# Most Misunderstood Composers?



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

Who do you think are the most misunderstood composers? Not under/overrated, but the individuals who have a reputation by non-experts that most egregiously mischaracterizes them?

I will start with 3:
*Franz Liszt* is, I think, overwhelmingly the most misunderstood composer. He _does_ have lots of showy, even superficial virtuosic displays that he composed, but he was so much more. His works like the Piano Sonata, Annes de Pèlerinages, Deux Legendes, etc., show very innovative harmony but also deep attention to form. I think he is really in the "Central European" tradition and not just the "French" tradition.

*Arnold Schoenberg* is today often invoked as a synecdoche for inhuman, mathematical music. However, he saw himself as being the next descendent the tradition, and many of his works are much more accessible than is also said of him. By this I don't just mean juvenilia, but works like the Gurrelieder and Chamber Symphony No. 2 are amazing tonal works. Furthermore, I think that even a "12 tone" work like the Piano Concerto can be appreciated by anyone because there is so clearly a classical form with a melody, development section, etc.

*Charles Ives* was notoriously the subject of a Leonard Bernstein speech before a concert in which, seeking to make the audience accept Ives, started going on about how Ives was a "primitive." There is still a reputation lingering that Ives was just some jokester who was playing around and had no idea what he was doing. While he was definitely an experimenter, he did have real craft, as evinced by the fugue in Symphony No. 3 among other works, as well as his long devotion to music training from childhood to college. The String Quartet No. 2, Symphony No. 4, and Concord Sonata are real masterpieces, and I hope people will lose their snobbish attitude against him.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I started to develop an interest in serialism or more specifically 12-tone technique once I saw there was a method to the madness, but even while finding it interesting on an "intellectual" level, after a while it just seems like mathematical games...Bach without the beauty, sense of purpose, or meaning.

Liszt's late works like La lugubre gondola and the Csárdás macabre are interesting. I don't like them particularly, but they seem eerily "modern". Now I do love Liszt's Totentanz ever since I heard it on the local classical station when I was a kid. It's one of those crazy-genius things. Also the B minor sonata. But it's true, Liszt doesn't get the love that Chopin does. One reason may be his music is so dang hard to play.

Ives. Except for The Unanswered Question and Central Park in the Dark, no, I don't get it.

One that I think may be misunderstood is Erik Satie, but maybe he's just hard to understand. :lol: The difficulty is in trying to separate the serious from the satirical, or if the two are even meant to be separate. In fact I think that may be characteristic of a lot of French music since the late 19th century.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

John Cage. Frequently dismissed as a non-composer and/or charlatan, often by people (even here) who have heard nothing he composed (and spare me the 4'33" jokes based on that sentence).


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Hindemith, Liszt


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aside from the B minor sonata, I find the transcendental etudes to be Liszt's best work
I didn't find the Dante sonata and Faust symphony really striking. I can't find any more interesting sections in Annes de Pèlerinages other than Orage and Sonetto 104 del petrarca. But in the transcendental etudes, I find every piece special (I think his miscellaneous etudes, like La leggierezza are also good):





I think this anticipates Debussy and Moszkowkski in certain ways:










-----

another example of Liszt's interesting harmonies:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

_"Schoenberg gets a bad rep because of his atonal music. But if you listen to Schoenberg, sometimes when he's writing contrapuntal music, it's a revelation."_

*[ 5:15 ]*


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The minimalists are often misunderstood. I quoted the following from Philip Glass's autobiography in a thread a couple of years ago, regarding Harold C. Schonberg's stupid claim that minimalism is "baby music":



Philip Glass said:


> One of the most common misunderstandings of the music was that the music just repeated all the time. Actually, it never repeated all the time, for if it had, it would have been unlistenable. What made it listenable were precisely the changes. There was a composer who was describing my music to someone else, and he said, "Here's what it is: if you take a C-major chord and just play it over and over again, that's what Philip Glass does."
> Well, that's exactly what I don't do. He completely missed the point. In order to make it listenable, you had to change the face of the music - one-two, one-two-three - so that the ear could never be sure of what it was going to hear. If you look at "Music in Similar Motion" or any of the other earlier pieces, what is interesting about them is how they don't repeat. To miss that point is like going to a play and falling asleep but waking up for the intermissions. You miss everything if all you hear is the intermissions. You've got to hear what the piece is actually doing, and unfortunately, at first, not everyone was able to do that.
> Why could we hear something, while the people who screamed "The needle is stuck!" could not? Because we were paying attention to the changes.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Judging by many (far too many) threads in this forum Mozart is deeply misunderstood within our community. Schubert, too. I have never understood why - but, no, I am *not *asking.

