles' _Sgt. Peppers_, Pink Floyd's _The Dark Side of the Moon_, Yes' _Close to the Edge_, Led Zeppelin's _IV_, Queen's _A Night at the Opera_ and King Crimson's _In The Court of the Crimson King _for example_._


Haven't these mostly become niche (except for a few songs each from Sgt. Peppers, although other Beatles songs are far more famous, and Queen)? How many people under 50 listen to that stuff?
As I said, this is not really comparable because they are fixed artifacts like movies whereas classical music is like "remakes" every new performance. So it's in one way easier to keep such albums in mind but at they same time they could also become more "museal", like pictures in the back rooms of a museum, not the main showroom. Partly because of such differences, these pronouncement of "Rock classics" seems usually premature to me. We will be able to see more clearly when the original members of these bands are all dead as well as their contemporary fans.


----------



## HansZimmer

Kreisler jr said:


> Haven't these mostly become niche (except for a few songs each from Sgt. Peppers, although other Beatles songs are far more famous, and Queen)? How many people under 50 listen to that stuff?


Good question. We are still speaking about the Beatles because the persons who were young at the times in which they were a fashion are still alive. For the new generations are almost irrelevant. They were a fashion and they have been replaced with new fashions. To be honest it would be better if the young people still listened to the old pop music, because it was better than the junk pop of today, but the best thing they could do is listening to classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer

PeterKC said:


> 1. Incidental music is superfluous. (Is that redundant?)


No. "The Snow Maiden" of Tchaikovsky is one of his best works, "Thamos, König in Ägypten" is nice as well as "Egmont" of Beethoven.

Furthermore, I think that there is film music which is as good as classical music.



> 3. Most ballet music is better without the dancing.
> 4. Almost all opera is better without the staging.


Yes, if you want to lose artistic information.


----------



## HansZimmer

Xisten267 said:


> Much of what is known today as jazz and rock will survive the test of time and may even be considered as part of classical music in the future;





prlj said:


> "Classics," absolutlely. "Classical," not really, but only because we've defined classical in a different way.


The correct statement is that some pieces might become STANDARDS OF POPULAR MUSIC in the same way in which Mozart has become a STANDARD OF CLASSICAL MUSIC, but it's still soon to say if this will happen, because many of the persons who have grown up with The Beatles are still alive and for the new generations they are almost irrelevant because they have new idols.

The music which is not composed inside (or at least rooted in) the tradition of classical music can not become classical music.



> But those albums will live on forever, and when 20th Century Music is studied 300 years from now, they'll get (and deserve!) far more discussion than most other "classical" music from the latter half of the century.


It's obvious that The Beatles have a greater chance to become relevant for the popular culture than the modern classical music composers, since the latters have abandoned the path of "entartainment" in favour of music for niche audiences.
In order to save classical music, it's necessary to recreate the classical music for entertainment like in the classical period. See: My views about the future of classical music

However I think that there is something which must be underlined: the pop music is more entertainment-oriented than the modern classical music, but it's not smarter. In other words, just because the modern classical music is not entertainment-oriented doesn't mean that the composers, the musicians and the singers are not highly trained, and in average more trained than the pop musicians.

Freddie Mercury might be an icon of the popular culture, but between the expert singers his vocal technique is considered lacking. Well, even if you are not an expert you can see the difference between Freddie Mercury and an opera singer: he used microphones to sing.


In few words, I don't like the modern classical music, but unlike popular music it's not vulgar. The second one, sadly, has become supervulgar in the last decades, with the so many singers who can't sing three notes without the autotune.


----------



## PeterKC

HansZimmer said:


> No. "The Snow Maiden" of Tchaikovsky is one of his best works, "Thamos, König in Ägypten" is nice as well as "Egmont" of Beethoven.
> 
> Furthermore, I think that there is film music which is as good as classical music.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you want to lose artistic information.


"Furthermore, I think that there is film music which is as good as classical music."

Yes, and there is good money in it too.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

HansZimmer said:


> Furthermore, I think that there is film music which is as good as classical music.


Give an example


----------



## neoshredder

Bulldog said:


> I have no idea if Corelli had a higher opinion of orchestras than Bach. However, Bach wrote hundreds of works with orchestra. How about Corelli?


Corelli was a perfectionist. He spent so much time on Op. 6. I would take Op. 6 over Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Furthermore, I think that there is film music which is as good as classical music.


I thought you said it 'is' classical music?


HansZimmer said:


> The music which is not composed inside (or at least rooted in) the tradition of classical music can not become classical music.


Made-up opinion, demolished in that other thread.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Just saw this post on this thread and thought I'd comment on a few remarks here:



HansZimmer said:


> The correct statement is that some pieces might become STANDARDS OF POPULAR MUSIC in the same way in which Mozart has become a STANDARD OF CLASSICAL MUSIC, but it's still soon to say if this will happen, because many of the persons who have grown up with The Beatles are still alive and for the new generations they are almost irrelevant because they have new idols.


I think these kinds of factors become increasingly irrelevant in the TV and now internet-freebies age - in the 60s it seems to have been a huge thing to be a part of the current "youth counter/subculture", go to corresponding social events and concerts, and buy their "idols'" vinyls etc.;
but now you just catch sth on TV or bump into it online - by reading Wikis, by search, trending or related recommendations etc.

So the processes by which people now become fans of either some new star, or a 70s idol, or someone who lived 400 years ago, are now increasingly identical, and by the time the original Beatlemaniacs have all kicked it, you'll have people from newer generations who've become fans by discovering them on Youtube (possibly on the same day they also became Monteverdi stans cause a performance was in the algorithms somewhere - happened with me idk) and are gonna be inserting the same biases into the cultural consensus as their predecessors.






> The music which is not composed inside (or at least rooted in) the tradition of classical music can not become classical music


Common practice "classical music" often took direct influences from folk/traditional (and, as I understand, directly emerged out of it in the late Middle Ages), and rock started out as an offshoot of American folk music;

so when like Mozart or Verdi or Bizet or Puccini inserted Turkish/Oriental/Spanish/Asian stylistics in their operas to depict those locations/ethnicities, to what extent were they "rooted in the tradition of cm", and what would make it different from a contemporary composer inserting punk or vaporwave sounds in their opera to depict particular kinds of environments or subcultures?

It wouldn't be immediately seen as "being rooted in the tradition", but it'd be the exact same thing those guys did wouldn't it?

Unfortunately I haven't managed to catch up with contemporary cm/opera as of now (the arguable and blurry cm/opera/musical distinctions aside - ALW is not seen as an "opera composer" but he's been sued by the Puccini estate for ripping him off, so idk; does ripping off / arranging a CM count as "being rooted in it"?), but I've read something about a currently living Prokofiev descendant including hip hop in one of his works - so that kind of thing does occur.


Point is, this phrase seems to make it sound as if CM is some kind of 100% original invention that exists in a vacuum and only builds upon its preceding iterations, and I'm not sure how much sense that view makes - or how much sense the CM/non-CM distinction makes, for that matter.
Maybe it does make more sense that I'm aware of, idk?







> Freddie Mercury might be an icon of the popular culture, but between the expert singers his vocal technique is considered lacking. Well, even if you are not an expert you can see the difference between Freddie Mercury and an opera singer: he used microphones to sing.


From what I'm aware, opera singers aren't able to "project over a full orchestra all the way to the backseats" while retaining the same tone and timbre that they would have if they were whispering into a microphone;

certain people keep saying that their predecessors (from the early 20th century, or decades ago) had a better handle on this (more control over clarity of diction, tonal variety, less reliance on vibrato etc.), but from what I've heard, when those used the big voice it still had a very different tone than someone singing quietly into a microphone.


And since it's widely known that opera singers don't all automatically master techniques like belting, or particular kinds of harsh vocals etc., the notion that if you put an opera singer in front of a microphone they'll always be able to do everything that their microphone-relying counterparts can do and better, is obviously not true - to what exact extent it may be true though, I don't know.

So while, as far as I know, full-blown High Romantic opera vocals are the biggest physical challenge and take the most amount of time and care to master, the notion that "they're better cause they don't use the mike" doesn't seem to make much sense to me.






> with the so many singers who can't sing three notes without the autotune.


Autotune (i.e. the slight, subtle type that is used as a crutch - as opposed to the big, audible one that's used as a stylistic distortion device) is, indeed, a "crutch" in all the ways that using basic amplification is not;

however as far as I'm aware that's only done in studio recordings - so if sb sounds good live, they don't need autotune (unless they've already got the AI for that sort of thing?).


----------



## Xisten267

Kreisler jr said:


> Haven't these mostly become niche (except for a few songs each from Sgt. Peppers, although other Beatles songs are far more famous, and Queen)? How many people under 50 listen to that stuff?





HansZimmer said:


> Good question. *We are still speaking about the Beatles because the persons who were young at the times in which they were a fashion are still alive.* *For the new generations are almost irrelevant.* They were a fashion and they have been replaced with new fashions. To be honest it would be better if the young people still listened to the old pop music, because it was better than the junk pop of today, but the best thing they could do is listening to classical music.





HansZimmer said:


> The correct statement is that some pieces might become STANDARDS OF POPULAR MUSIC in the same way in which Mozart has become a STANDARD OF CLASSICAL MUSIC, but it's still soon to say if this will happen, *because many of the persons who have grown up with The Beatles are still alive and for the new generations they are almost irrelevant because they have new idols.*


I respect your opinions of course, but where I live at least, rock of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s is still alive and kicking ***, with shows (played by local musicians) regularly scheduled every year, and the old stuff still being played in the radios. I'm less than 50 years old, wasn't alive yet when The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen, Led Zeppelin and other classic rock bands were producing their most famous albums and I still admire them. I also know people, including friends, that are less than 50 years old and enjoy classic rock. Just saying.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Autotune (i.e. the slight, subtle type that is used as a crutch - as opposed to the big, audible one that's used as a stylistic distortion device) is, indeed, a "crutch" in all the ways that using basic amplification is not;
> 
> however as far as I'm aware that's only done in studio recordings - so if sb sounds good live, they don't need autotune (unless they've already got the AI for that sort of thing?).


Ah wait lol - I know next to nothing about this kind of stuff, but that was still dumb:
"Autotune" (the stylish, obvious kind) is known for its abrupt pitch transitions, so yeah without looking it up it probably does what it says in the name - automatically change the pitch to the nearest proper pitch on the standard scale, thus working live as well.

However no idea how this could be used on singers who like to slide and twang around and between the pitches (but still face difficulties hitting precise notes in the slide-less sections of their song).


Well anyway, everybody forget that last point then lol


----------



## HansZimmer

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Give an example


My opinion is that it's stupid to think that there is good music only in one subgenre of orchestral music. If you think that everything sucks in a determine subgenre, it probably means that you simply don't like the aesthetic or the compositional philosohpy of the subgenre. Subcategories must be dissolved when we speak about quality.

I have found pieces that I rate as excellent in all subgenre of orchestral music: baroque, classical, romantic and film music.

Everyone can have his own opinion about which is the excellent film music, as the quality of one melody is highly subjective, but in the scores here below there is objectively a great melodic creativity and I subjectively love the melodies.
I rate the suites here below as "excellent" (10/10), and since there is nothing above "excellent", a piece of classical music in my scale can only be as good as them. It can not be better.

I'm not a fan of the Disney (the products are too childish for my cinematic tastes), it's just that most of the Disney's scores in the nineties have been created by the same composer (Alan Menken) and it seems that I can connect very much with his melodies and style.


00:00 My Father's Favourite
05:27 Willoughby
07:07 Weep You No More Sad Fountains
10:13 Combe Magna
13:13 Miss Grey
15:35 Leaving London
17:48 The Dreame
20:20 Throw The Coins (final climax)







00:00 Exposition of the main theme
1:27 Secondary themes
7:40 Final reprise of the main theme with climax







00:00 Exposition of the main theme
02:23 Secondary themes
07:59 Final reprise of the main theme with climax







00:00 Execution (exposition of the main themes)
01:37 The Virginia Company
07:03 Skirmish
08:46 They Meet At the River's Edge
11:35 Unusual Name
15:22 Farewell ! (final reprise of the main themes with climax)


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I thought you said it 'is' classical music?


I don't want to reopen that discussion, because it was becoming sterile, as most discussions about definitions.
The essential problem in this case is also that "classical music" has become a broad container and when a definition become so vague, dissolves.
It would be easier to speak about baroque-style music, classical-style music, romantic-style music and film-style music.

Here I'll just say that many persons (including myself) notice that there are aesthetic similarities between film-style music and romantic-style music and that some film music is 100% in romantic-style (in some cases, classical-style... I still have to hear a baroque-style film score).
I'll also say that many of the most famous film music composers have/had an academical background (John Williams, James Horner, Thomas Newman, Alan Menken...) and that some of them have also composed concert works that are considered "classical".



> Made-up opinion, demolished in that other thread.


Which one?


