# Top 10 most controversial composers on TC



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Obviously modernist / postmodernist music is the most controversial overall, but the arguments are usually less focused on particular composers as opposed to styles and compositional principles. Still, I have noticed that some individuals are commonly - albeit incorrectly - used as synecdoche for contemporary styles of music as a whole, perhaps garnering them a spot on this list.

In no particular order:

John Williams
John Cage
Alma Deutscher
Wagner
Schoenberg
Schubert
Haydn
Boulez

... and 2 others whom I can't think of right now.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

don't remind me ...


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Obviously modernist / postmodernist music is the most controversial overall, but the arguments are usually less focused on particular composers as opposed to styles and compositional principles. Still, I have noticed that some individuals are commonly - albeit incorrectly - used as synecdoche for contemporary styles of music as a whole, perhaps garnering them a spot on this list.
> 
> In no particular order:
> 
> ...


Bach and Mozart, probably. :lol:


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Obviously modernist / postmodernist music is the most controversial overall, but the arguments are usually less focused on particular composers as opposed to styles and compositional principles. Still, I have noticed that some individuals are commonly - albeit incorrectly - used as synecdoche for contemporary styles of music as a whole, perhaps garnering them a spot on this list.
> 
> In no particular order:
> 
> ...


I don't know what is controversial about Schubert and Haydn. I would remove them and add Stockhausen, Ferneyhough and Gesualdo to this list.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Seems like Wagner was a more controversial composer a few years ago. The anti-Wagner brigade has quieted down or left and he seems to be getting a lot of love lately.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Oh my goodness, another piece of red meat in the arena.:angel:


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

John Williams: I like him
John Cage: His Sonatas and Preludes for Prepared Piano are kind of good

Alma Deutscher: I don't think she will amount to anything. I hope I am wrong!

Wagner: My attention span is not long enough for me to enjoy him.

Schoenberg: I like him, but he's not on my playlist, except for _Moses und Aron_

Schubert: love him. Some of his works are among my all-time favorites.

Haydn: love him almost as much as Mozart

Boulez: bleck


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> I don't know what is controversial about Schubert and Haydn. I would remove them and add Stockhausen, Ferneyhough and Gesualdo to this list.


What is controversial about Gesualdo?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Seems like Wagner was a more controversial composer a few years ago. The anti-Wagner brigade has quieted down or left and he seems to be getting a lot of love lately.


I came across this thread some time ago. Do you know it?: "Wagner Death - Is There a Cure?" Wagner Death - Is There a Cure?


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Obviously modernist / postmodernist music is the most controversial overall, but the arguments are usually less focused on particular composers as opposed to styles and compositional principles. Still, I have noticed that some individuals are commonly - albeit incorrectly - used as synecdoche for contemporary styles of music as a whole, perhaps garnering them a spot on this list.
> 
> In no particular order:
> 
> ...


What's controversial about poor Schubert? I'm nonplussed.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

As dear little Alma has already produced nearly as many controversial posts as Wagner I’d pick her!


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

John Cage is totally uncontroversial in our house. We all agree about him - totally unlistenable!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Cage
Deutscher
Williams
Wagner
Schoenberg 
Stockhausen 
Glass

And three more that I'm not sure of.... Maybe Boulez, Ferneyhough...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ORigel said:


> What is controversial about Gesualdo?


He found his wife in bed with another man - killed and mutilated both of them. The Court found that he had not committed a crime.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Bulldog said:


> He found his wife in bed with another man - killed and mutilated both of them. The Court found that he had not committed a crime.


Another time, another place. Of course he should just have beaten the wife, sent her to a monastery and challenged the guy to a proper duel. Maybe he was a better composer than swordsman. 
Apparently it is not quite clear if it was premeditated or spontaneously. For the latter, there have been people getting off fairly easy even in the late 20th century (and they were not counts). The French have or had untily recently a separate category for "crime passionel" in their criminal law.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

John Williams: derivative movie music, functional but decidedly unoriginal.

John Cage: more (dated) philosopher than musician

Alma Deutscher: don't know her, don't want to know her

Wagner: the greatest romantic composer after Beethoven, immensely influential, he single-handedly shaped the direction of modern music. You can dislike him, his music or his character, but only idiots deny him his place in the musical pantheon.

Schoenberg: one of the 20th century's most fascinating composers, crafty, unpredictable and versatile 

Schubert: controversial, how?

Haydn: see Schubert

Boulez: see Cage, relic from a bygone era, his ideas were valid for their time but are faded and sometimes even proven blatantly wrong nowadays


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Xisten267 said:


> I don't know what is controversial about Schubert and Haydn. I would remove them and add Stockhausen, Ferneyhough and Gesualdo to this list.


It is good to see some defence of Schubert but it is very true that he has been very controversial on this forum. Many are cool towards his music, some give technical reasons (suggesting they wanted him to be Beethoven rather than hearing who he actually was?) and I can think of one case where an otherwise much valued ex-member became so obsessively angry about Schubert that he was (I _think _this was the reason) banned. I haven't noticed Haydn coming in for much flack (more often what I see is comparing him very favourably to Mozart) but perhaps it is true.

The serialists and avant gardists do often come in for ill-informed (the people who hate them can't stomach actually listening to them) attack. I am probably a guilty party in expressing almost outraged astonishment that people who know and love a lot of great music also worship at the shrines of the two named parties who write music that sounds to me to be more than 100 years out of date. I keep wanting to stop this!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

RobertJTh said:


> John Williams: derivative movie music, functional but decidedly unoriginal.
> 
> John Cage: more (dated) philosopher than musician
> 
> ...


A couple of those pithy sentences may be examples of the controversial - i.e. those on Boulez and Cage (surely good and great classical composers' music lasts forever?) - but largely because they can seem like attempts to state "fact" rather than opinion. When dealing with the controversial we would do well to liberally sprinkle our opinions with IMOs (even though it is obviously the case that all we can do is express our opinions).

One thing that sometimes irritates me with controversial opinions is when the opinion is expressed as a quote from another well known musician. So what if Bartok looked down on Shostakovich? Both are major figures who have written a lot of great music.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> I don't know what is controversial about Schubert and Haydn.


Nothing. This obviously says more about the sophomoric nature of some people on this forum where one is often wondering if they are already in middle school or got out of some remedial classes prematurely.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

RobertJTh said:


> John Williams: derivative movie music, functional but decidedly unoriginal.


But isn't he the greatest living classical composer?



RobertJTh said:


> John Cage: more (dated) philosopher than musician


Yes, John cage was a philospher, that's consensus.



RobertJTh said:


> Alma Deutscher: don't know her, don't want to know her


How sexist!



RobertJTh said:


> Wagner: the greatest romantic composer after Beethoven, immensely influential, he single-handedly shaped the direction of modern music. You can dislike him, his music or his character, but only idiots deny him his place in the musical pantheon.


But wasn't Wagner a Nazi?



RobertJTh said:


> Schoenberg: one of the 20th century's most fascinating composers, crafty, unpredictable and versatile


Nah, he was just a philosopher too.



RobertJTh said:


> Schubert: controversial, how?
> 
> Haydn: see Schubert


Only a member of the F. J. Haydn cult would say that.



RobertJTh said:


> Boulez: see Cage, relic from a bygone era, his ideas were valid for their time but are faded and sometimes even proven blatantly wrong nowadays


Yes, that's not controversial.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> Alma Deutscher: don't know her, don't want to know her


Is that your response to all composers you "don't know"?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> This obviously says more about the sophomoric nature of some people on this forum where one is often wondering if they are already in middle school or got out of some remedial classes prematurely.


How? Tell us more about it. Why is pointing out that certain composers have some "limitations" and shouldn't be considered as some sort of "Gods", so much a blasphemy, that anyone who does it must be criticized as being "immature"?
This is something I just don't understand. Say, there was a composer who was writing like this banally at age 40, and his enthusiasts are so bent on being "fanboys" they don't realize they're doing damage to more competent contemporaries of his who deserve more recognition. Pointing out that there's something wrong with all of this is "immature" behavior? (I really don't know who are the ones really being "immature" here.)