I do certainly agree with Schoenberg - although I think his star is rising a little - and am interested in the argument concerning Liszt as he may be a composer_ I_ misunderstand,


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I don't think Liszt, Schoenberg and Ives are misunderstood, at least not by people that listen to their music. I think Liszt is underappreciated for what he did to expand the idea of romanticism. He was the first romantic composer to turn sonata format on its ear, turning recapitulations into development. He deeply influenced Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler who in turn deeply influenced the Schoenberg who created the Second Viennese School. These composers are flow from each other and Liszt was the source.

Ives is different, a nationalist that wrote both national and international music. The early 1900s is full of national music but he went way beyond nationalism. His avant-garde Piano Sonata No. 2 and Symphony No. 4 were written 1906 and 1910, were contemporary with Schoenberg's new music. His Variations on America with strange left and right hand figures comes from the 19th century of Johann Strauss. Yet his church-influenced Symphony No. 3 from 1904 is national Americanism. He is probably America's greatest composer but would never win a popularity contest with subsequent composers like Copland, Hanson or Bernstein. But none of them shared his complexity of style or his originality.

I might add Bela Bartok and Hans Werne Henze to this group of underappreciated composers. Bartok incorporated nationalism and styles from as far back as classicism into new music, some of which became very popular, and Henze was the first great German composer in decades. Has there been one since? If not he is the end of the line for Germanic greatness in classical music.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

*Rued Langgard*. Those 16 symphonies run the gamut from full-blooded romanticism to those quirky, odd shorter ones. He never abandoned tonality or melody. But he was writing his listenable music when serialism and dodecophany was all the rage. His music should be much better known. There's a terrific complete set on Da Capo, and a few on Chandos to explore.

*Charles Koechlin*. Another out of the mainstream, but boy do I enjoy The Jungle Book and the Seven Stars Symphony. But conductors never could figure out what to make of him.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

At the top of the list, misunderstood by even his most fervent admirers: Bach.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Does anyone really ever understand another person? Do we ever really understand ourselves?

edit: I also recommend Rued Langgard, although his much-touted Music of the Spheres does not appeal to me.

I have a CD of music by Koechlin, on BMG, but have not listened to it in ages, and don't really remember it making much of an impression. (Perhaps I will revisit it later today.)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Oh boy, I could go on forever ranting about the “myths and misunderstandings” propagated in the multiple music books I own and which I tried to learn the basics of classical music through, only to find out that these stereotypes were utterly untrue by listening for myself! But the two that come to mind first are Rachmaninoff - “A syrupy, overblown romantic who was stuck in the 19th century.” Yes, he did often seem to be out of place amid his contemporaries, but his music is absolutely uniformly excellent with a masterpiece in early all established genres. And Brahms - “A stodgy traditionalist who couldn’t write a good melody.” This might be the most hogwash of them all. Seriously, I have several books that claim this, and I just wonder if they’ve ever actually listened to such essential Brahms works as the 1st piano trio, the 2nd piano concerto, and the 3rd symphony.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Oh boy, I could go on forever ranting about the "myths and misunderstandings" propagated in the multiple music books I own and which I tried to learn the basics of classical music through, only to find out that these stereotypes were utterly untrue by listening for myself! But the two that come to mind first are Rachmaninoff - "A syrupy, overblown romantic who was stuck in the 19th century." Yes, he did often seem to be out of place amid his contemporaries, but his music is absolutely uniformly excellent with a masterpiece in early all established genres. And Brahms - "A stodgy traditionalist who couldn't write a good melody." This might be the most hogwash of them all. Seriously, I have several books that claim this, and I just wonder if they've ever actually listened to such essential Brahms works as the 1st piano trio, the 2nd piano concerto, and the 3rd symphony.


