# Composers you do not like



## furelise

Hello again.

Everybody talks about their favorite composers, but what are the composers you can not stand to listen to?

For me, the composer I can't stand listening to is Franz Schubert. I wish I can provide a story for you, but there is none. I have listened to some of his work, but his name, and face brings up unwanted negativity.

There is no point in my life that I can trace back to where something terrible happened while listening to Schubert. Is that strange? But he is the only composer I do not like from his era.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Minimalism. Drives me up the wall.


----------



## DavidMahler

of the major composers, I could never fully connect with Mendelssohn


----------



## Guest

Minimalism is not a composer.

Minimalism is a broad term covering several kinds of music by hundreds if not thousands of different composers.


----------



## Polednice

Schubert's _face_?

I dislike Baroque music. And that means the several kinds of music by hundreds if not thousands of different composers that "Baroque" signifies.


----------



## neoshredder

I love Baroque music. Not too big in some of the Romantic composers. I do like Mendelssohn and Schubert though. Maybe Wagner is one I don't care for. The same with Brahms. But basically a lot of the Romantic Composers are meh to me. Too long and boring at times.


----------



## violadude

I'm not sure if I necessarily "dislike" any composer...but I'm really not too fond of Paganini. His music doesn't offer me much in the way of interest or excitement.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Polednice said:


> Schubert's _face_?
> 
> I dislike Baroque music. And that means the several kinds of music by hundreds if not thousands of different composers that "Baroque" signifies.


I share the same approach: I dislike pretend-composers who make wild extreme noises, and justify it with mumbo-jumbo that it is music.


----------



## Guest

I dislike pretend-critics who make wild extreme generalizations and justify it with mumbo-jumbo about everyone being entitled to their opinion.

"[T]he only hope of true culture is to make classifications broad and criticism particular." --Jacques Barzun

"The public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best." --Anonymous Viennese critic, writing in 1843.

Boy howdy.


----------



## Klavierspieler

some guy said:


> Minimalism is not a composer.
> 
> Minimalism is a broad term covering several kinds of music by hundreds if not thousands of different composers.


Very well, if you absolutely insist:

Composers generally regarded as composing in the style known as "Minimalism."


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> "The public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best." --Anonymous Viennese critic, writing in 1843.


But in 1843, they never heard the chainsaw (and other similar noises) and thought it was music.

But we are modern and very, very sophisticated now, so anything can be music, including my fart.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

*I cannot stand Elgar​*


----------



## Ukko

I dislike Wagner, he was clearly a jerk. Fairly disgusted with Messiaen, he paid attention to Adorno. Not happy with St. Saens, he panned Franck's symphony.

Except for Wagner their music is at least OK.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

furelise said:


> Hello again.
> 
> Everybody talks about their favorite composers, but what are the composers you can not stand to listen to?
> 
> For me, the composer I can't stand listening to is Franz Schubert. I wish I can provide a story for you, but there is none. I have listened to some of his work, but his name, and face brings up unwanted negativity.
> 
> There is no point in my life that I can trace back to where something terrible happened while listening to Schubert. Is that strange? But he is the only composer I do not like from his era.


From this single post, I can tell that we will not get along very well here. :lol: Since you don't remember how this has happened, perhaps some classical conditioning at birth caused it? Like his _gorgeous _5th symphony with a siren? :tiphat:

But anyways for me...

BEETHOVEN


----------



## Eviticus

I agree about the baroque composers... pre classical period composers and music doesn't really cut it for me. In fact i dislike most music pre 1770.


----------



## Sid James

Prokofiev said “I abhor imitation and I abhor the familiar.” I agree with the first part of that sentence. I dislike rehash. That includes in any style. I don't mind most styles, be it "conservative" or "radical" or in-between. What I like is a unique voice from a composer and an interesting way of musical expression. Shostakovich also said this - "Every piece of music is a form of personal expression for its creator...If a work doesn’t express the composer’s own personal point of view, his own ideas, then it doesn’t, in my opinion, even deserve to be born." I would maybe not be so harsh, but I agree with him, I tend to like music that has some imagination and creative "verve" behind it, not merely applying carbon paper and rehashing what's been done before...


----------



## Polednice

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *I cannot stand Elgar​*


How can you say you dislike Elgar? That refers to hundreds if not thousands of pieces, and you can't have listened to them all so you can't pass judgement.


----------



## Lenfer

I to am not a fan of *Wagner* and shame on me but I'm not a keen on *Debussy* either.

*Edit*

Come to think of it I'm not a big fan of *Mozart * or *Beethoven*. That's not to say I dislike all of their work but in general I'm not keen.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Polednice said:


> How can you say you dislike Elgar? That refers to hundreds if not thousands of pieces, and you can't have listened to them all so you can't pass judgement.


*I cannot stand any Elgar judging from the music I have already heard.​*


----------



## Lenfer

Polednice said:


> How can you say you dislike Elgar? That refers to hundreds if not thousands of pieces, and you can't have listened to them all so you can't pass judgement.


Sometimes one's dislike can take on a life of it's own. You can be put off someone or something for whatever reason and never fully appreciate the work in it's on right no matter how good or bad it is.


----------



## Crudblud

As someone who makes music, I have a hard time disliking composers even when I do not particularly enjoy their music. Berlioz wrote a lot of music I can't stand, but I respect him as a composer. Similarly; Stravinsky, even when I fell out of enjoying his music I never lost any respect for him.

That said, there are some composers whose music I find so egregious that it makes me think badly of them. Many of the pop minimalist composers like Glass and Nyman I find positively infuriating. I also don't particularly care for the new complexity composers; I think complexity is good and all, but compare the complexity of Ligeti or Stockhausen, who appear to use it with purpose and economy, to Ferneyhough who appears to use it merely for sake of being seen to be intellectual. I believe there is a quote of Ferneyhough where he says that he does not even listen to his compositions because he already knows what they sound like, I'm not one to throw wild accusations around but that sounds to me like someone who has listened to what they've done, realised that it is awful, and thought up some retroactive reasoning to cover up their charlatanism. 

In a word; codswallop.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^60s and 70s Glass is not "pop minimalist."


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> How can you say you dislike Elgar? That refers to hundreds if not thousands of pieces, and you can't have listened to them all so you can't pass judgement.


But applying that kind of criteria, if you said this -



Polednice said:


> I dislike Baroque music. And that means the several kinds of music by hundreds if not thousands of different composers that "Baroque" signifies.


...then someone can ask you if you've heard all the music by Baroque composers. I really don't care, but I'm just saying, think before you cast the first stone?

As for the squabbles of some people I think it's better for them to make a seperate thread for them to do that with. Like the certain jokes and lectures we've heard many times. I'm kind of tired of it. Can't we have this thread just be for people to answer the OP's question, which I interpret as "what composer/s or what's the kind of music you don't like?"...


----------



## violadude

Sid James said:


> But applying that kind of criteria, if you said this -
> 
> ...then someone can ask you if you've heard all the music by Baroque composers. I really don't care, but I'm just saying, think before you cast the first stone?
> 
> As for the squabbles of some people I think it's better for them to make a seperate thread for them to do that with. Like the certain jokes and lectures we've heard many times. I'm kind of tired of it. Can't we have this thread just be for people to answer the OP's question, which I interpret as "what composer/s or what's the kind of music you don't like?"...


I think Polednice was being humorous. A parodic take on what some guy said earlier.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> I think Polednice was being humorous. A parodic take on what some guy said earlier.


Thank you violadude for being the only perceptive person in the room.


----------



## Eviticus

Polednice said:


> Thank you violadude for being the only perceptive person in the room.


Sorry i walked out of it for a brief second.


----------



## peeyaj

I don't like Schumann as a composer, but as a music critic I adore him.


----------



## peeyaj

furelise said:


> Hello again.
> 
> Everybody talks about their favorite composers, but what are the composers you can not stand to listen to?
> 
> For me, the composer I can't stand listening to is Franz Schubert. I wish I can provide a story for you, but there is none. I have listened to some of his work, but his name, and face brings up unwanted negativity.
> 
> There is no point in my life that I can trace back to where something terrible happened while listening to Schubert. Is that strange? But he is the only composer I do not like from his era.


*No comment.*


----------



## Klavierspieler

peeyaj said:


> I don't like Schumann as a composer, but as a music critic I adore him.


*No comment!*


----------



## Guest

Klavierspieler said:


> Very well, if you absolutely insist:
> 
> Composers generally regarded as composing in the style known as "Minimalism."


I do not insist. Just pointing out that the thread asked for composers not styles.

(Minimalism is not *a* style.)


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Minimalism is a word that is used to label music by composers such as Steve Reich, John Adams, La Monte Young, Michael Nyman, Philip Glass etc. All of those composers are very different stylistically.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Prokofiev said once about Debussy: "His music is just some jelly, absolutely spineless!".

So, I suppose he hated Debussy. Or was it a joke, like stealing a caramel sweet from a girl on his visit to kindergarten?

I have not decided yet whom I hate


----------



## Trout

There is no composer (well known, that is) that I do not like, rather just some that I do not think should be hailed as highly as they are. Examples being Mendelssohn, Mussorgsky, and Chopin (who has fallen out of my favor recently). A while ago, I might have mentioned Franz Liszt, however some of his great orchestral works (and _Christus_) have made me reconsider.


----------



## neoshredder

Eviticus said:


> I agree about the baroque composers... pre classical period composers and music doesn't really cut it for me. In fact i dislike most music pre 1770.


We are basically opposites. I guess it's good that this site has some versatility. This site is not talk baroque or talkromantic. It's a blend of everything. I respect the complexity of romantic era music. I just find a lot of it hard to get into. To be specific Brahms.


----------



## aleazk

Moscow-Mahler said:


> Prokofiev said once about Debussy: "His music is just some jelly, absolutely spineless!".
> 
> So, I suppose he hated Debussy. Or was it a joke, like stealing a caramel sweet from a girl on his visit to kindergarten?
> 
> I have not decided yet whom I hate


it's odd if Prokofiev hated Debussy, I think both composers use a lot of humour in his works, with different styles and harmonies, yes, but they have that in common, which is not a minor thing.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Arthur Sullivan. G & S works seriously do my crust in. And to think that during most of the late 19th century prior to Elgar's ascendancy he was pretty much all we had here.


----------



## science

I can't think of a single composer whose music I dislike. 

Assuming that we're not counting whoever wrote "My Heart Will Go On" and such.


----------



## clavichorder

Oddly enough, a composer who has been hyped on this forum that I can't see anything special about is Myaskovsky. His piano music really disappointed me with my recent attempts to get into him. I want to give him the time of day, and perhaps his piano music is not representative, but the short pieces and sonatas I heard were kind of boring. 

Arnold Bax tends to wander around and be all over the place, I'm not sure I like that very much.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

There is no composer I can't stand because of music. I disslike some because of attitude but I can find a redeeming quality in all classical music.


----------



## Glissando

I don't think I can say that there's one composer out there that I utterly dislike. Even with people who've written a fair amount of music I don't like (and there very few composers I would include in that category) -- there will at least be something they've done that I like. Example: Philip Glass is not someone I'm crazy about, but I'm blown away by some of the music in "Akhenaten." Similarly, there are composers I spend a lot of time with, where here and there I'll find a piece I dislike. Example: the fourth movement of Mahler's 7th seems aimless and uninspired to me.


----------



## Sid James

violadude said:


> I think Polednice was being humorous. A parodic take on what some guy said earlier.


Well I'm not that good in getting humour online. Apologies for that. But in my referring to people who lecture -



some guy said:


> I do not insist. Just pointing out that the thread asked for composers not styles.
> 
> (Minimalism is not *a* style.)


I don't like labels either but they are the best we have. Most people here would know what is referred to as Minimalism, broadly speaking. The most popular ones are the USA types (East & West coast composers tend to be differentiated) and also "Holy Minimalism" from esp. East Europe, & there's also others who don't fit in exactly to anything, like Michael Nyman.

Schoenberg didn't like the label "atonal," Debussy didn't like "impressionism," & Philip Glass is not entirely happy with the "minimalist" label. Listening to the original group of the guys like him from the USA who got going in the late 1960's, their music has changed now, some no longer call it "minimalist." There is also another "style" that's developed since then, called post-minimalism.

We can argue till the cows come home about labels and semantics. About all that cr*p about whether Beethoven or Schubert are Classicists or Romantics, which bores me (how about BOTH, depending on for example what work of theirs we are talking about?)...


----------



## DavidMahler

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *I cannot stand any Elgar judging from the music I have already heard.​*


If you have heard the Cello Concerto (specifically Du Pre's version with Barbirolli) and you cannot stand it.......

....

What are you doing here?