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Obviously modernist / postmodernist music is the most controversial overall, but the arguments are usually less focused on particular composers as opposed to styles and compositional principles. Still, I have noticed that some individuals are commonly - albeit incorrectly - used as synecdoche for contemporary styles of music as a whole, perhaps garnering them a spot on this list.
> 
> In no particular order:
> 
> ...


Since all but two of these composers are dead, isn't it rather misleading to refer to them as being 'controversial'? It's hardly their fault that discussions at TC become somewhat heated, even if, back in their day, any of them behaved 'controversially' or composed 'controversial' music.

A distinct case of a transferred epithet or hypallage?


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Forster said:


> Is that your response to all composers you "don't know"?


Not at all, it's only my response to fads and hypes.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have an opinion about the quality of her music. It's just the social media noise that keeps me at distance.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


>


Who's responsible for this C major sequence hell? My god, it hurts the eyes already, never mind the ears...


----------



## Chopin Fangirl (Apr 27, 2021)

.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? Tell us more about it. Why does pointing out that certain composers have some "limitations" and shouldn't be considered as some sort of "Gods", so much a blasphemy, that anyone who does it must be criticized as being "immature"?


The problem is that you do it on a constant/repetitive basis.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

ORigel said:


> What is controversial about Gesualdo?


As others have pointed out already, he was a murderer.



Enthusiast said:


> It is good to see some defence of Schubert but it is very true that he has been very controversial on this forum. Many are cool towards his music, some give technical reasons (suggesting they wanted him to be Beethoven rather than hearing who he actually was?) and I can think of one case where an otherwise much valued ex-member became so obsessively angry about Schubert that he was (I _think _this was the reason) banned. I haven't noticed Haydn coming in for much flack (more often what I see is comparing him very favourably to Mozart) but perhaps it is true.


Perhaps you're right, but since I joined TC at least I haven't seem many attacking Schubert - only some two or three haters that every great composer has around here anyway. I don't understand why poor Schubert would be controversial. To me, he was one of the most gifted composers of all time.



Xisten267 said:


> I don't know what is controversial about Schubert and Haydn. I would remove them and add Stockhausen, Ferneyhough and Gesualdo to this list.


I forgot to include Britten, who may have been a pedophile.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

John Williams
John Cage
Alma Deutscher
Wagner
Schoenberg
Schubert
Haydn
Boulez

1) John Williams (the composer or the guitarist?)
2) John Cage (Never heard anything by him)
3) Alma Deutscher (Never heard of him/her)
4) Richard Wagner (Changed classical music forever)
5) Arnold Schoenberg (Better then his disciples)
6) Franz Schubert (Why is he on this list?)
7) Joseph Haydn (ditto)
8) Boulez (better conductor then composer?)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

It is true that Gesualdo murdered his wife and her lover. But for a person of his class, the nobility, and period, he was not only exonerated but his behavior was the expected response to her adultery. 

Judging him according to our society 500 years later is the definition of an anachronistic fallacy.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

science said:


> Cage
> Deutscher
> Williams
> Wagner
> ...


Ouch!

I was hoping Glass would be left out of this thread... but on lucky post 13, BAM!


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Forster said:


> Is that your response to all composers you "don't know"?


I think this common.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

I'd add Mozart, who apparently is 'overrated', and Philip Glass.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Seems like Wagner was a more controversial composer a few years ago. The anti-Wagner brigade has quieted down or left and he seems to be getting a lot of love lately.


Really? Well, let's hope his reputation continues its rehabilitative course. However, I am of the opinion that as long as the fires of antisemitism continue to burn, Wagner will never be fully rehabilitated, especially not in the eyes of Israel.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

fluteman said:


> I'd add Mozart, who apparently is 'overrated', and Philip Glass.


Mozart can never be overrated. Certain people are simply tired of the endless stream of recordings. Be that as it may, good music is good music regardless.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

fluteman said:


> I'd add Mozart, who apparently is 'overrated', and Philip Glass.


Phillip Glass is a soulless composer. His work panders to populist taste as a means to maximize profit.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> The problem is that you do it on a constant/repetitive basis.


Do you have back-up for these accusations? And "posting a lot about a certain other composer" doesn't count (as a valid reason for an accusation). I don't think you would have complained if I posted a lot about "that composer" instead. 
And let's not get to discussing a certain fan of "that composer" having double standards on various topics. (ie. "Dvorak's late symphonies are naive, Liszt's Hungarian rhapsodies are shallow potboilers, but "that composer's" spiceless symphonic style of clock-tickings and bassoon farts are sublime and heroic; just read the contemporary reviews!").
I guess some people just don't realize how much they are "fanboys".


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> Mozart can never be overrated. Certain people are simply tired of the endless stream of recordings. Be that as it may, good music is good music regardless.


I agree. I didn't mean I thought Mozart should be controversial. Far from it. As for Philip Glass, I consider him a great and influential composer, but one who borrowed extensively from the popular music of his time. Only time will tell if his aesthetic has long-term viability.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> Phillip Glass is a soulless composer. His work panders to populist taste as a means to maximize profit.


Soulless you say... panders to popular taste as a means to maximize profit... you mean like Mozart? You say this as if this is inherently a bad thing. :lol:


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

A response to some of the comments and suggestions of others:

Stockhausen - he should probably be on the list
Ferneyhough - he should probably be on the list
Glass - He should almost definitely be on the list
Gesualdo - A controversial figure in (music) history perhaps, but I rarely see him discussed on TC. Kind of a shame, really; fascinating composer
Mozart - Yes, I considered him. But his detractors generally have lukewarm feelings about him. He is probably the topic of arguments more often than Haydn and Schubert. Some think he's the undisputed greatest of all time, some think he's unworthy of a spot in the Big 3. However, unlike with Haydn and Schubert, no one seems to be claiming Mozart is a _weak _composer.

So I'll add in Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, and Glass, and remove Haydn.

Keep the suggestions coming please, I hope we can reach a consensus!


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> It is true that Gesualdo murdered his wife and her lover. But for a person of his class, the nobility, and period, he was not only exonerated but his behavior was the expected response to her adultery.
> 
> Judging him according to our society 500 years later is the definition of an anachronistic fallacy.


Judging people by trespasses committed even ten years ago is an anachronistic fallacy, but the political Left is fond of this tactic.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> Judging people by trespasses committed even ten years ago is an anachronistic fallacy, but the political Left is fond of this tactic.


So you think prison sentences should be capped at 10 years?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? Tell us more about it. Why is pointing out that certain composers have some "limitations" and shouldn't be considered as some sort of "Gods", so much a blasphemy, that anyone who does it must be criticized as being "immature"?


I like what you do. Not because of the Haydn case in particular, but because I think historiography has major flaws in general, and we should figure it out. Some great composers were forgotten for 100 years. So its also possible that some composers have a way to high standing.



SanAntone said:


> It is true that Gesualdo murdered his wife and her lover. But for a person of his class, the nobility, and period, he was not only exonerated but his behavior was the expected response to her adultery.


He killed his wife and her lover, ok, no real problem, but he also killed a little girl with unknown fatherhood. I think that is maybe just too much for any excuses (after prehistory ended).



SanAntone said:


> Judging him according to our society 500 years later is the definition of an anachronistic fallacy.


What about honor killings today by islam people? Just curious.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

eljr said:


> Soulless you say... panders to popular taste as a means to maximize profit... you mean like Mozart? You say this as if this is inherently a bad thing. :lol:


I'd bet there was more musical creativity in Mozart's farts than in the entirety of Glass' œuvre.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

eljr said:


> Soulless you say... panders to popular taste as a means to maximize profit... you mean like Mozart? You say this as if this is inherently a bad thing. :lol:


Beethoven was probably a lot more willing than Mozart to do less than his best work if the money was right. For example, his publisher wanted and was willing to pay him well for a piano transcription of the violin concerto. And for some song arrangements. The results are not what Beethoven's reputation is based upon, to say the least.



