# The Most Controversial Composers on Talkclassical



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

The hope of this thread is to spark more listening and exploration. Conversation comes after that, as it should be. So, I'm going to start an unranked, unordered list of the composers who I've seen stirring up the most controversy(based on their work as composers).

Schoenberg
Cage
Shostakovich
Mozart
Wagner(though his humanity probably is more controversial than his music, probably enough is mentioned about the music itself both in favor and against)
Brahms(it hasn't been active for a while, but a strong vocal minority sometimes surfaces disputing the emotional power of his music)
Rachmaninoff
Bruckner
Mahler
Glass
Handel(I've seen plenty of volleys on him, almost surprisingly)
Liszt
Berlioz
Richard Strauss(some of the discussion on him bares resemblance to that of Shostakovich)


Controversies have all been sparked on these composers. Don't ask me to cite them, because I am unable to. Maybe you have a better list, and if so I would gladly see it, because mine isn't complete or uniform, and I know this.

Some less controversial composers here? :

Bach
Bartok
Chopin
Tchaikovsky(Petrb was the only one I ever witnessed dropping bombs about him, and mostly we didn't bother to fight back)
Debussy

I'm really not sure about these though. What do you think?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Stockhausen should definitely be in that first list.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Well, any publicity is good publicity ...



> "(in the 60's / 70's) Some of the composers and critics vilified us to such a degree that we became famous. That was a great help. It propelled us right into the centre of the music world."





> "I sort of have a solid hate faction. I find that reassuring."


- Philip Glass


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

I guess I'm a little behind but why Rachmaninoff?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

mstar said:


> I guess I'm a little behind but why Rachmaninoff?


It's distinctly possible I am mistaking my own internal confusion based on a few arguments I've seen in the past, for what is actually going on here. Specific comments were made at some point about how his music "isn't progressive," and/or about how it is "saccharine and artificial", and this roused those who firmly believe his music to be "genuinely heartfelt", "architecturally sound", ect. That seems like a good basis for controversy, but for some reason both parties often feel comfortable ignoring each other, possibly because they feel relatively secure in their positions.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

What makes Mozart controversial? I would think not, but that there are the handfull of Mozart haters stirring the pot which does not make Mozart controversial, but does make for a peripheral controversy.


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

I would think that Debussy's late works would also spark controversy.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Florestan said:


> What makes Mozart controversial? I would think not, but that there are the handfull of Mozart haters stirring the pot which does not make Mozart controversial, but does make for a peripheral controversy.


Controversy gets stirred, and Mozart gets discussed and fought over. It gets pretty bitter and I think others would agree with me saying that. Therefore Mozart is controversial.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Lyricus said:


> I would think that Debussy's late works would also spark controversy.


There is certainly potential there, but there is so much agreement over the rest of him that we'd have to really narrow our focus.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

*Glazunov*, if memory serves me correctly.

The thread "Is Alexander Glazunov a Great Composer" elicited some pretty passionate responses for or against (or somewhere in between) the notion of whether or not he should be considered a great composer. This great (or shall I say, immensely important) Russian did reasonably well on the poll, but the divide could not be anymore obvious. Here's the link of what I was talking about. SONNET CLV's well balanced response (last page) is superbly written and argued, putting the matter of accessing the value of music (and its composers) in keen perspective. 
-->http://www.talkclassical.com/37848-alexander-glazunov-great-composer.html?highlight=glazunov

I agree with Clavichorder's first list for the most part. But I would place *Rachmaninoff* as among the least controversial of composers (and perhaps *Bruckner*). *Philip Glass, *however, I must ponder.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't think it's Mozart's music itself that arouses controversy - though of course some are bound to dislike it - but his reputation. It's hard being widely considered the musical incarnation of God and the creator of an endless string of perfect works which we should all adore by definition. People are bound to get a little reactive to such notions and exaggerate their dissent. It also doesn't help to have Tom Hulse giggling hideously in a pink wig. You may not take it seriously, but you'll never be able to forget it.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think it's Mozart's music itself that arouses controversy - though of course some are bound to dislike it - but his reputation. It's hard being widely considered the musical incarnation of God and the creator of an endless string of perfect works which we should all adore by definition. People are bound to get a little reactive to such notions and exaggerate their dissent. It also doesn't help to have Tom Hulse giggling hideously in a pink wig. You may not take it seriously, but you'll never be able to forget it.


Bach and Beethoven have similar status yet they do not seem to cause a counterreaction to a similar extent.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Missing on that list include Miss Alma Deutscher, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Frank Zappa.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The vast majority of the controversy seems to be over the "greatness" of various composers' works. Shostakovich, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, Bruckner, Liszt, and some others are considered great composers by many and decidedly lesser by some. Those differences lead to debates over just how good a particular composer was. The basic argument is along the lines of, "I don't enjoy this composer anywhere near as much as most other people do. S/he simply isn't that good." Generally posters leave out the implied, "The vast majority of listeners are clearly mistaken in their views." Those sorts of debates will always exist, and in my opinion, generate harmless controversy. 

