# Match the 'bad' attribute to the composer/s of your choice...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thinking about what some people said on this ancient thread (its been going since 2004!, truly historic) -
http://www.talkclassical.com/249-who-do-you-consider.html

...I thought I'd do this for 'fun,' for what its worth.

Based on THIS blog entry, listing the 'top 10 worst classical composers of all time.' (it's a joke guys, not serious, before you all get on your high horses & soap boxes). I think its quite funny, actually.

So i'll take some 'bad' attributes from that blog and you can match it to a composer (it's all subjective and meant as a joke only).

You can also make up your own 'bad' attributes and cliches.

_Frivolous, flippant

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic

Truly insufferable

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content

Shameless showman

Tepid

Unremarkable

Dull

Background music

Sentimental_

I won't be game to do my own list (yet!), but I will give what the blog listed as the above being (from worst being No. 1 to least worst being No. 10) -

Frivolous, flippant - Mozart

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - Rachmaninov

Truly insufferable - J. Strauss II

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - Weber

Shameless showman - Liszt

Tepid - Brahms

Unremarkable - Offenbach

Dull - Schubert & Schumann

Background music - Chopin

Sentimental - Debussy


----------



## carlmichaels (May 2, 2012)

Well this is bound to enrage emotions, but what the heck, I'll take a shot..

Frivolous/flippant - Poulenc

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - no contest: Paganini (it's _all_ unlistenable)

Truly insufferable - Wagner

lacking in any real content - anything atonal

Shameless showman - Paderewski

Tepid - Debussy

Unremarkable - Debussy

Dull - Debussy

Background music - JS Bach, Handel (and most Baroque, come to think of it)

Sentimental - Bernstein


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

carlmichaels said:


> Well this is bound to enrage emotions, but what the heck, I'll take a shot..
> 
> Frivolous/flippant - Poulenc
> 
> ...


I'M ENRAGED!!! :scold: 

Seriously, I picked the same as you for #1 & #3, but I was just fishing on the rest of them....and I didn't want to enrage anybody.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Frivolous, flippant - *Haydn*

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - *Alkan*

Truly insufferable - *Cage*

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - *Meyerbeer*

Shameless showman - *Liszt*

Tepid - *Schumann*

Unremarkable - *Saint-Saëns*

Dull - *Mahler*

Background music - *Mozart*

Sentimental - *Rachmaninoff*


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Good going, guys. I am stuck for time now but will return with my own later. I will not mention Wagner. I'll be more creative than mark a soft target! But this is harder than I thought.

People can also do 'send ups' of their favourite composers. You can put composers you actually like in these 'bad' categories to kind of send up this whole labelling thing. That's what the guy in the blog I put in my op was kind of doing. Obviously it wasn't serious, putting 'holy' Mozart as No. 1 for being 'the worst composer.'


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

It always feels strange to criticize composers. After all, they knew more about music than I ever will. Having said that, I will engage in this anyway, since it's all in good fun.

I will, however, only name composers who are actually very dear to me but who, despite their overall greatness, may have certain weaknesses.

So here goes:

Frivolous, flippant - This doesn't even seem like a bad quality to me. Still, I'd say Richard Strauss. I'd rather call it flamboyant, though. And that's what his music was, for sure, aside from being stunning in terms of craftmanship.

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - Schumann. At least in his piano pieces. I love Schumann's symphonies and concertos, but the piano works seem like desperate last-ditch attempts at impressing women.

Truly insufferable - Wagner. Not for his music, though, but for his demented antisemitic rantings. And for turning singing into barking and screaming.

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - Beethoven. That is, in his middle years, during the so-called heroic phase. Some pieces, great as they are, seem somewhat blown out of proportion and primitively spectacular.

Shameless showman - Bach, given that he apparently couldn't resist showing off his unmatched contrapuntal skills in just about everything he ever wrote.

Tepid - I will say Ravel. I often feel his music lacks a certain edge or punch. His most impressionistic works in particular. A marvellous composer, but at times a little too fairy-land atmospheric.

Unremarkable - Mendelssohn. I love him. But he lived during that awful gap between Beethoven and Wagner. And on top of that he was - unrightfully so - overshadowed by lesser composers like Chopin and Schumann and probably Berlioz as well.