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Common practice "classical music" often took direct influences from folk/traditional (and, as I understand, directly emerged out of it in the late Middle Ages), and rock started out as an offshoot of American folk music;
> 
> so when like Mozart or Verdi or Bizet or Puccini inserted Turkish/Oriental/Spanish/Asian stylistics in their operas to depict those locations/ethnicities, to what extent were they "rooted in the tradition of cm", and what would make it different from a contemporary composer inserting punk or vaporwave sounds in their opera to depict particular kinds of environments or subcultures?
> 
> It wouldn't be immediately seen as "being rooted in the tradition", but it'd be the exact same thing those guys did wouldn't it?
> 
> Unfortunately I haven't managed to catch up with contemporary cm/opera as of now (the arguable and blurry cm/opera/musical distinctions aside - ALW is not seen as an "opera composer" but he's been sued by the Puccini estate for ripping him off, so idk; does ripping off / arranging a CM count as "being rooted in it"?), but I've read something about a currently living Prokofiev descendant including hip hop in one of his works - so that kind of thing does occur.
> 
> 
> Point is, this phrase seems to make it sound as if CM is some kind of 100% original invention that exists in a vacuum and only builds upon its preceding iterations, and I'm not sure how much sense that view makes - or how much sense the CM/non-CM distinction makes, for that matter.
> Maybe it does make more sense that I'm aware of, idk?


If the classical music composers get inspiration from folk music, or use themes of folk music, what happens is simply that you will find some elements of folk music inside classical music: it's not that the folk music become classical.

Now, the great difference between classical music and the popular music of today is that in the former the songs are considered the least interesting product, while in the latter the songs are considered the most interesting product.

Beethoven has composed many songs (and some of them are categorized as "folk songs"), but I never see discussion about them in this forum. We speak mostly about symphonies, concertos, string quartets, operas, ballets,...
Would Beethoven be considered a great composer if he composed only the folk songs?

In classical music the most relevant kinds of vocal music are operas and masses.
In popular music there are products wich are essentially popular versions of opera (operetta and musicals) and I think that this kind of popular music is more artistic in respect to the industrial production of popular songs.
Before to discuss about songwriters, why don't we discuss about composers of operettas and musicals? Aren't this kind of popular products closer to classical music in the artistic merits?

In few words: popular music is about "express art", and this is why the songwriters are more popular than the composers of musicals. Express for artists too, especially today: "why do I have to train a lot with singing if there is the autotune?".


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

-There's also the Lieder / Kunstlieder / art songs category which as far as I'm aware isn't niche at all - and they aren't all necessarily automatically more complex or "artistic" than everything else either.
E.g. what category would sth like "Das Wandern ist des Müllers Lust" belong to, according to your definitions?





> If the classical music composers get inspiration from folk music, or use themes of folk music, what happens is simply that you will find some elements of folk music inside classical music: it's not that the folk music become classical.


Don't think this kind of categorization is universally agreed upon - and also I'm as of now not aware of the 19th and earlier composers having thought in such categories to begin with.

Obviously they knew which stylistics were taken directly from folk vs. had gone through centuries of creative work since emerging out of folk vs. were straight-up original inventions and experiments by themselves or their colleagues - but to what extent they ever thought in terms of "I'm in folk / court fanfare mode now; alright and now I'm in classical lineage mode again; and now I'm consciously crossovering", my impression so far has been that this wasn't a thing before the 20th century. Maybe I'm wrong though idk




> Beethoven has composed many songs (and some of them are categorized as "folk songs"), but I never see discussion about them in this forum. [...]
> Would Beethoven be considered a great composer if he composed only the folk songs?


Well idk, given how Non Piu Andrai became the biggest breakout hit from Figaro at the time (a relatively simple song when compared to the huge ensemble numbers before and later), an alternative timeline in which Beethoven would've become more famous for some particularly poignant "folk song" rather that the hour long symphonies probably well could've happened.
Something comparable happened to Saint-Seans, against his own preferences one might add.




> In classical music the most relevant kinds of vocal music are operas and masses.
> In popular music there are products wich are essentially popular versions of opera (operetta and musicals)


From what I understand, the Singspiel had a similar status back then as musical theater has now - and light operas (buffas etc.) were also considered a lower form than the serious ones;
but now Abduction from Seraglio is commonly seen as an "opera" and "part of the canon", and Mozart's buffas dominate over his serias.

"Operettas" started out as a shorter form of light operas, due to some running time issue thing I think (forgot the specifics rn), not as a distinct "popular counterpart to the classical opera", and musicals gradually evolved from operettas before assuming their own identity I think.



All these categories seem very arbitrary and inconsistent, with everyone seemingly having their own conceptions - especially if factoring in concert goer plebs, and then the even plebbier "young people today" from the other thread;

and here's Joachim Kaiser (professional, professor and critic) seemingly calling Barber of Seville "E-Musik" i.e. serious - as if only Prey's trumpet duet number there turns this literal Opera Buffa into "U-Musik" (=entertainment music):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yrc0g4XwTs 52:30; 54:50

So looks like academics can't always be relied on to make sense here either - not sure what's going on there.


----------



## Xisten267

This one seems rather controversial around here:

Baroque keyboard music actually sounds better on the harpsichord than on the piano.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I'm sorry but nothing sounds good on the harpsichord.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'm sorry but nothing sounds good on the harpsichord.


So here is one more:

The harpsichord is an underrated instrument that has a beautiful timbre, and it should have been used more in the post-Baroque eras.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

If you had posted

The harpsichord is an *abomination of an instrument* that has an *ear-raping* timbre, and it should have been *hurled into the Sun* in the post-Baroque eras. 
I would completely agree


----------



## Kreisler jr

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> -There's also the Lieder / Kunstlieder / art songs category which as far as I'm aware isn't niche at all - and they aren't all necessarily automatically more complex or "artistic" than everything else either.
> E.g. what category would sth like "Das Wandern ist des Müllers Lust" belong to, according to your definitions?


Most of the time the Kunstlieder that became popular were changed/arranged. Cf. that the typical later choral versions of "Lindenbaum" don't have the minor mode stanzas at all, they clearly lack the full complexity of the original song. ("Das Wandern..." is common with a rhythmically different melody as a popular song although it was a simple strophic song in the original).

FWIW the portion of Beethoven's lieder known as "Folksongs" are really folk melodies that Beethoven only arranged. It's not Beethoven composing in a folksy manner, but some publisher sent him folk melodies (not sure if all of them were really "folk", they were not musical ethnologists like Bartok 100 years later) and he set them for voic(es) and accompaniment (piano or trio).



> From what I understand, the Singspiel had a similar status back then as musical theater has now - and light operas (buffas etc.) were also considered a lower form than the serious ones;
> but now Abduction from Seraglio is commonly seen as an "opera" and "part of the canon", and Mozart's buffas dominate over his serias.


This is partly, because the Abduction goes far beyond the typical singspiel, among other things by including a huge scale "seria"-aria with obligato woodwinds. The main difference was fairly superficial, namely that an opera had secco recitative whereas a singspiel had spoken dialogue, and it could have quite a bit of this, so the non-musical portions were larger. It was also usually easier and more popular but this changed with Mozart. Technically, even Fidelio and Freischütz are like Singspiele but they are called German operas because beginning with Zauberflöte one could write more serious stuff within the structure with spoken dialogue. (And there are also extended "through-composed" scenes like the finales (already in Mozart) or most of the dungeon scene in Fidelio, in fact, the 2nd Fidelio act has very little dialogue without music.)



> "Operettas" started out as a shorter form of light operas, due to some running time issue thing I think (forgot the specifics rn), not as a distinct "popular counterpart to the classical opera", and musicals gradually evolved from operettas before assuming their own identity I think.


Again, the specifics were mostly how much non-musical acting/speaking there was. In a singspiel or operetta one could have certain only speaking rôles, like the Bassa in Abduction or the Frosch slapstick in the jail in Fledermaus etc. By the mid-late 19th century the "serious" opera was usually without any spoken parts, but the Opera comique and operetta kept them. And again, we eventually have a "serious" opera comique, "Carmen".

So there usually are pretty clear differences. Beware of the fallacy that some borderline cases or the impossibilty of sharp borders destroy any distinction, because it doesn't and most cases are pretty clear either opera or operetta etc.


----------



## Malx

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'm sorry but nothing sounds good on the harpsichord.


I once heard Emma Kirkby who was leaning on a harpsichord - she sounded pretty good to me......


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> This is partly, because the Abduction goes far beyond the typical singspiel, among other things by including a huge scale "seria"-aria with obligato woodwinds. The main difference was fairly superficial, namely that an opera had secco recitative whereas a singspiel had spoken dialogue, and it could have quite a bit of this, so the non-musical portions were larger. It was also usually easier and more popular but this changed with Mozart.











I'm certain Mozart wasn't the first to do such a thing with the singspiel; there were composers before him like Ignaz Holzbauer and Anton Schweitzer who wrote Seria-style Classical singspiels in Mannheim and various places.








There are also Serious ones that use recitatives extensively (usually accompagnatos. seccos are rare. Reichardt's Erwin und Elmire contains no spoken dialogue, but is all through-composed with accompagnatos).
I think (from what I've seen and heard) one of the differences (in general) between Mozart's singspiels written for performance in Vienna, and the traditional comic German folk style from "backwater" parts of Germany is the presence of coloratura arias.
Haydn's Die Wahrheit der Natur (1769), a comic singspiel with spoken dialogue, lacks dazzling coloratura arias of any kind in its numbers, but it contains intricately contrapuntal/orchestral passagework of the kind the forum members would deem as part of the "art music tradition".






Also, I think the "difference" (between the Italian Buffa and the singspiel) isn't superficial as you suggest. One of the most notable differences is the presence of "cadential phrase repeats". It's something I notice readily whenever I listen to works of both traditions. There could be more.








"Cadential Phrase Repeats" in 18th Century...


They appear to be a prominent stylistic pattern in 18th century Italian opera buffa, found in as early as Pergolesi's La Serva Padrona (1733) www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FaHrId3Mk8&t=1m49s I've found the use of the pattern in (Che ne dici tu, Taddeo) to be exceptionally adorable. Are there any...




www.talkclassical.com








(3:09~3:22)

On the other hand, you would not find things like this in the Italian Buffa tradition-




Sieh mich, Heil'ger, wie wie ich bin

or this








Arias with a similar dramatic intensity to this?


I'm not sure if strictly counts as opera but I adore it and want to hear more similar Thanks to sir Hammered for bringing this to my attention




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Red Terror

Controversial? I don't know about that but I do think Haydn was a much more compelling composer than Mozart. Given to choose between the two in a showcase of musical perfection and excellence, I would go with Haydn.


----------



## HansZimmer

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Well idk, given how Non Piu Andrai became the biggest breakout hit from Figaro at the time (a relatively simple song when compared to the huge ensemble numbers before and later), an alternative timeline in which Beethoven would've become more famous for some particularly poignant "folk song" rather that the hour long symphonies probably well could've happened.
> Something comparable happened to Saint-Seans, against his own preferences one might add.


A song in classical music was usually a simple and short composition for voice and piano.
"Non più andrai, farfallone amoroso" is an aria, not a song. The arias in operas are usually orchestral and adventurous vocal compositions. Even if you supported the idea that "Non più andrai, farfallone amoroso" is trivial, it would be only one of the many arias composed by Mozart and only a little part of a big vocal work.

Is there any great classical music composer who has composed ONLY songs?


----------



## Kreisler jr

There are a few who have composed mainly lieder, e.g. Carl Loewe, Othmar Schoeck and Hugo Wolf. In any case their lieder (mostly with piano, in the last two also some with orchestra/ensemble) are far more famous than their other works.


----------



## Bulldog

Sub-par composers of note: Williams, Vivaldi, Raff, Kalinnikov, Tchaikovsky, Hanson.


----------



## Chat Noir

Harpsichords are excellent - as firewood.


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'm sorry but nothing sounds good on the harpsichord.


The composers of the time studied the sound and the playing. It's what they heard in keyboard works, only that. They composed for that 'perfection'. Performers could finally step up and express themselves more effectively, and more easily. Everybody wins.

Today most people prefer the modern piano, for clarity and for loud/soft dynamics, etc., but is that what the earlier composers were trying to explore and share? Is there more potential in the clashing sounds of a harpsichord?

I've played an old harpsichord in a church here, and it's a different combination of sensations for a pianist. It disciplines like organ playing does, and requires a different preparation, different thinking. Everybody wins?

It is tiring for the ears, too much of it, but while playing it's a new experience.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I'd rather listen to Stockhausen than sit through another dreadful Mozart work. For the record, I hate Stockhausen, so this tells you how much I hate Mozart.


----------



## Chat Noir

I actually like harpsichords, but as with pianos it has to be particular ones. There is a person here I visit who has a replica model (the panelling painted with scenes) and it has a rather sweet sound. More like those Italian harpsichords, than those brash French 'concert' harpsichords with double manual.

If you haven't watched this series on YT about the history of the piano by Edwin Beunk (I'm posting episode 2) it's worth looking at as he goes though from a 1744 Shudi harpsichord to the English square piano (the first truly popular piano) to the later pianos before the birth of the modern piano. At the end of each episode Riko Fukuda plays works of the instrument's period. 
The craftsmanship of these instruments is second to none and you can see deep inside the instruments as he disassembles parts of them.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Luchesi said:


> Subjective, that's true.
> So, my controversial opinion is that the views of listeners and audiences are rarely relevant. Only the views of the composers and performers are important. Otherwise, we'd have to know a lot about the listeners. The Issues of psychology and sociology become challenging (enervating).


What weight do the words "relevant" and "important" bear? What do they even mean here?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Neo Romanza said:


> I'd rather listen to Stockhausen than sit through another dreadful Mozart work. For the record, I hate Stockhausen, so this tells you how much I hate Mozart.