The "true" controversies seem to be ones where politics or modern music intervene. Wagner, Schoenberg, and Cage will likely always be controversial, and the debates get more than a wee bit heated.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

You can make a distinction between controversial and polarizing. They overlap, but some composers attract wide ranges of opinions (the latter) without causes huge arguments (the former). E.g., Rachmaninoff seems to cause far less heat than Cage.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> You can make a distinction between controversial and polarizing. They overlap, but some composers attract wide ranges of opinions (the latter) without causes huge arguments (the former). E.g., Rachmaninoff seems to cause far less heat than Cage.


Exactly. Schumann's music seems to be very polarizing around here, but I haven't seen any arguments over it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> Bach and Beethoven have similar status yet they do not seem to cause a counterreaction to a similar extent.


Maybe so, to an extent.

Bach seems ageless. He's had more influence on musicians since his time than Mozart has, and not only classical musicians. His music seems more "technical"; technique often seems to be the main point of it. That makes him more "contemporary," or, more properly, timeless. It also makes him more remote - more like God the Father, forever beyond our grasp, than Mozart, who seems a bit more human and thus open to criticism. Bach is intimidating and practically unassailable; the worst we're apt to hear about him is that he's boring.

Beethoven's superhuman status ("the man who freed music" etc.) is a cultural artifact - though firmly based in the reality of his musical stature - which is now a part of history that we accept as being rather quaint. But deep down, we still like it: as the most modern of the "big three," he embodies an ethos of individualism and personal freedom which still has wide appeal. Most people who dislike him feel that he's too strenuous and overbearing, unlike the more balanced Mozart. But 18th-century ideals of balance, restraint and charm are not much a part of our culture and era, and I think they alienate a goodly number of people from Mozart's music.

I suppose this contradicts my previous idea that it's Mozart's reputation that makes him controversial, but I'd guess that both factors are in play, the more so since they sit oddly together: Mozart is reputed to be a staggering genius, yet many feel that his supremely elegant music lacks (for them) sufficient force and gravitas, which Bach and Beethoven in their different ways possess.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Florestan said:


> What makes Mozart controversial? I would think not, but that there are the handfull of Mozart haters stirring the pot which does not make Mozart controversial, but does make for a peripheral controversy.


What makes Mozart controversial? Well, I seem to remember this fellow who called himself Norman or something similar here, who roams around every forum that could be somehow related to Mozart, and spouts a bunch of cobbled together, nonsensical claims about how Mozart plagiarized his music from everyone in sight. That sure caused a ruckus on TC years ago.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Dim7 said:


> Bach and Beethoven have similar status yet they do not seem to cause a counterreaction to a similar extent.


Well, that's because Bach actually lives up to his hype... Wanna fight about it?


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> What makes Mozart controversial? Well, I seem to remember this fellow who called himself Norman or something similar here, who roams around every forum that could be somehow related to Mozart, and spouts a bunch of cobbled together, nonsensical claims about how Mozart plagiarized his music from everyone in sight. That sure caused a ruckus on TC years ago.


Today's legalist definition of the word would basically prohibit anyone from learning how to compose and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Mozart's early works are basically copies of older composers', or if much of his thinking was conspicuously attributable to ideas he heard elsewhere. The same goes for just about every composer, we're just fed this ridiculous demigod narrative of Mozart, Beethoven and Bach; they have so much lore in the WCM world that it's just comical.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> It's distinctly possible I am mistaking my own internal confusion based on a few arguments I've seen in the past, for what is actually going on here. Specific comments were made at some point about how his music "isn't progressive," and/or about how it is "saccharine and artificial", and this roused those who firmly believe his music to be "genuinely heartfelt", "architecturally sound", ect. That seems like a good basis for controversy, but for some reason both parties often feel comfortable ignoring each other, possibly because they feel relatively secure in their positions.





Orfeo said:


> I agree with Clavichorder's first list for the most part. But I would place *Rachmaninoff* as among the least controversial of composers (and perhaps *Bruckner*). *Philip Glass, *however, I must ponder.


I vaguely recall an old TC thread comparing Rach's music to an injured puppy, arguing that it was saccharinely sentimental. I definitely disagree with this, especially when you compare it to the likes of Liszt or Tchaikovsky. "Genuinely heartfelt", though, sounds sentimental in itself. Then again, a lot can depend on the recording.