Red Terror said:


> I'd bet there was more musical creativity in Mozart's farts than in the entirety of Glass' œuvre.


To accept Glass's music at all, one must accept certain popular music idioms, and even non-western idioms, that no doubt are completely alien to many here. As I said, only time can be the judge.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> So you think prison sentences should be capped at 10 years?


Certainly not. Forgiveness does not preclude atonement-not in this life. I'd sentence all child molesters to a painful death (ASAP) if it were up to me.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

But wasn't Wagner a Nazi?

Seriously??

Richard Wagner DIED 1883
Adolph Hitler BORN 1889
'Nazi's' VOTED into power 1933

How the ****** does that make Richard Wagner a Nazi? Please explain!


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

fluteman said:


> To accept Glass's music at all, one must accept *certain popular music idioms*, and even non-western idioms, that no doubt are completely alien to many here. As I said, only time can be the judge.


I despise certain popular music idioms but I do enjoy several non-western ones-Hindustani, Carnatic, Persian, Japanese, Gamelan, etc.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Subutai said:


> But wasn't Wagner a Nazi?
> 
> Seriously??
> 
> ...


Isn't that splitting of hairs? 

My comment was ironic. I know that Nazis only existed between 1933 and 1945.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Subutai said:


> But wasn't Wagner a Nazi?
> 
> Seriously??
> 
> ...


You are new. That point has already been made here, many, many times. Some think the general and increasing anti-Semitism in 19th century Germany eventually helped make the Nazi's rise to power possible. Personally, I think even that idea, though not entirely baseless, is overstated. But, please trust me, we will get nowhere debating any of that. Also, such political debates are not allowed in this sub-forum.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Subutai said:


> But wasn't Wagner a Nazi?
> 
> Seriously??
> 
> ...


Wagner was not a Nazi but he was definitely anti-semitic-as was much of Europe at the time. Even in the 21st century, antisemitism is on the rise again.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

fluteman said:


> Also, such political debates are not allowed in this sub-forum.


Indeed.

Please refrain from political or religious statements in this thread, or anywhere else on the forum, except in the Politics and Religion in Classical Music sub-forum - and there only if directly related to music.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> I'd bet there was more musical creativity in Mozart's farts than in the entirety of Glass' œuvre.


Why am I not surprised that such a repugnant reply emanates from a post rendered by you?

The world can be a beautiful place. Why not allow yourself to enjoy it?

Peace


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> I despise certain popular music idioms.


LOL, why am I not surprised? Life is too short, brother.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Might I suggest Michael Gordon as someone who dares to not stay constrained by dogmatic tradition hence incurs the wrath of the proverbial dinosaurs.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

eljr said:


> LOL, why am I not surprised? Life is too short, brother.


:lol: Of course, we're talking about controversial composers. Political issues that aren't supposed to be debated in this sub-forum are probably behind many of the controversies. But the other key issue, at least with respect to more recent composers, is, What existing aesthetic traditions does the composer draw upon? I've learned that people often come to TC with a certain, well-defined set of predetermined aesthetic principles that they believe must apply to all classical music, otherwise, it isn't classical music, maybe isn't music at all, and there should be no discussion of it here.

For me, that doesn't work, as all art is about challenging, either very subtly and slightly, or very fundamentally, or somewhere in between, our predetermined aesthetic principles.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

eljr said:


> LOL, why am I not surprised? Life is too short, brother.


You don't understand, hatred gives me a reason exist-I _must_ hate something. 

Life is short? Not short, too damn long!


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

I just wish these posts, who to me their sole purpose is just name bashing (and frequently to incite diatribes against "modern" composers, and I'll go to the grave saying that people that don't listen to Cage have no clue what kind of music he wrote, and if you think Boulez was a philospher, well go on and listen to anything of his past the 50's, and do yourself a favor and be sure to listen to his recordings as a conductor, if all philosphers were as good musicians as him then the world would be a better place), came with the *FIGHT* voice from Mortal Kombat. A little more effort next time, please! Just to spicy things up :devil:


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

eljr said:


> Why am I not surprised that such a repugnant reply emanates from a post rendered by you?
> 
> The world can be a beautiful place. Why not allow yourself to enjoy it?
> 
> Peace


People are repugnant and filthy inside and out-that's readily evident. Let's not be pretentious. I revel in vulgarity once in a while, what can I say?


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> You don't understand, hatred gives me a reason exist-I _must_ hate something.
> 
> Life is short? Not short, too damn long!


I enjoy the sentiment of this post. It reflects well on my mantra of "humans, a failed species."

I guess I have lost my spirt during my sojourn, I now prefer the flower to the sword. Still, the beauty I see I find ironic.

Peace


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> People are repugnant and filthy inside and out-that's readily evident. Let's not be pretentious. I revel in vulgarity once in a while, what can I say?


Another excellent sentiment! I am glad I extracted this from you.

I thought you just an arrogant prick, I see my mistake was from hast. You, to the core, understand the human dilemma.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

eljr said:


> I enjoy the sentiment of this post. It reflects well on my mantra of "humans, a failed species."
> 
> I guess I have lost my spirt during my sojourn, I now prefer the flower to the sword. Still, the beauty I see I find ironic.
> 
> Peace


Your mantra is thoroughly biblical. Humans are totally depraved.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Keep the suggestions coming please, I hope we can reach a consensus!


I know what you mean, but in some ways I think that trying to find consensus about controversy is oxymoronic.

In terms of the various quarrels and even wars we've had here over the years, I think that composers are more like front men to the deeper reasons for continuing controversies on this forum. It boils down to a number of things, including a clash of online personalities, but I think that ideology is the big one. Related to that are how we interpret history, or what implications we draw from it. Aesthetic conflicts (e.g. Wagner versus Brahms) happened, so too did isms (e.g. modernism, postmodernism), revolutions - not only in music but in technology, politics, society. What do we make of these?

The challenge for me here has been that I'm often interested in discussing topics like this, but I don't like the partisan atmosphere which often develops in them. Nowadays, its reaching the point where we can have something resembling a normal conversation, which is something. I don't expect us to talk like professors, but that doesn't mean I have to accept an atmosphere akin to the Spanish Inquisition either. Let's simply do what the name of this forum says, talkclassical.

Even though certain composers and topics tend to incite controversy, it doesn't follow that they have to be reduced to a dichotomy. It's easy to bypass nuance, for example I like some of Cage's philosophical ideas more than his music, and I don't like Wagner's music but he influenced so many composers whose music I do like. I think that most people don't see things in black and white, and this relates to what I said about consensus. I think that we won't find much consensus regarding the most controversial issues here, but we can have good conversations where people are encouraged to simply share their thoughts. The drive towards consensus can sideline more nuanced discussion, and make this place into an echo chamber rather than a genuine forum.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Sid James said:


> I *know what you mean, but in some ways I think that trying to find consensus about controversy is oxymoronic.
> *
> In terms of the various quarrels and even wars we've had here over the years, I think that composers are more like front men to the deeper reasons for continuing controversies on this forum. It boils down to a number of things, including a clash of online personalities, but I think that ideology is the big one. Related to that are how we interpret history, or what implications we draw from it. Aesthetic conflicts (e.g. Wagner versus Brahms) happened, so too did isms (e.g. modernism, postmodernism), revolutions - not only in music but in technology, politics, society. What do we make of these?
> 
> ...


That's the joke, bro. :lol:

But yes I pretty much agree with what you say (except I like Cage and Wagner). It's why I created this thread (besides trolling): to discuss and -hopefully - embrace controversy.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sid James said:


> The drive towards consensus can sideline more nuanced discussion, and make this place into an echo chamber rather than a genuine forum.


I agree. There isn't supposed to be a complete consensus on issues of aesthetic taste. If I want to paint my kitchen a certain color, do you have to paint yours the same color? That was Hume's point: A significant, though incomplete and imperfect, consensus on matters of taste will develop naturally over time. We simply need to wait patiently until it emerges and we can see what it is, and not worry about the differences in taste when art is new, nor those that inevitably remain after a consensus finally emerges.