Do you really think his Piano Concerto No. 20 is a dreadful work?


----------



## Chat Noir

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What weight do the words "relevant" and "important" bear? What do they even mean here?


Clearly they refer to the process of compositional art and intent. That a composer is not just like an ice cream man satisfying expected consumption needs.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Luchesi said:


> The composers of the time studied the sound and the playing. It's what they heard in keyboard works, only that. They composed for that 'perfection'. Performers could finally step up and express themselves more effectively, and more easily. Everybody wins.
> 
> Today most people prefer the modern piano, for clarity and for loud/soft dynamics, etc., but is that what the earlier composers were trying to explore and share? Is there more potential in the clashing sounds of a harpsichord?
> 
> I've played an old harpsichord in a church here, and it's a different combination of sensations for a pianist. It disciplines like organ playing does, and requires a different preparation, different thinking. Everybody wins?
> 
> It is tiring for the ears, too much of it, but while playing it's a new experience.


In Baroque times, composers had no pianos as an alternative. Now we do. Why would anyone choose to listen to the harpsichord instead of the piano is beyond me.


----------



## Chat Noir

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> In Baroque times, composers had no pianos as an alternative. Now we do. Why would anyone choose to listen to the harpsichord instead of the piano is beyond me.


For music where it was written using a harpsichord. I know this is often characterised as 'keyboard' music, where the keyboard instrument is not supposed to matter, but it does matter to the intent as the composer worked with the instrument he had and thus wrote 'for' it. I've always found baroque ornaments don't work so well on the piano, they're written for a harpsichord or at a push and through habit, the early piano.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Chat Noir said:


> For music where it was written using a harpsichord. I know this is often characterised as 'keyboard' music, where the keyboard instrument is not supposed to matter, but it does matter to the intent as the composer worked with the instrument he had and thus wrote 'for' it. I've always found baroque ornaments don't work so well on the piano, they're written for a harpsichord or at a push and through habit, the early piano.


Ornaments are such a small part of most compositions that this "shortcoming" of the piano is overcome easily by the vastly superior quality of sound a piano makes.


----------



## Chat Noir

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Ornaments are such a small part of most compositions that this "shortcoming" of the piano is overcome easily by the vastly superior quality of sound a piano makes.


I don't think it is a "shortcoming" of the piano, rather that it is something that likely just wouldn't have developed were the piano the instrument that had developed first. Since its greater dynamics possibilities would have likely made it unnecessary. I don't know the history of such ornaments, they may be mimicry of wind/string instruments I don't know. In any case, when you transfer some music written on/for harpsichord to a piano it obviously is perfectly playable, but playing a piano is a different technique to playing a harpsichord (or a clavichord). The simple 'feel' of how the keys operate is different and a composer would have worked with this; e.g. the multiple steps of plucking in multiple string 'registers' in an instrument.
Playing this on a piano shifts it to the mechanism and dynamics of a piano. It may be more 'pleasant' or euphonious to a certain ear, but it does perhaps lose part of the compositional intent as a composer worked with the instrument whose characteristics he knew.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Ornaments are such a small part of most compositions that this "shortcoming" of the piano is overcome easily by the vastly superior quality of sound a piano makes.


Consider this explanation of the fortepiano by Levin (the same can more or less be said about the harpsichord)-


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Chat Noir said:


> That a composer is not just like an ice cream man satisfying expected consumption needs.


I agree with this.

But relevance and importance are so context-dependent. When we're talking about the art of composing music, the composer is most relevant. When we're talking about the art of performing music, the performer is most relevant. When we're talking about the art of listening to or appreciating music (which most of this forum's discussion is centered around), well...


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> In Baroque times, composers had no pianos as an alternative. Now we do. Why would anyone choose to listen to the harpsichord instead of the piano is beyond me.


Because harpsichords and pianos have very distinct timbres that can be used effectively to different musical goals? The soundtrack below is from the 90s and uses the harpsichord in a very effective and expressive manner (in it's second half) in my opinion.


----------



## Chat Noir

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> But relevance and importance are so context-dependent. When we're talking about the art of composing music, the composer is most relevant. When we're talking about the art of performing music, the performer is most relevant. When we're talking about the art of listening to or appreciating music (which most of this forum's discussion is centered around), well...


The listener only has to communicate his/her experience. There is of course the (mainly literary) theory than the 'meaning' and future of a text or a piece of art is 'defined' by the audience reception. That it develops or can change its nature as a work 'apprehended'. Maybe, I don't know.

The composer's input is crucial, without the composer nothing happens at all. Nothing to perform, nothing to hear. The performance is crucial for communicating it. Reception/interpretation from the audience is going to be varying. It can have perhaps quite a large impact upon the fate of a work, but doesn't alter the intent or 'meaning'.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I'm sure some find the use of harpsichord effective and some like its sound. My whole point is that I don't like its sound - it is strictly a personal preference and no amount of evidence for its applicable use or historical significance will make me like its sound.


----------



## Chat Noir

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'm sure some find the use of harpsichord effective and some like its sound. My whole point is that I don't like its sound - it is strictly a personal preference and no amount of evidence for its applicable use or historical significance will make me like its sound.


I don't think anyone wants to tell people to like it rather than a piano, but you did say this:



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> In Baroque times, composers had no pianos as an alternative. Now we do. Why would anyone choose to listen to the harpsichord instead of the piano is beyond me.


Which somewhat requests the answer as to 'why'. My own inclination is toward the piano, though perhaps not the dominant metallic Steinway sound. There are legitimate reasons for employing other keyboard instruments for certain works though.


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> Sub-par composers of note: Williams, Vivaldi, Raff, Kalinnikov, Tchaikovsky, Hanson.


Didn't you write that Tchaikosky was an excellent melody maker like Mozart? I didn't agree about this.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Clearly they refer to the process of compositional art and intent. That a composer is not just like an ice cream man satisfying expected consumption needs.


Are you speaking about sunday composers, or about composers who want to make a living? There is no difference between the second kind of composers and ice cream men. Beethoven was an ice cream man.


----------



## Highwayman

HansZimmer said:


> Beethoven was an ice cream man.


If Große Fuge is ice cream, its flavour must be cuttlefish and asparagus.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> Are you speaking about sunday composers, or about composers who want to make a living? There is no difference between the second kind of composers and ice cream men. Beethoven was an ice cream man.


It's a superficial division. Every artist does stuff for money or a laugh and those who don't tend to suffer a bit more.


----------



## Luchesi

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> But relevance and importance are so context-dependent. When we're talking about the art of composing music, the composer is most relevant. When we're talking about the art of performing music, the performer is most relevant. When we're talking about the art of listening to or appreciating music (which most of this forum's discussion is centered around), well...


I agree with most of that, especially if we did talk about music appreciation with a coherent and systematic approach.


----------



## HansZimmer

Highwayman said:


> If Große Fuge is ice cream, its flavour must be cuttlefish and asparagus.


It's cherry-picking. The symphonies of Beethoven are basically excellent ice cream. You don't write music like that if you want make people run away.


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> Didn't you write that Tchaikosky was an excellent melody maker like Mozart?


Yes, many wonderful melodies. It's what he does with them that I dislike.


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'm sure some find the use of harpsichord effective and some like its sound. My whole point is that I don't like its sound - it is strictly a personal preference and no amount of evidence for its applicable use or historical significance will make me like its sound.


I think it goes without saying we're fortunate to have experts playing both. If only to hear how the various harpsichord scores sounded back then. For me, what I would compose with one, if I owned one. Also, the tactile experience is a big part of composing.

Perhaps also, what was the best that could be composed with the old mechanism for sound.


----------



## Xisten267

HansZimmer said:


> It's cherry-picking. The symphonies of Beethoven are basically excellent ice cream. You don't write music like that if you want make people run away.


I'm not sure about what would be an "ice cream" composition (I'm not from an English-speaking country), but if it's a synonym of musical "bon-bon", this is, an unoriginal, easy-listening piece created to please the masses, then in my opinion Beethoven is one of the worst examples you could pick, as many of his works, including the symphonies, were very daring for their time and met negative reaction back then from part of the critics.

This doesn't mean that there're no "bon-bons" in classical music though. Ketèlbey's pieces immediately come to mind.


----------



## Chat Noir

Bulldog said:


> Yes, many wonderful melodies. It's what he does with them that I dislike.


This could also apply to Schubert, and does imo much more so, though he doesn't get quite as much of a kicking as Tchaikovsky for it.


----------



## Bulldog

Chat Noir said:


> This could also apply to Schubert, and does imo much more so, though he doesn't get quite as much of a kicking as Tchaikovsky for it.


I don't agree. Schubert is a model of moderation compared to Tchaikovsky who milks every great melody to a ridiculous level.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Luchesi said:


> I think it goes without saying we're fortunate to have experts playing both. If only to hear how the various harpsichord scores sounded back then. For me, what I would compose with one, if I owned one. Also, the tactile experience is a big part of composing.
> 
> Perhaps also, what was the best that could be composed with the old mechanism for sound.


I don't see good fortunes in having the harpsichord but to each their own. 

What I find amusing is that there are so many performances of the WTC on the harpsichord when in fact there is no evidence that Bach composed it for any particular instrument and, when compared to the piano, they sound tinny, hollow and one-dimensional. Why would anyone choose gruel when they have the option of Filet Mignon as well?

In fact, in Bach’s lifetime, the clavichord was the most common keyboard instrument, known more in Germany; while the harpsichord was initially more common in Italy. Bach did encounter a piano built by a German, Gottfried Silbermann. A scholar of Bach’s piano works, Hermann Keller, was presumably correct in suggesting that Bach’s piano works were written for some idealized keyboard instrument that conformed to his hopes and expectations. Bach’s favourite instrument was the clavichord, but it was not satisfactory to him due to its low volume. For Bach, the harpsichord remained one-dimensional in terms of its sound, while the aural world of his “piano” works required greater range of expression. We must concur with one of Bach’s first biographers, Philipp Spitta, who wrote that had Bach lived longer, he would have undoubtedly become inspired by the piano, which offers the greatest possibilities for interpreting Bach’s works for piano.


----------



## EvaBaron

HansZimmer said:


> It's cherry-picking. The symphonies of Beethoven are basically excellent ice cream. You don't write music like that if you want make people run away.


The symphonies of Beethoven, and Beethoven in general, are a bit more about the struggle for peace and brotherhood and a bit less like delicious ice cream. I believe that Mozart’s music is what Beethoven is trying to find, happiness, peace and brotherhood. Of course this makes Mozart much more naive than Beethoven in that regard, just look at the state of the world we are in. So when the cracks do show in Mozart’s music, like in for example the 2nd movement of sinfonia concertante or the 2nd movement of the 23rd piano concerto, they are extremely despaired, sorrowful and melancholy. More than Beethoven’s music ever is. Btw I’m not trying to discredit Beethoven or something and I actually prefer Beethoven over Mozart, albeit just barely. It’s just how I view the intent and meaning behind their works from someone who doesn’t know much about it


----------



## HansZimmer

Bulldog said:


> Yes, many wonderful melodies. It's what he does with them that I dislike.


For example?


----------



## Chat Noir

Bulldog said:


> I don't agree. Schubert is a model of moderation compared to Tchaikovsky who milks every great melody to a ridiculous level.


A model of moderation? As in starting something (usually a very good melodic idea) and then not knowing where to take it so playing it again and again and again. Not much difference really.
There's also the consideration that the Russians didn't just fall into line with Viennese ideas. We can call Tchaikovsky sentimental, but much freer in his constructions. I like his flaws when his best qualities (orchestration, melodic gifts) were so good. Schubert by contrast is vastly overrated by the average classical music fan.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't see good fortunes in having the harpsichord but to each their own.
> 
> What I find amusing is that there are so many performances of the WTC on the harpsichord when in fact there is no evidence that Bach composed it for any particular instrument and, when compared to the piano, they sound tinny, hollow and one-dimensional. Why would anyone choose gruel when they have the option of Filet Mignon as well?


By the end of his life Bach knew the pianoforte, so if he really wanted that the Well-Tempered Clavier was played in such an instrument he would surely have added some dynamic markings in it, what he didn't. Both the harpsichord and the clavichord in my opinion are much more authentic, "Filet Mignon" choices for one to play it. Gilbert's for example is an excellent, non-anachronistic performance in my view:








EvaBaron said:


> The symphonies of Beethoven, and Beethoven in general, are a bit more about the struggle for peace and brotherhood and a bit less like delicious ice cream. I believe that Mozart’s music is what Beethoven is trying to find, happiness, peace and brotherhood. Of course this makes Mozart much more naive than Beethoven in that regard, just look at the state of the world we are in. *So when the cracks do show in Mozart’s music, like in for example the 2nd movement of sinfonia concertante or the 2nd movement of the 23rd piano concerto, they are extremely despaired, sorrowful and melancholy. More than Beethoven’s music ever is.* Btw I’m not trying to discredit Beethoven or something and I actually prefer Beethoven over Mozart, albeit just barely. It’s just how I view the intent and meaning behind their works from someone who doesn’t know much about it


We essentially have opposed opinions concerning what is in bold.  To me, Mozart is far more self-contained and moderated when expressing sorrow and despair than Beethoven, except in the Requiem. I'm thinking in the first movement of Beethoven's fifth symphony, or in the second of the piano concerto No. 4, or in the first of the _Appassionata _sonata, or in the third of piano sonata No. 31, Op. 110 for example.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> By the end of his life Bach knew the pianoforte, so if he really wanted that the Well-Tempered Clavier was played in such an instrument he would surely have added some dynamic markings in it, what he didn't. Both the harpsichord and the clavichord in my opinion are much more authentic, "Filet Mignon" choices for one to play it. Gilbert's for example is an excellent, non-anachronistic performance in my view:


I disagree with you completely. And who cares about authenticity when we have much better instruments now? Things have improved, why get stuck 200 years in the past just for authenticity's sake? And, again, there is no evidence that Bach intended The WTC to be played on the harpsichord so your authenticity angle fails.