Dull - Glass. The repetitive nature of his works must seem dull. But they're dull the same way meditation is dull. Yet meditation can open you up to the most profound insights.

Background music - Pärt. His music is regularly used in films. In Gus van Sant's Gerry, Pärt's music merges perfectly with the film's atmosphere and mood. It's not attention-grabbing but deepens the impact.

Sentimental - Mahler, of course. He wrote down his symphonies with an incredibly strong and skilled composer's hand, but it seems that there were always tears running down it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Hehehe :devil: *rubs hands*

I say some names out of honesty of my opinion since I like some of these composers, and not only intentional tirade. But some is. :tiphat:

Frivolous, flippant - Rossini

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - Alkan

Truly insufferable - Beethoven

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - Mahler

*Shameless *showman - Stravinsky

Tepid - Glazunov, I'm sorry to say, but it's mainly from tepid performances (which I avoid listening to ). At its core, the music will not be tepid with the right interpretation.

Unremarkable - Mendelssohn

Dull - Brahms (but only sometimes)

Background music - Haydn

Sentimental (I add Overly Edgy) - Rachmaninoff


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

With tongue firmly in cheek - as some of these, I quite like, but some I don't or not much:

Frivolous, flippant - Lehar

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - Paganini

Truly insufferable - R. Strauss

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - Rued Langgaard

Shameless showman - Liszt

Tepid - Arvo Part

Unremarkable - Czerny

Dull - Reger 

Background music - Ferde Grofe

Sentimental - Andrew Lloyd Webber


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Truly insufferable - Beethoven


_What?_



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Unremarkable - Mendelssohn


How is Mendelssohn's violin concerto unremarkable?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I can't attribute any of these sincerely, but for fun... 

Frivolous, flippant - Ravel, Chopin

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - 

Truly insufferable - Bruckner (I actually did use to feel this way) 

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - Bruckner (I actually did use to feel this way), Cage, Stockhausen 

Shameless showman - Paganini 

Tepid - Canteloube 

Unremarkable - J Strauss II 

Dull - Telemann 

Background music - Fauré 

Sentimental - Tchaikovsky, Grainger


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

MaestroViolinist said:


> _What?_


I can't stand almost everything by Beethoven. I've heard enough repeated V-I's for a lifetime there. Also, I don't like almost _any _of his melodies. So much for spending so much time developing them.



> How is Mendelssohn's violin concerto unremarkable?


Why should it be considered remarkable? I've heard concertos by much lesser known composers I felt were more "remarkable" because of what was at their core emotionally. I don't like any of the melodies in the Mendelssohn violin concerto, it grates on my nerves instead. Also, the majority of his other melodies in other works, I don't like them. Again, so much for his excellent developments and such. I completely respect his talent, as I do Beethoven's. But that doesn't cut it for me.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> ...
> ...
> Sentimental - ... Grainger


You got somethin' against Aussies? Unacceptable, totally unacceptable, even with expat Aussies who mostly lived overseas, like dear ol' Percy. Shame on you! :lol:

& re* Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto, *I also have little time for it, but I am a fan of his music in general. I think that piece kind of obscures many of his other works which are frankly more interesting. But he did innovate in that work, in terms of ditching the usual longish orchestral introduction with violin concertos, he cuts the waffle and goes straight into the action, the main theme played by the violin, not orchestra. Now that I can say is an interesting aspect, an innovation, in that work, but generally I am over it.

...but now I'm being too serious for this thread. 'Real' musical discussion / analysis is forbidden (except for me!). This thread is for cliches and stereotypes of 'bad' music ONLY.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The main reason I like Mendelssohn's violin concerto is for its influence on Bruch's first. To me Bruch's is the ultimate in romanticism. Well, when played cloyingly, as it should be. 

I like Grainger. Wasnt serious in any of my answers; I have no serious answers to this kind of thing. I like everything, or try to, and when I fail I blame myself rather than the music or the composer - and I consider this attitude the only ethical approach to elite art.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> The main reason I like Mendelssohn's violin concerto is for its influence on Bruch's first. To me Bruch's is the ultimate in romanticism. Well, when played cloyingly, as it should be...


I like Bruch's first as well. His _Scottish Fantasy_ as well. I don't have 'issues' with those as I do Mendelssohn's VC.