Too many posters here endlessly seek to demonstrate a far greater degree of consensus on issues of aesthetic taste than ever has, or ever will, exist. Too often, the motive seems to be a Quixotic quest to prove the inherent superiority of certain types of music, especially a certain musical tradition of the European aristocracy (or, especially later in that period, a relatively well-to-do bourgeoise middle class) of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. The more articulate and/or candid of these posters will explicitly concede their belief in the inherent superiority of this tradition. Less articulate or more disingenuous posters try to obfuscate the issue and/or obliviate any objections.

Such sophistry and fallacies infect nearly every sub-forum here. You can see it in the "gatekeepers" who seek to jealously guard and limit what is to be considered "classical music", as in their arguments against broadening what is allowed in the "current listening" thread. You can see it in the "proof" or "source demanders", who want a painstaking bibliography from anyone who doesn't accept their tenets, listing books and essays they will never read. You can see it in the endless John Cage jokes (which I enjoy to a point, but enough is enough), simply because he was a brilliant and insightful musician and thinker who dared challenge their narrow orthodoxy. And you can see it in the Will Classical Music Ever Be Popular Again? Alma Deutscher Deserves More Love and Objective v. Subjective threads, and endless threads like them, all vehicles for the orthodoxy brigade.

Against this brigade there used to be a single pro-modernist stalwart endlessly arguing the other side of the coin, trying to refute them using the same flawed reasoning they use. Did he see that his position was just as unsupportable as that of his opponents, and for the same reasons? Maybe illustrating that was his clever underlying motive. But his opponents made a concerted and ultimately successful effort to have him permanently banned. Perhaps that was just as well.

Fortunately, I've come to the conclusion that this brigade, though large and vocal, is not in the majority here, and certainly is not in control here. Good moderators, like those here, seek a moderate equilibrium, or at least, armistice, that can never be entirely consistent with the absolutist brigade's agenda, but rather, is far more consistent with Hume's theory of the gradual development of consensus. I think that's why the brigade seeks to retreat into subforums under their sole control, and keep the outsiders out.

So, that's my pitch for nuance rather than echo chamber. Bibliography available on request. For a reasonable fee.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I agree. There isn't supposed to be a complete consensus on issues of aesthetic taste. If I want to paint my kitchen a certain color, do you have to paint yours the same color? That was Hume's point: A significant, though incomplete and imperfect, consensus on matters of taste will develop naturally over time. We simply need to wait patiently until it emerges and we can see what it is, and not worry about the differences in taste when art is new, nor those that inevitably remain after a consensus finally emerges.
> 
> Too many posters here endlessly seek to demonstrate a far greater degree of consensus on issues of aesthetic taste than ever has, or ever will, exist. Too often, the motive seems to be a Quixotic quest to prove the inherent superiority of certain types of music, especially a certain musical tradition of the European aristocracy (or, especially later in that period, a relatively well-to-do bourgeoise middle class) of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. The more articulate and/or candid of these posters will explicitly concede their belief in the inherent superiority of this tradition. Less articulate or more disingenuous posters try to obfuscate the issue and/or obliviate any objections.
> 
> ...


You make valid points, but I think you err in calling a diverse collection of people a "brigade." There can be different premises underlying similar-seeming conclusions, and what look like alliances are often merely coincidences. Setting up a "single pro-modernist stalwart" as the foe of anyone who for any reason seems to you not to be "pro-modernist" - not a description of reality on the forum, in my judgment, now or ever - perpetuates the notion of factions, which actually invites people to identify with the warring armies thus created.

Positing "brigades" and counterposing a "stalwart defender" of "the other side of a coin" of vague denomination works against your "pitch for nuance."


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> People are repugnant and filthy inside and out-that's readily evident. Let's not be pretentious. I revel in vulgarity once in a while, what can I say?


Please speak for yourself. That is not what I see from my neighbours many of whom are very nice people. During the recent pandemic people were helping one another. Of course humankind can do terribly evil things, but just watch the lifeboatmen at work, risking their lives trying to save others. I recommend a BBC programme we avidly watch, 'Saving Lives at Sea' to see human beings at their best! Or perhaps meet people who even today risk their lives trying to free others from slavery. Yes human beings can be pretty awful creatures but they can do some pretty wonderful things too


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> You don't understand, hatred gives me a reason exist-I _must_ hate something.
> 
> Life is short? Not short, too damn long!


Then why not get some counselling rather than inflict your hatred of life upon this forum?

And some of us actually enjoy living, so please give it a rest!


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

fluteman said:


> Beethoven was probably a lot more willing than Mozart to do less than his best work if the money was right. For example, his publisher wanted and was willing to pay him well for a piano transcription of the violin concerto. And for some song arrangements. The results are not what Beethoven's reputation is based upon, to say the least.
> 
> To accept Glass's music at all, one must accept certain popular music idioms, and even non-western idioms, that no doubt are completely alien to many here. As I said, only time can be the judge.


This whole nonsense that an artist should not pander to popular taste for money is a romantic fallacy. When the great actor Laurence Olivier was asked towards the end of his life where he appeared in cameo roles in so many rubbish films he simply said, 'Money, dear boy!' Of course artists have always been prepared to make money by various ways to make ends meet. Beethoven swindled his publishers or tried to


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> It is true that Gesualdo murdered his wife and her lover. But for a person of his class, the nobility, and period, he was not only exonerated but his behavior was the expected response to her adultery.
> 
> Judging him according to our society 500 years later is the definition of an anachronistic fallacy.


There is nothing wrong with judging Gesualdo by our present standards, as long as we recognise that those standards might not have applied back then. That would be anachronistic.

However, is it actually the case that the standards of the time allowed murder? The fact that one individual was deemed not to have committed a crime should not be taken as representing the general moral standard of the time.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

JTS said:


> Then why not get some counselling rather than inflict your hatred of life upon this forum?
> 
> And some of us actually enjoy living, so please give it a rest!


Thanks for the advice, Pollyanna. :tiphat:


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> Thanks for the advice, Pollyanna. :tiphat:


Boringly predictable reply but never mind. Take Beecham's advice and listen to 15 minutes of Mozart every day!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Frankly, I can't think of any other composer whose devotees always try to have us believe:


fluteman said:


> European classical music followed the blueprint created (in large part) by Haydn


https://www.talkclassical.com/72703-haydns-charm-2.html#post2147266
https://robertgreenbergmusic.com/download/great-masters-haydn-life-music/
People in this thread pretend there's no "controversy" with this composer, but there clearly is. It's also worth asking the question how effective the "propaganda" is in blinding people from seeing things like:


RobertJTh said:


> Who's responsible for this C major sequence hell? My god, it hurts the eyes already, never mind the ears...


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Frankly, I can't think of any other composer whose devotees always try to have us believe:
> 
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by *fluteman*  European classical music followed the blueprint created (in large part) by Haydn


That'll be because there _is _no other composer with the same influence. :tiphat:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Forster said:


> That'll be because there _is _no other composer with the same influence.


I strongly disagree. He wasn't even the composer with the most significant influence on Mozart, Weber, Schubert. I find his language to be way too different from Mozart's, for instance. Take a look at: https://www.talkclassical.com/71802-classical-music-vs-great-3.html#post2114525


hammeredklavier said:


> No.18 in C (1773), with a length of 26:45 (albeit with some repeats), rivals the most substantial symphonies of other composers of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Take a look at: https://www.talkclassical.com/71802-classical-music-vs-great-3.html#post2114525


You mean, "See these other places where I disagree too"?

Disagree all you will, I find Haydn more than charming, and more charming than WAM.

I'm not inclined to overturn the consensus about Haydn any more than my personal indifference to Mozart would lead me to overturn the consensus about him.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Forster said:


> You mean, "See these other places where I disagree too"?
> 
> Disagree all you will, I find Haydn more than charming, and more charming than WAM.
> 
> I'm not inclined to overturn the consensus about Haydn any more than my personal indifference to Mozart would lead me to overturn the consensus about him.