----------



## Couchie

Probably Haydn. I've never been compelled to listen to any Haydn piece a second time.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Moscow-Mahler said:


> Prokofiev said once about Debussy: "His music is just some jelly, absolutely spineless!".
> 
> So, I suppose he hated Debussy. Or was it a joke, like _stealing a caramel sweet from a girl on his visit to kindergarten?_
> 
> I have not decided yet whom I hate


Prokofiev was just being his usual self (jerkster), he really liked Debussy a lot actually. He probably said that with the intent, "Yes, his music is that way, but I bet I could take some of his style and make it _better!_" Hence, there's a lot of impressionist influence in Prokofiev's music.


----------



## Sid James

DavidMahler said:


> If you have heard the Cello Concerto (specifically Du Pre's version with Barbirolli) and you cannot stand it.......
> 
> ....
> 
> What are you doing here?


Oh, ****  ...


----------



## neoshredder

Couchie said:


> Probably Haydn. I've never been compelled to listen to any Haydn piece a second time.


Not even his Trumpet Concerto?


----------



## brianwalker

There are no "major" composers that I dislike. Even in composers that I find to be vastly overrated (Shostakovich, e.g. I find certain parts of the 5th and 10th symphony superb, not to mention the Jazz Suites and the Festival Overture and some parts of the operas) I manage to enjoy the moments when all the right elements of music are there.

I try to situate myself as the ideal listener for each composer; I don't bracket music by privileged emotions and atmospheres or styles. I try to erase any "philosophy of music" from my mind and be open to whatever is "musical". My favorite composers are Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Stravinsky, and Ravel and they couldn't be more different from each other.

I guess the main vice that I have little tolerance for is vulgarity.






This piece crosses the line for me.

I wonder how many of the people dismissing Haydn have listened to his String Quartets.

I would venture to say that Mendelssohn is currently underrated because Mahler's symphonies have become the measure of what a symphony is suppose to be.

I wonder how much disdain emanates from the failure to live up to the hype. Elgar can't measure up to the Austrian-German greats by any means, but we're comparing to Vaughan Williams here, not Mahler.

Occasionally I regret some of the harsh words I've spilled over Shostakovich, but mainly to counteract the hype.

I know this isn't the time to judge people but it's always so tempting, and this is a temptation that takes courage to indulge in.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ael-miss-piggy-and-the-sexual-revolution.html

"As for the question, I think that since the nineteen-fifties, when the counter culture was created, it's been important for creative and critical people to connect about what they do and don't love, and I think it's a tribute to the influence of social networking and its association with youth culture that we can finally develop contempt for teen-agers who define themselves by a hyperlinked list of bands or book titles. The "you are what you like" thing is just suddenly immature, and when I saw the preview for "500 Days of Summer," and Joseph Gordon-Levitt fell in love with Zooey Deschanel as soon as she recognized a Smiths song on his iPod, I reacted really virulently. Because it should have been enough for a guy his character's age to go for a girl who looks like a pinup, with eyes like swimming pools-it wasn't until she tipped him off that she and he were the same on the taste-o-meter when he felt safe enough to fall."

I think we all judge a person who's had the opportunity to explore the arts some degree of his worth by the measure of his taste in relation to your own. The counter-factual that "taste" doesn't matter is absurd, as if you were in a small town and if you found that one friend who shares your passion for that one special thing would not strengthen the bonds of friendship or perhaps spark attraction if it were someone you gravitate towards physically.

I think one of the subconscious factors in starting this thread to try and squeeze out, for what its worth, the value of the knowledge of a person's exclusions.

I'm certain that part of the contempt for the hipster is that the attempt to emulate "good taste" is tantamount implicitly in the minds of many as straight out lying about who you are. It undermines the sacredness of common appreciation of art.

The main thing I've learned on this forum is the diversity of tastes even in those who are equally fanatic about a certain composer. I thought the overlap for those who had a passion for certain composers would be great, but I found it to be very little. As one dives deeper into a single category of things, the minute differences between the individuals become more apparent. For example, in the metalhead thread Aramis incisively mocked the metalheads for the lack of consensus on what constitutes "real metal", but the consensus here isn't that hot either, for example what "real Wagner" is, which I would define as Parsifal, first and foremost, and Meistersingers, while most here would define it as Tristan and Die Walkure. Real Beethoven, for me, is the late quartets and sonatas.

"We are a numerous band, partakers of the same repose, who sit together in the shade of the tree, by the plash of the fountain, with the glare of the desert around us and no great vice that I know of but the habit perhaps of estimating people a little too much by what they think of a certain style."

This is especially endemic in the literary community, where your opinion of the certain book or idea or whatever would make you vulnerable to character assassination.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/terry-castle/desperately-seeking-susan

I was reading the Steve Jobs biography and it said that his favorite composer was Bach, but from the details given in the bio it was apparent that he cared very little for classical music, and that the "holy mood" that a Bach fugue gave him was the one and the same latent in his consideration for a Gregorian Chant. In the same chapter it said how revolutionary the Ipod was since anyone you allowed could browse through your collection and see you "musically naked" (I forgot the phrase).

Jobs was a Dylan fan to the same degree as Couchie is a Wagnerite.

The battle over taste reaches its most magnified point in the clash over recordings of music, the Karajan fanatics and the Solti devotees, the Knappertsbusch cult and those who swear by Furtwangler. What one dislikes is as important, if not more so, than what one dislikes. So many of the amazon comments are absolutely brutal. If you've ever went shopping or "the best" Mahler cycle you'll see how ridiculous it gets at times.

But I digress.

I find middle period Beethoven well, let's just say I almost never listen to it.

There is something .... _silly and frivolous_ about Bellini... like Oscar Wilde, but without the wit (with the wit and you would get Johann Strauss Jr.)... Haydn gets a bad rap, but the Nelson Mass, the quartets from Opus 74. onwards, the Creation....

Brahms piano pieces other than the Rhapsodies and Paganini Variations and Intermezzo in B flat minor, Op.117 No.2... zzzzZZZZ (I hope I'll find a passionate advocate for Brahm's solo piano output someday...)

Anyways I would like to extend invitations *for individual pieces that you dislike,* find contemptible even.

What I find not so surprising. Purveyors of contemporary music are much more harsh in their judgments of individual tastes than any of the forumers here. Compared to even the most elitist/judgmental poster here the public is still a savage. How many times have you heard people talking about their "guilty pleasure" e.g. Katy Perry, random pop, etc. Don't even get me started about Anime. Even the most polite friend will mock you for your anime habits (anime soundtracks, even worse).

What I'm trying to say is, we are incredibly civil here, too civil even.


----------



## Sofronitsky

The composers that think a piece can be successfully made up of 100% dissonance.

I cannot _stand_ them.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sofronitsky said:


> The composers that think a piece can be successfully made up of 100% dissonance.
> 
> I cannot _stand_ them.


Really???? Wow


----------



## violadude

Sofronitsky said:


> The composers that think a piece can be successfully made up of 100% dissonance.
> 
> I cannot _stand_ them.


Dissonance is relative.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Dissonance is relative.


 This.

Watch Bernstein's Charles Edward Norton Lectures (they're on youtube), he talks about how a certain Tchaikovsky piece is especially express because of its dissonance i.e. sequentially the "dissonant" note is logically the most expressive.


----------



## peeyaj

I never did get *Brahms* a few months ago. I found his music, too overworked and methodological. I also found his solo piano music, rambling and too much unfocused, that it turns me off about him. Fortunately, Polednice showed the way and now, I appreciate Brahms better. I've enjoyed the concertos, the Clarinet Quintet, the 1st and 4th symphonies, songs and the German Requiem. The Piano Quintet, I can't get into.

I have a love and hate relationship with * Tchaikovsky.* Some of his pieces are great, but a few them too saccharine. I never did enjoy his ballets but his instrumental music, I found them great. The solo piano music is meh, but the piano and violin concertos belong to the greatest of them. When I was young, I've become addicted to 1812 Overture, and now I'm having withdrawal problems.

*Mahler* is a puzzle. Mahlerites would put me into stake, but truth to be told, Mahler never did touched me. Not a little. Sure, the Ressurection and 9th, have some passages of great tranquility, but the ''outward religiousness'' that I associated with Mahler's works, escaped me entirely. Perhaps, I need to spend more time with him.

*Schubert* had been always my favorite. A person who occupies a special place in my heart. But there were times, when I'm listening to Winterriese, I can't help but say, *''Dear Franz, stop the self-pity already!''. *


----------



## brianwalker

Couchie said:


> If you also like Wagner I would suggest we get married immediately. For myself, Mahler is simply a big mess of pleasant sound noise totally devoid of anything of thematic or musical interest. Carry on.


This is the attitude I'm talking about. This post is hyperbolic, but many, if not most, people feel this way in smaller degrees (replace names and the predicate and adjectives).

How do we reconcile the above with the below?



starthrower said:


> Intelligence has no bearing on musical taste.


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> I don't like labels either but they are the best we have.


But I was not expressing any dislike of labels, not this time, anyway.


Sid James said:


> Most people here would know what is referred to as Minimalism, broadly speaking.


I have not found this to be true. What it's like, as I've mentioned before, is trying to have a conversation about dogs with people who insist on talking only about poodles. Poodles are dogs, it's true, but they're not the only kind of dog.


Sid James said:


> We can argue till the cows come home about labels and semantics. About all that cr*p about whether Beethoven or Schubert are Classicists or Romantics, which bores me (how about BOTH, depending on for example what work of theirs we are talking about?)...


Yes, we can. We are having a conversation. A conversation is something that uses words. If we cannot agree about what the words we're using even mean, then we won't even be able to get to the point where we know whether we agree or disagree.

All that crap about whether Beethoven or Schubert are classical or romantic is part of understanding and appreciating their work and their contributions to music, as you acknowledge yourself quite elegantly when you say "how about BOTH, depending on... what work of theirs we are talking about?" Indeed. Part of Beethoven and Schubert's reality is that they were transitional figures. (Part of how we perceive them, anyway. They may have thought differently of themselves at the time.)

Language is a funny thing. We can use it to talk about things. We can also use it to talk about language. We can use it to talk about ourselves talking about language.

I think it's inevitable that in any conversation there's going to be some talk about words and meanings. Might as well enjoy that, 'cause it ain't goin' away any time soon! (There are some things that bore you which fascinate other people. Are you wanting to control the situation so that those people do not get to do what they enjoy?)


----------



## Guest

Sofronitsky said:


> The composers that think a piece can be successfully made up of 100% dissonance.
> 
> I cannot _stand_ them.


Why so coy? Name some of these people.


----------



## Art Rock

There is not a single composer I have heard (from Hildegard to contemporary) that I would qualify as "I can't stand listening to this one". There are composers though who are generally thought of as among the best and whom I find interesting at best. Examples are Handel and Verdi.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

some guy said:


> Why so coy? Name some of these people.


ComposerOfAvantGarde is definitely one of them.


----------



## Chrythes

I don't find Baroque very interesting or enjoyable, but I still have great time listening to Bach from time to time.



> I guess the main vice that I have little tolerance for is vulgarity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This piece crosses the line for me.


I was in the same state when I first heard Shostakovich's string quartets - they sounded extremely vulgar and I couldn't stand them. But I felt that I was missing something and after a while I came to like them.
For me, Shostakovich is one of the only composers that feels so "down to earth", so "human" (at least in his string quartets). The vulgarity and brutality accompanied by the occasional bursts of melody and melancholy are representatives of the world he was living in, and eventually it's the world we live in - violence and hatred existing along with joy and happiness. He's the anti Beethoven for me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

peeyaj said:


> *Mahler* is a puzzle. Mahlerites would put me into stake, but truth to be told, Mahler never did touched me. Not a little. Sure, the Ressurection and 9th, have some passages of great tranquility, but the ''outward religiousness'' that I associated with Mahler's works, escaped me entirely. Perhaps, I need to spend more time with him.


Mahler never really did excite me either. I saw a performance of his 7th symphony with the Melbourne Symphony Orchetra last year and I sorta liked it. I would usually put on some Mahler if I want some background music. I wouldn't usually be doing any attentive listening when he's on.


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mahler never really did excite me either. I saw a performance of his 7th symphony with the Melbourne Symphony Orchetra last year and I sorta liked it. I would usually put on some Mahler if I want some background music. I wouldn't usually be doing any attentive listening when he's on.


Keeping with the running gag of this thread...

*No comment!*


----------



## Sid James

some guy said:


> ...
> I have not found this to be true. What it's like, as I've mentioned before, is trying to have a conversation about dogs with people who insist on talking only about poodles. Poodles are dogs, it's true, but they're not the only kind of dog....


HERE is a section of a textbook on classical music I found on googlebooks. Under the heading Minimalism, it mentions La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Arvo Part as some prominent examples of minimalist composers. It's not an exhaustive definition/explanation but it shows or proves what I said - this is what people think about when given the term minimalism...


----------



## Crudblud

When I think of minimalism I think of those hideous post-modern apartments that are all white and have white abstract sculptures dotted about the place and a white leather sofa in the middle of the room.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I forgot to mention that eRikm - his music sux!