Overall, in agreement with GreenMamba's post, I'd certainly place Rach as "polarizing" and not so much "controversial".


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mstar said:


> I vaguely recall an old TC thread comparing Rach's music to an injured puppy, arguing that it was saccharinely sentimental. I definitely disagree with this, especially when you compare it to the likes of Liszt or Tchaikovsky. "Genuinely heartfelt", though, sounds sentimental in itself. Then again, a lot can depend on the recording.
> 
> Overall, in agreement with GreenMamba's post, I'd certainly place Rach as "polarizing" and not so much "controversial".


I made that thread. But: first, in other threads I said I consider Rach a very fine composer, at the same level of, say, Ravel*. Second, in that thread, I complained about some very specific type of moments in his music, and those are the ones I consider exaggerated in their romanticism to the point in which they become caricatures of romanticism; at least to me, of course.

*Not that much in orchestration, but in intricacy and domain of the piano's possibilities.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Actually Rach has made a comeback in recent years. He used to be quite the whipping boy. A repost from Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1954 edition: Rachmaninoff's music is "monotonous in texture ... consisting mainly of artificial and gushing tunes." His popular success is "not likely to last."


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

Well, "recent years." He was already held in the highest esteem in 1985 with the release of the Oxford Dictionary of Music, which says about him, "Rakhmaninov _[sic]_ was one of the greatest of pianists, as is proved by his recordings not only of his own concs. but of other composers' mus., incl. sonatas with the violinst Kreisler...But it is as a composer that his name will live longest. He was the last of the colourful Russian masters of the 19th cent., with their characteristic gift for long and broad melodies imbued with a resigned melancholy which is never long absent."


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Lyricus said:


> He was the last of the colourful Russian masters of the 19th cent.


Something similar to this I heard a few years ago. He'd been mentioned as the last great Romantic composer. I don't remember exactly _where_ I saw this, but it seems to be in line with the statements that he was too caught up in the past musically.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lyricus said:


> Well, "recent years." He was already held in the highest esteem in 1985..."


To me "recent years" is anything past 1960! :lol:


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

clavichorder said:


> The hope of this thread is to spark more listening and exploration. Conversation comes after that, as it should be.


Most of my negative opinions _were_ formed after listening with the possible exception of Schoenberg where my uninformed opinion was based on reputation alone.

The truth is I can enjoy even those composer's I generally dislike, if that makes any sense. I just don't enjoy them as much as other people seem to. I struggle to enjoy the teasing notes in early Mozart, the frenetic hyper paced shredding of some Mendelssohn, the soap opera music of Rachmaninoff's 2nd symphony slow movement, the heavy rubato of Chopin or Scriabin, the seemingly aimless meandering of Delius, etc.

For those who like these composers this should not be an affront. Much of perception takes place within the brain, and my brain's billions of neurons connected in trillions of different ways triggering differing endorphin levels are perceiving a different piece from the one you are hearing.

So. am I to listen to some of these again? Then what?

Add Berlioz to the list. I've never gotten the appeal of Berlioz.

[Edit: I'm willing to take on a listening assignment for Chopin, Scriabin and Berlioz to help me "get" them.]


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

KenOC said:


> To me "recent years" is anything past 1960! :lol:


Just to make us all feel a bit older, from 1985 to now is almost twice as long as from Rachmaninov's death to 1960.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Weston said:


> I struggle to enjoy the soap opera music of Rachmaninoff's 2nd symphony slow movement


A noble fight! Struggle on! We have but one life to live, and though today we are the young and the restless, the dark shadows will lengthen as the world turns toward the edge of night, and the bold and the beautiful music of Rachmaninoff will be our guiding light through the days of our lives.

P.S. Apologies to those smart or lucky enough to have missed American daytime TV.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> A noble fight! Struggle on! We have but one life to live, and though today we are the young and the restless, the dark shadows will lengthen as the world turns toward the edge of night, and the bold and the beautiful music of Rachmaninoff will be our guiding light through the days of our lives.


Switch the name in that paragraph with his friend Medtner and we're in sound agreement. Which is to say: we aren't :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^Aw, c'mon! You didn't think...? Did you..? You've never watched...? Been living under a rock, have you?


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Alma Deutscher is definitely controversial.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Been living under a rock, have you?


I actually had a number of pet slugs. Interesting creatures they are.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Any thoughts on *Nielsen*, one of the earliest exponents of progressive tonality?

_Or_ 
*
Richard Strauss?* Many consider him among the greats, or at least brilliant. There are those who rank him higher for his operas than for his symphonic poems (and conversely). And there are those who have a rather lukewarm view of him overall for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Orfeo said:


> Any thoughts on *Nielsen*, one of the earliest exponents of progressive tonality?