----------



## EvaBaron

Xisten267 said:


> By the end of his life Bach knew the pianoforte, so if he really wanted that the Well-Tempered Clavier was played in such an instrument he would surely have added some dynamic markings in it, what he didn't. Both the harpsichord and the clavichord in my opinion are much more authentic, "Filet Mignon" choices for one to play it. Gilbert's for example is an excellent, non-anachronistic performance in my view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We essentially have opposed opinions concerning what is in bold.  To me, Mozart is far more self-contained and moderated when expressing sorrow and despair than Beethoven, except in the Requiem. I'm thinking in the first movement of Beethoven's fifth symphony, or in the second of the piano concerto No. 4, or in the first of the _Appassionata _sonata, or in the third of piano sonata No. 31, Op. 110 for example.


But the examples which I know that you listed (still have to listen to the piano sonatas, I know I know it’s bad), the 1st movement of his 5th symphony and 2nd movement of his 4th piano concerto I wouldn’t describe them as sorrowful. More angry, struggling, impassioned, with a furious energy. But in the already mentioned examples of Mozart’s ‘cracks’, I would describe it very differently. Despair could also apply to Beethoven but melancholy and sorrowfulness?


----------



## Chat Noir

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I disagree with you completely. And who cares about authenticity when we have much better instruments now? Things have improved, why get stuck 200 years in the past just for authenticity's sake?


Well of the pianos Bach knew he wasn't convinced. I think it's quite evident that he didn't write GBV for the piano. With composers like Handel I tend to think he composed using a clavichord, It's known that like quite a few composers he used one and so had an idea of dynamics closer to a piano.

Your view seems to be based on a preference for the sound of the piano, which is fair enough, but it's legitimate to play e.g. Domenico Scarlatti on the harpsichord (even though he certainly had access to Cristofori pianos). Personally I think that something like the middle movement of Bach's Italian Concerto sounds excellent on a piano, but there's no doubt he envisaged this for a concert harpsichord and as such would have written for that instrument's characteristics.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Chat Noir said:


> Well of the pianos Bach knew he wasn't convinced. I think it's quite evident that he didn't write GBV for the piano. With composers like Handel I tend to think he composed using a clavichord, It's known that like quite a few composers he used one and so had an idea of dynamics closer to a piano.
> 
> Your view seems to be based on a preference for the sound of the piano, which is fair enough, but it's legitimate to play e.g. Domenico Scarlatti on the harpsichord (even though he certainly had access to Cristofori pianos). Personally I think that something like the middle movement of Bach's Italian Concerto sounds excellent on a piano, but there's no doubt he envisaged this for a concert harpsichord and as such would have written for that instrument's characteristics.


Yes, you are correct, and I've stated it myself, my view is of course just my preference, nothing more. 

But also pointing out that those who claim Bach's WTC is authentic on the harpsichord are making an unjustified assumption because there is no evidence that Bach had any particular keyboard instrument in mind for it.


----------



## Chat Noir

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> because there is no evidence that Bach had any particular keyboard instrument in mind for it.


It's a reasonable assumption that it wasn't a piano though.  Though performance on a piano can't be ruled out on that basis. I have nothing against WTC being performed on a piano. So long as it is well tempered, or I'm not listening.


----------



## Bwv 1080

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I disagree with you completely. And who cares about authenticity when we have much better instruments now? Things have improved, why get stuck 200 years in the past just for authenticity's sake? And, again, there is no evidence that Bach intended The WTC to be played on the harpsichord so your authenticity angle fails.


Don't really care about authenticity, but this music can sound better on a harpsichord and sterile on a piano. We are all used to piano music that employs the instruments full dynamic range and use of the pedals. Bach and Scarlatti's keyboard music pushes a harpsichord (or clavichord or lautenwerk or whatever) to its limits but falls well short of what a piano can do.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I disagree with you completely. And who cares about authenticity when we have much better instruments now? Things have improved, why get stuck 200 years in the past just for authenticity's sake? And, again, there is no evidence that Bach intended The WTC to be played on the harpsichord so your authenticity angle fails.


I don't think that the piano is necessarily a "better" instrument than the harpsichord. It's true that the piano is more versatile, but I think that the harpsichord has a beautiful timbre as well that can sound as good or better than that of a piano depending on the musical context. Both have different timbristic options that composers can employ however they wish in my opinion, and the notion that the piano suplanted the harpsichord and that therefore nobody should use it anymore is totally alien to me.

By the way, the word "clavier" from "well-tempered _clavier_" means "keyboard", so it's likely that Bach intended the work to be played in the harpsichord, in the clavichord or in both as they were very popular in his day.



EvaBaron said:


> But the examples which I know that you listed (still have to listen to the piano sonatas, I know I know it’s bad), the 1st movement of his 5th symphony and 2nd movement of his 4th piano concerto I wouldn’t describe them as sorrowful. More angry, struggling, impassioned, with a furious energy. But in the already mentioned examples of Mozart’s ‘cracks’, I would describe it very differently. Despair could also apply to Beethoven but melancholy and sorrowfulness?


Well, to me at least both words can aptly be applied to some of Beethoven's music as well. The sixth of his string quartets for example has explicitly the subtitle "la malincolia", that means "the melancholy" in English. The third movement of the _Hammerklavier_ piano sonata has famously been described as "the apotheosis of pain, of that deep sorrow for which there is no remedy, and which finds expression not in passionate outpourings, but in the immeasurable stillness of utter woe" by a music critic. About the first movement of Beethoven's string quartet No. 14, Op. 131, Richard Wagner remarked that "[it] reveals the most melancholy sentiment expressed in music". The slow movements of Op. 109, Op. 110, Op. 130 and Op. 135, to name some other examples, are very melancholic too in my humble opinion.

Listen to this. It's one of the last movements Beethoven ever created, just a few months before his death. Isn't it truly, profoundly sad?


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, you are correct, and I've stated it myself, my view is of course just my preference, nothing more.
> 
> But also pointing out that those who claim Bach's WTC is authentic on the harpsichord are making an unjustified assumption because there is no evidence that Bach had any particular keyboard instrument in mind for it.


But no 18th century music was composed according to the mechanical working and sound characteritics of the modern grand. No, it's not all about volume and dynamics; there's also the thing called the cross-stringing of the bass. If you play the piano yourself, play the bass with equal volume as the other voices and you'll see what I mean by the muddiness and ackwardness.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Chat Noir said:


> It's a reasonable assumption that it wasn't a piano though.  Though performance on a piano can't be ruled out on that basis. I have nothing against WTC being performed on a piano. So long as it is well tempered, or I'm not listening.


I agree and add that it's a reasonable assumption it wasn't the harpsichord either or Bach would have called it the Well-Tempered Harpsichord. We also know that Bach was not a fan of the harpsichord and thought it one-dimensional so it's unlikely he composed the WTC for it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> But no 18th century music was composed according to the mechanical working and sound characteritics of the modern grand. No, it's not all about volume and dynamics; there's also the thing called the cross-stringing of the bass. If you play the piano, and play the bass with equal volume as the other voices, you'll see what I mean by the ackwardness.


Irrelevant if it sounds (and it does) good on the modern piano. And, incidentally, I love playing and hearing the bass line played at equal volume - there is so much going on in the bass line (s) in Bach's music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> I don't think that the piano is necessarily a "better" instrument than the harpsichord. It's true that the piano is more versatile, but I think that the harpsichord has a beautiful timbre as well that can sound as good or better than that of a piano depending on the musical context. Both have different timbristic options that composers can employ however they wish in my opinion, and the view that the piano suplanted the harpsichord and that therefore none should use it anymore is totally alien to me.
> 
> By the way, the word "clavier" from "well-tempered _clavier_" means "keyboard", so it's likely that Bach intended the work to be played in the harpsichord, in the clavichord or in both as they were very popular in his day.


Oh, the piano is absolutely a much better instrument than the harpsichord, both technically and in terms of its musical range. Of that there is no doubt.

Yes, clavier means keyboard and Bach meant the WTC to be played on a keyboard and more likely an actual clavichord (if we are speculating), which was the more common instrument in Germany at the time than the harpsichord. Additionally, Bach was not a big fan of the harpsichord and thought it one-dimensional, which it is.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Bwv 1080 said:


> Don't really care about authenticity, *but this music can sound better on a harpsichord and sterile on a piano.* We are all used to piano music that employs the instruments full dynamic range and use of the pedals. Bach and Scarlatti's keyboard music pushes a harpsichord (or clavichord or lautenwerk or whatever) to its limits but falls well short of what a piano can do.


Disagree. But of course we are talking about perception of sound quality and that is up to the perceiver so we are both correct in our preference.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I agree and add that *it's a reasonable assumption it wasn't the harpsichord either or Bach would have called it the Well-Tempered Harpsichord*.


False statement.

"_The Well-Tempered Clavier_, BWV 846–893, consists of two sets of preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys for keyboard by Johann Sebastian Bach. In the composer's time, _clavier_, meaning keyboard, referred to a variety of instruments, most typically the harpsichord or clavichord, but not excluding the organ." - source here.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> We also know that Bach was not a fan of the harpsichord and thought it one-dimensional so it's unlikely he composed the WTC for it.


Do we? Then why did he acquire no less than seven of them?

"An inventory drawn up a few months after Bach's death shows that his estate included five harpsichords, two lute-harpsichords, three violins, three violas, two cellos, a viola da gamba, a lute and a spinet, along with 52 'sacred books', including works by Martin Luther and Josephus." - source here.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Oh, *the piano is* *absolutely a much better instrument than the harpsichord*, both technically and in terms of its musical range. Of that there is no doubt.


I accept this as an opinion, but not as a fact. Both instruments have very distinct timbres that can be differently used with success depending on the musical context in my opinion.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> False statement.
> 
> "_The Well-Tempered Clavier_, BWV 846–893, consists of two sets of preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys for keyboard by Johann Sebastian Bach. In the composer's time, _clavier_, meaning keyboard, referred to a variety of instruments, most typically the harpsichord or clavichord, but not excluding the organ." - source here.


False in what way? Bach didn't call it the Well-Tempered Harpsichord but chose the more general name clavier so what logic are you using to conclude that Bach composed it for the harpsichord or that it is not reasonable to speculate he didn't compose it for the harpsichord? My claim that he composed it for the clavichord (or no particular instrument) has equal merit as the claim he composed it for the harpsichord.



Xisten267 said:


> Do we? Then why did he have no less than seven of them?
> 
> "An inventory drawn up a few months after Bach's death shows that his estate included five harpsichords, two lute-harpsichords, three violins, three violas, two cellos, a viola da gamba, a lute and a spinet, along with 52 'sacred books', including works by Martin Luther and Josephus." - source here.


Well, the modern grand piano hadn't been invented yet.

Bach’s favourite instrument was the clavichord, but it was not satisfactory to him due to its low volume. Bach did not bequeath any clavichords, but his estate did include several harpsichords. For Bach, the harpsichord remained one-dimensional in terms of its sound, while the aural world of his “piano” works required greater range of expression. We must concur with one of Bach’s first biographers, Philipp Spitta (1841−1894), who wrote that that had Bach lived longer, he would have undoubtedly become inspired by the piano, which offers the greatest possibilities for interpreting Bach’s works for piano. (The Well-tempered Clavier I | ERP)


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> False in what way? Bach didn't call it the Well-Tempered Harpsichord but chose the more general name clavier so what logic are you using to conclude that Bach composed it for the harpsichord or that it is not reasonable to speculate he didn't compose it for the harpsichord? My claim that he composed it for the clavichord (or no particular instrument) has equal merit as the claim he composed it for the harpsichord.


Please, read what I've posted before:

"_The Well-Tempered Clavier_, BWV 846–893, consists of two sets of preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys for keyboard by Johann Sebastian Bach. *In the composer's time, clavier, meaning keyboard, referred to a variety of instruments, most typically the harpsichord or clavichord, but not excluding the organ.*" - source here.

It's not a "reasonable assumption" he didn't compose the WTC with the harpsichord in mind considering that he had several harpsichords in his estate and that it was a popular keyboard instrument at the time. Possibly he used the word "clavier" because he intended the work to be played both by the harpsichord and by the clavichord.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Well, the modern grand piano hadn't been invented yet.
> 
> Bach’s favourite instrument was the clavichord, but it was not satisfactory to him due to its low volume. Bach did not bequeath any clavichords, but his estate did include several harpsichords. For Bach, the harpsichord remained one-dimensional in terms of its sound, while the aural world of his “piano” works required greater range of expression. We must concur with one of Bach’s first biographers, Philipp Spitta (1841−1894), who wrote that that had Bach lived longer, he would have undoubtedly become inspired by the piano, which offers the greatest possibilities for interpreting Bach’s works for piano. (The Well-tempered Clavier I | ERP)


Pure speculation. It seems like you want to imbue to Bach your own negative feelings regarding the harpsichord to seek validity to your opinion that it's an inferior instrument (and I respect your view, but I don't accept it as a fact).