----------



## moody

elgars ghost said:


> Arthur Sullivan. G & S works seriously do my crust in. And to think that during most of the late 19th century prior to Elgar's ascendancy he was pretty much all we had here.


There is no comparison, you point is pointless. Gand S are very funny political and social parodies.


----------



## moody

furelise said:


> Hello again.
> 
> Everybody talks about their favorite composers, but what are the composers you can not stand to listen to?
> 
> For me, the composer I can't stand listening to is Franz Schubert. I wish I can provide a story for you, but there is none. I have listened to some of his work, but his name, and face brings up unwanted negativity.
> 
> There is no point in my life that I can trace back to where something terrible happened while listening to Schubert. Is that strange? But he is the only composer I do not like from his era.


Yes it is, in fact it's very strange indeed. But still you've answered the question.


----------



## Polednice

Trout said:


> There is no composer (well known, that is) that I do not like, rather just some that I do not think should be hailed as highly as they are. Examples being Mendelssohn, Mussorgsky, and Chopin (who has fallen out of my favor recently). A while ago, I might have mentioned Franz Liszt, however some of his great orchestral works (and _Christus_) have made me reconsider.


You're wrong about Mendelssohn, but, yes, Chopin sucks.


----------



## Eviticus

Polednice said:


> Chopin sucks.


*No comment.*


----------



## Klavierspieler

brianwalker said:


> This.
> 
> Watch Bernstein's Charles Edward Norton Lectures (they're on youtube), he talks about how a certain Tchaikovsky piece is especially express because of its dissonance i.e. sequentially the "dissonant" note is logically the most expressive.


Methinks Sofronitsky was referring more to the Ives/Schnittke kind of thing: tone clusters and whatnot.


----------



## elgar's ghost

moody said:


> There is no comparison, you point is pointless. Gand S are very funny political and social parodies.


What comparison? To Elgar? My 'point' is that I don't like the music (or the humour for that matter) which I assumed was the intention of the original post - I appreciate that G & S/D'Oyly Carte productions were, and remain, very popular but to me what I've heard are trite, sickly-sweet and musically inconsequential when compared to other operettas from the 19th/early 20th century and that it reflected the dearth of original music coming from the UK at the time if Sullivan was considered her undisputed leading composer. Great Britain may have been reaching the apogee of empire and industrial/military might but her music still sucked. It's anomalous as I can't think of any other classical music that raises my hackles as much - the music doesn't float my boat and the satire/humour doesn't make me laugh but there we go.


----------



## moody

elgars ghost said:


> Arthur Sullivan. G & S works seriously do my crust in. And to think that during most of the late 19th century prior to Elgar's ascendancy he was pretty much all we had here.


I think it's sometimes a good idea to look before you leap and to pick uo some information on the subjects you choose.At the age of 14 Arthur Sullivan became a pupil at the Royal Academy of Music, he won the Mendelssohn Scholarship and went to study in Leipzig. He studied piano with Moscheles and theory and composition with Paperitz who was Brahms' teacher. Paperitz later said : " In comparing Brahms and Sullivan I think that Sullivan had the greater musical talent". A piece he composed as an examination exercise at Leipzig was "The Tempest", Incidental Music to Shakespeare's Play, this was highly commended. Sullivan had used his knowledge of Liszt, they knew one another, and Berlioz in this music.
He composed works for the theatre, church music, songs, a cantata, an oratorio, symphonic and orchestral music.
Worth investigating are, "The Merchant of Venice" Suite, Overture "In Memoriam" with organ,Symphony In E Minor "The Irish" and his brilliant overture "Di Ballo" ( Arthur Fiedler liked this ) An LP of his part songs was issued by Rare Recorded Editions performed by the Coda Singers.
All this was before he met Gilbert.


----------



## bigshot

Ignoring animal made music for the moment... I like how Puccini writes for the voice, but I don't care for the way he arranges for orchestra. The unison strings remind me of Andrew Lloyd Weber. It just seems like ramming the melody home. No finesse. As long as the singers are singing, i'm fine with it.

As I've said before, I don't like Satie's laziness, and I don't care for music that incorporates randomnesss or conceptualism, except as a joke.


----------



## elgar's ghost

moody said:


> I think it's sometimes a good idea to look before you leap and to pick uo some information on the subjects you choose.At the age of 14 Arthur Sullivan became a pupil at the Royal Academy of Music, he won the Mendelssohn Scholarship and went to study in Leipzig. He studied piano with Moscheles and theory and composition with Paperitz who was Brahms' teacher. Paperitz later said : " In comparing Brahms and Sullivan I think that Sullivan had the greater musical talent". A piece he composed as an examination exercise at Leipzig was "The Tempest", Incidental Music to Shakespeare's Play, this was highly commended. Sullivan had used his knowledge of Liszt, they knew one another, and Berlioz in this music.
> He composed works for the theatre, church music, songs, a cantata, an oratorio, symphonic and orchestral music.
> Worth investigating are, "The Merchant of Venice" Suite, Overture "In Memoriam" with organ,Symphony In E Minor "The Irish" and his brilliant overture "Di Ballo" ( Arthur Fiedler liked this ) An LP of his part songs was issued by Rare Recorded Editions performed by the Coda Singers.
> All this was before he met Gilbert.


Please don't patronise me - I'm well aware of his credentials. Let's just agree to disagree, OK?


----------



## moody

elgars ghost said:


> Please don't patronise me - I'm well aware of his credentials. Let's just agree to disagree, OK?


Well, you could have fooled me ,but I'll be happy to agree!


----------



## elgar's ghost

moody said:


> Well, you could have fooled me ,but I'll be happy to agree!


Nice comeback. Over and out.


----------



## moody

some guy said:


> Minimalism is not a composer.
> 
> Minimalism is a broad term covering several kinds of music by hundreds if not thousands of different composers.


Well are you going to sit there and tell me you've never heard of Wolfgang Gustavus Minimalism---well i'm as shocked as all getout!!


----------



## Guest

Finally, someone made this joke.

(I diddun wanna do it myself.)


----------



## Klavierspieler

elgars ghost said:


> Arthur Sullivan. G & S works seriously do my crust in. And to think that during most of the late 19th century prior to Elgar's ascendancy he was pretty much all we had here.


Have you listened to other works by him? From what I've heard he wasn't such a big fan of G & S operettas himself. He wished people would appreciate him for his more serious work, especially his only "real" opera, Ivanhoe.


----------



## eorrific

B-R-U-C-K-N-E-R. I can't even listen to any of his symphonies in full. *yawn*


----------



## mmsbls

While there are individual composers whose music I do not like, I agree with Polednice and Klavierspieler that there are styles or genres of music I do not like. For example, I do not like Stockhausen, Cage, or Varese, but there is nothing in particular about their music that sets them aside from others who write in a similar style. I have not found any aleatory, serial, or avant-garde music that I enjoy so, in general, I won't like the music of composers that write in those styles.


----------



## ohesperides

I can't think of many composers I actively dislike, but I can say that Baroque is my least favorite style (though Bach's piano inventions are very fun to play).

I really cannot stand Ólafur Arnalds, though. His music grates on my nerves.


----------



## Couchie

brianwalker said:


> This is the attitude I'm talking about. This post is hyperbolic, but many, if not most, people feel this way in smaller degrees (replace names and the predicate and adjectives).
> 
> How do we reconcile the above with the below?


Intelligence is subservient to emotion and passion. Politicians and advertising companies know this all too well. You don't get much more emotional and passionate than Wagner. Wagner's characters are almost uniformly stupid people, but they are passionate people. The same could probably be said for Wagner himself. I do somewhat question the square people who maintain an overly egalitarian stance when it comes to composers and are unwilling to consider what is good and what is bad. They have an air of being unable to submit themselves to the appreciation and awe of great human achievement. I assume this is a coping method to preserve an inflicted ego.


----------



## Ozomulsion

Mahler's Symphonies tend to bore me, I'm not a big fan of more modern classical music in general. Some Schubert's music, such as his 9th symphony, I feel are too long without any really unique aspects. I feel the same about some of Beethoven's symphonies, but in general I like his works.

Edit: Come to think of it now, Haydn has never appealed to me. I heard a symphony by his brother, and I must say I enjoyed it more than any of his symphonies I've heard from his much more famous brother.


----------



## opus55

My first list of composers I do not like is directly related to the genre I don't like - opera. Therefore I'm not a big fan of Verdi, Puccini and Wagner. Even for composers I do like, I don't have the urge to listen to their opera (for example, Mozart). I _try_ to like opera but it's been very slow progress. I do like other vocal works such as lieder, requiem, mass, etc.

Second list seems to be simply not my taste or I haven't found the right piece to be introduced to the composer. These are Handel (Messiah is ok if I don't listen to the entire thing) and Liszt (except for very few solo piano pieces).. can't seem to think of more.

I've never given up on any composers. I'm thinking about getting operas by Wagner and R.Strauss which I think have great orchestration which I can appreciate.


----------



## Sid James

> ...
> I do somewhat question the square people who maintain an overly egalitarian stance when it comes to composers and are unwilling to consider what is good and what is bad. They have an air of being unable to submit themselves to the appreciation and awe of great human achievement. I assume this is a coping method to preserve an inflicted ego.


Most things are in-between, in the grey areas, not good vs. bad, black vs. white. Life is all shades of grey. A lot of art is as well, or at least our reactions to it.

That's how I see things, basically, I'm not necessarily speaking for those "egalitarians" you're speaking of.

I do have strong opinions, but they've changed over time, and they are better in quality if they're based on some experience. That's what I've found.



opus55 said:


> ...
> 
> I've never given up on any composers ...


It's a good attitude to have, even if one is looking for a needle in a haystack, so to speak, one is likely to find it. Given the composer has a diversity of works. Could be in terms of style, genre, philosophy/history/inspiration behind each works, many other things. Most composers do deliver in the end, those I see as worth their salt (difficult to define, granted)...


----------



## elgar's ghost

Klavierspieler said:


> Have you listened to other works by him? From what I've heard he wasn't such a big fan of G & S operettas himself. He wished people would appreciate him for his more serious work, especially his only "real" opera, Ivanhoe.


Good morning, Klav.

Apart from the ubiquitous 'Onward, Christian Soldiers' not many, I admit - and it was a fair time ago when I did. I know two of the works were his Irish symphony and the cello concerto plus there was a stand-alone piece of which I can't remember the name (I can remember that it had a waltz in it). I think they were on an EMI or CFP CD which was lent to me by an ex-colleague but I can't quite recall after all this time. I can't remember either the symphony or the concerto making any lasting impression on me despite the fact they seemed well-constructed - in fact, I recall liking the other piece more than the two main works. I would like to point out that my lukewarm response to those works wasn't influenced by the stronger antipathy I have towards the stage works I've heard. I admit to being kind of curious about 'The Golden Legend' - maybe I'll encounter it some day.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Musically I admire most of the composers in the history, whether I could understand their music or not ... but on personal character, I don't admire composers like Richard Strauss. Told before Toscanini's famous quote about him : "To Richard Strauss, the composer, I take off my hat, to Richard Strauss, the man, I put it back on again !"


----------



## superhorn

There are not a lot of composers whose music I dislike that much.
Basically, there are two reasons why I don't like a composer. Either the music is just not interesting , or there is something irritating or off-putting about the music.
Vivaldi's music is not interesting. The joke goes that he didn;t write 500 concertos, but just wrote the same concerto 500 times, and there's some truth to this. 
His music just goes "Chugga-chugga,chugga-chugga,chugga-chugga . "
Yawn. 
Poulenc's music irritates me with its affected cuteness, all that mincing Parisian Chi-chi and Frou-frou. It's insufferably cute, and all that affected Gallic elegance is very annoying. I do like many other French composers, though. 
The music of Frederick Delius is so cloyingly sentimental it really irritates me too. 
The saccharine harmonies and the monotonously languorous mood of his works are very off-putting. It all sounds like the score to some sentimental English film of the 30s or 40s. Otherwise, I'm a great admirer of Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Britten,Tippet and Walton etc.
Virgil Thomson's music is just plain insipid and trite. Prokofiev called his abstract surrealist opera "Four Saints in Three Acts" "Four Notes In Three Acts". Bingo !


----------



## waldvogel

It's a little-known fact that the Doge's Palace in 18th century Venice had an elevator. It was operated by a system of pulleys and counterweights, allowing the elevator to be raised and lowered by a team of oxen. The elevator had a large floor area and could easily carry thirty people at a time.

And on that very elevator was a small string orchestra, constantly playing the music of Antonio Vivaldi...


----------



## brianwalker

Couchie said:


> Intelligence is subservient to emotion and passion. Politicians and advertising companies know this all too well. You don't get much more emotional and passionate than Wagner. Wagner's characters are almost uniformly stupid people, but they are passionate people. The same could probably be said for Wagner himself. I do somewhat question the square people who maintain an overly egalitarian stance when it comes to composers and are unwilling to consider what is good and what is bad. They have an air of being unable to submit themselves to the appreciation and awe of great human achievement. I assume this is a coping method to preserve an inflicted ego.