No opinion on Nielsen, but IMHO whether a multi-movement composition ends on the same tonal center or not (the latter case being 'progressive tonality') is not interesting in the least. Most of us do not have a perfect pitch, so I think that after several movements and modulations we don't really have the original key in our mind anyway when the piece ends. So I doubt it has much effect on the vast majority of classical music listeners.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> No opinion on Nielsen, but IMHO whether a multi-movement composition ends on the same tonal center or not (the latter case being 'progressive tonality') is not interesting in the least. Most of us do not have a perfect pitch, so I think that after several movements and modulations we don't really have the original key in our mind anyway when the piece ends. So I doubt it has much effect on the vast majority of classical music listeners.


Well perhaps. But Nielsen during his time was not easy for the establishment to digest, whether in Denmark or wherever (remember his Fifth Symphony caused something of a scandal after its 1924 performance in Sweden). And it took decades after his demise (thanks largely to Bernstein) for his music to be universally recognized, and _even that is still a work in progress_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> No opinion on Nielsen, but IMHO whether a multi-movement composition ends on the same tonal center or not (the latter case being 'progressive tonality') is not interesting in the least. Most of us do not have a perfect pitch so I think that after several movements and modulations we don't really have the original key in our mind anyway when the piece ends so I doubt it has much effect on the vast majority of classical music listeners.


Nielsen's use of "progressive tonality" is always mentioned as if it were something remarkable and new(ish). If all the term means is that a piece ends in a different key than the key it begins in, we can trace this all the way back to Schubert, who would sometimes end a movement, not in its original key, but in the key of the following movement. On the other hand, if it implies a greater freedom of tonal movement and a frequent or rapid change of tonal orientation, Wagner took this very nearly as far as it could go, within the limits of coherence, by 1882.

As to how music which is "progressively tonal" is perceived, I think it depends on how frequently and how rapidly the tonality "progresses." It also depends, as you intimate, on the perceptiveness and tonal memory of the listener. I don't have perfect pitch either, but I have a good memory for the feel of a key when it's accompanied by certain melodic material, and can generally tell whether a theme is being restated in its original key or in a different one. There's quite a gradation in people's ability to hear these things.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Perhaps a better guide to controversy would be a list not of the composers, but of the TC posters who get so upset about them.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

John Luther Adams? I recall "Become Ocean" being a polarizing work, at least.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> John Luther Adams? I recall "Become Ocean" being a polarizing work, at least.


Too many people here seem to be mistaking criticism and differences of opinion for controversy. It's only controversial if it incites arguments of some kind, or at least arouses significant disagreement. Regular criticisms or expressions that one doesn't like something aren't enough.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Too many people here seem to be mistaking criticism and differences of opinion for controversy. It's only controversial if it incites arguments of some kind, or at least arouses significant disagreement. Regular criticisms or expressions that one doesn't like something aren't enough.


It's true--I never noticed much emotion in arguments about him. I hate to say it, but with the exception of debates concerning a few of the composers already mentioned forum members generally seem to get along fairly well when discussing their musical tastes.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't find any music or composers controversial. Controversy is a concoction of the critics.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Where do we draw the line between differences of opinion and controversy? How strong or frequent do disagreements have to be to be considered controversy? And in what context, and among what group of people with opinions, do we assess this? Our views of who is or isn't controversial are certainly somewhat subjective.

The OP lists Brahms as controversial. I don't think he is, among people who actually know his music, even if a fair number of people don't personally care for him. Few dispute that he was one of the major figures in the history of music. Tchaikovsky, on the other hand, listed by the OP as less controversial, seems to me to be an example of a composer with more obvious weaknesses to balance against a passionate popular following, and thus much more vulnerable to animated disputes. But that's just my perspective. Yours may be different.

Best not to get hung up on defining controversy and who it applies to. Just get on with the arguing. Much more fun!


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

We need another list of composers whose controversy or lack there of is the most controversial.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> ... expressions that one doesn't like something aren't enough.


They are rather useless concerning any piece of music. I don't have much interest in classical music criticism or controversy. Just give me some helpful analysis on the construction and history, and leave out personal opinions.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

If we put aside politics and Wagner, basically the big TC controversies all focus on modern music. Some involve general categories such as atonal, avant-garde, or simply modern while others involve specific composers - often Schoenberg or Cage. There have been individuals that stirred up the forum (e.g. Robert Newman and he had quite a run), but when it comes to music, there's nothing like the modern period to stir things up.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

starthrower said:


> They are rather useless concerning any piece of music. I don't have much interest in classical music criticism or controversy. Just give me some helpful analysis on the construction and history, and leave out personal opinions.


I feel the same way, which is why the only part of TC I read is the Music Theory subforum (though I tend to do my posting elsewhere).