----------



## hammeredklavier

"I think that instruments from every period have effects and colours that cannot be reproduced on today's pianos-that compositions were always conceived with the instruments of their time in mind, and only on those can they achieve their full effect; *played on today's instruments they sound at a disadvantage.*"
ANTON RUBINSTEIN, 1892, aus _Die Musik und Ihre Meister_, S.128


----------



## Ethereality

I incredibly appreciate @HansZimmer's posts some pages ago, because he didn't seem to make excuses like I've seen so many do time again, like "I know x is technically great music, but I just.." But no... you know nothing is great. Only what you understand with your ears can you confidently deem great. _Great_ posts 👍. It's incredibly refreshing to hear people speak the truth about their unique perspectives.


----------



## EvaBaron

Xisten267 said:


> I don't think that the piano is necessarily a "better" instrument than the harpsichord. It's true that the piano is more versatile, but I think that the harpsichord has a beautiful timbre as well that can sound as good or better than that of a piano depending on the musical context. Both have different timbristic options that composers can employ however they wish in my opinion, and the view that the piano suplanted the harpsichord and that therefore none should use it anymore is totally alien to me.
> 
> By the way, the word "clavier" from "well-tempered _clavier_" means "keyboard", so it's likely that Bach intended the work to be played in the harpsichord, in the clavichord or in both as they were very popular in his day.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to me at least both words can aptly be applied to some of Beethoven's music as well. The sixth of his string quartets for example has explicitly the subtitle "la malincolia", that means "the melancholy" in English. The third movement of the _Hammerklavier_ piano sonata has famously been described as "the apotheosis of pain, of that deep sorrow for which there is no remedy, and which finds expression not in passionate outpourings, but in the immeasurable stillness of utter woe" by a music critic. About the first movement of Beethoven's string quartet No. 14, Op. 131, Richard Wagner remarked that "[it] reveals the most melancholy sentiment expressed in music". The slow movements of Op. 109, Op. 110, Op. 130 and Op. 135, to name some other examples, are very melancholic too in my humble opinion.
> 
> Listen to this. It's one of the last movements Beethoven ever created, just a few months before his death. Isn't it truly, profoundly sad?


Of course it can be applied to some of his music as well. The examples you mention are all from either the piano sonatas or the quartets and I haven’t really listened to both except the 14th piano sonata and the first string quartet. I told you my opinion wasn’t coming from someone who is well informed and about the first movement of the 14th piano sonata, yes you are absolutely correct and so is Wagner. Really need to listen to the quartets and sonatas btw, I have 2,5 weeks of vacation starting this Wednesday so more than enough time to get to know them


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> Please, read what I've posted before:
> 
> "_The Well-Tempered Clavier_, BWV 846–893, consists of two sets of preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys for keyboard by Johann Sebastian Bach. *In the composer's time, clavier, meaning keyboard, referred to a variety of instruments, most typically the harpsichord or clavichord, but not excluding the organ.*" - source here.
> 
> It's not a "reasonable assumption" he didn't compose the WTC with the harpsichord in mind considering that he had several harpsichords in his estate and that it was a popular keyboard instrument at the time. Possibly he used the word "clavier" because he intended the work to be played both by the harpsichord and the clavichord.
> 
> 
> 
> Pure speculation. It seems like you want to imbue to Bach your own negative feelings regarding the harpsichord to seek validity to your opinion that it's an inferior instrument (and I respect your view, but I don't accept it as a fact).


Yes, it's pure speculation on my part just like it's speculation on your part that Bach composed The WTC with the harpsichord in mind. 

I don't need to seek validity for an opinion that I don't feel too strongly to justify. I don't like the sound of the harpsichord - not only is its sound one-dimensional but it is also grating on my ear. 

What I seek instead is to point out that those who claim some sort of authenticity about The WTC being played on the harpsichord are doing some speculation of their own.


----------



## Xisten267

EvaBaron said:


> Of course it can be applied to some of his music as well. The examples you mention are all from either the piano sonatas or the quartets and I haven’t really listened to both except the 14th piano sonata and the first string quartet. I told you my opinion wasn’t coming from someone who is well informed and about the first movement of the 14th piano sonata, yes you are absolutely correct and so is Wagner. Really need to listen to the quartets and sonatas btw, I have 2,5 weeks of vacation starting this Wednesday so more than enough time to get to know them


Both Mozart and Beethoven have wonderful works and I'm sure you'll be rewarded as a listener to explore them. For the Beethoven string quartets, assuming you don't know any of them yet, I suggest that you start from the three Razumovsky, as they are excellent and immediately accessible in my humble opinion, having been the first chamber music pieces to "click" with me. Try to grab the Melos or the Takács recordings of them - they are superb in my opinion.

The fugal movement below (from Razumovsky no. 3) is so fun and exciting:


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, it's pure speculation on my part just like it's speculation on your part that Bach composed The WTC with the harpsichord in mind.
> 
> What I seek instead is to point out that those who claim some sort of authenticity about The WTC being played on the harpsichord are doing some speculation of their own.


Yes, but the probability that he had a harpsichord in mind is very high considering that:

_Clavier_ means keyboard;
Bach knew the pianoforte;
The work has no dynamic indications (so it's not intended for the pianoforte);
The harpsichord was a very popular keyboard instrument in Bach's time;
Bach himself owned several harpsichords (I think it's reasonable to assume that he would want to play his own music).


----------



## EvaBaron

Xisten267 said:


> Both Mozart and Beethoven have wonderful works and I'm sure you'll be rewarded as a listener to explore them. For the Beethoven string quartets, assuming you don't know any of them yet, I suggest starting from the three Razumovsky - they are excellent and immediately accessible in my humble opinion, and were the first chamber pieces to click with me. Try to grab the Melos or the Takács recordings of them - they are superb in my opinion.
> 
> The fugal movement below (from Razumovsky no. 3) is so fun and exciting:


Have listened to no. 1 and indeed with the Takacs quartet, seemed like the best option. But I will begin with the three Razumovsky quarters!


----------



## Neo Romanza

Controversial opinion No. (I've lost count) - Most organ music isn't fit for any kind of serious listening.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> Yes, but the probability that he had a harpsichord in mind is very high considering that:
> 
> _Clavier_ means keyboard;
> Bach knew the pianoforte;
> The work has no dynamic indications (so it's not intended for the pianoforte);
> The harpsichord was a very popular keyboard instrument in Bach's time;
> Bach himself owned several harpsichords (I think it's reasonable to assume that he would want to play his own music).


Counterpoint:
By using the word clavier, _Bach indicated that his music could be played on any keyboard instrument_, including harpsichord, clavichord, and organ. 
Bach wanted to perform the work on his clavichord, but accepted the limitations of the keyboard after considering the requirements of future performers and learners. He had understood the importance of disseminating his work. 

Your speculation that Bach probably had the harpsichord in mind is unconvicting to me, and more importantly, utterly irrelevant to my main point, which is this: the harpsichord sounds awful and even if (a big if) Bach did intend The WTC to be played on the harpsichord, I would still choose the piano, authenticity notwithstanding.


----------



## Luchesi

Xisten267 said:


> Yes, but the probability that he had a harpsichord in mind is very high considering that:
> 
> _Clavier_ means keyboard;
> Bach knew the pianoforte;
> The work has no dynamic indications (so it's not intended for the pianoforte);
> The harpsichord was a very popular keyboard instrument in Bach's time;
> Bach himself owned several harpsichords (I think it's reasonable to assume that he would want to play his own music).


I've assumed that Bach didn't want to discourage any choice of any keyboard instrument, considering what was available to the student at the time. And also not curb enthusiasm etc.. This makes sense if we think about his reasons for the WTC and his acceptance (promotion) of well-tempered tuning. It's written for amateurs and for practice and for reading preludes, learning examples of fugues, on whatever keyboard. Open-ended like the Art of Fugue.
The early pianos weren't very impressive.


----------



## HansZimmer

Xisten267 said:


> I'm not sure about what would be an "ice cream" composition (I'm not from an English-speaking country), but if it's a synonym of musical "bon-bon", this is, an unoriginal, easy-listening piece created to please the masses, then in my opinion Beethoven is one of the worst examples you could pick, as many of his works, including the symphonies, were very daring for their time and met negative reaction back then from part of the critics.
> 
> This doesn't mean that there're no "bon-bons" in classical music though. Ketèlbey's pieces immediately come to mind.


What ever it means "ice cream" or "bon-bon", it's an arbitrary definition, as they are all definitions which are based on subjective judgements and not on objective criterias.
The point is that not only is possible to create good music that people like, but you can also argue that the music can not be considered good if persons who feel horror when hearing it are more than the people who feel pleasure. Infact, how do you measure if a piece of music is good, if you totally ignore the reaction of the public?

That said, I think that the idea that Beethoven's music (or even Mozart's music) is inaccessible is naïve. If their music is not the most popular one today is because it's not pushed by the music industry. Better said, the music industry is pushing vulgar genres of music and therefore the people are educated to vulgar aesthetics. When they hear the music of Mozart or Beethoven they reject it because it's different in respect to what they are used to and the brain of humans doesn't like changes. It must get used to changes, but to do it takes willpower.
It's basically just a question of fashions and of exposition of children to fashions.

Once you get used to the aesthetic of classical music, Beethoven is absolutely not inaccessible. It's probably one of the most accessible composers of classical music, because his symphonies are catchy and thrilling (good melodies and good rythm). This is not an offense, but a compliment, because good music is pleasant music. The idea according to which good art is inaccessible and obscure is a snob idea of modern times, followed by people with deficiencies in self-esteem who need to feel different from the masses to believe that they are superior. If these people would be really superior they would understand that "different" means only "different" and not "superior": infact, people with an IQ lower than average are also different from the masses.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Counterpoint:
> By using the word clavier, _Bach indicated that his music could be played on any keyboard instrument_, *including harpsichord, clavichord, and organ.*


I don't understand your point here. Your own source makes it clear that Bach had in mind the harpsichord (together with other keyboard instruments of the time) as a valid choice for playing the WTC. Probably he didn't intend it to be played on a pianoforte though, otherwise he would have included dynamic markings in it's score, what he didn't, as I've told you before.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> The conventional view suggests that Bach wanted to perform the work on his clavichord, but accepted the limitations of the keyboard after considering the requirements of future performers and learners. He had understood the importance of disseminating his work.


So it's possible that he intended it to be played both in the clavichord or in the harpsichord, as I've also told you before.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Your speculation that Bach probably had the harpsichord in mind is unconvicting to me, and more importantly, utterly irrelevant to my main point, which is this: the harpsichord sounds awful and even if (a big if) Bach did intend The WTC to be played on the harpsichord, I would still choose the piano, authenticity notwithstanding.


Your speculation that Bach didn't have the harpsichord in mind is totally unfounded, and your own sources show you this. But if you don't like the sound of it and want to listen to the WTC played only in pianos, so be it. To each their own.


----------



## Xisten267

HansZimmer said:


> What ever it means "ice cream" or "bon-bon", it's an arbitrary definition, as they are all definitions which are based on subjective judgements and not on objective criterias.
> The point is that not only is possible to create good music that people like, but you can also argue that the music can not be considered good if persons who feel horror when hearing it are more than the people who feel pleasure. Infact, how do you measure if a piece of music is good, if you totally ignore the reaction of the public?
> 
> That said, I think that the idea that Beethoven's music (or even Mozart's music) is inaccessible is naïve. If their music is not the most popular one today is because it's not pushed by the music industry. Better said, the music industry is pushing vulgar genres of music and therefore the people are educated to vulgar aesthetics. When they hear the music of Mozart or Beethoven they reject it because it's different in respect to what they are used to and the brain of humans doesn't like changes. It must get used to changes, but to do it takes willpower.
> It's basically just a question of fashions and of exposition of children to fashions.
> 
> Once you get used to the aesthetic of classical music, Beethoven is absolutely not inaccessible. It's probably one of the most accessible composers of classical music, because his symphonies are catchy and thrilling (good melodies and good rythm). This is not an offense, but a compliment, because good music is pleasant music. The idea according to which good art is inaccessible and obscure is a snob idea of modern times, followed by people with deficiencies in self-esteem who need to feel different from the masses to believe that they are superior. If these people would be really superior they would understand that "different" means only "different" and not "superior": infact, people with an IQ lower than average are also different from the masses.


Another controversial opinions:

Good music may be enjoyed by many people because it's good. It's not good because it's popular.
Music that is very popular not necessarily is good, and music that isn't not necessarily is bad;
Music has different "difficulty" levels, and some pieces are immediately accessible, while others need some degree of effort on the part of the listener to be assimilated;
Beethoven has pieces that are very easy to assimilate (such as _Für Elise_) and others that are very difficult (such as his Op. 130, that ends with the _Grosse Fuge_);
Not necessarily a piece that is difficult to assimilate is better than one that isn't;
Difficulty to perform don't imply difficulty to assimilate as a listener. For example, Liszt's _La Campanella_ is very hard to play, but it's easy to listen to;
Good pieces that weren't assimilated by a listener yet are usually erroneously considered by him as boring;
Beethoven's Op. 130 should always be performed together with the _Grosse Fuge_, as that's the original intention of it's composer.