I'm not sure that you can divorce the two, intelligence and passion, and I find any references to Wagner's characters in context of his greatness dubious. Compared to his Italian rivals, sure, Wagner's librettos are a step above the rest, but they can't stand up themselves. The text, the story is an accompaniment to the music, gathering our attention to the emotions and mood that the music evokes. Wagner's character is almost universally condemned, and tends to repulse Jewish people. How else can you explain Einstein's hostility?

There is an incredible quantity of passion in the late novels of Henry James, the level of feeling and the finesse of sentiment, the romance of the moment, etc, but it is all but inaccessible to the public. His books sold poorly in his own lifetime and has only survived due to posthumous championing by writers and other novelists.

These are the same people who commit suicide over love, risk their lives in brawls over god knows what. How can I deem myself, a rather demure, reticent fellow, as more "passionate" than they?

Couchie, it is a painful truth that an overwhelming majority of humanity has found, or will find, Wagner bombastic and pretentious. The very sound of a heldentenor is foreign to most modern ears, brimming with pomposity that they feel undeserved. I'm not sure that this can be attributed to their icy hearts. The very same people who find Tristan foreign also suffer from broken hearts and love sickness.


----------



## neoshredder

I'm starting to not like this thread. A lot of my favorite composers are named here. lol


----------



## bigshot

Ha! Inevitably "Best" and "Worst" threads end up bein identical!


----------



## bigshot

brianwalker said:


> I'm not sure that you can divorce the two, intelligence and passion, and I find any references to Wagner's characters in context of his greatness dubious.


In order to fully appreciate Wagner, you have to totally surrender to it. It doesn't work to intellectualize it. It's all about swelling emotions and passions that defy common sense. I understand that this is terrifying to some people, and goes against some people's grain, but if you are the type that responds to emotion, Wagner is off the scale in power.


----------



## starthrower

Most of 'em are dead, so I never got a chance to meet 'em. I never run across any living ones, so I can't say whether I like 'em or not.


----------



## brianwalker

bigshot said:


> In order to fully appreciate Wagner, you have to totally surrender to it. It doesn't work to intellectualize it. It's all about swelling emotions and passions that defy common sense. I understand that this is terrifying to some people, and goes against some people's grain, but if you are the type that responds to emotion, Wagner is off the scale in power.


I never said that one has to understand his music on a technical level, I certainly don't. I, for one, did not realize that there was counterpoint in the overture to Meistersingers until another forumer pointed it out to me. I've just saying that passion often finds expression in a form that is not quite universal. To deride those indifferent to Wagner as lacking in passion is, I think, wrong headed.

"Tolstoy was correct to say that certain folk tunes have an ease of expressive access that complex symphonic works do not - and in that sense have a greater universality just on account of their simplicity, in the same way that street signs are more easily read than the novels of Henry James." - Martha Nussbaum


----------



## bigshot

There was no derision there. Just defining what people who love Wagner are responding to. Wagner can be anti-intellectual.


----------



## moody

elgars ghost said:


> Good morning, Klav.
> 
> Apart from the ubiquitous 'Onward, Christian Soldiers' not many, I admit - and it was a fair time ago when I did. I know two of the works were his Irish symphony and the cello concerto plus there was a stand-alone piece of which I can't remember the name (I can remember that it had a waltz in it). I think they were on an EMI or CFP CD which was lent to me by an ex-colleague but I can't quite recall after all this time. I can't remember either the symphony or the concerto making any lasting impression on me despite the fact they seemed well-constructed - in fact, I recall liking the other piece more than the two main works. I would like to point out that my lukewarm response to those works wasn't influenced by the stronger antipathy I have towards the stage works I've heard. I admit to being kind of curious about 'The Golden Legend' - maybe I'll encounter it some day.


How interesting, so you judged Sullivan on some recordings that a friend lent you a long time ago. One of the pieces you don't remember and I presume you don't own recordings. Apart from "Onwards Christian Soldiers" of course, also you haven't listened to many in the first place. Now as it happens I'm not particularly worried one way or the other about Sullivan, but I think that thoughtful consideration should be given before condemning a composer---or anything else in life.


----------



## moody

waldvogel said:


> It's a little-known fact that the Doge's Palace in 18th century Venice had an elevator. It was operated by a system of pulleys and counterweights, allowing the elevator to be raised and lowered by a team of oxen. The elevator had a large floor area and could easily carry thirty people at a time.
> 
> And on that very elevator was a small string orchestra, constantly playing the music of Antonio Vivaldi...


I imagine most people opted to walk.


----------



## elgar's ghost

moody said:


> How interesting, so you judged Sullivan on some recordings that a friend lent you a long time ago. One of the pieces you don't remember and I presume you don't own recordings. Apart from "Onwards Christian Soldiers" of course, also you haven't listened to many in the first place. Now as it happens I'm not particularly worried one way or the other about Sullivan, but I think that thoughtful consideration should be given before condemning a composer---or anything else in life.


You think it's interesting - I certainly don't. If you aren't bothered about Sullivan then stop singling me out. And do you think I'm going to spend both time and money feverishly listening to other Sullivan repertoire just so I can end up saying 'Ooh, yes, Moody was right...' - I don't think so, so why don't you back off?


----------



## neoshredder

moody said:


> I imagine most people opted to walk.


No comment.


----------



## lukecubed

I recently heard some Golijov--yikes. I'm not against accessibility, but that guy is terrible.

About a week later, a friend put some Golijov on. I said it sounds like new-age classical, and he agreed with me, even though he digs it. Not for me...


----------



## SottoVoce

I love Poulenc sometimes, but I feel that most of the time I find it hard to follow where he's going to and sometimes it feels like his music isn't connected. More due to my inability to follow than his ability as a composer probably though.


----------



## moody

bigshot said:


> In order to fully appreciate Wagner, you have to totally surrender to it. It doesn't work to intellectualize it. It's all about swelling emotions and passions that defy common sense. I understand that this is terrifying to some people, and goes against some people's grain, but if you are the type that responds to emotion, Wagner is off the scale in power.


Hey, I heard that you surrender or are never seen again!


----------



## superhorn

Not too long ago I borrowed the DG recording of Golijov's opera Ainadamar ( Fountain of Tears ) on library interloan , and I rather liked it . It deals with the life of the Spanish poet and political activist Federico Garcia Lorca duirng the Spanish civil war , and the music is very colorful and engaging . I would definitely like to hear more of his music, and the Met has commissioned him to write an opera for them in the near future .


----------



## Geoff48

Just seen this post and am rather surprised to see that Sullivan is listed as a disliked composer. Now I accept that he is not one of the greatest but he wrote some cracking tunes for incorporation in his Savoy Operas. If you dislike their misogyny then that is down to Gilbert’s words rather than his music. And away from the Operas there is a sub Mendelssohn Irish Symphony with a rollicking March recorded by Charles Groves, a glorious Suite from Merchant of Venice recorded by Vivian Dunn. And Overture di Ballo which is very tuneful.
Horses for courses. He wrote no towering masterpieces but he did write for people to enjoy and that is no bad obitory. He may not make a huge impression but I’m not sure there is much to dislike apart from perhaps the lost chord.
Maybe this is one for Spotify to serve as a sample in which case try the works I have mentioned together perhaps with the opening of Gondoliers and the Act 1 finale from Iolanthe.
Now for a really dislikable composer try Bruckner and Wagner, the one for his music, the other for his music and opinions. I think Rossini got it right when he said that Wagner had his moments but he also had his half hours. And Bruckner I have commented on elsewhere and with little affection


----------



## Bulldog

Geoff48 said:


> Just seen this post and am rather surprised to see that Sullivan is listed as a disliked composer. Now I accept that he is not one of the greatest but he wrote some cracking tunes for incorporation in his Savoy Operas. If you dislike their misogyny then that is down to Gilbert's words rather than his music. And away from the Operas there is a sub Mendelssohn Irish Symphony with a rollicking March recorded by Charles Groves, a glorious Suite from Merchant of Venice recorded by Vivian Dunn. And Overture di Ballo which is very tuneful.


I don't know anything about his operas, but Sullivan's symphony is most enjoyable. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would consider it a loser.


----------



## Dimace

(deleted)

wrong thread. My apologies!


----------



## ORigel

I listened to the first movement of *Maximianno Cobra* Symphony Op 1 for laughs. You know, the guy who gave the worst interpretation of Beethoven Symphony No. 9 in history. Beethoven Symphony No. 5 is even slower, at 77 minutes long if I recall correctly.


----------



## Sequentia

This thread got bumped? OK. There is probably no composer I invariably dislike, but I do have a strong aversion to music that sounds "salon", music that appears to be telling the listener, "Be lazy, don't question anything, and stay in your couch while swooning over my kitschy harmonies." For major composers:

Dvořák
Milhaud
Poulenc
Martinů (some)
Rachmaninoff

For contemporary music:

Stravinsky (post-_Sacre_)
Feldman
Carter (with a few exceptions)


----------



## Ethereality

Sequentia said:


> "Be lazy, don't question anything, and stay in your couch while swooning over my kitschy harmonies."


Eh, there's much more to music than harmony. Only so much you can do with it. They knew this well in Baroque times for establishing such a self-defeating custom around it, else they would've expanded on it instead by then.

I'm not sure_ focusing on harmonies_ is the most useful or rewarding way to go abouts listening to music, but rather, to let them speak additionally to signal shifts from one moment to the next. If you focus on just harmony it's like being a collector of abstract color art works, with no structure or intention, or even shading in them. You're just repeating green turning into blue, then into red, then back to green, back and forth mindlessly.

Dvorak and Rachmaninoff I feel effortlessly construct some of the best most-unique 'phrasings,' regardless of harmony, and cleverly weave many of them together to create a sense of drive and development similar to a Beethoven symphony.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Mahler. One has to recognise the immense skill and sheer hard work of constructing those mammoth scores, but I simply don't like the sounds which emerge from them.


----------



## Enthusiast

Geoff48 said:


> Just seen this post and am rather surprised to see that Sullivan is listed as a disliked composer. Now I accept that he is not one of the greatest but he wrote some cracking tunes for incorporation in his Savoy Operas. If you dislike their misogyny then that is down to Gilbert's words rather than his music. And away from the Operas there is a sub Mendelssohn Irish Symphony with a rollicking March recorded by Charles Groves, a glorious Suite from Merchant of Venice recorded by Vivian Dunn. And Overture di Ballo which is very tuneful.
> Horses for courses. He wrote no towering masterpieces but he did write for people to enjoy and that is no bad obitory. He may not make a huge impression but I'm not sure there is much to dislike apart from perhaps the lost chord.
> Maybe this is one for Spotify to serve as a sample in which case try the works I have mentioned together perhaps with the opening of Gondoliers and the Act 1 finale from Iolanthe.
> Now for a really dislikable composer try Bruckner and Wagner, the one for his music, the other for his music and opinions. I think Rossini got it right when he said that Wagner had his moments but he also had his half hours. And Bruckner I have commented on elsewhere and with little affection


After a robust and fair defense of Sullivan's operettas you commit the same mistake that you were calling out but in reverse. So much for horses for courses.

BTW Wagner, at least, was surely one of the true greats and Bruckner was not far behind. Rossini wrote a good comic opera or two, an enjoyable novelty mass and some lovely overtures and just doesn't compare.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'd forgotten about this thread and my early joust with the late Moody. I still miss the cantankerous old goat.


----------



## Enthusiast

Sequentia said:


> This thread got bumped? OK. There is probably no composer I invariably dislike, but I do have a strong aversion to music that sounds "salon", music that appears to be telling the listener, "Be lazy, don't question anything, and stay in your couch while swooning over my kitschy harmonies." For major composers:
> 
> Dvořák
> Milhaud
> Poulenc
> Martinů (some)
> Rachmaninoff
> 
> For contemporary music:
> 
> Stravinsky (post-_Sacre_)
> Feldman
> Carter (with a few exceptions)


I'm confused. Are you saying that the composers you list are guilty of the crime you describe? (_Really?_) That's how it reads but I find it hard to accept that anyone familiar with the composers you list should think them lazy and failing to question anything. Perhaps you could provide a list of a few composers who are the opposite?


----------



## Lisztian

elgars ghost said:


> I'd forgotten about this thread and my early joust with the late Moody. I still miss the cantankerous old goat.


Me too 

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


----------



## Ariasexta

Dislike any composer? Never, I can only either love or hate any composer at all. If I do not love a composer you can tell that I hate his music or his person as a composer, no, a fake-composer. I am totally incapable of a degree of such lukearmness toward music.


