# Too well known for their own good.



## Cortision (Aug 4, 2009)

Some pieces, when mentioned, will cause music loves to go pale and perhaps stick their finger down their throat. This is probably not because they are bad pieces, but because the have been ruined by that person through over exposure. 

Typically, these pieces are instantly recognisable, easily approachable, perhaps not a Composer's greatest masterpiece, but worthwhile pieces in themselves nonetheless. They end up as excerpts on 'beginner's' type classical compilations. They are played on TV commercials, in lifts, as hold music. What chance does any music have under these circumstances? Here's a few I though of that may give you an idea of what I mean;

Beethoven - Fur Elise
Debussy - Clair de Lune
Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture
Ravel - Bolero
Pachelbel - Canon in D


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Cortision said:


> They are played on TV commercials


That's why I don't have one)) Yeah, I hate the way classical music is treated by mass culture - ridiculous "Adagio %catchphrase%" compilations, huge overexposure of 10-20 leitmotives (apparently some people tend to think that apart from Rossini's Guglielmo Tell overture and Saint-Saens' Aquarium the classical music doesn't have much more to offer), idiotic stereotypes about classical music, etc., etc.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Fur elise is a bagatelle: even Beethoven didn't think it was important. Bagatelle literaly means: matter of no importance
The Bolero was just an orchestration exercise by Ravel. It's known for all the wrong reasons. The interesting things about it are polytonality and structure, things which the average listner will fail to appreciate.
As far as the canon in D goes, any piece that has a VIth degree in it is launched to popularity (refer to a lot of emotional pop music)
As far as I'm concerned, these pieces can be raped, hung and/or murdered, they're not that important anyways.

Another one of there is Beethoven's Mondscheinsonate. So often misplayed, the masses raving over some arpeggios (have a clue on the house: the theme starts in the left hand from bar 1).


----------



## Somnifer (Jul 23, 2009)

No matter how overplayed the Clair de Lune may be, I will always consider it one of Debussy's masterpieces.


----------



## Cortision (Aug 4, 2009)

Rasa said:


> As far as I'm concerned, these pieces can be raped, hung and/or murdered, they're not that important anyways.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Rasa, does a piece have to of profound importance to be enjoyable? Imagine if Fur elise or Canon in D were lost in a drawer somewhere only to be recently discovered. Would you find it possible to enjoy the music?
> ...


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

nickgray said:


> That's why I don't have one)) Yeah, I hate the way classical music is treated by mass culture - ridiculous "Adagio %catchphrase%" compilations, huge overexposure of 10-20 leitmotives (apparently some people tend to think that apart from Rossini's Guglielmo Tell overture and Saint-Saens' Aquarium the classical music doesn't have much more to offer), idiotic stereotypes about classical music, etc., etc.


You got that right!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Where I come from we call these pieces chestnuts -- I've never known why.

Some pieces that have been mangled by overexposure for me are:

Dvorak - Symphony No. 9, especially the adagio. I just don't feel the need to ever hear this again however much I know it's a fantastic piece.

Carl Orff -- I don't even have to say the name of the piece, do I? This has been used to represent epic goings on in Hollywood for decades, and has even been used to portray the ominous, evil, or hedonistic. But if you read the words it seems to be about bucking the odds and meeting Fate head on.

_Also Sprach Zarathustra_ - I still love its opening segment as used in the film 2001: a space odyssey, but this gives a skewed view of what the piece is really like. The rest of it and indeed the rest of R. Strauss' body of work is very dissimilar. By the time Elvis started using it to open his shows, I was over it.

There's plenty more, but I'll let others chime in.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I really dislike Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture and Ravel's Bolero. I despise these pieces so much. I think they're both great examples of how a composer needs to take some time off to regain some creative strength. Kudos for mentioning these two terrible pieces of music. Also kudos for mentioning Pachelbel's Canon in D, I really hate that composition.

I will also add to the list:

Copland: Fanfare for the Common Man - I'm not sure why this is played as much as it is, but it's pretty annoying

Barber: Adagio for Strings - I love Barber, but I'm tired of this piece. It's beautiful, but it gets old hearing it after a while especially played at the length it's normally played at. It would be much nicer at a shorter time, maybe around 3 or 4 minutes

Mozart: Requiem - I've gotten especially tired of this piece over the years, again like Barber's Adagio, it's beautiful, but it doesn't do much for me anymore intellectually or emotionally.