One of the problem with this is not exactly revealing your sources, and the context of the comments. What I am finding out in many cases is that too many postings are taking it too "literally." Suffice it to say if the authors of music books were to be questioned they would probably say their words are being taken out of context.

Then you "listen" to some music and find out it is not true, these so called outrageous statements. Aside from books being written in context and when they were written, the same thing goes on all the time in classical recordings. I seldom ever consider anyone's opinion unless I see certain aspects covered and they are not showing typical bias towards conductors and so forth. And the reviewers can hear all kinds of things that I cannot hear (need to get my hearing check I guess) or is it really in the mind.

I'd say there is nothing to get worked up about here. As far as comments go, every composer including Beethoven and Mozart have had personal comments on their music by contemporaries and this goes with the territory. I can name a elder statesman on this site who has quelled a riot many a time with his 'one sentence comments', that he (oops-hint) does not like Tchaikovsky music, I think due to his music being "A syrupy, overblown romantic who was stuck in the ............"

I seldom listen to Rachmaninoff. The day may come he becomes less popular as time goes on. But I find the 'intelligence' in the music not to my taste. The piano concertos (2+3) are ok but do not move me personally.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Perhaps Beethoven. Many people (some even here at TC) seem to think of him as someone who only does large scale, epic, fiery pieces, but I think that he's a much more complete composer than this. It's my opinion that his minor scale pieces such as bagatelles and songs for example can reveal a more relaxed, soft but also beautiful side of this multifaceted composer, and that some of his slow movements are amongst the most expressive created by any composer. I also think that Anton Schindler did a great disservice to the image of this great musician to posterity and that Beethoven wasn't a bad person at all as some people seem to think.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Are Misunderstandings a result of an aversion to certain composers and their music that keep us from listening to their works and getting to know them? Or is anyone coming to this conclusion after time spent with the music? A case of "I've tried sufficiently but I still don't get it."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> At the top of the list, misunderstood by even his most fervent admirers: Bach.


My favorites are the "Bach was most likely a closet agnostic and humanist/really didn't want to compose all that religious music" folks. Umm...no. Everything Bach composed was "religious".


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> At the top of the list, misunderstood by even his most fervent admirers: Bach.


Which one? :lol:


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

larold said:


> Ives is different, a nationalist that wrote both national and international music. The early 1900s is full of national music but he went way beyond nationalism. His avant-garde Piano Sonata No. 2 and Symphony No. 4 were written 1906 and 1910, were contemporary with Schoenberg's new music.


Ives wrote his fourth symphony between 1910 and 1916, and kept revising it until 1925. He mostly wrote the _concord sonata_ between 1912 and 1915, but kept working on it until 1919 (the first edition being published in 1919).
Charles Ives was ahead of his time, but not _that_ ahead of his time.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

an example of Liszt-Ravel connection:


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

That's a very intelligent post, but I'm pretty sure you didn't write it, you copypasted it from YouTube. Can't wait to read your other stuff!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allerius said:


> Perhaps Beethoven. Many people (some even here at TC) seem to think of him as someone who only does large scale, epic, fiery pieces, but I think that he's a much more complete composer than this. It's my opinion that his minor scale pieces such as bagatelles and songs for example can reveal a more relaxed, soft but also beautiful side of this multifaceted composer, and that some of his slow movements are amongst the most expressive created by any composer. I also think that Anton Schindler did a great disservice to the image of this great musician to posterity and that Beethoven wasn't a bad person at all as some people seem to think.


I think Beethoven is still suffering from the deification stuff in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It sours a lot of people on him and his work. 
PS: Incidentally, the same might apply to Shakespeare. Nineteenth and early 20th century critics and teachers went a little overboard.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Expectations can cause blind spots when they are wrong. I think expecting Sibelius when turning to Nielsen can stop you from hearing Nielsen and those who turn to Brahms expecting a heavier Beethoven invariably fail to see or hear Brahms!