----------



## Ariasexta

My soul burns for music,only for music I can become anything, but never a gentleman or a politician which can not become angry for his own passions. Let me be a beast or an angel, only the worst or the best for music. I court Baroque music, Renaissance music, Medieval music, Greco-roman music, Egyptian music, they are my history of soul, of eternal life, I will trample their enemies and carry on their spirit. I hate fake music, and would not specify their names. But anyone can reasonably imagine what kind of fake music I hate.


----------



## Geoff48

Enthusiast said:


> After a robust and fair defense of Sullivan's operettas you commit the same mistake that you were calling out but in reverse. So much for horses for courses.
> 
> BTW Wagner, at least, was surely one of the true greats and Bruckner was not far behind. Rossini wrote a good comic opera or two, an enjoyable novelty mass and some lovely overtures and just doesn't compare.


Just for the record I accept that Wagner is one of the great composers albeit a most unpleasant man with definite antisemitic views which he portrayed in his operas and writings. Beckmesser and Mime are both seen as Jewish caricatures. And, to be fair, whilst Rossini may be a lesser composer, I suspect more people have enjoyed the Barber of Seville than Mastersingers or Parsifal. As for Bruckner as I have posted elsewhere I believe he says nothing and then repeats it ad infinitum. And his climaxes never complete but seem to peter out inconsequentially. Sorry for repeating myself.
So that is a brief summary of my reasons for disliking Wagner and the music of Bruckner. Yes the odd overture of Wagner is enjoyable together with the occasional aria or chorus. And the third LP I bought, Sargent on HMV Concert Classics, was bought for the overture to the Mastersingers although it soon became cherished for Silken Ladder and Fingal's cave. And for my sins I studied the overture to Mastersingers and Wagner when taking O level music, and that probably dates me, but l get far more pleasure from the music of Sullivan than from Wagner whatever their respective merits to the musicologist.


----------



## annaw

Geoff48 said:


> Just for the record I accept that Wagner is one of the great composers albeit a most unpleasant man with definite antisemitic views which he portrayed in his operas and writings. Beckmesser and Mime are *both seen *as Jewish caricatures. And, to be fair, whilst Rossini may be a lesser composer, I suspect more people have enjoyed the Barber of Seville than Mastersingers or Parsifal. As for Bruckner as I have posted elsewhere I believe he says nothing and then repeats it ad infinitum. And his climaxes never complete but seem to peter out inconsequentially. Sorry for repeating myself.
> So that is a brief summary of my reasons for disliking Wagner and the music of Bruckner. Yes the odd overture of Wagner is enjoyable together with the occasional aria or chorus. And the third LP I bought, Sargent on HMV Concert Classics, was bought for the overture to the Mastersingers although it soon became cherished for Silken Ladder and Fingal's cave. And for my sins I studied the overture to Mastersingers and Wagner when taking O level music, and that probably dates me, but l get far more pleasure from the music of Sullivan than from Wagner whatever their respective merits to the musicologist.


Many things can be read into Wagner's operas. I don't think that Wagner's antisemitic views sneaked into his operas as that's not supported by anything he said as far as I know. Considering that he might have put a bit too many thoughts into words (he's great candidate for the most talkative composer, I suppose...), it's somewhat unlikely that such relatively important stereotypes would go unmentioned. A fellow TC member gave a wonderful overview of why there're no antisemitic ideas or stereotypes in Wagner's operas in another thread:



Woodduck said:


> The persistent attempts on the part of some to read antisemitism, or to find references to Jews, in the Ring, attempts that date all the way back to Wagner's lifetime, have no foundation in any statement by the composer. However, there are several statements that undermine those efforts. He said that he would not wish to present a Jewish character onstage (not an admirable attitude, but it is what it is); he said that he loved his villains, referring particularly to Alberich (who is sometimes viewed as an antisemitic symbol of the greedy capitalist); and, according to Cosima, he and Cosima once made a game of assigning races to the characters of the Ring, and they agreed that the Nibelungs belonged to "the yellow races," obviously not a description of Jews (whom, in any case, Wagner did not think of as a "race," much less as "yellow"). Moreover, when he attended an 1881 rehearsal of Siegfried in Berlin in which the dwarf Mime was played by a Jewish singer, Wagner commented, "A Jewish dwarf, but excellent." That is not the remark of a composer who intends that Mime represent a Jew.


Of course we can all have our own opinions, but one's enjoyment of Wagner's music can significantly increase, if one dismisses such antisemitic reading which doesn't seem to be founded on anything Wagner himself said (as far as I know).

I utterly love Bruckner as well but as it seems to be a question of different opinions and tastes, I don't think that arguing about it would be overly fruitful.


----------



## Dorsetmike

I could say Gorecki and Einaudi, but then I don't consider there is anything of theirs that sounds like music so perhaps they are not really composers?


----------



## Geoff48

I think that the antisemitic stereotyping of some of Wagner’s characters was first brought to my attention when studying him at school by the music master who certainly was no admirer of him. He was referring at that stage to Beckmesser but I’m sure he also made reference to The Ring and produced evidence to support his theory. However I’m not an expert and I certainly cannot produce evidence to back up my theory.
One thing I do know is that he had no compunction in using Jewish influence when it suited him. Meyerbeer certainly was complimentary and his first major conductor, Levi, was Jewish. I suspect we all agree that Wagner was not a.very nice person however great a composer he was.


----------



## flamencosketches

Dorsetmike said:


> I could say Gorecki and Einaudi, but then I don't consider there is anything of theirs that sounds like music so perhaps they are not really composers?


 Really? What about this doesn't sound like music to you?






Might be time for an ear exam.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Really? What about this doesn't sound like music to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be time for an ear exam.


Well it doesn't sound like music to me. This is what it sounds like on my computer


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> Well it doesn't sound like music to me. This is what it sounds like on my computer
> 
> View attachment 141737


:lol: Touché. Works for me.


----------



## neofite

Animal the Drummer said:


> Mahler. One has to recognise the immense skill and sheer hard work of constructing those mammoth scores, but I simply don't like the sounds which emerge from them.


Thank you for saying this, AtD. This is exactly how I have always felt about Mahler, but I was afraid to say it until now because I long have heard so much lavish praise for him as one of the greats and nary a single negative opinion. I thought there was something wrong with me. (Or, is there something wrong with both of us?)


----------



## premont

neofite said:


> Thank you for saying this, AtD. This is exactly how I have always felt about Mahler, but I was afraid to say it until now because I long have heard so much lavish praise for him as one of the greats and nary a single negative opinion. I thought there was something wrong with me. (*Or, is there something wrong with both of us*?)


Count me in....


----------



## pianozach

flamencosketches said:


> Really? What about this doesn't sound like music to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be time for an ear exam.


What an enchanting opening. I've never heard it before and was instantly captivated.


----------



## Dimace

Composers I don't (generally) like: none! 
Composers, works of whom, often I don't like: some! 

What I can say here, is that I don't like (let us say) Alkan's works, but at the same moment I found in many of them elements of Liszt and I admire the dexterity has put in by this great pianist and teacher. I also don't like many Debussy's and Ravel's works, but many of them are really masterpieces. Generally speaking, it isn't any ''I don't like'' but a state of ''I'm not (enough) familiar with a composer and (or) I don't understand his music''.


----------



## Tristan

There are no well-known composers of the pre-1950 era that I don't like. Truly.

There are only more modern/contemporary that I haven't explored.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Even the composers that I like far less than other people do and which I listen to very infrequently (Scriabin and Tchaikovsky being the biggest names) have a couple works that I like. The handful of composers from which I have not heard a work that I like, I have not explored enough to decisively say whether I like their body of work or not. For example, I have yet to hear something by Erik Satie and Philip Glass that I like but I have not listened to them very much and very deeply so I will postpone judgment until I can make a more conclusive statement based off what I have heard.


----------



## Elvis

Whether its composers, conductors, or performers - if I can't relate to the recording I always assume that the fault lies with me somehow. That I'm not able to "hear" the "voice" which is attempting to speak that which needs to be spoken - that which needs to be heard.

I can find something of value - something unique - in everything that I've ever heard - even if that "something" is the sound of blessed silence at the end of the disc or the click-clack sound of it being ejected from the CD player.

I'm either admirably open-minded - or innocuous at best and insipid at worst. 

Let's go with "admirably open-minded" - somehow it just "sounds" better.


----------



## erudite

To my shame I will admit to not liking or "getting" *Debussy*…

One day I hope it will all fall into place.


----------



## Heck148

2 that don't do it for me - 

Rachmaninoff - too thick, gloomy, muddy, and interminable...not fun to play either

Delius - just can't get into it...it starts nowhere, goes nowhere, ends at the same place...I don't get it.


----------



## flamencosketches

Heck148 said:


> 2 that don't do it for me -
> 
> Rachmaninoff - too thick, gloomy, muddy, and interminable...not fun to play either
> 
> Delius - just can't get into it...it starts nowhere, goes nowhere, ends at the same place...I don't get it.


I love both, but totally get that perspective.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

The older I get (and the deeper I get into my exploration of the arts), the less relevant "liking" a particular composer, work, or aesthetic seems to be. Or maybe you can just say that I've begun to like everything. Granted, I choose to listen to some composers more than others, and there are some famous names (and many not-so-famous names) I will rarely listen to of my own accord, but if they happened to be playing, I'd still find something in them to like.

If nothing else, there's always at least the cultural / historical value.


----------



## mikeh375

Heck148 said:


> 2 that don't do it for me -
> 
> Rachmaninoff - too thick, gloomy, muddy, and interminable...not fun to play either
> 
> Delius - just can't get into it...it starts nowhere, goes nowhere, ends at the same place...I don't get it.


I'm with you Heck re Delius. His chromaticism is too greasy for me. I'm still a sentimental sap where Rachmaninov is concerned though.


----------



## JAS

Heck148 said:


> 2 that don't do it for me -
> 
> Rachmaninoff - too thick, gloomy, muddy, and interminable...not fun to play either
> 
> Delius - just can't get into it...it starts nowhere, goes nowhere, ends at the same place...I don't get it.


Like flamencosketeches, I love both, but, unlike flamencosketeches, I cannot see how these negative impressions apply. (My position is that I don't need to see or respect any other position. Listen to what you like and avoid, as best you can, what you don't. My agreement is not required.)


----------



## SanAntone

I'd have to say most composers, while not falling in the "dislike" category do, fall into the "aren't interested in" box. It is much easier for me to name the 10-25 composers whose music I like. The rest, I don't listen to and have no interest in at all (yes, I've heard enough of them to know that).

But, I don't actively "dislike" any music - if I'm not interested I don't care enough to focus the energy needed to dislike it.


----------



## Heck148

JAS said:


> Like flamencosketeches, I love both, but, unlike flamencosketeches, I cannot see how these negative impressions apply. (My position is that I don't need to see or respect any other position. Listen to what you like and avoid, as best you can, what you don't. My agreement is not required.)


Exactly...to each his/her own...i know audiences tend to love Rach-y...i consider him a 4th stringer...rather unrewarding to perform as well, but that's just me.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> But, I don't actively "dislike" any music - if I'm not interested I don't care enough to focus the energy needed to dislike it.


That's a good way to put it...disliking/hating require far too much energy to devote to something which really does not interest you.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Heck148 said:


> Rachmaninoff - too thick, gloomy, muddy, and interminable...not fun to play either


What do you think about this:

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/i-know-what-i-like.pdf
"Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No.4 is very well written for the piano (and the orchestra); that is a fact which anyone who reads music and understands the piano and fine orchestration will confirm. However, if someone does not like this piece, that is an opinion, not a fact and bears no relation either to the value of the piece or the composer's skill in writing for the piano or the orchestra." -David C F Wright


----------



## Heck148

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think about this:
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/i-know-what-i-like.pdf
> "Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No.4 is very well written for the piano (and the orchestra); that is a fact which anyone who reads music and understands the piano and fine orchestration will confirm.



Honestly?? It's a complete load of horse dung....it's mr wright's opinion....BFD.


----------



## gregorx

There are some that I can't listen to for different reasons. Anton Bruckner. Although I like Romantic chamber music and songs, I do not like the symphonies from that period. So a guy like Bruckner, with his large, loud, big and brassy sound, does nothing for me (and throwing in the long adagios doesn't make up for anything). Too busy emulating LVB and Wagner to write some decent chamber music, I suppose. He doesn't pass the listening-to-NPR-in-the-car test. I have to change the channel. 

Same with Vivaldi. The radio guy doesn't even have to tell me what it is, because it's all the same with him. I'm sorry, but no one can tell the difference between Bassoon Concerto #7 and Bassoon Concerto #19. To my ears, most of those Baroque guys churned out way too much stuff and it all tends to sound eerily familiar. You can't write 500 concertos.

So, yeah, there are composers I do not like. So I just don't listen to them.


----------



## Heck148

gregorx said:


> Same with Vivaldi. The radio guy doesn't even have to tell me what it is, because it's all the same with him. I'm sorry, but no one can tell the difference between Bassoon Concerto #7 and Bassoon Concerto #19.