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> If we put aside politics and Wagner, basically the big TC controversies all focus on modern music. Some involve general categories such as atonal, avant-garde, or simply modern while others involve specific composers - often Schoenberg or Cage. There have been individuals that stirred up the forum (e.g. Robert Newman and he had quite a run), but when it comes to music, there's nothing like the modern period to stir things up.


Could be - it's been a long time since we had a proper shouting match about Telemann.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> We need another list of composers whose controversy or lack there of is the most controversial.


Reminds me of the definition of a celebrity as someone who's famous for being famous.

Actually, though, your point isn't just whimsical. Controversy can be bogus - i.e., trumped up and based on falsehoods or insubstantial matters bloated out of proportion for ulterior motives. The popular media, knowing who butters their bread (Six-pack Joe and sellers of six-packs alike), thrive on doing just this, but so, unfortunately, do ideologically trendy and financially ambitious so-called scholarship and "higher" criticism. And in the continuous infomercialtainment which is our media environment now, it's sometimes impossible to tell who's propagating what and why. And when this happens, controversy, perhaps phony to begin with, continues to feed on itself ad infinitum, or at least until a new cultural trend or line of gossip takes its place.

Is this relevant to what people have to say about composers? In most cases maybe not, in some cases perhaps mildly, but in a few cases, definitely. Wagner, for example, remains the focus of a virtual industry of bogus controversy, and the propagators of misconceptions - from the arts reviewer in your local town rag to university professors to members of our own distinguished forum - are not necessarily innocent. I'm sure many would say the same about composers of contemporary music and its bogeyman grandfather Schoenberg; Mahlerian, in fact, spends more time here decrying the baselessness of attacks on Schoenberg than I do explaining why Wagner's operas are not anti-semitic tracts and begging his accusers to focus on the works themselves.

These may be the most extreme examples (along with Cage) among composers of controversy which feeds on itself, but there are probably more that others could name.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Weston said:


> Most of my negative opinions _were_ formed after listening with the possible exception of Schoenberg where my uninformed opinion was based on reputation alone.
> 
> The truth is I can enjoy even those composer's I generally dislike, if that makes any sense. I just don't enjoy them as much as other people seem to. I struggle to enjoy the teasing notes in early Mozart, the frenetic hyper paced shredding of some Mendelssohn, the soap opera music of Rachmaninoff's 2nd symphony slow movement, the heavy rubato of Chopin or Scriabin, the seemingly aimless meandering of Delius, etc.
> 
> ...


I respect this Weston. I just think that if anyone were to get into a personal state of deep listening, sort of a meditation type experience where you hear everything in an optimal way for understanding a piece or composer, they could open the door with just about any worthy composer.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Switch the name in that paragraph with his friend Medtner and we're in sound agreement. Which is to say: we aren't :lol:


Well, I'm glad you have such a nice thing to say about Medtner. I love Medtner's music and feel for him.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Orfeo said:


> Well perhaps. But Nielsen during his time was not easy for the establishment to digest, whether in Denmark or wherever (remember his Fifth Symphony caused something of a scandal after its 1924 performance in Sweden). And it took decades after his demise (thanks largely to Bernstein) for his music to be universally recognized, and _even that is still a work in progress_.


Nielsen is one of those composers I love so much, that I am constantly searching for a way to show others into seeing his greatness. Same with Medtner, in a somewhat different way.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Kivimees said:


> Could be - it's been a long time since we had a proper shouting match about Telemann.


I almost creating one when for a time I avowed a preference to his music over Bach's.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> Nielsen is one of those composers I love so much, that I am constantly searching for a way to show others into seeing his greatness. Same with Medtner, in a somewhat different way.


Same here. Nielsen is vastly underrated. Even though his works are well represented on record, there has yet to be truly performing tradition of his music that will commensurate with its quality, its meaning. Danish orchestras and to some extent, Scandinavian ones are the exceptions (and both the San Francisco SO and the NY Philharmonic understand Nielsen's idiom also, more or less).

Believe it or not, Medtner to me is tougher to get to than Nielsen. There's the evasiveness and the diffuseness in much of the writing that at times cause my attention to wander. I find him a major Russian composer, and I can see why Rachmaninoff admired him (his Violin Sonatas are superb, as his Third Piano Concerto). But getting the meaning of the music is still a work in progress.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Orfeo said:


> Believe it or not, Medtner to me is tougher to get to than Nielsen. There's the evasiveness and the diffuseness in much of the writing that at times cause my attention to wander. I find him a major Russian composer, and I can see why Rachmaninoff admired him (his Violin Sonatas are superb, as his Third Piano Concerto). But getting the meaning of the music is still a work in progress.


Re Nielsen, I have become very dependent on Blomstedt's readings of them with San Francisco.