And that is your personal right to do so. We all have our preferences and don't let anyone bully you into anything different


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The point is not that anyone should change their mind. 
But that people are not unsurprisingly surprised when Haydn or Schubert are deemed controversial, largely due to the obsession of a single person here (who, if one goes back two years in threads, back then used Haydn to bash Schubert and Chopin but since then apparently has modified his obsession).

In musicology and among most musicians and general public, there is nothing controversial about Schubert since the 1950s. 
Before that the piano sonatas were mostly ignored as too long until some pioneers like Schnabel and Erdmann played them (but then only a fraction of Beethoven's sonatas and very little solo Mozart or Bach was common piano recital fare in the first 3rd of the 20th century, it was a different time, far more focussed on romantic music). Musicians involved with "difficult" music like Reger or 2nd Viennese school (Webern arranged dances by Schubert) like the Busch brothers, Serkin, Leibowitz were all champions of Schubert, including lesser known or early works. It takes some chutzpah to go against such communis opinio musicorum but it does not make it a more plausible stance.

It is similar with Haydn, only that unlike Schubert being mostly restricted to his Vienna circle, Haydn was the most famous composer of Europe for the last 30 years of his life and one needs to cherrypick some romantics like Berlioz to find denigrating voices (and by such cherrypicking you'll find negative comments on any great artist). It is also silly to get hung up on dubious didactic simplifications. Haydn didn't "invent" the symphony and Bach didn't invent fugue but there is very little harm done by such simplifications.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

JTS said:


> And that is your personal right to do so. We all have our preferences and don't let anyone bully you into anything different


Don't worry. I have no intention of being shifted from my completely uncontroversial position. As I already posted, not only is Haydn NOT controversial, nor are most of the others listed. It's only posters like hammered who wish to create a controversy.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> The point is not that anyone should change their mind.
> But that people are not unsurprisingly surprised when Haydn or Schubert are deemed controversial, largely due to the obsession of a single person here (who, if one goes back two years in threads, back then used Haydn to bash Schubert and Chopin but since then apparently has modified his obsession).


All you're doing with this post is setting up a red herring. I don't get the point you're trying to make with it. It's much like how you dogmatically condemned any "naysayer" of certain composers as "immature", regardless of the validity of his/her argument, in this thread. You denied having an anti-Bach obsession, but you clearly do have one (as you've shown in many threads; ex. calling Bach's keyboard works mere "finger exercises", and making remarks many times that St. Matthew passion is "dull", "it had to cut to shreds", Mass in B minor is worse than a "museum piece"). Maybe I should follow you in every thread, telling people you're "untrustworthy" because of that?
I admit I went too far in my negativity of a couple of composers in the past and admit I exaggerated their faults while doing so to make a point, to be aggressively persuasive, but at the time, there were also people like Jacck, who were so defensive of Schubert, while hijacking many threads to continuously argue "Mozart is overrated" ad nauseam, for example. To me, anyone who joined the forum a few months ago, but spends time digging up posts from years ago just to find out about others' past "misdeeds", he's an obsessed stalker. (Maybe he should "get a life").



Kreisler jr said:


> In musicology and among most musicians and general public, there is nothing controversial about Schubert since the 1950s.
> Before that the piano sonatas were mostly ignored as too long until some pioneers like Schnabel and Erdmann played them (but then only a fraction of Beethoven's sonatas and very little solo Mozart or Bach was common piano recital fare in the first 3rd of the 20th century, it was a different time, far more focussed on romantic music). Musicians involved with "difficult" music like Reger or 2nd Viennese school (Webern arranged dances by Schubert) like the Busch brothers, Serkin, Leibowitz were all champions of Schubert, including lesser known or early works. It takes some chutzpah to go against such communis opinio musicorum but it does not make it a more plausible stance.
> It is similar with Haydn, only that unlike Schubert being mostly restricted to his Vienna circle, Haydn was the most famous composer of Europe for the last 30 years of his life and one needs to cherrypick some romantics like Berlioz to find denigrating voices (and by such cherrypicking you'll find negative comments on any great artist). It is also silly to get hung up on dubious didactic simplifications. Haydn didn't "invent" the symphony and Bach didn't invent fugue but there is very little harm done by such simplifications.


Ok. Forget Berlioz and the others and their comments for now. The problem I'm raising for now is; so many people I encounter talk like (even from recent threads):



vtpoet said:


> Joseph Haydn's string quartets were a revelation to Mozart because of the independence Haydn developed between the instruments.





Knorf said:


> a level comparable to Haydn or Beethoven. (in terms of innovation)





fluteman said:


> European classical music followed the blueprint created (in large part) by Haydn.


And there are also "professional experts" like Greenberg spreading "propaganda" like these (and he's not the only one): "No less an expert than Mozart wrote that it was from Haydn that he had learned how to write quartets.", "He was the only musical contemporary whom Mozart admired.", etc.
https://robertgreenbergmusic.com/download/great-masters-haydn-life-music/

I can't think of any other composer in Western classical music whose enthusiasts constantly make claims "he invented everything", "he was the Father", this much, to an extent such that one can get suspicious of their motives. From what I've seen, and seeing how wide-spread and systematic the practice is, it seems rather "worrisome" (and I've tried to view it positively for a long time). Regardless of the legacy and quality of the music this composer produced, I find him to be a very peculiar case in this regard. Far more "problematic" than cases of any other composers you mentioned in your post.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

This thread is about determining the most controversial composers. It is to be expected that there will be some discussion about names thrown into the hat, but let's not have extended discussions here about particular composers that have already been going on in many other threads. *The Haydn discussion in this thread ends here*.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

[Oops - rewrote post in view of moderation.]

So, it seems clear that Haydn can be removed from the list of "controversial composers" as there is insufficient evidence offered to support such a controversial view.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Forster said:


> So, it seems clear that Haydn can be removed from the list of "controversial composers" as there is insufficient evidence offered to support such a controversial view.


It is a list of "controversial composers on TC" to be precise. He is controversial here. That's a fact. Art Rock even had to stop the discussion about him in this thread because he is so controversial.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> *Do you have back-up for these accusations?* And "posting a lot about a certain other composer" doesn't count (as a valid reason for an accusation). I don't think you would have complained if I posted a lot about "that composer" instead.
> And let's not get to discussing a certain fan of "that composer" having double standards on various topics. (ie. "Dvorak's late symphonies are naive, Liszt's Hungarian rhapsodies are shallow potboilers, but "that composer's" spiceless symphonic style of clock-tickings and bassoon farts are sublime and heroic; just read the contemporary reviews!").
> I guess some people just don't realize how much they are "fanboys".


Everybody does. We can read, you know.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Aries said:


> It is a list of "controversial composers on TC" to be precise. He is controversial here. That's a fact. Art Rock even had to stop the discussion about him in this thread because he is so controversial.


I'm not sure that two posters wanting to make him controversial creates a "fact".


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Forster said:


> I'm not sure that two posters wanting to make him controversial creates a "fact".


What posters want and their number don't matter. But what posters do matters. There are many threads in this forum with this Haydn dispute. And it is also a fact that it appeared in this very thread apparently to an extent that the moderator found himself constrained to intervene.

Its logical that the status quo party in a controversy doesn't even want the controversy to exist, and just denies it in some cases. But that is not a factual assessment.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's totally ridiculous and shows only the peculiarities of some members of this forum. I have been listening to and reading about classical music for about 35 years and for more than 25 years on the internet. 

Of course, one finds people disliking anything and everybody. I have seen people loving to hate Beethoven and disliking Bach because it reminded them of dancing angels...

But my clear impression from reading thousands of pages both in print and online, both from professionals and laypersons, from scholarly papers to liner notes and concert guides, is that of the 20 or 30 most famous composers Haydn and Schubert are among the least controversial. Virtually very 20th century composer is more controversial, every opera composer (except maybe Mozart), every baroque composer except Bach, every 19th century composer except maybe Beethoven. Even Brahms is more controversial, not to start with Liszt, Schumann, Mendelssohn, any of the Russians etc.
If I took a perverse delight in entering almost every thread on Rachmaninoff or Sibelius and claiming how mediocre or overrated they were, they would become the most controversial composers on the forum. I would be in quite illustrous company but it would still be a distortion of majority opinion and create more controversy than actually existed.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Top 10 most controversial composers on TC*

________________

Actually, I think the more interesting topic would be: Top 10 most controversial posters on TC.