> ...
> I like Grainger. Wasnt serious in any of my answers;...


Well good, you have redeemed yourself! :angel:



> ...
> ...I have no serious answers to this kind of thing. I like everything, or try to, and when I fail I blame myself rather than the music or the composer - and I consider this attitude the only ethical approach to elite art.


Well I think you are a rare breed, I think that kind of attitude is rare. I aspire to it but when I hear what I call 'rehash' or 'music on steroids' that aspiration goes by the wayside big time, replaced by the (indirect) subject of this thread - but in a funny way - personal BIAS ...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I like Bruch's first as well. His _Scottish Fantasy_ as well. I don't have 'issues' with those as I do Mendelssohn's VC.
> 
> Well good, you have redeemed yourself! :angel:
> 
> Well I think you are a rare breed, I think that kind of attitude is rare. I aspire to it but when I hear what I call 'rehash' or 'music on steroids' that aspiration goes by the wayside big time, replaced by the (indirect) subject of this thread - but in a funny way - personal BIAS ...


Nice of you to say.

Bit off topic, but... - My wife and I have a problem, because I like so much "weird" music, and she strongly prefers the sappiest stuff which I find a bit hard to tolerate. I'm the boss of the music (that's about all), but she has veto power, so whenever there is music that we both enjoy I make a note of it. Grainger is in there, so I wind up hearing a lot of it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

*Background music* - John Cage, sound/noise in general = music, you get the idea! Music all around us, always!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> ...
> My wife and I have a problem, because I like so much "weird" music, and she strongly prefers the sappiest stuff which I find a bit hard to tolerate. I'm the boss of the music (that's about all), but she has veto power, so whenever there is music that we both enjoy I make a note of it. Grainger is in there, so I wind up hearing a lot of it.


Well you seem quite systematic, working out a system like that, what you have in common. But your wife is maybe 'safe' with Grainger, as long as she doesn't hear his more experimental things. Eg. his electronic music -




But maybe his fierce ballet _The Warriors _would be okay (that's if she's okay with eg. _Rite of Spring _by Stravinsky). But I assume you're listening to his piano music and arrangments, which is what I've been doing (listening to pianist Leslie Howard). They are interesting in themselves, he was an innovator in the piano realm, so your wife doesn't know maybe she's actually hearing music that was radical for 100 years ago. Well, some of it, a good deal of it.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> *Background music* - John Cage, sound/noise in general = music, you get the idea! Music all around us, always!


Well maybe Cage would take that as a kind of compliment?! He was aiming at music putting people into a kind of 'zone.' I was listening to his interludes and sonatas for prepared piano, and I did feel those Eastern gamelan-like vibes. This is music with no 'object' or 'goal,' just for the moment. & it does blend in unobtrusively with life, eg. sounds of the city.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

I'm sure all these composers are yelling from the graves! :lol: 

Frivolous/Flippant - Mozart

Shameless showman - Paganini

Sentimental - Telemann 

Truly insufferable - Sevcik -- have you ever tried to play his studies??? 

Background music - Correli


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I'm sure all these composers are yelling from the graves! :lol:
> 
> Frivolous/Flippant - Mozart
> 
> ...


HEY! PAGANINI IS ONLY SHAMELESS SHOWMAN WITH HIS VIOLIN MUSIC!!! His guitar music is relatively boring. 

But I agree with what you say about Sevcik! :lol:


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Thinking about what some people said on this ancient thread (its been going since 2004!, truly historic) -
> http://www.talkclassical.com/249-who-do-you-consider.html
> 
> ...I thought I'd do this for 'fun,' for what its worth.
> ...


I don't agree with you. Is this a very subjective list? Do you have a purpose in mind that this poor dumb, Martin cannot understand? This is completely arbitrary. You will have always somebody hating the composers you love. You're looking for a massacre here. Blood!


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

This thread sucks.

Nikolai


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> This thread sucks.
> 
> Nikolai


You're a charmer lately. What's up? PM me if you want.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

science said:


> You're a charmer lately. What's up? PM me if you want.