----------



## accmacmusic (May 9, 2020)

*Palestrina*: he didn't only write music for masses and it can be enjoyable as many composers of the Common Practice period.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

*Williams*: he didn't only write music for masses and it can be enjoyable as many composers of the Common Practice period.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Perhaps Beethoven.











From what I have seen across various classical music websites, Beethoven is generally one of the more "understood" composers, even here at TC. For most classical music listeners, "Beethovenian depth" is the most ideal model all other composers are supposed to follow. _"His late quartets and sonatas"_ is some kind of a biblical phrase to make people shut up if they ever dare to question his greatness. If you go through old threads at TC (dating from 2008~2018), or visit other sites, you'll realize there are far more people biased toward Beethoven, (usually they hate both Mozart, Haydn). For example, on reddit, they always go like this, (it's quite amazing sometimes, how they all say the same thing every time): _"Mozart is superficially fluffy, Beethoven is majestically sublime, Chopin is deeply poetic, Tchaikovsky is emotionally profound. I like Mozart's requiem though."_
You even said yourself once, there had been lots of anti-Mozart threads here at TC. Yes, a "few" people (ex. tdc) have been "critical" about Beethoven a little. It's "nothing" compared to the way Mozart (and Wagner) have been treated.



Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids


A Thread for People who Don't Like Mozart
Mozart vs. Modernism
What to say to a Mozart hating ignoramus?
Why do people dislike Mozart?
Is Mozart slightly boring compared to Beethoven?
O ye Mozart detractors, repent!

There is a reason why the name "Beethoven" doesn't show up in this list:



clavichorder said:


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


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 137110


Polls like these however intrinsically have a popularity bias that curves downward. The most overrated composer in that picture is actually Wagner. Then Mozart is somewhere _near_ the top, probably below Vivaldi.

However if you want the most valid statistics, I've ran the numbers. The ratio of most 'critically acclaimed' to 'least acknowledged by Classical fans' are: (1) Haydn, (2) Nielsen, (3) Handel, and (4) Wagner. Nielsen fits this ratio immensely even though less popularly.

Furthermore, one can figure if these 4 composers are actually 'misunderstood' in general, as 'misunderstood' can mean something different.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Perhaps Beethoven. Many people (some even here at TC) seem to think of him as someone who only does large scale, epic, fiery pieces, but I think that he's a much more complete composer than this. It's my opinion that his minor scale pieces such as bagatelles and songs for example can reveal a more relaxed, soft but also beautiful side of this multifaceted composer..._

That will be news to John Gardiner. His thesis is Beethoven was a revolutionary who sought to make people uncomfortable through his music, the reason he plays it the way he does.

I don't believe that myself and tend to more enjoy his songs and early chamber music from the harmoniemusik tradition. I also think his big stuff can have charm and subtlety as well as power and mayhem, rather the way Sean Connery played James Bond compared to Timothy Dalton's stern and humorless way.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 137110
> 
> 
> From what I have seen across various classical music websites, Beethoven is generally one of the more "understood" composers, even here at TC. For most classical music listeners,"Beethovenian depth" is the most ideal model all other composers are supposed to follow. _"His late quartets and sonatas"_ is some kind of a biblical phrase to make people shut up if they ever dare to question his greatness. If you go through old threads at TC (dating from 2008~2018), or visit other sites, you'll realize there are far more people biased toward Beethoven, (usually they hate both Mozart, Haydn). For example, on reddit, they always go like this, (it's quite amazing sometimes, how they all say the same thing every time): _"Mozart is superficially fluffy, Beethoven is majestically sublime, Chopin is deeply poetic, Tchaikovsky is emotionally profound. I like Mozart's requiem though."_
> ...


I don't understand the insecurity that ignites "controversies" like this. My own conviction and tastes tell me that Bach was the "greatest" composer ever; i.e. I think his music is the most indispensable, the music that I could least live without. However if someone doesn't agree, that's fine; if someone says Bach is "overrated", I laugh it off as uninformed opinion. I don't feel the need to patrol threads to look for slighting remarks toward Bach and beat the offender into submission with a barrage of YT clips. I think Bach's work speaks for itself and it doesn't really need my constant defense...except when it comes to something like the lazy-minded "Bach's Passion music is antisemitic" nonsense.