Am I on that list? Once, maybe even twice, or three times?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> Actually, I think the more interesting topic would be: Top 10 most controversial posters on TC.


at least half of them will be moderators


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Forster said:


> I'm not sure that two posters wanting to make him controversial creates a "fact".


I would agree with this. I think controversial should imply two sizeable fractions disagreeing over something (in this case, composers). Not one or two against the vast majority.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Kreisler jr said:


> But my clear impression from reading thousands of pages both in print and online, both from professionals and laypersons, from scholarly papers to liner notes and concert guides, is that of the 20 or 30 most famous composers Haydn and Schubert are among the least controversial.


Makes sense, but that doesn't give Haydn some kind of invulnerability against controversy.

What kind of argument is this? Some arguments are made against Haydn, but since Haydn is among the least controversial composers they have to be wrong and the controversy doesn't even exist? Maybe hammeredklavier has a point here. This kind of placing Haydn on a throne is suspicious.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Aries said:


> What posters want and their number don't matter. But what posters do matters. There are many threads in this forum with this Haydn dispute. And it is also a fact that it appeared in this very thread apparently to an extent that the moderator found himself constrained to intervene.
> 
> Its logical that the status quo party in a controversy doesn't even want the controversy to exist, and just denies it in some cases. But that is not a factual assessment.


So, what is the controversy? What is it about his music that makes him controversial?



Aries said:


> This kind of placing Haydn on a throne is suspicious.


What do you suspect?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I find it odd that there should be such controversy around great composers. Personal dislike is expected but reading flat-out dismissals, across this forum, of composers such as Schubert, Glass and Boulez is rather tiring. Music is difficult to measure in value, you might find great interest in complex forms and harmonic schemes but be unable to explain why you are moved by one of Bellini's long, long melodies underpinned by the simplest harmonic accompaniment. I see a lot of aversion to modernist music too and it's okay if people dislike it but I'm bored of seeing people degrading what doesn't fit their personal taste. Disliking Schoenberg is valid, wanting all music to be beautiful is valid too, but declaring that all music *should* be beautiful despite those who don't want all music to be beautiful seems insanely egotistical and I have seen such views on forums like this multiple times. 

The fixation on Alma Deutscher seems odd too. She is only 16 and in a culture fixated predominantly on classical music of the past it's not too surprising she is yet to find her own voice. After all, how many 16 year old pianists are judged in the same way for only playing standard repertoire? My own compositions at her age were just as derivative, I just hope she doesn't believe in her own publicity too much .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

What a strange discussion. Someone claims that a composer is controversial, someone else disputes this, and - abracadabra and bibbity bobbity boo - the composer has become controversial.

Huh... I think I'd best get back to whatever it is I was doing.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> I would agree with this. I think controversial should imply two sizeable fractions disagreeing over something (in this case, composers). Not one or two against the vast majority.


Also, we should remember that there is an immense difference between controversy or consensus in an internet discussion forum like this and in society as a whole. Among other things, internet fora are highly vulnerable to what statisticians call "selection bias." People tend to congregate with others who share their views, all the more so when these views are not widely accepted in society at large. The very existence of a forum like TC is premised on this kind of selection bias, as the majority of people in our society have little or no interest in classical music, however that term is defined.

All that means is that though we can have fun seeing what controversy or consensus exists among TC members, we shouldn't commit the fallacy of extrapolating the results to society as a whole or pretending to endow them with a significance they do not have.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What a strange discussion. Someone claims that a composer is controversial, someone else disputes this, and - abracadabra and bibbity bobbity boo - the composer has become controversial.
> 
> Huh... I think I'd best get back to whatever it is I was doing.


Exactly. I don't care if a composer is "controversial". I mean you either are moved by the music or you are not. Let the cackling hens continue to partake in threads like this one (and so many others here on TC).


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Aries said:


> Makes sense, but that doesn't give Haydn some kind of invulnerability against controversy.
> 
> What kind of argument is this? Some arguments are made against Haydn, but since Haydn is among the least controversial composers they have to be wrong and the controversy doesn't even exist? Maybe hammeredklavier has a point here. This kind of placing Haydn on a throne is suspicious.


Huh? It is not about placing anyone "on a throne"? It is about musico-historico-sociological facts, e.g. that Wagner, Mahler or Bruckner are far more controversial than Haydn or Schubert. 
And about the other "fact" that in a forum two active kids with a computer can make easily something "controversial" by entering every thread about certain composers contradicting common opinion and other participants generally overestimating the nonexistent relevance of a bunch of nerds on an internet forum.
And "invulnerability"? Has any of the sophomoric bs regularly uttered on this forum been banned by mods? If so, very rarely.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Kreisler jr said:


> And about the other "fact" that in a forum two active kids with a computer can make easily something "controversial" by entering every thread about certain composers contradicting common opinion and other participants generally overestimating the nonexistent relevance of a bunch of nerds on an internet forum.


This thread and many others like it only reminds me that I am an old man who grew up in the pre-internet age. I am constitutionally incapable of taking much of what is said here or elsewhere on the internet too seriously (as are some others, who have wisely inserted some pretty funny lines, you included, as I've quoted above -- thanks).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> And about the other "fact" that in a forum two active kids with a computer can make easily something "controversial" by entering every thread about certain composers contradicting common opinion and other participants generally overestimating the nonexistent relevance of a bunch of nerds on an internet forum.


The "elitism" of this part is troubling. I judge a member by the validity and logical soundness of the arguments he/she makes, not by what or who he/she is. It doesn't matter if he/she's a "kid". Play the ball, not the man.
Btw, I didn't know a person can claim to have decades of classical music listening experience and still at the same time not be able to "recognize" (note that there is a difference between "recognizing" and "appreciating"), for instance, expressive harmony in 18th century music (ex. Bach), until I met certain someone who joined the forum this year. Just saying.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Kreisler jr said:


> Huh? It is not about placing anyone "on a throne"? It is about musico-historico-sociological facts, e.g. that Wagner, Mahler or Bruckner are far more controversial than Haydn or Schubert.


Well the thread is called "Top 10 most controversial composers on TC" and not "Top 10 most musico-historico-sociological controversial composers".

So this thread is about this forum.

And that Mahler and Bruckner aren't mentioned (more), is somewhat surprising for me.



Kreisler jr said:


> And about the other "fact" that in a forum two active kids with a computer can make easily something "controversial" by entering every thread about certain composers contradicting common opinion


But there are no kids actually involved, are they? Hammeredklaviers posts contain a lot of substance and a lot of knowledge is behind it. That is easy to see. And you talk about "kids".

Is there a refutation? If the arguments were childish it would easy. Denying that a controversy exists is the weakest response.



Kreisler jr said:


> and other participants generally overestimating the nonexistent relevance of a bunch of nerds on an internet forum.


But the dissection of nerd stuff is the content of this thread. What doesn't mean that it is important.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

LOL isnt every composer of note controversial - they are either under- or overrated? Poor Mozart seems to get the most in this regard


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Aries said:


> But there are no kids actually involved, are they? Hammeredklaviers posts contain a lot of substance and a lot of knowledge is behind it. That is easy to see.


What you don't seem able to see is the agenda behind the constant Haydn nit-picking.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> What you don't seem able to see is the agenda behind the constant Haydn nit-picking.


Then please enlighten me.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Aries said:


> Then please enlighten me.


I asked first in post #92. Please?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I think this meme I created says it all:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Boulez's ideas about serialism are outdated indeed, but that doesn't make his music bad. Problem is, a lot of times people seem incapable of separating the music from the ideology. Whenever Boulez is brought up, the discussion is inevitably consumed by what the guy said and not so much on the music he wrote. His actual music, save for early radical works, is much less outright ugly or abrasive than, say, early Penderecki or Schnittke, whose music is not nearly as controversial. For example, if you listen to Le Marteau Sans Maître without automatically judging it through the "lens of serialism" most of it sounds like delicate, hypnotic fairy dance music or something, very soft and intricate as opposed to the stereotypical "ugly and abrasive modernism."