I'm sorry. For me it is important to have a pupose. Having people fighting for their positions seems to me like asking... Speak about your racism... Or about religions you hate. No possible agreement can be made. I don't want to send youa PM. I've just read your interventions and I'm frankly glad you are not my friend. Your interventions are interesting for you, not for me. For me a purpose is the most meaninful thing I want to have. You created this thread. For me... This would be a mess, discord, war. Of course you won't agree. We will see. "qui vivra verra".

Martin


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I don't agree with you. Is this a very subjective list? Do you have a purpose in mind that this poor dumb, Martin cannot understand? This is completely arbitrary. You will have always somebody hating the composers you love. You're looking for a massacre here. Blood!
> ...


Yes, it is 'subjective' and 'arbitrary' as you say. In my opening post I posted a link to the 'who do you consider to be the worst composer' thread. I see this thread as a kind of humorous send up on some of the opinions on that.



myaskovsky2002 said:


> This thread sucks.
> 
> ...


Take it easy, this thread is a joke. It may suck as well, but nobody asked you to like it. I can't please everybody.

& don't worry, this thread is in no danger of becoming a 'bloodbath.' It's just for fun. Its a 'safe' area where you can be subjective. I think that at the heart of it, our reactions to music or any artform are largely subjective. But I don't want to open the old 'objective versus subjective' debate here. Its an old cliche. If people want to find out about that, just read some books on music and musicology. You'll get better coverage of these complex things there than on any online forum, imo.

Anyway, on with the motley. People can question what others say, but there's no need for nastiness on this thread.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> HEY! PAGANINI IS ONLY SHAMELESS SHOWMAN WITH HIS VIOLIN MUSIC!!! His guitar music is relatively boring.
> 
> But I agree with what you say about Sevcik! :lol:


Yeah I know what you mean about Paganini, but I couldn't think of anyone else. 

Oh no, have you had to play Sevcik? He's got be the worst composer on Earth.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Yeah I know what you mean about Paganini, but I couldn't think of anyone else.
> 
> Oh no, have you had to play Sevcik? He's got be the worst composer on Earth.


Sevcik arranged by Tertis viola exercises.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Okay, here's some more 'bad' attributes that you can put any composer's names to (some of them very similar to the ones I originally posted, but what the hell, just be even more creative, guys) :

- Ugly

- Schmaltzy and saccharine

- Hollow, empty (eg. Music with no aesthetic value whatsoever)

- Music on steroids (I use this a lot!)

- Rehash, derivative, carbon copy (ditto!)

- Uninspired

- Not fit for publication (eg. low quality)

- Too lowbrow

- Too highbrow

- Indecipherable complexity


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Without reading any of the responses:

Frivolous, flippant - J. Strauss II

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - Paganini

Truly insufferable - Xenakis

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - J. Haydn

Shameless showman - Wagner

Tepid - Brahms

Unremarkable - Rimsky-Korsakov

Dull - Britten

Background music - Glass

Sentimental - Pärt


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

- Ugly: Elgar

- Schmaltzy and saccharine: Szopen, Hildegard

- Hollow, empty (eg. Music with no aesthetic value whatsoever): Sor, Ross Edwards

- Music on steroids (I use this a lot!): Legnani

- Rehash, derivative, carbon copy (ditto!): Kreisler, Dulcie Holland

- Uninspired: Glass' _later works mid 1990s onwards_

- Not fit for publication (eg. low quality): Alejandro Azkárate ut:

- Too lowbrow: J. Strauss I and it's terrible sequel, J. Strauss II

- Too highbrow: Boulez

- Indecipherable complexity: Gregorian Chant


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I'm sorry. For me it is important to have a pupose. Having people fighting for their positions seems to me like asking... Speak about your racism... Or about religions you hate. No possible agreement can be made. I don't want to send youa PM. I've just read your interventions and I'm frankly glad you are not my friend. Your interventions are interesting for you, not for me. For me a purpose is the most meaninful thing I want to have. You created this thread. For me... This would be a mess, discord, war. Of course you won't agree. We will see. "qui vivra verra".
> 
> Martin


I have no idea what any sentence of this post is about. For instance, I didn't start the thread. I have no idea what my "interventions" are. Etc...


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Martin, Just loosen your tie a little and try to relax. My impression is that Sid created the thread as a fun exercise only; none of our lives or reputations are on the line here. And why such hostility and anger towards my good friend Science? He happens to be a good man. Perhaps because I have recently been undergoing a somewhat prolonged illness, I have become somewhat more sensitive to the way in which people talk to one another; we really--as individual entitities--do not have long upon this earth, and, ultimately, we all share the same fate.