LOL!! Now, hold on...Vivaldi wrote 38 bassoon concerti, each one gem.....the bassoonists certainly know #7 from #19.....no, he did not write the same concerto 38 times!! Haha....
I hear you tho, a lot of Baroque music is very same-sounding....i don't spend alot of time listening to it...


----------



## hammeredklavier

gregorx said:


> To my ears, most of those Baroque guys churned out way too much stuff and it all tends to sound eerily familiar.


This is why I don't say "everything-he-wrote-is-good" BS about any artist. Bach is one of my favorites, and I regularly listen to Bach cantatas in my car, mainly focusing on the 33 cantatas "best recommended" by Peter Wollny, Michael Maul and Sir John Eliot Gardiner, but among them there are still ones I don't find memorable no matter how many times I listen (and I actually have good memory - look how I remember old posts made by other people and where they are). 
Every now and then there are some people who say "every single one of Bach's 220 cantatas is a masterpiece, and none of them are clunkers"*. I respect other people's preferences, but also I take a grain of salt when they say things like this* cause the same argument can be made about Haydn's symphonies as well.
I sometimes wonder if these people are members of the Lutheran Clergy or something.



tdc said:


> I think they are ALL worth listening to.





consuono said:


> As Julian Mincham writes at his Bach cantatas website (recommended):
> 
> 
> 
> Bach seemed to be virtually incapable of writing a bar of bad music, something which has become increasingly noticed and appreciated in this third century after his death.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's just the cantatas. There are also the other choral works like the Passions, the Magnificat, and the masses
Click to expand...




Perotin said:


> Telemann also falls into this "one piece repeated hundreds of times" category, I think. On the other hand, Bach also wrote about 200 cantatas, but he didn't repeat himself, his cantatas are quite versatile. So, is that Vivaldi's weakness or can we see that as something typical of his period?





Allegro Con Brio said:


> My latest cantata jewel I've discovered (all of them are jewels really)





Allegro Con Brio said:


> every one has at least one jaw-dropping feature.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Every now and then there are some people who say "every single one of Bach's 220 cantatas is a masterpiece, and none of them are clunkers"*. I respect other people's preferences, but also I take a grain of salt when they say things like this* cause the same argument can be made about Haydn's symphonies as well.


If there's a "clunker" among Bach's cantatas, I haven't heard it...but I'll admit I haven't _yet_ listened to all of them, although I'm working on it. The bar for Bach is so high though that a Bach "clunker" is most likely still going to be pretty good. However the fact is they're far less uneven and more strikingly individual than what I've heard of Haydn's first 80 or so symphonies or Mozart's first 30. Bach wrote BWV 106 at an age at which Mozart hadn't really quite found his large-scale footing. He was still in the "rococo operatic sweets-of-sin" phase, as Stravinsky called it.


> This is why I don't say "everything-he-wrote-is-good" BS about any artist.


Well you pretty much do say that about Mozart.


----------



## Sequentia

Enthusiast said:


> I'm confused. Are you saying that the composers you list are guilty of the crime you describe? (_Really?_) That's how it reads but I find it hard to accept that anyone familiar with the composers you list should think them lazy and failing to question anything. Perhaps you could provide a list of a few composers who are the opposite?


Of course not; just that their music appears to exude such an atmosphere. That, needless to say, is how I feel about their music; there's no claim to universality in what I write.


----------



## Sequentia

Also, Glass can get on my nerves quite easily.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Bach wrote BWV 106 at an age at which Mozart hadn't really quite found his large-scale footing.


Bach wrote that in 1707, when he was 22. 
I find Mozart's K.167 (1773), K.192~195 (1774) all memorable. The chromaticism that suddenly modulates from G minor to E major in the gloria ( [ 3:50 ] So brash and spontaneous. I don't quite hear stuff like this in music written by other composers at the time. It foreshadows his later K.550 symphony) and the aggressive chromaticism in the _et incarnatus est_ [9:47 ~ 11:47] really "stands out" and makes a huge impression on me. And the string parts of the _et vitam venturi_ [ 17:40 ], which return motifs from the rest of the credo movement interestingly once the fugue develops into full motion.





*[ 23:50 ]*





Sorry, quite a number of Bach's cantatas are just not that memorable to me. In order for me to want to come back to something, I must remember what I heard in it. And there are cantatas that just don't do it for me. (Don't get me wrong, I still like a lot of Bach's other works)


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, quite a number of Bach's cantatas are just not that memorable to me.


Sorry, but I don't find any of that music that you linked to be memorable. It's "early Mozart". Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of his other stuff though.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> Bach wrote that in 1707, when he was 22.
> I find Mozart's K.167 (1773), K.192~195 (1774) all memorable. The chromaticism that suddenly modulates from G minor to E major in the gloria ( [ 3:50 ] So brash and spontaneous. I don't quite hear stuff like this in music written by other composers at the time. It foreshadows his later K.550 symphony) and the aggressive chromaticism in the _et incarnatus est_ [9:47 ~ 11:47] really "stands out" and makes a huge impression on me. And the string parts of the _et vitam venturi_ [ 17:40 ], which return motifs from the rest of the credo movement interestingly once the fugue develops into full motion.
> 
> Sorry, quite a number of Bach's cantatas are just not that memorable to me. In order for me to want to come back to something, I must remember what I heard in it. And there are cantatas that just don't do it for me. (Don't get me wrong, I still like a lot of Bach's other works)


Mozart's music is full of profound statements and landmarks, Bach is meant to be like a continuous ride down a river, not as creative or visionary, but craftily seeking 'how far and durable can I make this raft go.' People who highly prefer some of Bach's lesser material tend to listen to music in a trance, like the feeling of riding in a speed-racer in the countryside taking in the various drifts and quandaries that go along with it--nothing in particular is defined or meant to be profound, or meant to be remembered. You just enjoy the experience. I think I prefer the other type, the meta.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Sorry, but I don't find any of that music that you linked to be memorable. It's "early Mozart". Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of his other stuff though.


To each his own.  Although it's doubtful to me how much material of the 220+ cantatas you actually remember yourself. Good luck trying to "get familiar" with them all. 

*[ 8:50 ]*


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> He was still in the "rococo operatic sweets-of-sin" phase, as Stravinsky called it.


I don't know what's your point.
Do I have to remind you of Berlioz's remark on Bach?

On Bach
By Hector Berlioz (1803-1869)
From Berlioz's Autobiography

YOU will not, my dear Demarest, expect an analysis from me of Bach's great work: such a task would quite exceed my prescribed limits. Indeed, the movement performed at the Conservatoire three years ago may be considered the type of the author's style throughout the work. The Germans profess an unlimited admiration for Bach's recitatives; but their peculiar characteristic necessarily escaped me, as I did not understand the language and was unable to appreciate their expression. Whoever is familiar with our musical customs in Paris must witness, in order to believe, the attention, respect, and even reverence with which a German public listens to such a composition. Every one follows the words on the book with his eyes; not a movement among the audience, not a murmur of praise or blame, not a sound of applause; they are listening to a solemn discourse, they are hearing the gospel sung, *they are attending divine service rather than a concert*. And really such music ought to be thus listened to. They adore Bach, and believe in him, without supposing for a moment that his divinity could ever be called into question. A heretic would horrify them, he is forbidden even to speak of him. God is God and Bach is Bach.
Some days after the performance of Bach's chef d'œuvre, the Singing Academy announced Graun's 'Tod Jesu.' This is another sacred work, a holy book; the worshipers of which are, however, mainly to be found in Berlin, whereas the religion of Bach is professed throughout the north of Germany.



consuono said:


> Well you pretty much do say that about Mozart.


When did I ever do that?


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know what's your point.
> Do I have to remind you of Berlioz's remark on Bach?


What do I care what Berlioz said?


> When did I ever do that?


In just about every comment you make here, the sentiment is implied. I don't care that much for Bach's keyboard toccatas. Can you name some of what you feel are subpar Mozart compositions? I'll bet you can't.


> To each his own. Although it's doubtful to me how much material of the 220+ cantatas you actually remember yourself. Good luck trying to "get familiar" with them all.


I'd bet my entire bank account that I've listened to far more of them than you have, as well as tried to study the scores.


Ethereality said:


> Mozart's music is full of profound statements and landmarks, Bach is meant to be like a continuous ride down a river, not as creative or visionary, but craftily seeking 'how far and durable can I make this raft go.' People who highly prefer some of Bach's lesser material tend to listen to music in a trance, like the feeling of riding in a speed-racer in the countryside taking in the various drifts and quandaries that go along with it--nothing in particular is defined or meant to be profound, or meant to be remembered. You just enjoy the experience. I think I prefer the other type, the meta.


I have absolutely no idea what this means. Bach doesn't contain "profound statements and landmarks"? Bach isn't as "creative and visionary"? Are you kidding me? And what is Bach's "lesser material"?


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> I have absolutely no idea what this means. Bach doesn't contain "profound statements and landmarks"?


No, I'm not sure where you read this. Bach usually sounds like he's weaving a formula from prederived principles. Mozart's music is painted using much more individualistic key statements and profound shifts, like a film and its scenes, while the trance-like whole of Bach's work can be said to be quite profound. There's something much more elemental and pure about Bach's music than anyone else.



consuono said:


> Bach isn't as "creative and visionary"? Are you kidding me?


Not kidding you. Bach isn't a worse composer or a better composer than Mozart, he just embodies a different set of great adjectives that's not about being more 'creative' or 'visionary' than Mozart. Those aren't really the best words to use imo to describe him.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I don't care that much for Bach's keyboard toccatas. Can you name some of what you feel are subpar Mozart compositions? I'll bet you can't.


Yes, there are Mozart works I don't care for. And I actually somewhat like the catchiness of Bach's harpsichord toccatas.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expressing my opinion on Bach's cantatas in this thread. (This is pretty much the first and only time I've done it. And I did as a reply to gregorx's comment "those Baroque guys churned out..") You on the other hand have whined like 10 times about Mozart's keyboard music on this forum over the past months. And look at yourself how you can't accept a single fair "criticism" on Bach's cantatas from me. lol.
Also there have been members who kept exaggerating how Bach's cantatas are like the greatest art since Shakespeare, talking as if each of the 220+ pieces are actually "individual", while denigrating other composers as uninspired or sounding the same, time and time again. Sorry, it was getting super-cringey. I can accept you and other people saying in other threads that Bach and Beethoven are the greatest - but there are certain things I just can't accept. My intention isn't really to denigrate anyone and while I fully respect your preferences, I'm also expressing my opinion I don't agree with you people. It's people like you who are giving the Bach fandom a bad name. Just look at yourselves.
Remember you said that you prefer Chopin's nocturnes over Wagner's Ring cycle any day, saying that the latter has 'some fine moments, but ugly half-hours'. None of Bach's cantatas is ugly, but I'll admit there are also _some fine moments_ in them as well.


----------



## consuono

> You on the other hand have whined like 10 times about Mozart's keyboard music on this forum over the past months


That's no more "whining" than your "whining" about Bach's cantatas or Beethoven's sonatas or Schubert or my "whining" about Bach's keyboard toccatas.


> Yes, there are Mozart works I don't care for.


Like what?


Ethereality said:


> Not kidding you. Bach isn't a worse composer or a better composer than Mozart, he just embodies a different set of great adjectives that's not about being more 'creative' or 'visionary' than Mozart. Those aren't really the best words to use imo to describe him.


If those words don't fit Bach, then I don't see how they could be applied to Mozart either. Both were creative, and harmonically at least Bach was more of a visionary. It was Bach that anticipated late Beethoven, not Mozart, and it was late Beethoven that anticipated what came after.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Also there have been members who kept exaggerating how Bach's cantatas are like the greatest art since Shakespeare, talking as if each of the 220+ pieces are actually "individual", while denigrating other composers as uninspired or sounding the same, time and time again. Sorry, it was getting super-cringey. I can accept you and other people saying in other threads that Bach and Beethoven are the greatest - but there are certain things I just can't accept. My intention isn't really to denigrate anyone and while I fully respect your preferences, I'm also expressing my opinion I don't agree with you people. It's people like you who are giving the Bach fandom a bad name. Just look at yourselves.


If that's the case, it's also fair to say that it's folks like you who give the Mozart fandom a bad name.


----------



## consuono

> Also there have been members who kept exaggerating how Bach's cantatas are like the greatest art since Shakespeare, talking as if each of the 220+ pieces are actually "individual", while denigrating other composers as uninspired or sounding the same, time and time again. Sorry, it was getting super-cringey.


"Super-cringey" is posting the same youthful Mozart liturgical music YT vids and trying to convince us that it's all on the same level as the Bach cantatas...which, yes, I do believe to be the greatest single body of work in music history.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Both were creative, and harmonically at least Bach was more of a visionary. It was Bach that anticipated late Beethoven, not Mozart, and it was late Beethoven that anticipated what came after.


"Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. *The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom.* Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score." ( Mozart's Piano Music, By William Kinderman, Page 46 )


----------



## consuono

> The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom.


Yes, you've referenced that quote and that piece many times. I still don't see how it's any more daring or startling than BWV 903 or 548. Or BWV 906. Or any number of fugues from WTC or KdF. Dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas?


----------



## Ethereality

Because it's a more creative and visionary way of utilizing some of these harmonic tools that you are calling 'complete compositions' imo. Whether it makes them better is up to each to decide, ie. if one wants to live in that pure elemental stage of Bach, but he did not originate these harmonic clusters. I wrote earlier on the same topic regarding someone's distaste of Dvorak and Rachmaninoff:



Ethereality said:


> There's much more to music than harmony. Only so much you can do with it. They knew this well in Baroque times for establishing such a self-defeating custom around it, else they would've expanded on it instead by then.
> 
> I'm not sure_ focusing on harmonies_ is the most useful or rewarding way to go abouts listening to music, but rather, to let them speak additionally in signifying shifts from one moment to the next. If you focus on just harmony, it's like being a collector of abstract color art, with no structure or intention, or even shading in them. In this instance you're obsessing over ie. sensations of green turning into blue, and into red, then back to green, back and forth mindlessly with very little purpose or intellectual growth.
> 
> This absolutely limits what music is, and has already been for a majority of listeners. With that being said, regardless of Dvorak and Rachmaninoff's 'predictable harmonies,' they have quite masterfully constructed some of the most unique phrasings in music and cleverly woven them together to create a sense of drive and development similar to a Beethoven symphony.


So as much as Bach predicting later music, he was also spokenly against later music. Again, no right or wrong interpretation.


----------



## flamencosketches

I love Mozart, but every one of Hammeredklavier's posts I read makes me not want to listen to his music


----------



## Ethereality

flamencosketches said:


> I love Mozart, but every one of Hammeredklavier's posts I read makes me not want to listen to his music


Typically your #1 fan of said composer has a variably different taste than appreciators. There has to be some vastly different respect for musical interpretation to achieve #1 fan status. With that being said, most of the great composers were also Mozart's #1 fan, and all that shows is that Mozart was popular, not objectively the greatest, but I think hammeredklavier has studied these composers' notes.


----------



## consuono

flamencosketches said:


> I love Mozart, but every one of Hammeredklavier's posts I read makes me not want to listen to his music


I disagree. I think a lot of hammeredklavier's input is thought-provoking and does shed some light on Mozart's work. He's a Mozart hyperpartisan just as I'm a Bach hyperpartisan, I guess.


Ethereality said:


> ]With that being said, most of the great composers were also Mozart's #1 fan...


That's debatable. For Beethoven it was Handel. For Brahms and Wagner it was most likely Beethoven. For Stravinsky it was Bach. I think Bach and Mozart were two singularities of sorts, hard to characterize but extremely haunting.


----------



## flamencosketches

consuono said:


> I disagree. I think a lot of hammeredklavier's input is thought-provoking and does shed some light on Mozart's work. He's a Mozart hyperpartisan just as I'm a Bach hyperpartisan, I guess.
> That's debatable. For Beethoven it was Handel. For Brahms and Wagner it was most likely Beethoven. For Stravinsky it was Bach. I think Bach and Mozart were two singularities of sorts, hard to characterize but extremely haunting.


Yeah, I don't think these "hyperpartisan" posts actually translate to good advocacy for the composers in question.


----------



## Ethereality

I read that Brahms said his favorite composer was Mozart, and Wagner's we don't know. Tchaikovsky and Dvorak, who sound more like Beethoven, also favored Mozart as their #1, a phenomenon which echoes a great favor toward this short-lived prodigy.

Regardless, this topic is meaningless if only showing that Mozart was popular, not necessarily better.


----------



## consuono

flamencosketches said:


> Yeah, I don't think these "hyperpartisan" posts actually translate to good advocacy for the composers in question.


Maybe not, but 1. they're honest and 2. I'm not an "advocate" trying to win over anybody. The music of whomever speaks for itself.


Ethereality said:


> I read that Brahms said his favorite composer was Mozart, and Wagner's we don't know.


 The work of each would seem to say otherwise. Again though it could be that Bach and Mozart just can't be satisfactorily emulated, while Beethoven is somewhat more "transparent".


----------



## annaw

Ethereality said:


> I read that Brahms said his favorite composer was Mozart, and *Wagner's we don't know.*


It might have been... Wagner .

(I have got an impression that Wagner favoured Beethoven over Mozart.)


----------



## Ethereality

Eh that's like saying 'if we did not know, we'd surely say Beethoven favored Mozart > over Handel.' The truth is, there's no information on Wagner's favorite. But if you find some, there's a separate thread to post it in.


----------



## annaw

Ethereality said:


> Eh that's like saying 'if we did not know, we'd surely say Beethoven favored Mozart > over Handel.' The truth is, there's no information on Wagner's favorite.


I didn't say either of them were his favourite. This is simply my impression of which one he preferred.

Lol. Not gonna give my reasons in this thread then (or actually in any thread at all, for the sake of TC peace)


----------



## hammeredklavier

annaw said:


> (I have got an impression that Wagner favoured Beethoven over Mozart.)


https://books.google.ca/books?id=F-bEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA139
"The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts"
RICHARD WAGNER, "ON GERMAN MUSIC," 1840


----------



## annaw

hammeredklavier said:


> https://books.google.ca/books?id=F-bEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA139
> "The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts"
> RICHARD WAGNER, "ON GERMAN MUSIC," 1840


I have my own reasons as well but huge thanks for a fascinating quote. Will have to look it up some time. Of course Wagner praised Mozart highly! I don't mean to say otherwise.


----------



## consuono

I haven't checked the sources for the quotes listed on the page at the link, but here goes:


> About Mozart and Beethoven, Wagner said: "Thus, in our Art History, the musician (as artist) is initiated into his art from without; Mozart died when he was just piercing the inner mystery. Beethoven was the first to enter wholly in." On another occasion he said, "Of Mozart I only cared for the Magic Flute. Don Giovanni went against my grain, because of the Italian text: It seemed to me such rubbish."





> Again, of Beethoven and Mozart Wagner said: "As far as fugues are concerned, these gentlemen can hide their heads before Bach. They played with the form, wanted to show they could do it too, but he showed us the soul of the fugue. He could not do otherwise than write in fugues."


(Sorry, hammered, but if that last quote is legit then I'd have to say Wagner nailed it there.)

http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/romantic/Wagner/Wagner and other composers.asp


----------



## hammeredklavier

Wagner also ridiculed Brahms by saying _"Brahms composes the way Bach might have composed."_ 
( The Spectator - Volume 241 - Page 23 https://books.google.ca/books?id=OkZIAQAAIAAJ F.C. Westley, 1978 )

_"It is possible to find anything more perfect than every piece in Don Giovanni: Where else has music individualized and characterized so surely?"_ -Wagner
https://books.google.ca/books?id=oughWrHAC64C&pg=PT33

Also according to Cosima, Wagner called Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker", a compliment he gave only to Mozart.





"... It had been no empty rhetoric when the German musician in his Parisian tale died professing his faith in Beethoven and Mozart. A biography of Mozart, read to him when he was only six, had made an undying impression on him. ...
The overture to Die Zauberflöte was his earliest musical love: it captured so exactly the note of a fairy tale. He conducted it in Mannheim in 1871 at the concert celebrating the founding of the German Richard Wagner Society. He often reminisced about his childhood impressions when Mozart was played at Wahnfried. He had discovered the C minor Fantasy at his Uncle Adolf's house and had dreamt about it for ages afterwards. ...
During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in solving difficult technical problems. In particular he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, *'magnificent, never surpassed'*, as he called it years later, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'. *In the last years of his life he liked to call himself the 'last Mozartian'*. ..."
https://books.google.ca/books?id=QDQ7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA82


----------



## consuono

Incidentally, I couldn't care less really who Wagner liked. Or Berlioz or Tchaikovsky or Beethoven for that matter. Frankly, I'm sometimes puzzled at some of the composers Bach apparently admired.


----------



## Guest

A.Schoenberg, a fake soul.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

annaw said:


> It might have been... Wagner .


Underrated comment. :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical

Roland Paingaud said:


> A.Schoenberg, a fake soul.


Ouch, strong statement. I don't think there is a composer anymore that I don't like to some degree.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

It's hard for me to come up with a composer I flat-out dislike. A lot of Baroque music isn't my cup of tea and I find some Stockhausen pretentious (despite my love for the avant-garde) but really, taken at a baseline most Western art music is already good and it's hard for me to find faults. It would be such an exaggerated blanket statement for me to say, "I DON'T LIKE HANDEL. I DON'T LIKE STOCKHAUSEN". If I'm not particularly enthralled by a certain composer's work, I just won't listen to it, I don't have any vitriol aimed against it. Popular music is a different story: I got a laundry list of bands I think are atrocious 

EDIT: I honestly find a lot of Mozart boring. But there's also so many Mozart pieces that I adore so I can't really say "I don't like Mozart" either.


----------



## Guest

@PhilLovesClassical

Ouch, If you will not hate anymore, you will not love either.


----------



## Phil loves classical

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's hard for me to come up with a composer I flat-out dislike. A lot of Baroque music isn't my cup of tea and I find some Stockhausen pretentious (despite my love for the avant-garde) but really, taken at a baseline most Western art music is already good and it's hard for me to find faults. It would be such an exaggerated blanket statement for me to say, "I DON'T LIKE HANDEL. I DON'T LIKE STOCKHAUSEN".
> 
> EDIT: I honestly find a lot of Mozart boring. But there's also so many Mozart pieces that I adore so I can't really say "I don't like Mozart" either.


How do you find Stockhausen pretentious? I used to find Brahms pretentious, as did Tchaikovsky, or Ferneyhough, but I don't think there is such a thing anymore, except in the way that the composer intentionally wants the music to sound as if it has something but is unable to deliver (which I don't believe is the case with any composer you hear about). I believe Stockhausen delivered whatever he was doing without wanting it to appear higher than it is.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Roland Paingaud said:


> @PhilLovesClassical
> 
> Ouch, If you will not hate anymore, you will not love either.


Not true. I can love some, but not hate any.

Now I think about it some more, one composer I really find very little I could like is Thomas Ades. I do think he's talented, but find him pretentious and comes short in delivering what I feel he aims to do :devil:.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Phil loves classical said:


> How do you find Stockhausen pretentious? I used to find Brahms pretentious, as did Tchaikovsky, or Ferneyhough, but I don't think there is such a thing anymore, except in the way that the composer intentionally wants the music to sound as if it has something but is unable to deliver (which I don't believe is the case with any composer you hear about). I believe Stockhausen delivered whatever he was doing without wanting it to appear higher than it is.


It's admittedly an underdeveloped opinion. I've yet to hear the substance behind the music, but there's not much I've heard of it. The "Hubschraubstreichquartett" comes to mind. What's the point of sending all the players up in a helicopter? The concept is cool on the surface, but what does that add sonically? It seems gimmicky to me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's admittedly an underdeveloped opinion. I've yet to hear the substance behind the music, but there's not much I've heard of it. The "Hubschraubstreichquartett" comes to mind. What's the point of sending all the players up in a helicopter? The concept is cool on the surface, but what does that add sonically? It seems gimmicky to me.


I agree, that idea is showy. But I think it adds a kind of distractive noise with the helicopter whirling, which adds some effect, that required you to focus on the music more and makes it more momentous. i think it could have also been achieved with other means.


----------



## flamencosketches

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's admittedly an underdeveloped opinion. I've yet to hear the substance behind the music, but there's not much I've heard of it. The "Hubschraubstreichquartett" comes to mind. What's the point of sending all the players up in a helicopter? The concept is cool on the surface, but what does that add sonically? It seems gimmicky to me.


Well, for starters, it's part of an opera. The showiness and theatricality of it all may be part of the intended effect.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

flamencosketches said:


> Well, for starters, it's part of an opera. The showiness and theatricality of it all may be part of the intended effect.


It's part of an opera? Had no clue. In any case it's hard to fault the guy for doing out-there, bizarre things. Trying something new is always admirable.


----------



## DavidA

I have nothing against Herr Stockhausen personally. Just if his music comes on my wife and I have a race to see who can reach the OFF switch first!


----------



## flamencosketches

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's part of an opera? Had no clue. In any case it's hard to fault the guy for doing out-there, bizarre things. Trying something new is always admirable.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittwoch_aus_Licht

Part of his "Licht" cycle of seven operas. Imagine Wagner's Ring but doubled in length and exponentially expanded in insanity. I have no idea how the Helicopter Quartet is to be performed in the context of an opera.

Has anyone here seen this opera in full...?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Here is one composer I really don't get at all. I can get serialism and stuff. But this one is a total mystery so far. Anyone shed some light on the process?