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Forster said:


> I asked first in post #92. Please?


I'm not sure if further Haydn discussion is allowed in this thread. But you asked repeatedly, so I wash my hands in innocence.



Forster said:


> So, what is the controversy? What is it about his music that makes him controversial?
> 
> What do you suspect?


It is controversial whether Haydn is the quasi father of all post-baroque classical music. Imo it is likely that history is unfairly narrowed down to a few persons, because it makes it easy. It is true for many epochs that what is seen as important about it today is very different to what was seen as important at the time. And who knows what the truth is?

The ratio of given acknowledgement to Joseph Haydn and Michael Haydn is in question as a good example.

I think the attempt to protect Haydn from any controversy is suspicious. I think it is somewhat odd, that historiography seems to care for Haydn as much as for the "Big 3" composers Bach, Mozart and Beethoven even tough Haydn isn't seen as a Big 3 composer. A personal example: When I was in school in Germany like 20 years ago only one biography of a composer was on the curriculum, it was that of Joseph Haydn.

For me this is not as big of a deal as for others, because I like Haydn. But I think about what hammeredklavier says and I think it is not that easy to just discard it without an argument.

And I am sure that a lot of composers of Haydns time don't get the attention they deserve. There is a tendency pick some composers out of history and remember them and to forget the others.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Aries said:


> I think the attempt to protect Haydn from any controversy is suspicious.


No, the attempt is to protect Haydn and those TC members who love his music from the daily dumping handed out by a particular member whose previous daily bashing was in Schubert's direction.

I assume you know the difference between a limited number of criticisms and a constant barrage of negativity based on supposed technical deficiencies.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> No, the attempt is to protect Haydn and those TC members who love his music from the daily dumping handed out by a particular member whose previous daily bashing was in Schubert's direction.
> 
> I assume you know the difference between a limited number of criticisms and a constant barrage of negativity based on supposed technical deficiencies.


I think much worse is said about composers and compositions I like. I think the personal affront against Haydn lovers isn't too serious after all. And for me hammeredklaviers technical talk is at least very interessting no matter if I agree or not. Overall there should be more technical talk about music in this forum.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> No, the attempt is to protect Haydn and those TC members who love his music from the daily dumping handed out by a particular member whose previous daily bashing was in Schubert's direction.
> I assume you know the difference between a limited number of criticisms and a constant barrage of negativity based on supposed technical deficiencies.





Bulldog said:


> What you don't seem able to see is the agenda behind the constant Haydn nit-picking.


If you keep making these unsubstantiated claims about me, to make me look some kind of a troll, I'll complain to the mods. The last time I openly criticized Joseph Haydn was like months ago. And I wasn't the one who started the discussion about Joseph Haydn in Haydn's Charm
Play the ball, not the man. Do you ever address any of the points I make, instead of "what I did and do"?
As for Schubert , it was so long ago I can't even remember the last time I criticized him.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> No, the attempt is to protect Haydn and those TC members who love his music from the daily dumping handed out by a particular member whose previous daily bashing was in Schubert's direction.
> 
> I assume you know the difference between a limited number of criticisms and a constant barrage of negativity based on supposed technical deficiencies.


Well, after all the times I've screwed up on the rules for your games, forcing you to patiently correct me, the least I could do is give you the best Der Hirt auf dem Felsen I've ever heard by a large margin, and I've heard many. Sorry about the sound, 1946 was a long time ago. Once I heard the effortless-seeming beauty of this version, the basic technical vocal deficiencies of every other singer (at least that I've ever heard), never mind surprisingly common interpretation issues, suddenly become clear. This may be a bit off topic, but this link is worth it. And finally, if Schubert had been eligible in your "transitional composers" game, afaic he would have wiped every other composer and work named off the list with no exceptions. Not even close.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> If you keep making these unsubstantiated claims about me, to make me look some kind of a troll, I'll complain to the mods. The last time I openly criticized Joseph Haydn was like months ago. And I wasn't the one who started the discussion about Joseph Haydn in Haydn's Charm
> Play the ball, not the man. Do you ever address any of the points I make, instead of "what I did and do"?
> As for Schubert , it was so long ago I can't even remember the last time I criticized him.


Go complain - I stand by what I said. FWIW, I don't consider you a troll, just a person with one or two obsessions.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

fluteman said:


> There isn't supposed to be a complete consensus on issues of aesthetic taste...
> 
> Too many posters here endlessly seek to demonstrate a far greater degree of consensus on issues of aesthetic taste than ever has, or ever will, exist...


While it is easier to find consensus on some matters compared to others, I think that complete consensus generally isn't desirable. It brings to mind the aphorism by Stanislaw Jerzy Lec, "When everything has to be right, something isn't."



> Such sophistry and fallacies infect nearly every sub-forum here. You can see it in the "gatekeepers" who seek to jealously guard and limit what is to be considered "classical music",...


While we can't avoid fallacies on the internet, its good to keep in mind that often the controversy is caused by attempts to limit discussion of certain topics - or even exclude them from discussion - not just the topics themselves. The reverse of that is how sometimes the most trivial issues, which hardly warrant debate, can dominate the forum much more than they need to.



> You can see it in the "proof" or "source demanders", who want a painstaking bibliography from anyone who doesn't accept their tenets, listing books and essays they will never read.


You raised some good points about this here, but I didn't want to derail that thread: https://www.talkclassical.com/72698-will-classical-music-ever-5.html#post2147672

In using any source, I think foremost about why I am using it, and how. These days, I try not to use a source in a polemical debate, or just refer to them in passing. If I do use a source I make an effort to explain why I think its relevant and how it relates to what I'm saying, which is different from attempting to use it as proof of something.

Although sources can illuminate discussion in many ways, this isn't an academic journal or a court of law. Even if I'm influenced by writers, I want to formulate my own thinking rather than simply regurgitate what I've read. I think that the latter can be interpreted as me hiding behind what others have said, a bit like a child hiding behind his mother's apron.



> You can see it in the endless John Cage jokes (which I enjoy to a point, but enough is enough), simply because he was a brilliant and insightful musician and thinker who dared challenge their narrow orthodoxy. And you can see it in the Will Classical Music Ever Be Popular Again? Alma Deutscher Deserves More Love and Objective v. Subjective threads, and endless threads like them, all vehicles for the orthodoxy brigade.


Some composers or topics will incite controversy. The debates might be polarised, but it doesn't mean everyone needs to be at either extreme of pro and con. Nuanced debate basically comes out of critical thinking, and that's something we need to apply to our own thinking not just expect from others.

I think that things have improved at talkclassical to the point where at least we are no longer having the equivalent of a pub brawl over these sorts of topics. As far as I can see, less discussions end in a stand off, like this scene from _Good Will Hunting_. I don't like the way the conversation ends with Will (Matt Damon) walking out after his flourish, and its more about who is superior rather than an exchange of views, but at least it ends peacefully.






I think we're beginning to go beyond this sort of mentality here, which is good.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Go complain - I stand by what I said. FWIW, I don't consider you a troll, just a person with one or two obsessions.


Remember, I wasn't even intending discuss "it" in this thread in the first place. This is my first post in the thread:
https://www.talkclassical.com/72733-top-10-most-controversial.html#post2148011 
It was Kreisler jr who wrote the first flame-baiting comment:
https://www.talkclassical.com/72733-top-10-most-controversial-2.html#post2148103
I guess there's no use telling these things to the fanboys with their idol worship, where reason and logic are governed only by fanboyism.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sid James said:


> I think we're beginning to go beyond this sort of mentality here, which is good.


Good to hear that. I think a lot of friction comes from an excess of rating and ranking, rather than appreciating music on its own terms, even though Schubert's B-flat piano trio and Beethoven's C- sharp minor string quartet may be 'better' by various metrics, if one accepts certain aesthetic principles as given and evaluates the music in that context.