Sibelius: Finlandia - I really despise this piece now. If I ever listen to Sibelius, it certainly isn't to hear "Finlandia" that's for sure.

Anything by Bach. I don't like him. Never have liked him. Don't understand the fascination behind his music. Perhaps it was innovative for its time, but counterpoint aside, it does absolutely nothing for me.

Saint-Saens: Symphony No. 3 "Organ" I'm so tired of this piece and it's been recorded way too much. He composed other symphonies besides Symphony No. 3.

Vaughan Williams: Fantasia on Greensleeves - I love RVW, but I despise this piece so much. Makes me think of Christmas, which is something I don't feel like even thinking about in the summertime.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Don't understand the fascination behind his music.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


>


I'm not impressed. Now here is what impresses me:


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Mirror Image said:


> Anything by Bach. I don't like him. Never have liked him. Don't understand the fascination behind his music. Perhaps it was innovative for its time, but counterpoint aside, it does absolutely nothing for me.


Now that you mention it he wasn't all that innovative. He was considered a fuddy-duddy of sorts. Nevertheless he probably ties for first place along with Beethoven as my all time favorites. I guess it's because he was the last gasp of music with deeply complex baroque textures before style galante swept all that away. But if it doesn't move you, no harm done.

I will cast another vote for the Toccata and Fugue in Dm as one of those pieces I never need to again though.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, let's just say that it takes a measure of talent to produce one of these pieces. Many will know of Brahms' comments after he heard his friend Johann Strauss Jr's famous _Beautiful Blue Danube_ waltz, "I wish I had composed that" or words to the effect.

I don't mind most of these pieces, but I can't stand Elgar's _Pomp & Circumstance March No. 1_ for some reason. But then again I'm not a big fan of the man's orchestral works anyway...


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

I do get bugged from time to time, especially when they use cheesy arrangements!!! 

But when I hear the piece in their original context and such. I don't really mind.

P.S.

The trailer for that new movie Julie & Julia, had a ugly arrangement of the Barber of Seville Overture


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

I think that most of the pieces mentionned in this thread are very good actually. Maybe we're tired of them for having heard them so often, but that takes nothing away from the quality of the music.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Never Tired.....*

I'm with Jhar26, maybe to make the pieces interesting again we need Martha Agerich to play them?

For me there is always something to learn from the pieces...get a copy of the score and identify the main theme, then the variations, if there is a fugue identify that and is it chromatic? What about the counterpoint? Can you identify the double-stop? Would this piece be countrapuntal? Are any chords based on the triad? Study the score and look at the markings, are they followed? Crescendo, Diminuendo, Fortissimo, Tutti? Turn on your metronome and see how well the timing is followed. (This will drive you nuts if you listen to Bartok). Pick up your conductor Baton and try to keep up with the right hand the timing.

So much to rip apart and study in any piece - then there is always the treat of listening and identifying a wrong note. Most can even find these so don't feel bad.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Broadening this discussion somewhat, I can think of very many works that I once thought I would never tire of but only to find eventually that one's tastes can change quite fundamentally so that you finish up being quite bored with some of them. Several good examples of such works have been cited earlier in the thread.

Somebody above remarked that a way to avoid fatigue is to acquire several different recordings of the same work. I agree that this can be useful but in my case I prefer to seek out the best recording in the first place and spend the money/time on something else. Nor do I particularly find a great deal of merit in trying to find composers who are allegedly "under-rated", a concept I am not sure I fully understand anyway. 

Instead, I rather like to stick with the 20 or so composers who I first liked and to explore in depth their entire range of works, beyond the well-known. It's among these composer's lesser well-known works that I have found the greatest rewards from exploration. For example, I greatly like much of Schumann's chamber repertoire, Schubert's piano duet works, Haydn's early symphonies. But even here, after several years of "completist" collection activity among several such composers, I have virtually run out of new material to collect. There is only some Handel opera works left to obtain and I'm nearly finished. 

One thing's for definite, and that is that I won't be pursuing any modern stuff at all, as I can't tolerate much of it despite many efforts to try to do so. If I were to venture more deeply into areas which I haven't fully explored it would be early Baroque, but I do already have have quite a decent collection of this material.

Are there any other "completists" out there?