I haven't been on this forum long but these sorts of things seem to devolve into something like "who's the greatest quarterback, Brady or Montana?" I don't think of music as Beethoven vs Mozart or Bach vs Handel or Mozart vs Haydn like they're rock 'em-sock 'em robots. I love all the above, and it's a developmental continuum. Not one of those popped out of nowhere and started composing free of influences from all that had gone before.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

JAS said:


> Does anyone really ever understand another person? Do we ever really understand ourselves?


Eh?

Shoot loud ... louder ... I don't understand.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

As ubiquitous as it is, I think Wagner is probably the most misunderstood composer . No composer has ever been demonized for his opinions and personal life ; many people are hostile to his music because he was an anti-semite , a serial adulterer , an egomaniac and all that . 
And because of Hitler's idolization of him and all that baggage . Admittedly, Wagner was no saint . But can you name an other famous composer who WAS a saint ? 
But too many people actually see something sinister and even evil in his music and his dramaturgy . 
Hitler idolized him, therefor his music is full of anti-semitism , Hitlerian grandiosity and as Woody Allen famously said "Wagner's music makes me want to invade Poland ". 
Wagner's music was controversial long before Hitler was even born in 1883 . But not because he was an anti-semite . Anti-semtiism of a much milder kind that Hitler's was not even considered reprehensible by most Europeans in Wagner's lifetime and he was by no means the only composer of his day with anti-semitic sentiments . 
Ironically, the two most popular composers in Israel today are Chopin and Tchaikovsky, both of whom were somewhat anti-Semitic . But there has been an unofficial ban n performing Wagner in Israel or so long, and the Israeli opera has never staged any of his operas . 
Can you hear anything anti-semitic in the ecstatic love duet of Tristan and Isolde ? Or the Flying Dutchman overture ? Or the prelude and Bacchanal music in Tannhauser ? Or the "Siegfried Idyll "? 
Or the Wesendonck leader ? Or the Good Friday music in Parsifal ? 
I doubt it . If you do, you do not understand Wagner in ht least bit . Wagner's operas don't really have anything to do with Jews and Judaism . There are no Jewish characters in them , no discussions of Jews and Judaism favorable or unfavorable , and there is not a single anti-semitic statement by any one of Wagner's many characters . The word "Jew" doesn't appear once in any of his librettos . 
In the second act of Parsifal, there is an indirect reference to the the crucifixion of Jesus by Kundry when she tries to seduce him . In the first act of Die Meistersinger, there is a reference to the story of David and Goliath in the Bible, but just in passing and not in an antisemitic sense . 
The Ring of the Nibelungen does not glorify anything Hitler stood for . On the contrary , it is an allegory about the destructive effect of lust for power and riches at the expense of love and compassion . It ends with the destruction of the gods as the result of Wotan's greed for power . 
Hitler was not smart enough to realize this .
Some critics, musicologists and writers have read antisemitism as a subtext into the operas, but this is questionable at best . 
If people would think about these things, they might be able to appreciate the magnificence and power of Wagner's music and his genius as a dramatist and creator of complex and fascinating characters without the baggage of Hitler and the Nazis .


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

superhorn said:


> Hitler idolized him, therefor his music is full of anti-semitism , Hitlerian grandiosity and as Woody Allen famously said "Wagner's music makes me want to invade Poland ".


I've always found it odd that Wagner's frequently blamed for the rise of the Nazis, but Nietzsche never is.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

consuono said:


> I've always found it odd that Wagner's frequently blamed for the rise of the Nazis, but Nietzsche never is.


Maybe on a philosophy forum. (Here, we might note how awful Nietzsche's music is, although someone probably loves it.)


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Surely Milton Babbitt is high on the "misunderstood" list, and mostly because of that article, "Who Cares If You Listen?", which was _not_ his title and frankly contradictory to the point he was making. And his reputation as an arch-serialist didn't help. I mean, he was an arch-serialist, but so much of music is light and witty, and people who come in leaving the preconceptions at the door are often then surprised at how tuneful his music is. But that's no surprise if you know that Babbitt was a huge fan of Broadway, and would sit down at a piano and bang out showtunes, from any musical you could name, with the least provocation.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

consuono said:


> I've always found it odd that Wagner's frequently blamed for the rise of the Nazis, but Nietzsche never is.