I did read the blurb on Wikipedia. Is it just improvisation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Saunders


----------



## hammeredklavier

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's part of an opera? Had no clue. In any case it's hard to fault the guy for doing out-there, bizarre things. Trying something new is always admirable.


this is also part of an opera,
also sounds great with helicopter noises in the background:


----------



## denisov

> Here is one composer I really don't get at all. I can get serialism and stuff. But this one is a total mystery so far. Anyone shed some light on the process?
> 
> I did read the blurb on Wikipedia. Is it just improvisation?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Saunders


The music of Rebecca Saunders is not just improvisation. It is not constructed from pitch classes like serial music, although tonal proportions and harmonics often play an important role, because the main concerns are timbres and the different "colours" of the sounds that are explored in great detail. I think this is particularly well demonstated in her pieces for ensemble.


----------



## Judith

I have a problem with Sibelius. Had two symphonies as my monthly focus but just couldn't click. Found it hard to pick out the melodies and nothing stuck in my mind such as other works that I listen to


----------



## flamencosketches

Judith said:


> I have a problem with Sibelius. Had two symphonies as my monthly focus but just couldn't click. Found it hard to pick out the melodies and nothing stuck in my mind such as other works that I listen to


I know you said you were "focusing" on the 4th at one point. Which other one did you find problematical?


----------



## Phil loves classical

denisov said:


> The music of Rebecca Saunders is not just improvisation. It is not constructed from pitch classes like serial music, although tonal proportions and harmonics often play an important role, because the main concerns are timbres and the different "colours" of the sounds that are explored in great detail. I think this is particularly well demonstated in her pieces for ensemble.


These ones I thought were interesting enough. The sax in in Fury around 5:25 was too much for me though.


----------



## annaw

Judith said:


> I have a problem with Sibelius. Had two symphonies as my monthly focus but just couldn't click. Found it hard to pick out the melodies and nothing stuck in my mind such as other works that I listen to


Have you tried his tone poems or _Kullervo_? Sibelius was great at creating narratives of nature and myths. This comes through both in his symphonies and tone poems but I think the tone poems are simply more accessible, while still providing a very good idea of his compositional style.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is one composer I really don't get at all. I can get serialism and stuff. But this one is a total mystery so far. Anyone shed some light on the process?
> 
> I did read the blurb on Wikipedia. Is it just improvisation?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Saunders


Does anyone actually spend eighteen minutes listening to that?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ It seems you did?


----------



## consuono

Enthusiast said:


> ^ It seems you did?


Ummmm .....nope. That sort of thing looks to me like something done by someone who knows musical notation and terminology down to the gnat's behind but who simply can't compose. They can bang a fist down on a keyboard and know how to notate it in scholarly fashion. It's noise, sort of "I've got nothing to say but I know how to look otherwise".


----------



## Jacck

consuono said:


> Does anyone actually spend eighteen minutes listening to that?


I listened to the whole of it and enjoyed it. I is a nice percussion piece.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I only know this piece by Rebecca Saunders (I assumed she was an otherwise super-obscure composer that wouldn't even get on this forum she was so obscure) which is a double bass solo which I really love. The heavy, crunchy timbres and shimmering overtones really make this piece shine:


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

That piano piece above really is a slog. I don't think it's pretentious in its intent, but it's way too static in its development to warrant 18 minutes of it. Otherwise I'd love it.


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I only know this piece by Rebecca Saunders (I assumed she was an otherwise super-obscure composer that wouldn't even get on this forum she was so obscure) which is a double bass solo which I really love. The heavy, crunchy timbres and shimmering overtones really make this piece shine:


That sounds like me when I was fiddling around with the school's double bass in the music storage room. I think I gave up after a couple of minutes though. :lol:


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> That sounds like me when I was fiddling around with the school's double bass in the music storage room. I think I gave up after a couple of minutes though. :lol:


Hey, to each their own. It's definitely not for everyone, even those of us who like atonality and avant-garde.


----------



## Enthusiast

consuono said:


> Ummmm .....nope. That sort of thing looks to me like something done by someone who knows musical notation and terminology down to the gnat's behind but who simply can't compose. They can bang a fist down on a keyboard and know how to notate it in scholarly fashion. It's noise, sort of "I've got nothing to say but I know how to look otherwise".


So ... you didn't actually listen to the music you didn't like?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Enthusiast said:


> So ... you didn't actually listen to the music you didn't like?


I think in this specific instance you can listen to the first couple minutes and get a pretty solid idea whether you like it or not. I find the piano piece painfully boring too.


----------



## consuono

Enthusiast said:


> So ... you didn't actually listen to the music you didn't like?


No, I didn't. I don't have to eat an entire can of squid to know I don't like it, either.


----------



## JAS

consuono said:


> No, I didn't. I don't have to eat an entire can of squid to know I don't like it, either.


Yes, demanding that someone endure 18 minutes of that particular work before passing a judgment on it is not reasonable. I skipped around a bit, but it isn't as if the beginning is some kind of trick and it suddenly becomes wonderful part way through. That is definitely well beyond what most people would chose to hear twice.


----------



## Enthusiast

A treat for the end of my listening today: Kurtag's ...quasi una fantasia... ; Double Concerto and Messages Of The Late Miss R.V. Troussova from


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> A treat for the end of my listening today: Kurtag's ...quasi una fantasia... ; Double Concerto and Messages Of The Late Miss R.V. Troussova from
> 
> View attachment 142353


Wrong thread, my friend, unless you mean to say that Kurtág is a composer you don't like  That set looks great! I've been meaning to get it for some time but I always back out just before pulling the trigger. If it was 10 dollars cheaper, I'd have definitely bought it by now.


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> Wrong thread, my friend, unless you mean to say that Kurtág is a composer you don't like  That set looks great! I've been meaning to get it for some time but I always back out just before pulling the trigger. If it was 10 dollars cheaper, I'd have definitely bought it by now.


Yep - this was definitely the wrong thread! The music was/is a real treat. I was in a rush.


----------



## Lilijana

consuono said:


> Does anyone actually spend eighteen minutes listening to that?


Rebecca Saunders is one of my favourite composers


----------



## Lilijana

When it comes down to it, classical music as a whole has a huge amount of subcultures within it. I spend most of my time in the classical music world/fandom talking with people around my age and younger (i'm 23) as a result of the age demographics of online spaces I frequent. Some of these subcultures are very much geared towards contemporary classical music, with really avid fans of music like what Saunders composes, people who love to go to concerts of these kinds of works because of a genuine desire to hear the music we really love to listen to. 

As classical music fans we limit our experience in many different ways based on the subcultures we spend the most time in and the other likeminded people we interact with the most. I recently developed a passion for recorder playing, and ended up finding myself in a world within classical music I never knew existed full of wonderful people I would have otherwise not met or heard of. I guess if people aren't actively seeking out a new subculture within classical music to explore, first contact with one may be analogous to a culture shock! I suspect it may be possible that we might be experiencing that when we are thrust into an area of classical music we don't really spend much time in........

Incipitsify/Score Follower/Mediated Scores are youtube channels which are a great source for contemporary classical music and their uploads are loved by a lot of people I know. I guess it's just a slightly different world within classical music that some of us here don't really bother with. And you don't have to bother with it, if you don't want to.


----------



## Botschaft

Lilijana said:


> As classical music fans we limit our experience in many different ways based on the subcultures we spend the most time in and the other likeminded people we interact with the most.


I'm not exactly sure how this applies to most of us to be perfectly honest. Perhaps the lack of an affiliation to a subculture is a limitation in itself.


----------



## Musicaterina

I don't like Richard Wagner because of his political attitude.


----------



## OperasAndPassions

Chopin and Handel. 

Both leave me cold.


----------



## Fabulin

I dislike noise. Barking dogs, people slamming doors, stupid drunk laughter, electronic sirens, nauseating bass in popular music, and other sonic garbage that ranges from very distracting to making me physically sick. Composers whose works result in something like this rank with dogs to me.

On the other hand I have nothing against a composer whose music is "bad" in the sense of being boring / unimaginative. Everyone is bad at something.


----------



## flamencosketches

OperasAndPassions said:


> Chopin and Handel.
> 
> Both leave me cold.


Hmm, that's surprising coming from (presumably) an opera lover. I find both of these composers special for their unique understanding of the human voice-Handel more obviously than Chopin because he was primarily an opera composer, but Chopin did an excellent transmutation of the world of Bel Canto into piano music. I hope you give both composers another chance later in life, but if they leave you cold now, probably best to leave their music alone, for now, at least. Welcome to TC, by the way!


----------



## OperasAndPassions

flamencosketches said:


> Hmm, that's surprising coming from (presumably) an opera lover. I find both of these composers special for their unique understanding of the human voice-Handel more obviously than Chopin because he was primarily an opera composer, but Chopin did an excellent transmutation of the world of Bel Canto into piano music. I hope you give both composers another chance later in life, but if they leave you cold now, probably best to leave their music alone, for now, at least. Welcome to TC, by the way!


Yes, I plan to give Handel's Operas (and also his Oratorios) a new shot by listening again to Gardiner's recordings. I love operas, but I still could not get into Handel's. Surprisigly, I love Rameau's and Vivaldi's, which are from the Baroque era too, so I really don't understand why I don't feel much for Handel's work. Probably in the future I'll get more into them.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Lilijana said:


> Rebecca Saunders is one of my favourite composers


What do you think is her best work(s)?


----------



## Enthusiast

OperasAndPassions said:


> Yes, I plan to give Handel's Operas (and also his Oratorios) a new shot by listening again to Gardiner's recordings. I love operas, but I still could not get into Handel's. Surprisigly, I love Rameau's and Vivaldi's, which are from the Baroque era too, so I really don't understand why I don't feel much for Handel's work. Probably in the future I'll get more into them.


I would aim for singers rather than a conductor and, as the operas are of mixed quality, go for one of the more famous ones first. Handel's operas shine because he writes so marvelously for the voice.


----------



## Enthusiast

Waldesnacht said:


> I'm not exactly sure how this applies to most of us to be perfectly honest. Perhaps the lack of an affiliation to a subculture is a limitation in itself.


You may be less aware of it but we all belong to a culture and, within it, one or more subcultures.


----------



## flamencosketches

^The world of classical music itself _is_ a subculture.


----------



## Turangalîla

I’m going to list quite a few, so I’m guessing this might generate some controversy. However, my goal is actually that I might grow to better appreciate some of these composers, so if you wanted to send me some works (or good recordings of them) from composers you don’t feel belong on this list, please feel free!

Vivaldi
Rossini
Alkan
Gottschalk
Granados
Vaughan Williams
Reger
Price
Sessions
Gershwin
Copland
Rodrigo
Rautavaara
Heggie


----------



## consuono

Lilijana said:


> Rebecca Saunders is one of my favourite composers


And why is that?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Lilijana has more than 300 favorite composers



Lilijana said:


> I think Prokofiev would be somewhere in the 200-300 range in terms of my favourite composers. So I do like him a lot, and I like his music more than most of his contemporary soviet composers, but there are still a bunch I like more overall.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Lilijana has more than 300 favorite composers


:lol: I don't know if I could even name 300...


----------



## Phil loves classical

There is one composer that I just don't like at all. Osvaldo Golijov. Musical thief, and not very gifted in my view.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> There is one composer that I just don't like at all. Osvaldo Golijov. Musical thief, and not very gifted in my view.


I've never heard of this person so I don't know about "gifted". About musical thievery though, there's the Stravinsky "lesser artists borrow, great artists steal" quote. I don't know if it's authentic or not.


----------



## Jacck

consuono said:


> I've never heard of this person so I don't know about "gifted". About musical thievery though, there's the Stravinsky "lesser artists borrow, great artists steal" quote. I don't know if it's authentic or not.


what do you mean borrow? Like they give it back?


----------



## JAS

In a way, both instances are technically borrowing since the original never gets anything removed (so there is nothing to return), but I suppose the quote means "borrow" as a kind of undue level of copying, while "stealing" just means to lift it more or less as it was, without even bothering to alter it.


----------



## consuono

Jacck said:


> what do you mean borrow? Like they give it back?


I don't know, you'd have to ask Stravinsky. :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> I've never heard of this person so I don't know about "gifted". About musical thievery though, there's the Stravinsky "lesser artists borrow, great artists steal" quote. I don't know if it's authentic or not.


Ya, Golijov stirred up some significant controversy at the time. What I think is most important in a composer's legacy is how much in the overall career the composer stood on his own. Beethoven defended Handel in this respect, that a very small proportion of total output is copied, as is the case also with Mozart. But Goljov is a different matter, his output was small, missed deadlines, used the same piece from someone else more than once, and copied more than one piece of music in his short career.


----------



## Agamenon

Milhaud.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> About musical thievery though, there's the Stravinsky "lesser artists borrow, great artists steal" quote.






I wonder what he would have said about John Williams


----------