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Toccata said:


> Are there any other "completists" out there?


I like chaotic approach. I usually have a "dominating" composer that gets 30-40% of listening time, and the composer is constantly changing every 1/2month-1.5month. Meanwhile I listen to many other composers with no particular preference to the type or fame of the work. I kinda doubt that I'll ever have a full grasp of any composer's work.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

I agree in the case of the examples mentioned in the first post, but I do think it can have a certain positive effect... people are exposed to classical music without even knowing it, IMO it's better than not being exposed to classical music at all. I've had several eureka-experiences through the years where I've heard classical pieces and realize they're tunes I've recognized through my entire childhood but not knowing what they were - like the Overture from Carmen and also several of the arias from that same opera. It was an amazing feeling every time I heard a piece I recognized and thought to myself "It's THAT one? I've heard that since I was 6 years old..."


----------



## jcsd (Aug 2, 2009)

I actually love some of them, especially Fur Elise, it's so easy in the ears and the compressed melody really works perfectly.Yes it's quite simple, but who says good music has to be complex?

Some pieces and composers just have a more universal appeal than others.

As for over exposure, maybe to some extent, but on the other hand any musician who truly learns a piece will have to play it very many times. It puts a different perspective on it for sure, but doesn't mean you have to hate it.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> I think that most of the pieces mentionned in this thread are very good actually. Maybe we're tired of them for having heard them so often, but that takes nothing away from the quality of the music.


I don't think there's anything wrong with detesting a piece of music just as long as we know the reasons why we're detesting them.

So this is a good thread, not everything is positive about music, and I don't feel anything but annoyed when I hear the pieces I mentioned.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Toccata said:


> Are there any other "completists" out there?


I'm not really a "completist" per se, but I have, in a very short period, January-July, acquired almost a full survey of the Romantic and early 20th Century periods without even realizing it.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Mirror Image said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with detesting a piece of music just as long as we know the reasons why we're detesting them.
> 
> So this is a good thread, not everything is positive about music, and I don't feel anything but annoyed when I hear the pieces I mentioned.


People are free to like or detest whatever they want, it makes no difference to me. I was only wondering whether they already disliked the pieces that were mentionned the first time they heard them or whether it's mostly a matter of hearing them too many times.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> People are free to like or detest whatever they want, it makes no difference to me. I was only wondering whether they already disliked the pieces that were mentionned the first time they heard them or whether it's mostly a matter of hearing them too many times.


For me, it's a matter of actually disliking the piece when I first heard it. Like Ravel's "Bolero" for example. Why on Earth would I listen to this piece again when I don't like it? I wouldn't there's so many better pieces to explore by Ravel than "Bolero."


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I'm not really a "completist" per se, but I have, in a very short period, January-July, acquired almost a full survey of the Romantic and early 20th Century periods without even realizing it.


I have seen the details of your collection and it's very impressive.

However, by "completist" I meant the desire to collect all the works of any given composer (across all genres), except possibly some of their highly insigificant pieces. In my case I have done this for a number of composers: Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Wagner, Brahms. For several others I am not far short of completion: Purcell, Bach, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Debussy, Elgar. And for a few others I have everything of any importance: Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Haydn, Ravel, Holst, RVW, Shostakovich.

The composer I'm particularly attracted towards at the present time is Handel, and I'm rapidly filling the gaps there. This has mainly resulted from the Handel anniversary celebrations a few months ago when I heard some of his really gorgeous opera and oratorio pieces being played on the radio which were largely unknown to me. I had already acquired much of his purely orchestral/chamber music, so I decided that I would set about acquiring all the major choral works which were missing in my collection.

During each phase of enthusiasm for individual composers, it was a matter of wall-to-wall listening (on buses, trains, at home, sometimes at work). I guess, looking back, the biggest and longest lasting collection crazes were for Mozart, followed by Beethoven and then Schubert. It wasn't until rather later that I began to take much interest in composers outside that time period. Rather like you, I wasn't over-impressed with Baroque to start with. When I began to take an interest I preferred Purcell, Handel and Vivaldi to J S Bach. But in due course all that changed and I went Bach-mad for a couple of years.