Have you read Nietzsche's _Ecce homo_? He was pretty much anti-German. Even trashed German cuisine and everything else German. After he fell out with Wagner, he blamed him for being overly German.

Some bits from _Ecce homo_ (to not get off-topic they are all associated with Wagner and music ):

"What is it that I have never forgiven Wagner? The fact that he condescended to the Germans-that he became a German Imperialist.... Wherever Germany spreads, she ruins culture."

"With a nature like mine, which is so strange to everything Teutonic, that even the presence of a German retards my digestion, my first meeting with Wagner was the first moment in my life in which I breathed freely: I felt him, I honoured him, as a foreigner, as the opposite and the incarnate contradiction of all "German virtues. [...] Wagner was a revolutionary-he fled from the Germans.... As an artist, a man has no home in Europe save in Paris; that subtlety of all the five senses which Wagner's art presupposes, those fingers that can detect slight gradations, psychological morbidity-all these things can be found only in Paris."

"Wagner is the counter-poison to everything essentially German-the fact that he is a poison too, I do not deny. From the moment that Tristan was arranged for the piano-all honour to you, Herr von Bülow!-I was a Wagnerite. Wagner's previous works seemed beneath me-they were too commonplace, too "German." ... But to this day I am still seeking for a work which would be a match to Tristan in dangerous fascination, and possess the same gruesome and dulcet quality of infinity; I seek among all the arts in vain."

"I shall never admit that a German can understand what music is."

Nietzsche sounds almost obsessive. No wonder he cannot be properly associated with Hitler...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Rienzi and Adolf Hitler
August Kubizek, a boyhood friend of Adolf Hitler, claimed that Hitler was so influenced by seeing Rienzi as a young man in 1906 or 1907 that it triggered his political career, and that when Kubizek reminded Hitler, in 1939 at Bayreuth, of his exultant response to the opera Hitler had replied, "At that hour it all began!" Although Kubizek's veracity has been seriously questioned, it is known that Hitler possessed the original manuscript of the opera, which he had requested and been given as a fiftieth birthday present in 1939. The manuscript was with Hitler in his bunker; it was either stolen, lost or destroyed by fire in the destruction of the bunker's contents after Hitler's death (the manuscript of Wagner's earlier work Die Feen is believed to have met with the same fate). Thomas Grey comments:

In every step of Rienzi's career - from ... acclamation as leader of the Volk, through military struggle, violent suppression of mutinous factions, betrayal and ... final immolation - Hitler would doubtless have found sustenance for his fantasies.

Albert Speer claims to have remembered an incident when Robert Ley advocated using a modern composition to open the Party Rallies in Nuremberg, but Hitler rejected this idea:

"You know, Ley, it isn't by chance that I have the Party Rallies open with the overture to Rienzi. It's not just a musical question. At the age of twenty-four this man, an innkeeper's son, persuaded the Roman people to drive out the corrupt Senate by reminding them of the magnificent past of the Roman Empire. Listening to this blessed music as a young man in the theater at Linz, I had the vision that I too must someday succeed in uniting the German Empire and making it great once more."



annaw said:


> Have you read Nietzsche's _Ecce homo_? He was pretty much anti-German. Even trashed German cuisine and everything else German.


Well, German cuisine is **** anyway. Just compare with French or Italian cuisine.


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

One of the best posts I have read in a long time! Thank you, superhorn, for setting the record straight about one of the most talented of composers. I learned a lot and will no longer feel guilty for enjoying Wagner.


----------



## Open Lane (Nov 11, 2015)

Scho, Liszt and Ives are 3 of my fav composers. I'm not really familiar with why anyone would dislike them. All i really know if that i like them and that's enough for me


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

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


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Godwin's Law strikes again.