Medtner sonatas to me require an approach similar to late Beethoven sonatas. Many layers there. The best entry sonatas are not the mainstream ones. I would say Sonata Skazka and Sonata Ballade are those. And surprisingly, Sonata op 5 in F minor in the hands of Lucas Debargue really speaks directly.

If you listen to the skazki, you'll find less trouble getting to the essence of this rich composer.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> Re Nielsen, I have become very dependent on Blomstedt's readings of them with San Francisco.
> 
> Medtner sonatas to me require an approach similar to late Beethoven sonatas. Many layers there. The best entry sonatas are not the mainstream ones. I would say Sonata Skazka and Sonata Ballade are those. And surprisingly, Sonata op 5 in F minor in the hands of Lucas Debargue really speaks directly.
> 
> If you listen to the skazki, you'll find less trouble getting to the essence of this rich composer.


The Skazki I have to dive into more deeply (I have Hamish Milne's Hyperion CD for about several years, but only played it once). I do like the Forgotten Melodies in particular (and under Irina Ossipova's playing in Arte Nova).

As far as Medtner's music is concerned, well,.....I'm getting there. 

As for Nielsen, Thomson's Chandos set of the symphonies is excellent: not quite up there with Blomstedt, but mighty close.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2015)

Mozart, really...? 

It seems outside of this forum Wagner is and has always been the most controversial name in music, for the Jew-bashing stuff. 

And Schoenberg has always scared the crap out of audiences! The concepts of atonality and dodecaphony are still controversial to this day.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Too many people here seem to be mistaking criticism and differences of opinion for controversy. It's only controversial if it incites arguments of some kind, or at least arouses significant disagreement. Regular criticisms or expressions that one doesn't like something aren't enough.


We also need to be careful with "regular criticisms" because they can be easily misunderstood as other intentions. For example, if Schoenberg and atonal music are discussed together, and if one may not like the term "atonal", then that can be easily misunderstood even though TC is not an academic forum requiring a strictly correct musical terminology. I often prefer to use expressions that is more or less broadly understood by most.

This also happens with Wolfgang Mozart. Many times I come across words like "his music is so light" or to that effect. That does not mean Mozart is controversial.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> What makes Mozart controversial? Well, I seem to remember this fellow who called himself Norman or something similar here, who roams around every forum that could be somehow related to Mozart, and spouts a bunch of cobbled together, nonsensical claims about how Mozart plagiarized his music from everyone in sight. That sure caused a ruckus on TC years ago.


I'm not that Norman, even if my relation with Mozart is very difficult too, when I listen his music I feel like I'm in that movie "Groundhog day", when the the cadence is arriving I think "oh not again" and everytime I feel that inesorably happens the same thing.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DoReFaMi said:


> And Schoenberg has always scared the crap out of audiences! The concepts of atonality and dodecaphony are still controversial to this day.


He only scares the crap out of audiences that are biased against his music or who haven't been exposed to much modernism.

Atonality is a nonsense word used to separate things people don't understand from those they think they do.
Dodecophony wouldn't be controversial if anyone actually understood more than the vauguest idea of what it entailed. It's just a way of writing music like any other.


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Too many people here seem to be mistaking criticism and differences of opinion for controversy. It's only controversial if it incites arguments of some kind, or at least arouses significant disagreement. Regular criticisms or expressions that one doesn't like something aren't enough.


Maybe we should have a second thread on most divisive composers/eras/genres/compositions.


----------



## Grizzled Ghost (Jun 10, 2015)

Maybe the best way to quantify the "controversiality" of composers here at TC would be to track how many infraction points have been given in response to discussions of each composer. Whichever composers generate the most heated debate (as measured by bad behavior) should be considered the most controversial.

I'm sure the moderators would be happy to tally this up, right? Maybe going back to 2010 to increase the sample size?

:devil:


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> If we put aside politics and Wagner, basically the big TC controversies all focus on modern music. Some involve general categories such as atonal, avant-garde, or simply modern while others involve specific composers - often Schoenberg or Cage. There have been individuals that stirred up the forum (e.g. Robert Newman and he had quite a run), but when it comes to music, there's nothing like the modern period to stir things up.