It's all quite a bug, as you have probably discovered. Fortunately, I'm now well over the brow in terms of acquisition of new material. Would I do it all over again if given the chance? Probably not. I have been doing this for nearly 15 years now and have spent a fortune on CDs overall, and quite frankly I don't listen to many of them, as I have rather lost a certain amount of interest in some of the composers I once adored. The ones I still love the most are the first four mentioned above.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Toccata said:


> I have seen the details of your collection and it's very impressive.
> 
> However, by "completist" I meant the desire to collect all the works of any given composer (across all genres), except possibly some of their highly insigificant pieces. In my case I have done this for a number of composers: Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Wagner, Brahms. For several others I am not far short of completion: Purcell, Bach, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Debussy, Elgar. And for a few others I have everything of any importance: Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Haydn, Ravel, Holst, RVW, Shostakovich.
> 
> ...


Ah, well thanks for the compliment about my collection. It's still growing, but not as rapid as a pace as it was during January. 

Anyway, I see what you mean by "completist" now. I'm definitely not a completist, but I do try and acquire many pieces by a composer I enjoy. Of course, I have all the major orchestral works of a composer, but in the passing months, I've become very interesting in acquring orchestral works that are lesser known and not played very much. I have also an interest in Romantic and early 20th Century composers that aren't well known.

I just enjoy venturing into the unknown. Like recently I have bought quite a few recordings of Malcolm Arnold. He was suggested to me by several members here, so I'm quite excited about discovering this composer's music. I have heard audio samples of his music and I have been impressed with what I heard.

I have explored a few Baroque composers and I have enjoyed the work of A. Scarlatti, Coreilli, and Rameau immensely. I will probably acquire more from these composers as time marches on.


----------



## Yoshi (Jul 15, 2009)

I love Bolero, maybe it's because it has a sentimental value to me.
And I have to admit, no matter how many times I listen to Canon in D, I still love it. It's also quite an addicting melody.

But I understand that some classical music pieces are so overplayed and changed for commercials and other reasons, that they can get seriously annoying. It's not that the piece itself is so bad, its because it's everywhere and most of the time it's not even a decent version of it that is played.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Jan said:


> I love Bolero, maybe it's because it has a sentimental value to me.
> And I have to admit, no matter how many times I listen to Canon in D, I still love it. It's also quite an addicting melody.
> 
> But I understand that some classical music pieces are so overplayed and changed for commercials and other reasons, that they can get seriously annoying. It's not that the piece itself is so bad, its because it's everywhere and most of the time it's not even a decent version of it that is played.


No matter how many times I hear the "Hoedown" movement from Copland's "Rodeo" I still love it, but I enjoyed the music, not the fact that it's overplayed. It doesn't matter if something is overplayed to me. If I enjoy it, then I enjoy it and if I really love it, then I can never tire of it. At the "I'm in love it" stage, it slips into my subconscious and I can never forget it or loathe it in any way.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I wish I had never heard Saint Saens' _Organ Symphony_; although I haven't heard it for 10 years, I can't get the damned thing out of my head...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

nickgray said:


> I like chaotic approach. I usually have a "dominating" composer that gets 30-40% of listening time, and the composer is constantly changing every 1/2month-1.5month. Meanwhile I listen to many other composers with no particular preference to the type or fame of the work. I kinda doubt that I'll ever have a full grasp of any composer's work.


I agree. Recently, I've been collecting totally different classical from 10-20 years ago, and in another 10 years, I'll be collecting something different yet again. For me, to remain static in the same era or with the same composer, is just boring...


----------



## Padawan (Aug 27, 2009)

Many of the pieces mentioned here are typically ones that capture the attention of new "non-musician" classical music fans. Their popularity and accessibility makes the entry to classical music not as intimidating. Many people, not anyone here, are unaware just how much classical music is embedded in today's pop culture. I like most of pieces here, but then I'm a new convert to this genre. But I've already started listening dozens of others pieces and composers beyond the so-called basic classical music 101's.



> What chance does any music have under these circumstances?


The committed classical music fan should continue on their merry way of collecting, listening and discovering new works and composers.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

In my opinion, Mozart's 21st piano concerto is among his best music, but when I listen to it, I always skip the Andante. I just can't stand it! Both slow and simplistic AND overplayed? No, thanks! 

To me, it has become a two-movement concerto. But now I'm thinking of burning a new CD of the 21st concerto and sacrilegiously swap that ruined Andante with that of, say, the 25th concerto, thus creating something fresh and enjoyable.


----------