----------



## HansZimmer

Ethereality said:


> I incredibly appreciate @HansZimmer's posts some pages ago, because he didn't seem to make excuses like I've seen so many do time again, like "I know x is technically great music, but I just.." But no... you know nothing is great. Only what you understand with your ears can you confidently deem great. _Great_ posts 👍. It's incredibly refreshing to hear people speak the truth about their unique perspectives.


Thanks, but maybe my consideration about Bach was not so much pondered. What I think in reality is not that he's overrated as a composer, but that some of his pieces are overrated.

For me expressivity in music is the most important thing, so I my favourite genre is orchestral music, not only because it is more colored in respect to more simple arrangement, but because with an orchestra you have a greater dynamic range to model the dramatic arcs.
The concertos are my favourite orchestral genre because they alternate solo parts with parts in which the front instrument plays the melody with an orchestral background with parts in which the orchestra plays the melody in "tutti" mode.

Now, with string quartets or piano trios you can achieve decent level of expressivity. A piano solo still makes sense because it's an instrument for two hands, but I already start to feel a bit of emptyiness. It's not that I don't like the piano sonatas, but when I listen the Piano Sonata No. 8 of Mozart or to the Moonlight Sonata of Beethoven I can't help thinking that they would be better with an orchestral background which creates a bit of environment.


Therefore, I think that some compositional ideas of Bach are questionable. It doesn't look like a great idea to compose long solo pieces for monophonic instruments like violin or cello. Infact, in Mozart's music "violin sonata" means "violin + piano".

The Goldberg Variations? More than a hour for a solo instrument! Only a symphony of five movements or an orchestral suite can hold a length like that. To aggravate the issue there is the fact that it is precisely variations, a form that I prefer to avoid honestly.

In the orchestral suites of Bach, as they are orchestral pieces, there would be a potential for greater expressiveness, but I think that it's not exploited. Mozart and Beethoven have done a better work with the symphonies.

However, when it comes to the concertos, Bach has composed memorable pieces, so I recognize that he was a skilled composer when he didn't do questionable compositional choices. Maybe I should fit more into vocal and organ music to understand the artistic achievements of Bach in these genres.


So, at the end of this post I have other controversial opinions to offer:
1) The piano sonatas would be better if arranged for piano and orchestra
2) The variations are boring
3) The great pieces of Bach are the concertos, not the boring and inexpressive pieces who are praised by many persons (replacing "Bach is overrated")


----------



## Xisten267

Duplicated post.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> I don't understand your point here. Your own source makes it clear that Bach had in mind the harpsichord (together with other keyboard instruments of the time) as a valid choice for playing the WTC. Probably he didn't intend it to be played on a pianoforte though, otherwise he would have included dynamic markings in it's score, what he didn't, as I've told you before.


My point is that there is no evidence Bach intended the WTC for the harpsichord _exclusively _or _specifically_. He meant it as a general keyboard piece so the piano is just as appropriate or authentic as any other keyboard instrument. Not that I put much stock in the authentic point of view about music performance.



Xisten267 said:


> Your speculation that Bach didn't have the harpsichord in mind is totally unfounded, and your own sources show you this. But if you don't like the sound of it and want to listen to the WTC played only in pianos, so be it. To each their own.


To repeat myself, I said Bach didn't have the harpsichord in mind _specifically_.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> My point is that there is no evidence Bach intended the WTC for the harpsichord _exclusively _or _specifically_. He meant it as a general keyboard piece so *the piano is just as appropriate or authentic as any other keyboard instrument.* Not that I put much stock in the authentic point of view about music performance.


No because, as I told you twice already, Bach didn't include dynamic markings in his score, therefore he must not have had a pianoforte in mind when composing the WTC.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> To repeat myself, I said Bach didn't have the harpsichord in mind _specifically_.


But I didn't say he had the "harpsichord in mind _specifically_". Nonetheless, the harpsichord was likely one of the instruments he had in mind, considering that it was very popular in his day and that he owned several of them, as I already explained to you before.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> No because, as I told you twice already, Bach didn't include dynamic markings in his score, therefore he must not have had a pianoforte in mind when composing the WTC.


How could he have included dynamic markings? The modern piano did not exist at the time. Is it that difficult to grasp the idea that The WTC transcends a specific instrument? You seem to be stuck in a very narrow mindset about music performance.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> How could he have included dynamic markings? The modern piano did not exist at the time.


The pianoforte did exist and Bach knew it.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Is it that difficult to grasp the idea that The WTC transcends a specific instrument?


Again, I didn't say it doesn't.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You seem to be stuck in a very narrow mindset about music performance.


Yet you're the one claiming that the harpsichord is an inferior instrument that shouldn't be used anymore, not me.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> In Baroque times, composers had no pianos as an alternative. Now we do. Why would anyone choose to listen to the harpsichord instead of the piano is beyond me.





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Oh, the piano is absolutely a much better instrument than the harpsichord, both technically and in terms of its musical range. Of that there is no doubt.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> The pianoforte did exist and Bach knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I didn't say it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you're the one claiming that the harpsichord is an inferior instrument that shouldn't be used anymore, not me.


Yes, I make those claims, which you are free, and you have, to dispute. The harpsichord sounds awful (a very individual experience, which some will disagree with). Bach's WTC sounds wonderful on the piano (another personal preference, which some will disagree with). Bach composed The WTC for a general keyboard instrument, not specifically the harpsichord (fact). Claims of authenticity are silly since what matters is how the music sounds to the listener, whether that sound was intended by the composer or not. That pretty much sums up my numerous posts on this topic. Probably not worth discussing this further.


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Bach composed The WTC for a general keyboard instrument, not specifically the harpsichord (fact).


But not for the pianoforte/piano. Although it can, of course, be played in one, what may sound good but to me is less authentic (I'm not saying I don't hear the WTC on the piano - the point is that I prefer the harpsichord over the piano for it, but I have no problem with the latter either).



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, I make those claims, which you are free, and you have, to dispute. The harpsichord sounds awful (a very individual experience, which some will disagree with). Bach's WTC sounds wonderful on the piano (another personal preference, which some will disagree with). Claims of authenticity are silly since what matters is how the music sounds to the listener, whether that sound was intended by the composer or not. That pretty much sums up my numerous posts on this topic. Probably not worth discussing this further.


Authenticity doesn't matter to you but it does to me. But as long as you maintain that these are opinions, and not facts, I'll of course respect your views.


----------



## Luchesi

Xisten267 said:


> But not for the pianoforte/piano. Although it can, of course, be played in one, what may sound good but to me is less authentic (I'm not saying I don't hear the WTC on the piano - the point is that I prefer the harpsichord over the piano for it, but I have no problem with the latter either).
> 
> 
> 
> Authenticity doesn't matter to you but it does to me. But as long as you maintain that these are opinions, and not facts, I'll of course respect your views.


I think that when you listen to the very early Haydn sonatas on a harpsichord you can quickly get what he was trying to do as a young, inexperienced composer. They're so light and simple and clear.


----------



## Luchesi

Luchesi said:


> I think that when you listen to the very early Haydn sonatas on a harpsichord you can quickly get what he was trying to do as a young, inexperienced composer. They're so light and simple and clear.


I have to add that I can't imagine this Bach being played so marvelously on a harpsichord. This man has a wonderful musical brain for this music, and achieves a marvelous level of playing. Just listen to what he's found in it.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> In Baroque times, composers had no pianos as an alternative. Now we do. Why would anyone choose to listen to the harpsichord instead of the piano is beyond me.


Cause it sounds cool, ok??


----------



## Xisten267

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Cause it sounds cool, ok??


A very interesting use of the harpsichord's timbre that just came to mind occurs in the bridge of the Beatles' song _In My Life_. The unexpected contrast it gives to the rest of the song sounds really cool in my opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Cause it sounds cool, ok??





Xisten267 said:


> it gives to the rest of the song sounds really cool in my opinion.















Avenue Q: The Internet Is For


----------



## premont

HansZimmer said:


> Therefore, I think that some compositional ideas of Bach are questionable. It doesn't look like a great idea to compose long solo pieces for monophonic instruments like violin or cello. Infact, in Mozart's music "violin sonata" means "violin + piano".


You have to consider these pieces as being composed for the musician in question and not as concert pieces in our sense.



> The Goldberg Variations? More than a hour for a solo instrument! Only a symphony of five movements or an orchestral suite can hold a length like that. To aggravate the issue there is the fact that it is precisely variations, a form that I prefer to avoid honestly.


The Goldberg variations were probably not intended to be played in a row - again you judge the music on the basis of our present concert habits.


----------



## premont

Xisten267 said:


> No because, as I told you twice already, Bach didn't include dynamic markings in his score, therefore he must not have had a pianoforte in mind when composing the WTC.


Dynamic variation was surely left to the discretion of the performer. BTW the clavichord allowed some dynamic variation, and many of the pieces in the WTC might be written with the clavichord in mind.



> But I didn't say he had the "harpsichord in mind _specifically_". Nonetheless, the harpsichord was likely one of the instruments he had in mind, considering that it was very popular in his day and that he owned several of them, as I already explained to you before.


He also owned several clavichords.


----------



## Xisten267

premont said:


> Dynamic variation was surely left to the discretion of the performer. BTW the clavichord allowed some dynamic variation, and many of the pieces in the WTC might be written with the clavichord in mind.


Pieces written for the pianoforte tend to come with dynamic markings, otherwise they wouldn't use all the features of it's target instrument (think in the piano sonatas of Haydn and Mozart for example). Therefore I think it's very unlikely that Bach wrote the WTC with the pianoforte in mind.



premont said:


> He also owned several clavichords.


Even if so (do you have a source?), I doubt that Bach wouldn't want the WTC to also be played in the harpsichord, considering the reasons I exposed before (popular instrument in his day, he owned seven of them).


----------



## mmsbls

Speaking of harpsichords, there is a view that works should be performed the way composers expected them to be performed. If the composer wrote for the harpsichord, it ought to be performed on one. I think the general view is that the composer understood the instrument and created the work for that instrument (or instruments). Personally, I prefer most works written for harpsichord be performed on modern pianos. Only if the performer believes that work would sound worse on a different instrument (e.g. a non-HIP instrument), should they use the HIP version. Composers are wonderful creators of music, but the performers are the ones to bring that music to our ears. If modern instruments do that better, go for it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xisten267 said:


> I doubt that Bach wouldn't want the WTC to also be played in the harpsichord, considering the reasons I exposed before (popular instrument in his day, he owned seven of them).


Speculation. For reasons I have written previously in this thread, it is obvious Bach did not intend the WTC to be played specifically on the harpsichord (is it called the Well-Tempered Clavier or the Well-Tempered Harpsichord?). He may have had the harpsichord in mind as one of several instruments on which it could be played and so what? Bach didn't have the fortune of knowing the modern grand piano or he would have not composed anything for the harpsichord (I can speculate too). We know (I linked a source for this claim in an earlier post) that Bach thought the harpsichord was a limited, one-dimensional instrument.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mozart's 5 violin concertos are really dull music.


----------



## Bulldog

HansZimmer said:


> So, at the end of this post I have other controversial opinions to offer:
> 3) The great pieces of Bach are the concertos, not the boring and inexpressive pieces who are praised by many persons (replacing "Bach is overrated")


I don't agree. Bach's solo violin works are his most expressive, and his solo harpsichord works are definitely more expressive than his concertos. Not that Bach's concertos are not expressive - Bach was a highly expressive guy.

My main point is that there is no correlation between number of instruments and musical expressiveness.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Bach's greatness shines brightest in his keyboard works when performed on modern grand pianos.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Bach's greatness shines brightest in his keyboard works when performed on modern grand pianos.


What do you think of Bilson's demonstration of what he calls "lovely sort of Baroque angel kind of Mozart"





The same idea can more or less be applied to other 18th century music, such as Bach.




Maybe we could revive a thread on HIP to discuss further on this.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> Speaking of harpsichords, there is a view that works should be performed the way composers expected them to be performed. If the composer wrote for the harpsichord, it ought to be performed on one. I think the general view is that the composer understood the instrument and created the work for that instrument (or instruments). Personally, I prefer most works written for harpsichord be performed on modern pianos. Only if the performer believes that work would sound worse on a different instrument (e.g. a non-HIP instrument), should they use the HIP version. Composers are wonderful creators of music, but the performers are the ones to bring that music to our ears. If modern instruments do that better, go for it.


I've heard the argument that the spectrum of sound of a harpsichord is more irregular, and this is what compensates for the simple combinations of notes, as those composers were searching for 'purity' and clarity and cleverness. 

The sound of the notes on a piano is too uniform to be of benefit in this.


----------



## premont

Xisten267 said:


> Pieces written for the pianoforte tend to come with dynamic markings, otherwise they wouldn't use all the features of it's target instrument (think in the piano sonatas of Haydn and Mozart for example). Therefore I think it's very unlikely that Bach wrote the WTC with the pianoforte in mind.


Of course he didn't have an embryonic fortepiano in mind. I think he considered performances first and foremost on harpsichord, lute-harpsichord, clavichord and organ.

BTW dynamic indications were comparatively rare in baroque music, whatever the instrument. 



> Even if so (do you have a source?), I doubt that Bach wouldn't want the WTC to also be played in the harpsichord, considering the reasons I exposed before (popular instrument in his day, he owned seven of them).