This is obviously true. That is partly because their legacy is still being formed, unlike the three Bs, and because often their work is less accessible.
Speaking purely personally (as opposed to my other semi-divine pronouncements) I dislike works rather than composers. And I recognise that dislike is often strongly linked to unfamiliarity. At 22 I found Stravinsky hard to take; for decades he has been on my all-time-great list. I'm not generally a fan of minimalism, in the sense that I don't actively seek it out for enjoyment, but I remember how incredibly impressed I was the first time I heard Reich's Different Trains. And I greatly admire many works by minimalist composers, not all of which are minimalst (Nixon in China, for example). But everything I have said here is personal preference, no more; and I do not expect them to have any impact on any reader (apart from rousing admiration for my sagacity, of course).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> He only scares the crap out of audiences that are biased against his music or who haven't been exposed to much modernism.
> 
> Atonality is a nonsense word used to separate things people don't understand from those they think they do.
> 
> Dodecophony wouldn't be controversial if anyone actually understood more than the vauguest idea of what it entailed. It's just a way of writing music like any other.


What more likely scares the crap out of people, or merely annoys the less easily intimidated, is that music which doesn't make sense to their ear is said to be great and important by experts who tell them that they ought to be able to enjoy it and that it's only their ignorance that stands in their way.

Most music lovers don't understand _any_ compositional technique at more than an elementary level. Sonata allegro movements, double fugues, and tonal harmony are not noncontroversial because they are "understood," but because people like the way they sound.

The controversy over 12-tone, atonal music - composed by whomever you please - cannot be dismissed with a contemptuous sniff and a shrug. People who do like the sound of it will be motivated to understand it. In learning to love music, the ear almost always leads the way, and if it's pleased the mind follows.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> If we put aside politics and Wagner, basically the big TC controversies all focus on modern music. Some involve general categories such as atonal, avant-garde, or simply modern while others involve specific composers - often Schoenberg or Cage. There have been individuals that stirred up the forum (e.g. Robert Newman and he had quite a run), but when it comes to music, there's nothing like the modern period to stir things up.


*Thank you!* I couldn't remember that lunatic's name for the life of me. It was amusing, in an almost morbid kind of way, watching the darts fly and wondering what conspiracy he was going to come up with next.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> Well, I'm glad you have such a nice thing to say about Medtner. I love Medtner's music and feel for him.


His piano quintet is another of those "desert island necessities".


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Orfeo said:


> The Skazki I have to dive into more deeply (I have Hamish Milne's Hyperion CD for about several years, but only played it once). I do like the Forgotten Melodies in particular (and under Irina Ossipova's playing in Arte Nova).
> 
> As far as Medtner's music is concerned, well,.....I'm getting there.
> 
> As for Nielsen, Thomson's Chandos set of the symphonies is excellent: not quite up there with Blomstedt, but mighty close.


The Forgotten Melodies... you guys are really sucking me in right now.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Thank you Woodduck! I'm always amused by people who say: You'd like the music I do if only you were (choose one or more):

- More knowledgeable
- Better read
- More adventurous
- More open to new ideas
- Less stuck in the past

In other words, more like me!


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Where do we draw the line between differences of opinion and controversy? How strong or frequent do disagreements have to be to be considered controversy? And in what context, and among what group of people with opinions, do we assess this? Our views of who is or isn't controversial are certainly somewhat subjective.
> 
> The OP lists Brahms as controversial. I don't think he is, among people who actually know his music, even if a fair number of people don't personally care for him. Few dispute that he was one of the major figures in the history of music. Tchaikovsky, on the other hand, listed by the OP as less controversial, seems to me to be an example of a composer with more obvious weaknesses to balance against a passionate popular following, and thus much more vulnerable to animated disputes. But that's just my perspective. Yours may be different.
> 
> Best not to get hung up on defining controversy and who it applies to. Just get on with the arguing. Much more fun!


Realizing this conversation has evolved and I may risk being behind the proverbial curve, I would nevertheless be curious to hear what you consider to be Tchaikovsky's "obvious weaknesses...", Woodduck. I ask simply because I find Tchaikovsky, at least at his best, to have been one of the most unique and original of all the late 19th century composers, Russian or otherwise. That is not to say I don't find the quality of his output quite uneven because I am of the opinion it was. But at his best he was so fabulously colorful and full of invention, with a gift for melody few others possessed. Do you disagree?

As for controversial composers on the list, perhaps Kurtág? Did anyone mention him?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Pettersson should be on the list of controversial composers as well - and Ives, Sorabji & Langgaard, probably.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2015)

EDaddy said:


> As for controversial composers on the list, perhaps Kurtág? Did anyone mention him?


I don't know, but I'm reaching for my gun...

Has anyone mentioned that "great, eerie, blank avant-gardist" Spears?


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2015)

Since a controversy is "a prolonged public dispute" perhaps the longest (appropriate) threads give a vaguely objective answer to the OP. I'll start: Cage!


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

All good composers cause controversy, if not they wouldn't be worth the effort to listen to.
I can't think of a single composer mentioned on TC who does not have fans and detractors and that's how it should be.
There have been protracted threads about the obvious examples e.g. Cage, which have been interesting to read as people tried to change others minds (unsuccessfully I fear) They made me smile and probably resulted in people keeping the moderators busy but not sure if anything else was decided.
So choose your composer/work/genre and let's get it on!