The TC corollary to Godwin's Law: As a classical music discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Wagner or Mozart approaches 1.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

annaw said:


> Have you read Nietzsche's _Ecce homo_? He was pretty much anti-German. Even trashed German cuisine and everything else German. After he fell out with Wagner, he blamed him for being overly German...


Nietzsche seems to have been pretty much anti-everything but himself. I think both he and Hitler were ultimately nihilists, something that I don't think Wagner ever really was.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> Nietzsche seems to have been pretty much anti-everything but himself. I think both he and Hitler were ultimately nihilists, something that I don't think Wagner ever really was.


Hitler was not remotely a nihilist. Frankly, Nietzsche would have been utterly horrified to discover how badly Hitler had misunderstood him, and the evil to which Hitler was a part.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Knorf said:


> Hitler was not remotely a nihilist. Frankly, Nietzsche would have been utterly horrified to discover how badly Hitler had misunderstood him, and the evil to which Hitler was a part.


I think they were both nihilistic in believing ultimately in no absolute value beyond the self. And on what basis could Nietzsche be "horrified"? At the immorality of it all? "Evil"?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Knorf said:


> Surely Milton Babbitt is high on the "misunderstood" list, and mostly because of that article, "Who Cares If You Listen?", which was _not_ his title and frankly contradictory to the point he was making. And his reputation as an arch-serialist didn't help. I mean, he was an arch-serialist, but so much of music is light and witty, and people who come in leaving the preconceptions at the door are often then surprised at how tuneful his music is. But that's no surprise if you know that Babbitt was a huge fan of Broadway, and would sit down at a piano and bang out showtunes, from any musical you could name, with the least provocation.


I don't think that Babbitt is misunderstood, his claims notwithstanding. (He might not be appreciated, but that is an entirely different matter.)


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> I think they were both nihilistic in believing ultimately in no absolute value beyond the self. And on what basis could Nietzsche be "horrified"? At the immorality of it all? "Evil"?


Hitler believed in his racist worldview of the redemption of humanity through racial purity. That's as racist and evil as fork, but it is _not_ nihilism.

Nietzche was also a humanist, and would have been horrified at the evil done to his fellow human beings. He would never have condoned mass slaughter, destruction, and torture, and to say so is a _horrid_ misunderstanding of his philosophy.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Knorf said:


> Hitler believed in his racist worldview of the redemption of humanity through racial purity. That's as racist and evil as fork, but it is _not_ nihilism.


"Racist" and "evil" according to whom? No, you're right, that's probably the "rising above" nihilism from the collapse of the old moral order and instituting a New Order of sorts.


> Nietzche was also a humanist, and would have been horrified at the evil done to his fellow human beings. He would never have condoned mass slaughter, destruction, and torture, and to say so is a _horrid_ misunderstanding of his philosophy.


What do you mean "evil"? You keep throwing that term around. Hitler could've called it the "better morality" of which Nietzsche spoke.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> What do you mean "evil"? You keep throwing that term around. Hitler could've called it the "better morality" of which Nietzsche spoke.


And Nietzsche would have vehemently dissagreed.

But I think a substantive discussion of Nitzschean philosophy, and what "evil" is, is _way_ beyond what can be borne or endured by a Classical music forum.

And I'm going to call you out when you blame Nitzsche or Wagner for Hitler, because that's just rubbish.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The honest answer could actually just be the Big 3. The most polarizing trio when it comes to their fanbase, of how many people hold 1 on a towering pedestal yet seem to completely miss why others' like the other two. People usually don't love or understand all 3, 1 seems to be enough for their desert island.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Knorf said:


> And Nietzsche would have vehemently dissagreed.


On what basis? On the moral basis that Nietzsche repudiated? So the standard of morality becomes that of which Nietzsche via the projection of your morality onto Nietzsche would probably approve.


> But I think a substantive discussion of Nitzschean philosophy, and what "evil" is, is _way_ beyond what can be borne or endured by a Classical music forum.


What the heck. Give it a shot. 


> And I'm going to call you out when you blame Nitzsche or Wagner for Hitler, because that's just rubbish.