He has several times been reported playing clavichord at his home. CPE Bach considered it his fathers favorite instrument.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I agree and add that it's a reasonable assumption it wasn't the harpsichord either or Bach would have called it the Well-Tempered Harpsichord. We also know that Bach was not a fan of the harpsichord and thought it one-dimensional so it's unlikely he composed the WTC for it.


Even then, the instruments of the 18th century, namely the first generation 18th century fortepiano would have been the instrument of choice for Bach. The modern grand is a different instrument in nature, the cross-stringing of the bass creating muddiness of sound picture (in performance of 18th century music); more appropriate for music of the mid-19th century and onward.

*Is there anyone advocating in lecture/interview/demonstration the use of the modern grand (in Bach performance) over the 18th century instruments? Show me if there's any.*

Btw, Glenn Gould spoke highly of Switched-On Bach, saying: "The whole record, in fact, is one of the most startling achievements of the recording industry in this generation and certainly one of the great feats in the history of 'keyboard' performance".

By the same logic "Bach didn't specify which instruments his works were written for, so we can play them on any instrument", we can play Bach pieces (where he didn't specify the tempo) on any tempo we want and still call it a legimate Bach performance.


----------



## premont

hammeredklavier said:


> Even then, the instruments of the 18th century, namely the first generation 18th century fortepiano would have been the instrument of choice for* Bach.*


Are we talking about CPE Bach?



> The modern grand is a different instrument in nature, the cross-stringing of the bass creating muddiness of sound picture (in performance of 18th century music); more appropriate for music of the mid-19th century and onward.


Yes, that's evident.



> By the same logic "Bach didn't specify which instruments his works were written for, so we can play them on any instrument", we can play Bach pieces (where he didn't specify the tempo) on any tempo we want and still call it a legimate Bach performance.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think of Bilson's demonstration of what he calls "lovely sort of Baroque angel kind of Mozart"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same idea can more or less be applied to other 18th century music, such as Bach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could revive a thread on HIP to discuss further on this.


I might be an atypical listener because I want both. I want recordings attempting to reveal how the composer thought of the notes and what it all sounded like to him, back then. And I want all the differing scholarly opinions about how we could know such things.. They're all quite convincing to me!

But also, I want recordings which are 'eccentric' or improvisational. They are the interpretations which leap out of the score, at that one moment in time!, which a keyboardist (any musician) puts his heart, knowledge and experience into. 

I try to play both ways, in my practicing. It's most of what music is..


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> *Is there anyone advocating in lecture/interview/demonstration the use of the modern grand (in Bach performance) over the 18th century instruments? Show me if there's any.*


Don't care to even bother to look for this. All I care is what I like.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think of Bilson's demonstration of what he calls "lovely sort of Baroque angel kind of Mozart"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same idea can more or less be applied to other 18th century music, such as Bach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could revive a thread on HIP to discuss further on this.


Don't mind the sound of the fortepiano. 
Some HIP are revealing and interesting but I have yet to find a single HIP performance that I prefer over one played on modern instruments.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Xisten267 said:


> A very interesting use of the harpsichord's timbre that just came to mind occurs in the bridge of the Beatles' song _In My Life_. The unexpected contrast it gives to the rest of the song sounds really cool in my opinion.


Unrelated to the main discussion, but fun fact about that song: the harpsichord portion isn't actually a harpsichord but a sped up piano.

Also, this song is an example of how you can creatively mix 'classical' music with 'pop' music.. (harpsichord + drums and guitar is something I would like to hear more often)




TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Mozart's 5 violin concertos are really dull music.


I sort of agree, except I think the 5th violin concerto is nice to listen to


----------



## Luchesi

4chamberedklavier said:


> Unrelated to the main discussion, but fun fact about that song: the harpsichord portion isn't actually a harpsichord but a sped up piano.
> 
> Also, this song is an example of how you can creatively mix 'classical' music with 'pop' music.. (harpsichord + drums and guitar is something I would like to hear more often)
> 
> 
> 
> I sort of agree, except I think the 5th violin concerto is nice to listen to


George Martin played it half speed.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

hammeredklavier said:


>


Wait that's not Bill Bailey at 0:43 there is it lol?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Xisten267 said:


> A very interesting use of the harpsichord's timbre that just came to mind occurs in the bridge of the Beatles' song _In My Life_. The unexpected contrast it gives to the rest of the song sounds really cool in my opinion.





4chamberedklavier said:


> Unrelated to the main discussion, but fun fact about that song: the harpsichord portion isn't actually a harpsichord but a sped up piano.


Hm, sounds a bit distorted though, is that due to the speed-up?
Also without knowing one could've taken it for a soft-timbred e-harpsichord imo - maybe just turning the trebles way down would make it sound similar to this, not sure.




Luchesi said:


> George Martin played it half speed.


Hm got slightly sloppy at the end there, didn't he?

Oh well, here's Trevor Pinnock doing it (almost?) as fast:






(Edit: ok just checked it again, it's noticeably slower lol)


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

4chamberedklavier said:


> Also, this song is an example of how you can creatively mix 'classical' music with 'pop' music.. (harpsichord + drums and guitar is something I would like to hear more often)


Off the top of my head,











And a license MMO club-metal track:

(1:08-1:36)


----------



## pianozach

Mahler is a fictional composer invented as a nom de plume for Jean Sibelius. All of Mahler's works were composed by Sibelius.


----------



## hammeredklavier

pianozach said:


> Mahler is a fictional composer invented as a nom de plume for Jean Sibelius. All of Mahler's works were composed by Sibelius.


Here's a controversial opinion of mine:

Everything Robert Newman ever said on the net was a controversial opinion (he just didn't add "I think" to every one).


----------



## Haydn70

Georg Philipp Telemann is underrated.

Non-music controversial opinion: comparing them at their peaks, Mickey Mantle was a much greater player than Willie Mays. (This is a fact, not an opinion.)


----------



## dko22

Haydn70 said:


> Georg Philipp Telemann is underrated


I have a friend who very much thinks so and has done considerable academic research into the subject. He can get very prickly when one expresses boredom with a work from that composer (very easy to do, unfortunately....zzzz) and once went through a concerto score with me to prove how clever the counterpoint was. I'm afraid I remain very agnostic -- but then I'm not a great fan of the Baroque in general so probably my opinion counts for little.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

dko22 said:


> I'm not a great fan of the Baroque





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> My point is that there is no evidence Bach intended the WTC for the harpsichord _exclusively _or _specifically_. He meant it as a general keyboard piece so the



CONVERT.


----------



## Haydn70

dko22 said:


> I have a friend who very much thinks so and has done considerable academic research into the subject. He can get very prickly when one expresses boredom with a work from that composer (very easy to do, unfortunately....zzzz) and once went through a concerto score with me to prove how clever the counterpoint was. I'm afraid I remain very agnostic -- but then I'm not a great fan of the Baroque in general so probably my opinion counts for little.


Telemann was extremely prolific so there are bound to be pieces of his that are what is called “wallpaper Baroque”, i.e., pleasant music that is not particularly interesting. His best pieces, though, IMHO, are quite striking and engaging.

Take a listen to these and see what you think:

Here is the final movement of his Concerto for Traverso and Recorder in E minor...I especially love the section beginning at 14'34"...brilliant!






The ebullient finale from his Concerto in E major for flute, oboe d'amore, viola d'amore & strings:






His wonderful Burlesque de Quixotte:






The Harlequinade "Der scherzende Tritonus" from his Ouverture Suite in C major "Hamburger Ebb und Fluth":


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> CONVERT.


I have heard those before. They didn't change my opinion of the harpsichord.


----------



## pianozach

*JS Bach*



premont said:


> Of course he didn't have an embryonic fortepiano in mind. I think he considered performances first and foremost on harpsichord, lute-harpsichord, clavichord and organ.
> 
> BTW dynamic indications were comparatively rare in baroque music, whatever the instrument.
> 
> 
> 
> He has several times been reported playing clavichord at his home. CPE Bach considered it his fathers favorite instrument.


Yep. This.

Bach's music, especially his keyboard works, transcribe well from one type of keyboard to another, including to the pianoforte, which was in its infant development in Bach's day.

One can easily score many of his keyboard works for strings and other orchestral instruments. Even Bach himself would re-score his own works for different instruments and different combinations of instruments.

Bach's music was composed in such a way that it easily translates to other instruments easily.

Gould proved that you can play Bach any way you want, and it's still Bach, and is still good.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I have heard those before. They didn't change my opinion of the harpsichord.







??


----------



## dko22

Haydn70 said:


> Telemann was extremely prolific so there are bound to be pieces of his that are what is called “wallpaper Baroque”, i.e., pleasant music that is not particularly interesting. His best pieces, though, IMHO, are quite striking and engaging.
> 
> Take a listen to these and see what you think:


I'm afraid I don't have time to listen to all of this but I did enjoy the quirky Concerto for Traverso and Recorder. There is a lot of Telemann on the radio here and I used to play a game with my wife that when we heard something particularly dull, we would guess it was Telemann and it usually was. But since then, I have been pleasantly surprised on one or two occasions - as you say he was incredibly prolific and every now and again, I do hear something which even for me (the only Baroque composer I actually like in general is Zelenka) is strikingly fresh and inventive.


----------



## Viajero

"Wagner is best digested by curating one's own very abridged version of his operas. Even in bite-sized pieces, I cannot sit through a whole single act of any of his operas. There is too much dull music. " Two flutes

So, T,
Would it be fair to assume you also have a problem reading Conrad, Mann, and Melville?
Viajero


----------



## Chat Noir

Viajero said:


> Would it be fair to assume you also have a problem reading Conrad, Mann, and Melville?


To be fair Conrad, Mann and Melville didn't write 30,000 page novels.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Viajero said:


> "Wagner is best digested by curating one's own very abridged version of his operas. Even in bite-sized pieces, I cannot sit through a whole single act of any of his operas. There is too much dull music. " Two flutes
> 
> So, T,
> Would it be fair to assume you also have a problem reading Conrad, Mann, and Melville?
> Viajero


Why? What do Wagner and the three authors you listed have in common?

Incidentally, I'd rather read the "why is film music not considered classical music" thread than Heart of Darkness.


----------



## janxharris

'Heart of Darkness'...number 24 according to The Greatest Books: The Best Books of All Time - 1 to 50


----------



## Kreisler jr

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Why? What do Wagner and the three authors you listed have in common?
> 
> Incidentally, I'd rather read the "why is film music not considered classical music" thread than Heart of Darkness.


"Heart of Darkness" is probably the shortest book I started twice but could not finish; I always got stuck quite early... briefly after the protagonist arrives in the Kongo.


----------



## Waehnen

One of the top 10 greatest symphonies of all time is Mahler’s 5th Symphony without the 2nd and 3rd Movements (achieved by a digital playlist).

40 minutes of pure awesomeness, sheer beauty and perfect balance in 3 gorgeous movements!


(A controversial opinion of great musical joy!)


----------



## Kreisler jr

I would not say they are the "best" and I usually don't really think of them in isolation (especially not #2 that really belongs together with the first one), but I think the 2nd and 3rd movements are the most interesting ones of the 5th symphony. (Not surprisingly, the least interesting one is the most (or only really) famous Mahler mvmt. of all, the Adagietto.)

Not entirely serious remark about music history:
Surprisingly often some of the most popular pieces by a composer are hardly typical/represenative for them, sometimes they weren't even composed by them, or are in doubt. Examples for the latter are trumpet voluntary (not by Purcell), "serenade quartet" (not by Haydn), that Notenbüchlein Menuet (not by Bach, and the famous d minor toccata is at least doubtful), Joy to the world (not by Handel)... Examples for untypical pieces: Beethoven's Für Elise, Brahms' A flat major waltz and hungarian dances. EDIT: And, what actually got me on this tangent, Mahler's Adagietto!!!
Although for some other composers the "hit pieces" are more representative: Vivaldi's 4 Seasons, Boccherini's menuet, Grieg's Morning mood etc., Schumann's Träumerei, Mendelssohn's Wedding march...


----------



## Viajero

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Why? What do Wagner and the three authors you listed have in common?
> 
> Incidentally, I'd rather read the "why is film music not considered classical music" thread than Heart of Darkness.


----------



## Viajero

Hi, Two Flutes,
I think you misinterpreted my remarks. My point was simply that it takes more time and, perhaps, effort/concentration to read Melville, Mann, and Conrad than it does to read Hemingway. Ergo, a comparison to Wagner's "Sigfried" and, say, Beethoven's "Fifth Symphony." We all have our personal tastes in music but I would be the first to say that Wagner is not accessible to everyone's tastes. And, if you go beyond his music, he was one of the most prolific philosophers of Art, Music, and Politics. I hope this is clear and thanks for your response.
Viajero


----------



## mmsbls

Kreisler jr said:


> "Heart of Darkness" is probably the shortest book I started twice but could not finish; I always got stuck quite early... briefly after the protagonist arrives in the Kongo.


The exact same thing happened to me. I started twice and couldn't get very far.


----------



## Kreisler jr

mmsbls said:


> The exact same thing happened to me. I started twice and couldn't get very far.


I got further in HoD than in "Lord Jim", though... 
FWIW I read a few others by Conrad (The secret Agent, Under western eyes (I think, it was one with anarchist conspirators), Typhoon, maybe another one or two short ones) but didn't love any of them as much as I had hoped, maybe because I expected to some extent adventure stories, a bit like Stevenson, and eventually gave up on the author.