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Stravinsky, I'd say. Oh wait, how could you forget the most obvious? Boulez!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> What more likely scares the crap out of people, or merely annoys the less easily intimidated, is that music which doesn't make sense to their ear is said to be great and important by experts who tell them that they ought to be able to enjoy it and that it's only their ignorance that stands in their way.
> 
> Most music lovers don't understand _any_ compositional technique at more than an elementary level. Sonata allegro movements, double fugues, and tonal harmony are not noncontroversial because they are "understood," but because people like the way they sound.
> 
> The controversy over 12-tone, atonal music - composed by whomever you please - cannot be dismissed with a contemptuous sniff and a shrug. People who do like the sound of it will be motivated to understand it. In learning to love music, the ear almost always leads the way, and if it's pleased the mind follows.


Today I have a much more relaxed relation with atonality than in the past (and I don't see any problem in the word atonal), but I guess that part of the problem is the non inclusive mentality that was part of much modernism, the "we can't use anymore tonality if we want to be relevant".
I don't want to start again to talk about him, but when Boulez can't understand why at one point Messiaen used a C major, well that's exactly what I'm talking about. He really can't, it's like he can't process the idea of mixing different things and having different tools of expression, he can only think that a C major is old stuff.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Too many people here seem to be mistaking criticism and differences of opinion for controversy. It's only controversial if it incites arguments of some kind, or at least arouses significant disagreement. Regular criticisms or expressions that one doesn't like something aren't enough.


I agree .... a scrap on the playground usually attracts a horde of onlookers

Is there a thread of least controversial composers? No? Oh, you mean there is no such list or there is no interest in such a list?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

dzc4627 said:


> Boulez!


I don´t think Boulez is controversial as a composer at least not on this forum. There are no tirades against his music. The controversies are around things he have said.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Sloe said:


> I don´t think Boulez is controversial as a composer at least not on this forum. There are no tirades against his music. The controversies are around things he have said.


this isn't exactly the truth


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EDaddy said:


> Realizing this conversation has evolved and I may risk being behind the proverbial curve, I would nevertheless be curious to hear what you consider to be Tchaikovsky's "obvious weaknesses...", Woodduck. I ask simply because I find Tchaikovsky, at least at his best, to have been one of the most unique and original of all the late 19th century composers, Russian or otherwise. That is not to say I don't find the quality of his output quite uneven because I am of the opinion it was. But at his best he was so fabulously colorful and full of invention, with a gift for melody few others possessed. Do you disagree?
> 
> As for controversial composers on the list, perhaps Kurtág? Did anyone mention him?


Keep in mind the comparison I was making, and the point I was making by means of it. I wasn't running down Tchaikovsky. He was a wonderful composer, and that, I think, is not very controversial. But he was conscious of his own weaknesses - pertaining mainly to achieving conciseness and not lapsing into monotonous sequencing and rhetorical bombast - and we have no reason not to admit them, even while we enjoy his strengths.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Keep in mind the comparison I was making, and the point I was making by means of it. I wasn't running down Tchaikovsky. He was a wonderful composer, and that, I think, is not very controversial. But he was conscious of his own weaknesses - pertaining mainly to achieving conciseness and not lapsing into monotonous sequencing and rhetorical bombast - and we have no reason not to admit them, even while we enjoy his strengths.


That seems a good way of putting it. Fwiw, I think of Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich in much the same way. I also revere both of them, and find it impossible to separate their weaknesses from their strengths. Also fwiw (in this case, even less), I doubt Shosty's music would have been much different if he'd had a more congenial political environment--we'd probably just be blaming his histrionics and banalities on a disastrous love affair or something.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> That seems a good way of putting it. Fwiw, I think of Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich in much the same way. I also revere both of them, and find it impossible to separate their weaknesses from their strengths. Also fwiw (in this case, even less), *I doubt Shosty's music would have been much different if he'd had a more congenial political environment--we'd probably just be blaming his histrionics and banalities on a disastrous love affair or something.*


Substantially agree. Being an artist myself, I can report that it's very hard for an artist not to be himself, at least for very long.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

norman bates said:


> this isn't exactly the truth


How so?
My impression is that while he is liked by some those who don´t like his music actually don´t bother.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Thank you Woodduck! I'm always amused by people who say: You'd like the music I do if only you were (choose one or more):
> 
> - More knowledgeable
> - Better read
> ...


It's good that things don't work that way. If they did, the same CDs would be back ordered indefinitely!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I don't think there any 'controversial' composers per se, just some composers for which there is less 'consensus' regarding the quality of their music.


----------