I'm not blaming either, just pointing out that it's more fashionable and acceptable to blame Wagner or to view him as a proto-Nazi when Hitler admired Nietzsche as well.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Sometimes what we call evil is a consequence of our ideas or action, even if it is not the intention, nor even the specific outcomes are intended.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

JAS said:


> Sometimes what we call evil is a consequence of our ideas or action, even if it is not the intention, nor even the specific outcomes are intended.


But more often the intentions and outcomes are both evil, however you want to define it. Evil implies willfulness, not necessarily unintended consequences, which would be more of a "mistake".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I generally see the basis of evil as selfishness. It may be a conscious acceptance of the consequences, or a not caring for the consequences, beyond the perceived benefit to oneself. (It might also be that one is simply unaware of the implications, or does not see where an extension of the ideas leads, or does not see what actions might occur as a result.) All of these can result in what I think would reasonably be considered evil.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> [ The D major sections in Beethoven's Op.132 slow movement almost reminds me of Pachelbel's canon nowadays.


The resemblance between the Pachelbel and that section of Opus 132 was noticed by George Rochberg, and exploited by him in one of his string quartets.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

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


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Everything Bach composed was "religious"._

Well ... certainly not everything. He wrote secular cantatas including one about the new craze sweeping the world -- coffee. He wrote "the 48" as a philosophical and training guide and there is a train of thought he wrote the art of fugue as an intellectual exercise never intended for performance.

The misunderstood thing is to me like the spiritual thing: it's something people feel when listening. Chances are if you don't understand a composer's music the first time or two you hear it you will after hearing it 10 times.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

superhorn said:


> And because of Hitler's idolization of him and all that baggage . Admittedly, Wagner was no saint . But can you name an other famous composer who WAS a saint ?


Hildegard von Bingen.
Literally...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

larold said:


> _Everything Bach composed was "religious"._
> 
> Well ... certainly not everything. He wrote secular cantatas including one about the new craze sweeping the world -- coffee. He wrote "the 48" as a philosophical and training guide and there is a train of thought he wrote the art of fugue as an intellectual exercise never intended for performance.
> 
> The misunderstood thing is to me like the spiritual thing: it's something people feel when listening. Chances are if you don't understand a composer's music the first time or two you hear it you will after hearing it 10 times.


Then you may also misunderstand Bach and the way he viewed music and existence in general. That's why I think Bach as a person would be absolutely abhorrent to the "post-Christian West".


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

MarkW said:


> The resemblance between the Pachelbel and that section of Opus 132 was noticed by George Rochberg, and exploited by him in one of his string quartets.


The chord progression is similar, but I don't think that there's any direct connection between both works at all.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

superhorn said:


> But can you name an other famous composer who WAS a saint ?


Camille Saint-Saens!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Room2201974 said:


> Camille Saint-Saens!


True, if you rearrange "MOR WAGNER", you get "WARMONGER"

so world peace can only be achieved if there's
no MORe WAGNER


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I have heard Mahler and Bruckner mentioned together often. To me, they are worlds apart!


----------



## Denerah Bathory (6 mo ago)

consuono said:


> I started to develop an interest in serialism or more specifically 12-tone technique once I saw there was a method to the madness, but even while finding it interesting on an "intellectual" level, after a while it just seems like mathematical games...Bach without the beauty, sense of purpose, or meaning.


Exactly my sentiments about such trivialities. I'm of the sort that upholds purpose and inspiration (which is often of a religious or devotional nature) as separating true Art from mere mechanical activity.

12 tone music is just musical "soduko puzzle solving" where you're just inputting pitch based on a hyper logical pattern, with no regard to feeling, vision, or expressing anything in particular. It's not art, it's just organizing sounds in meaningless configurations.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Denerah Bathory said:


> Exactly my sentiments about such trivialities. I'm of the sort that upholds purpose and inspiration (which is often of a religious or devotional nature) as separating true Art from mere mechanical activity.
> 
> 12 tone music is just musical "soduko puzzle solving" where you're just inputting pitch based on a hyper logical pattern, with no regard to feeling, vision, or expressing anything in particular. It's not art, it's just organizing sounds in meaningless configurations.


sez you, others, including some elite musicians, would disagree. No one plays Babbitt for the big money


----------