Humbly Offered in the spirit of brotherhood and friendship, samurai.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

What can I say about or against Philippp Glasss?

Martin, daydreaming


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

- Ugly: Myaskovsky

- Schmaltzy and saccharine: Myaskovsky

- Hollow, empty (eg. Music with no aesthetic value whatsoever): Myaskovsky

- Music on steroids (I use this a lot!): Myaskovsky

- Rehash, derivative, carbon copy (ditto!): Myaskovsky

- Uninspired: Myaskovsky

- Not fit for publication (eg. low quality): Myaskovsky

- Too lowbrow: Myaskovsky

- Too highbrow: Myaskovsky

- Indecipherable complexity: Myaskovsky


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Oooh Sid, this will be so much fun! Let me see...

Frivolous, flippant - Vivaldi (let's BANG the audience over the head with ritornellos, shall we?)

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - Alkan (ugh)

Truly insufferable - Elgar?

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - Grieg (this one may make some people angry :lol

Shameless showman - Liszt (sorry Lisztian)

Tepid - Brahms (not always, but he fits the bill better than anyone else)

Unremarkable - Bruckner

Dull - Schubert (sorry)

Background music - Mozart (This is not necessarily an insult. Mozart makes very lovely background music.)

Sentimental - TCHAIKOVSKY! Very often too much so!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

^ I like you, CarterJohnsonPiano.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

^^I really don't understand why seemingly people "want" to be Banned from this site lately? - It's a good site I think and worth keeping your posting priveleges for. If the issue is spending too much time here and getting frustrated with that then surely its not so hard to take a break or limit your usage?


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Frivolous, flippant: Chopin, Cage

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic: Paganini (what does this kind of virtue mean?!)

Truly insufferable: Schoenberg, Ligeti 

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content: Rossini

Shameless showman: John Philip Sousa (at its best!)

Tepid: Debussy

Unremarkable: Schubert

Dull: Minimalists?

Background music: John Adams, Glass

Sentimental: Tchaikovsky


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

*Truly insufferable:* Messiaen...

If I was in a concentration camp and _Quartet for the End of Time_ started playing I would find it harder to endure than Nazi torture.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content -> Stravinsky - Rite of Spring


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> Frivolous, flippant: Chopin, Cage
> 
> Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic: Paganini (what does this kind of virtue mean?!)
> 
> ...


:scold:

Apart from John Philip Sousa that is.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'll do my own list based on my second batch of cliches in THIS post.

Again its a tongue in cheek approach, some of these I like, some I choke on -

- Ugly: Schoenberg (who else?).

- Schmaltzy and saccharine: Gounod.

- Hollow, empty (eg. Music with no aesthetic value whatsoever) : Wagner.

- Music on steroids (I use this a lot!) : Mahler (or can be Bruckner).

- Rehash, derivative, carbon copy (ditto!) : Arvo Part of last 20 years.

- Uninspired: Rautavaara.

- Not fit for publication (eg. low quality) : Yanni.

- Too lowbrow: Leonard Bernstein.

- Too highbrow: Elliott Carter.

- Indecipherable complexity: Boulez.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Frivolous, flippant - Haydn

Virtuosic for the sake of being virtuosic - Rachmaninoff/Liszt

Truly insufferable - Opera of any sort

Pompous, hollow and lacking in any real content - Vivaldi?

Shameless showman - Liszt/Paganini

Tepid - Mozart

Unremarkable - Orff

Dull - Czerny (shudder....)

Background music - Mendelssohn

Sentimental - Chopin (this is a bad trait?)


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

- Ugly - Cage

- Schmaltzy and saccharine - 

- Hollow, empty (eg. Music with no aesthetic value whatsoever) - Sor

- Music on steroids - Beethoven (YEAH!!!!)

- Rehash, derivative, carbon copy (ditto!) - 

- Uninspired - Saint-Saens

- Not fit for publication (eg. low quality) - Yanni

- Too lowbrow - Sousa

- Too highbrow - 

- Indecipherable complexity - New complexity (duh)


----------