----------



## Viajero

Hi, K,
One of the most profound novels I read as a young person/musician was Romaine Rolland's "Jean-Christophe" which is a prodigious account of the details of the life of a German composer from birth to death and the trials and tribulations of an artist. It is to this day one of the most profound works of literature I have read which I place in the same class as Cervantes' "Don Quixote." Rolland was working on a biography of Beethoven when he conceived of the novel. He was awarded the Prix Femina in 1905 and the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1915 for this masterpiece. However, Rolland wrote in the manner of the late 19th/ early 20th Century European novelists in the tradition of the "Bildungsroman" which, stylistically, requires a reader who loves this form of the Novel . . . much as Mann, Melville, and Conrad who also wrote in this style. Well, at least I can say you gave Conrad an admirable chance in your above reading list.
Viajero


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Kreisler jr said:


> "Heart of Darkness" is probably the shortest book I started twice but could not finish; I always got stuck quite early... briefly after the protagonist arrives in the Kongo.


I picked it up because it is on so many "best books" lists; this is a short book that seems to drag on like it's over 1000 pages long.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Viajero said:


> Hi, Two Flutes,
> I think you misinterpreted my remarks. My point was simply that it takes more time and, perhaps, effort/concentration to read Melville, Mann, and Conrad than it does to read Hemingway. Ergo, a comparison to Wagner's "Sigfried" and, say, Beethoven's "Fifth Symphony." We all have our personal tastes in music but I would be the first to say that Wagner is not accessible to everyone's tastes. And, if you go beyond his music, he was one of the most prolific philosophers of Art, Music, and Politics. I hope this is clear and thanks for your response.
> Viajero


I have tried hard to get into Wagner's operas with varying success. I am not an opera fan, I should say here to give you more context. I find opera librettos uninteresting and sometimes downright ridiculous, the costumes and drama completely unmoving - and of course non-musical - and lots of music is not very interesting but is there to support the non-musical - "the plot" - aspects of the genre. Wagner has written some of my favorite music but unlike, say Sibelius' 7th symphony, which I listen to from beginning to end with unwavering pleasure, I cannot listen to 4 hours of opera beginning to end; I can't even find a single act that in any Wagner opera that does not contain long stretches of dull music. But the parts that are exciting are as good as music gets.


----------



## Highwayman

I think reader`s perspective is very important in order to appreciate HoD. I read it as a _Künstlerroman_ and I must say it was quite worthwhile. I can see how it may fail to grab reader`s attention if it`s read simply through a post-colonialist pov or if reader expects some action. But even though I find its stagnant atmosphere captivating I agree the language does not flow (as usual with Conrad) and it feels much longer than it is.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I have heard of but not read any Rolland. I read lots of "Great books" and many that are longer and on the "surface" maybe more difficult than Conrad. And I really wanted to like Conrad because of the exotic, naval and adventure backdrops (ironically, the ones I read like Secret Agent, don't really have exotic settings...) but I couldn't get in.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Beethoven piano sonatas are really noisy things! 😱😱😱


----------



## Viajero

Hi, Two Flutes,
For years, I refused to listen to Opera for many of the above reasons you and others have stated so well. However, I am very interested in Dark Age/Viking Mythology and eventually wound up making an attempt at Wagner's Ring Cycle which I first listened to on CD and then watched on video. After that, I was hooked on Wagner. I, then, purchased the Flying Dutchman as performed by CSO under Georg Solti, and loved the story, sentiment, and music. So, I am not an opera aficionado but rather an initiate that has come to love some of Wagner's spellbinding music as in the "Overture" to the Flying Dutchman. I think it would take a lifetime to truly dissect the literature but I have come to appreciate it on a purely visceral, musical level. Thanks for your reply.
Viajero


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Beethoven piano sonatas are really noisy things! 😱😱😱


And what gorgeous noise they are!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Viajero said:


> Hi, Two Flutes,
> For years, I refused to listen to Opera for many of the above reasons you and others have stated so well. However, I am very interested in Dark Age/Viking Mythology and eventually wound up making an attempt at Wagner's Ring Cycle which I first listened to on CD and then watched on video. After that, I was hooked on Wagner. I, then, purchased the Flying Dutchman as performed by CSO under Georg Solti, and loved the story, sentiment, and music. So, I am not an opera aficionado but rather an initiate that has come to love some of Wagner's spellbinding music as in the "Overture" to the Flying Dutchman. I think it would take a lifetime to truly dissect the literature but I have come to appreciate it on a purely visceral, musical level. Thanks for your reply.
> Viajero


I really like The Flying Dutchman, some of it. And The Ring Cycle, some of it. I have spent a lot of time trying to appreciate opera at the level that many seem capable of and I think I've gotten as far as I can, which is, my enjoyment of opera is limited to very abridged versions of the bits that I like.


----------



## cybernaut

1. Minimalism is awesome and saved classical music
2. Haydn is underrated


----------



## cybernaut

Xisten267 said:


> Because harpsichords and pianos have very distinct timbres that can be used effectively to different musical goals? The soundtrack below is from the 90s and uses the harpsichord in a very effective and expressive manner (in it's second half) in my opinion.


Excellent point. The timbre of the harpsichord can definitely offer sounds that the piano can't. Rick Wakeman has often used the sound of the harpsichord to wonderful effect.
e.g. his solo on "Siberian Khatru"





and from start to finish of "Madrigal"





And here's another brilliant use of the harpsichord's unique timbre:





Frank Zappa also made great use of the harpsichord timbre:





and here's another excellent use of the harpsichord:


----------



## Neo Romanza

To counter @cybernaut: minimalism was a stylistic dead end, but, thankfully, there have been some great composers to emerge from its ashes.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Not sure that this is 'controversial', though maybe that's a controversy in itself, but in my opinion, Alicia de Larrocha was/is seriously under-rated and was one of the truly Great pianists of ths recording era.


----------



## Malx

Pat Fairlea said:


> Not sure that this is 'controversial', though maybe that's a controversy in itself, but in my opinion, Alicia de Larrocha was/is seriously under-rated and was one of the truly Great pianists of ths recording era.


Agreed - I saw her play Beethoven's third concerto and she was first rate.


----------



## Bulldog

I also agree. I have quite a few of her recordings, and each one is excellent or superb.


----------



## cybernaut

Neo Romanza said:


> To counter @cybernaut: minimalism was *a stylistic dead end*


You should tell that to Julia Wolfe, who continues to rack up Pultizer Prizes, MacArthur genius grants, Grammy nominations and performances of her new compositions by leading orchestras and choirs around the world. 😂


----------



## Neo Romanza

cybernaut said:


> You should tell that to Julia Wolfe, who continues to rack up Pultizer Prizes, MacArthur genius grants, Grammy nominations and performances of her new compositions by leading orchestras and choirs around the world. 😂


Superlatives never meant much to me. I only care about the music.


----------



## cybernaut

Neo Romanza said:


> Superlatives never meant much to me. I only care about the music.


Luckily, the world does not revolve around you.

And for someone who claims not to care about superlatives, you sure like to employ them.
Here are some of your posts:
"For me, it doesn't get any better than Karajan's Ring."
"I would definitely seek out the Fulkerson/Shannon set on Bridge. These are vastly superior performances of these works, IMHO."
"Just finished: Listened to Kurtag's Stele. What a great work."
"Just finished: Listened to Yun's Symphony No. 3. Great stuff."
"Try Robert Craft's recording on Naxos Three Greek Ballets. One of the best performances I've heard of the work."
"A new acquisition found in the mailbox today: Listening to Sinfonia Tragica. Wow...I'm speechless!"
"Now: Listening to Symphony No. 6. Incredible work."

I could go on and on and on.


----------



## Neo Romanza

cybernaut said:


> Luckily, the world does not revolve around you.
> 
> And for someone who claims not to care about superlatives, you sure like to employ them.
> Here are some of your posts:
> "For me, it doesn't get any better than Karajan's Ring."
> "I would definitely seek out the Fulkerson/Shannon set on Bridge. These are vastly superior performances of these works, IMHO."
> "Just finished: Listened to Kurtag's Stele. What a great work."
> "Just finished: Listened to Yun's Symphony No. 3. Great stuff."
> "Try Robert Craft's recording on Naxos Three Greek Ballets. One of the best performances I've heard of the work."
> "A new acquisition found in the mailbox today: Listening to Sinfonia Tragica. Wow...I'm speechless!"
> "Now: Listening to Symphony No. 6. Incredible work."
> 
> I could go on and on and on.


I'm talking about awards. I could less about them.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

[/QUOTE]The Goldberg variations were probably not intended to be played in a row - again you judge the music on the basis of our present concert habits.
[/QUOTE]

Really? I'm surprised to hear this, given their tight structure. Do you have evidence to back up this claim?


----------



## Kreisler jr

In which mid-18th century context would one have performed a very difficult ca. 60-80 min. long keyboard work? Of course one could do so, because it would have been a (semi)private occasion anyway, like with all other suites, "lessons", collections of pieces. They would also not necessarily perform a suite in toto, despite being much shorter, so it seems likely that they would also pick and choose from a far longer work.


----------



## Xisten267

François Couperin's vocal music is much more beautiful than his keyboard works and the world would have been a better place if he had composed more of it.




F. Couperin's _Domine, salvum fac regem_





F. Couperin's _Lauda Sion Salvatorem_





F. Couperin's _Etemin Dominus_


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> In which mid-18th century context would one have performed a very difficult ca. 60-80 min. long keyboard work? Of course one could do so, because it would have been a (semi)private occasion anyway, like with all other suites, "lessons", collections of pieces. They would also not necessarily perform a suite in toto, despite being much shorter, so it seems likely that they would also pick and choose from a far longer work.


Perhaps it's more the case that listeners wouldn't sit through such a long keyboard work. Yes, it was requested and delivered as a set of variations, all together and each related to the whole in technical musical terms, but to be heard in one sitting? I think it was like a possession to be practiced and explored. 
Dealing with insomnia, so it had a function, I guess.. They were practically-minded in those days.


----------



## hammeredklavier

premont said:


> The Goldberg variations were probably not intended to be played in a row - again you judge the music on the basis of our present concert habits.


"The story goes that Bach wrote the work for a pupil named Johann Gottlieb Goldberg, who was the Russian diplomat Count Kaiserling’s favourite musician. Goldberg was tasked with soothing him in his sleepless nights. So impressive was the music, Bach was paid 100 French gold coins in a golden goblet. The validity of the story is questioned, but it’s a comforting tale nonetheless." (Radio Reaction: Goldberg Variations for the sleep-deprived)


----------



## premont

hammeredklavier said:


> "The story goes that Bach wrote the work for a pupil named Johann Gottlieb Goldberg, who was the Russian diplomat Count Kaiserling’s favourite musician. Goldberg was tasked with soothing him in his sleepless nights. So impressive was the music, Bach was paid 100 French gold coins in a golden goblet. The validity of the story is questioned, but it’s a comforting tale nonetheless." (Radio Reaction: Goldberg Variations for the sleep-deprived)


And when the count was sleepless he asked Goldberg to play _some_ af his variations for him. So probably neither the full work nor in sequence.


----------



## hammeredklavier

premont said:


> And when the count was sleepless he asked Goldberg to play _some_ af his variations for him. So probably neither the full work nor in sequence.


Do you have a source for that claim?


----------



## premont

hammeredklavier said:


> Do you have a source for that claim?


Yes, Forkel's Bach biography. See The New Bach Reader (ed. Christoph Wolff 1998) page 463. The correct quote is, translated to English: "Dear Goldberg, do play me *one *of my variations."


----------



## joen_cph

As a side remark, I just got *Goldberg*'s own, two harpsichord concertos on CD the other day (the Salamanca-, not the MDG-recording), and they are expansive and quirky;
if you like say CPE Bach's harpsichord concertos, you'll like them too.


----------



## premont

joen_cph said:


> As a side remark, I just got *Goldberg*'s own, two harpsichord concertos on CD the other day (the Salamanca-, not the MDG-recording), and they are expansive and quirky;
> if you like say CPE Bach's harpsichord concertos, you'll like them too.


I have only heard one of Goldberg's harpsichord concertos, and yes - found it quirky, but original and more JS Bachian and interesting than the average CPE Bach concerto.

Nice to meet you here joen.


----------



## fbjim

I get inordinately irritated when people refer to old Columbia records as "Sony". It's not Bernstein's NYP Mahler 2 on Sony, it's Columbia! 

And why is it only Columbia that gets this treatment? Sony bought RCA too, but I never hear people talk about old Reiner/CSO records as "Sony". What's going on here?


----------



## joen_cph

Well, the old Philips recordings now go as "Decca" when released again, many will no longer remember the actual origins ... and DG's box sets (obviously the most prestigious label, as commonly understood) is also used for all sorts of other-label, earlier recordings too ...


----------



## fbjim

But if I don't stand up for the poor CBS corporation, who will???


----------



## fbjim

Also those Decca/Philips re-releases irritate me because they originally had that burgandy banner on the top reading "Philips Classics" but they inexplicably kept that and removed "Philips", so they just say "Classics" in a chintzy script that looks more like it belongs on a stereo receiver from the 1970s.

Maybe I should get bothered less by these things....


----------