For example, I just mentioned above that I thought Schubert's work in general is several orders of magnitude above that of Hummel, Weber, Spohr, and other even lesser-known composers listed in Bulldog's "transitional composers" game. Not only are others free to disagree with me on that, but I love a lot of those 'minor' composers' music and would hate to be without it. Many of those works are absolute masterpieces of a certain style that may not be the highest pinnacle of western art for most people, but they are well worth investigating and enjoying anyway. For example, Ignaz Moscheles' concerto for flute and oboe. Check it out.

That is how I listen to all music. I listen for what is interesting and worthwhile in it, not to rank it against Schubert or Beethoven. You can rank music and composers for fun if you want, but trying to prove your ranking is better than someone else's is a fool's errand. Instead, such things should be approached with good humor, and not -- taken -- too -- seriously. How some here cannot see that, I cannot imagine.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Temporarily closed for discussion in the moderators/admin group.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

We're giving it another chance. Please refrain from lengthy discussions on particular composers (there are other threads for that) and keep the discussion civil, in line with the Talk Classical Guidelines for General Behavior).


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Art Rock said:


> We're giving it another chance. Please refrain from lengthy discussions on particular composers (there are other threads for that) and keep the discussion civil, in line with the Talk Classical Guidelines for General Behavior).


Thanks. However, I can't see how, if the OP's invitation to consider a top ten is to be explored, a discussion about individual composers can be avoided. I agree that civility is essential, but even if we agree that the majority view (here) is that Haydn doesn't belong on the list (even the OP has taken him off) that still leaves plenty of room for others yet to be nominated.

What might be possible is to accept the definition of 'controversial' to mean that the composer's actions, words or works have provoked widespread controversy, and not that there may be a controversy about their ranking or worth in the classical canon/hall of fame.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> What might be possible is to accept the defintion of 'controversial' to mean that the composer's actions, words or works have provoked widespread controversy, and not that there may be a controversy about their ranking or worth in the classical canon/hall of fame.


And not controversial only on TC.

I can think of a few: Wagner, Boulez, Cage, who fit a more general definition of controversial.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

If we need detailed discussions and examples in this thread by a minority group to convince us that a composer is controversial, I would say that said composer does not belong in a top 10 controversial composers.

It's a fact of life that there is no composer or composition universally liked - that does not make them controversial in my opinion.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> If we need detailed discussions and examples in this thread by a minority group to convince us that a composer is controversial, I would say that said composer does not belong in a top 10 controversial composers.
> 
> It's a fact of life that there is no composer or composition universally liked - that does not make them controversial in my opinion.


Well, there's controversy in a sort of simplistic and (imo) not very interesting or productive sense -- i.e., some think the music is good, others think it is bad or 'overrated'; then there is controversy in (imo) more interesting sense -- music that challenges long and/or widely held aesthetic conventions in a unique and creative way, and makes the audience rethink their assumptions.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> I came across this thread some time ago. Do you know it?: "Wagner Death - Is There a Cure?" Wagner Death - Is There a Cure?


No, I'll have to read it


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> John Williams: derivative movie music, functional but decidedly unoriginal.
> 
> John Cage: more (dated) philosopher than musician
> 
> ...


I think this comment is *mostly* spot on. I would say Wagner and Schoenberg are probably the most controversial in a consequential way. All the back-and-forth about Cage is more trouble than it's really worth.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

What about Schumann?

Not controversial. But one who divides opinion. I guess that's what you mean by having Haydn and Schubert, they are not controversial but divide opinion. Which I don't think is really true.

I think most people like Haydn and Schubert to some degree but people seem to really hate Schumann or like him a lot, from my experience.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

I see Schubert as my very favourite composer ... does that make me controversial??? 

I get the "controversial" tag of Wagner , still his music is of a splendour ... I know many rate him very highly and rightly so imo

Schoenberg was the first one I thought of tbh... just don't grasp him myself , but some of the works are worth sticking your teeth in... I prefer Shostakovich as the 20th century composer to go to myself.

Like Art Rock stated earlier ... it is very personal and a matter of taste tbh , no composer will be liked by everybody!

Boulez: no thank you , not for me...


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

I was prepared to like Alma Deutscher, but I don´t. Something very off-putting about her music, quite apart from hype.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Schumann has been controversial in a few aspects since his death

- bad orchestration
- somewhat crazy/mercurial bipolar piano music that was "too much" for the more classicist minded, especially because Schumann himself also composed many pieces in a more classicist mode, these in turn have sometimes been denigrated as poor imitations of Beethoven (or in any case not up to Beethoven or Mozart before and Brahms later)
- mental health problems, therefore later works marred by "sickness" or "madness" (this might even have led to Clara or Brahms destroying some late works although this is probably an exaggeration, I don't know if there is any hard evidence that completed works were destroyed by Clara).

In my impression, most of this has been debunked in the last decades or in any case it does not anymore color the perception of Schumann in a negative way. In fact, for some of the late works (Gesänge der Frühe and other late piano pieces, Violin concerto) I have the impression that in the last years people try to make up for the relative neglect until the late 20th century and going over the top in the other direction.
There are, however, still works the composer obviously considered major that have remained mostly niche: Scenes from Faust, Paradies und die Peri, Genoveva...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> people seem to really hate Schumann


I don't think any composer (at least the ones commonly regarded as "great" or "famous") wrote music so bad that they deserve "hatred". Like other people, I too spend more time with certain composers over others, but the attitude against the less-preferred music isn't quite "hatred". It's more like "it's all fine and ok, but there's other stuff I prioritize over it". I'm sure a lot of other people feel this way.
I remember some of the more seasoned members on this forum used to be a lot more critical about Mozart than they do now. Long ago, I mistakenly thought they were just being "obnoxious", so I wrongly thought I had to be just as obnoxious as them, even pretending to "hate" things. But the more I listened to their reasoning, the more I realized that they weren't being unreasonable- it wasn't Mozart's music they really hated, but the common hyperbole said about his music; for instance, the sentimental rhetoric, "unparalleled genius of divine perfection", and the myth "he had no need to make any sketches, since he wrote in his head".
I guess it depends on what context you use the term "controversial" and what you mean by using it, but to me in this thread "X is controversial" doesn't necessarily mean "X is hated". (And the OP hasn't been clear on this either).
The following was said by the member "chu42", who happens to be an avid Schumann enthusiast. I admit when I didn't know about this forum that much I thought some people on the forum were like the kind he described:
"People flock to Chopin because of how ridiculously accessible his music is-and it turns out they get sucked into the Romantic machine until they can't stand anything not idiomatic to Chopin. The most common ideas you will see floating around Chopin echo-chambers is that Mozart is the most overrated composer; Rachmaninov is the 2nd greatest composer behind Chopin; and a split opinion on Liszt where he's either all amazing or all banal finger gymnastics-neither of which are valid."


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Mozart had the misfortune of becoming something of a pop culture icon as well- classical is still a niche and a lot of niche musical fans inherently are suspicious at anything with general popular appeal. 

He's not really a similar composer but Glass applies as well- I think the general line is that Young/Reich/Adams were the greatest early minimalists but Glass had the crossover success and many never forgave him for that.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> He found his wife in bed with another man - killed and mutilated both of them. The Court found that he had not committed a crime.





Kreisler jr said:


> Another time, another place. Of course he should just have beaten the wife, sent her to a monastery and challenged the guy to a proper duel. Maybe he was a better composer than swordsman.
> Apparently it is not quite clear if it was premeditated or spontaneously. For the latter, there have been people getting off fairly easy even in the late 20th century (and they were not counts). The French have or had untily recently a separate category for "crime passionel" in their criminal law.


As I heard the story Gesualdo KNEW his wife was cheating and laid a trap to catch them in the act. Pre-meditated, AND with co-conspirators.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

pianozach said:


> As I heard the story Gesualdo KNEW his wife was cheating and laid a trap to catch them in the act. Pre-meditated, AND with co-conspirators.


I wouldn't have bothered. I would have sent that hussy packing and found myself another (non-hussy).


----------

