# Why: "Worst" Composer is "hotter" than "Favorite" Composer?



## UniverseInfinite

*Why: "Worst" Composer is "hotter" than "Favorite" Composer?*

So, the current statistics in the forum seems to show that people like to discuss more in the topic of "Worst" than in the topic of "favorite"?? The "Worst" topic originated from several years ago and still is active now?

Hahahahaha, human nature!

It's easier to point out the "bad" than the "good"!

Me, too!

Hahahahahahaha...


----------



## Tapkaara

It's because this forum thrives on negativity and bitchiness.


----------



## bdelykleon

It is easy, because no one would mind if I named any composer as my favorite, if I say my favorite composers are Rodrigo, Off and Catalani, no one would mind about this, but if I say the worst composers are Rodrigo, Off and Catalani, everyone would appear to defend their music and dicussion would arise.

Actually the dislke is sometimes the most curious of all feelings because it sometimes has no reason whatsoever. I had a teacher of harmony who said Liszt was the worst composer he ever listened, and due to his knowledge I grew thinking that he had reason, Liszt was to me nothing but a hollow virtuosism, chaotic form and fanfarre orchestration, but now I'm beggining to reavaluate Liszt's music, and I'm discovering quite a big composer.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Because people love being ********.


----------



## Weston

bdelykleon said:


> . . . everyone would appear to defend their music and dicussion would arise.


I think this is what's happening. If someone doesn't like our favorites, we think they are missing out and we want to fix them.

I rarely post in the worst lists however, if only because I have a tendency to avoid really long threads unless I've been in on them from the beginning.


----------



## Mirror Image

I'm not sure why "worst" composer is more popular than "favorite."

This forum doesn't need anymore negativity than it's already got. I prefer to try and stay positive. I know it's hard, but I'm just trying to keep things more upbeat.


----------



## Cyclops

Because people on this site like to argue more than listen to music, and if someone says such and such a composer is bad then someone who likes said composer takes it personally.
And its for that reason I'm leaving for sunnier climes.


----------



## kg4fxg

*20 or 30 times.....*

Music theory....

I once read that you need to listen to a piece twenty to thirty times before you can really criticize it.

I think there is something very deep to this in that you need to really need to become intimately involved in it. Think about tonality and the home key. Usually a piece starts out in the home key and diverts into different motifs but come back to home. This happens much more frequently in pop tunes which is why people love them.

Unfortunately, classical music is not like pop music, it takes more effort to understand, the keys, variations, etc. The more effort the more appreciation.

I find that some composers just take a long time, lots of listening to in order to understand. I would be very careful before I stated a certain composer piece is no good. My statement might rather be a reflection that I don't understand it nor have I done the necessary home work need to provide a thorough understanding of the composition.

I guess I could say that the more I study classical music the more I learn to appreciate composers I just sort of passed over. My desk is usually a pile of books about music and theory, magazines devoted to classical music, and plenty of scores to analyze.

Sorry, I can't be negative. I just need to find time to play this particular piece thirty times.


----------



## bassClef

We live in a negative society. Flick through your TV channels - programme after programme devoted to negativity, confrontation and general unpleasantness. Why do you think the quiz show "Weakest Link" (with the host being rude and horrible to the contestants) was so popular? It seems that people agreeing with each other and being nice is boring!


----------



## HerrSchnaufer

Well, if this forum is representative of humanity in any way at all, then it's probably got something to do with the ego.

One of the greatest analogies I was ever given was one describing the ego. It was given to me with authors, so I'll tell it as such, though it works exactly the same with composers.

You're walking down the street, and you overhear someone saying that an author (or composer) you love is rubbish. Instantly, a part of you wants to go over and correct that person. That author isn't rubbish, they obviously don't know that book, and they don't know the authors views on that, or why he did that.

That part of you that wants to go over and correct the person you overhear is the ego. Nothing you say to that man will increase his appreciation of the author, it's clear he doesn't like the writings, and just because he doesn't enjoy them, none of your enjoyment has been stripped. Why then, do we see the need to go over and correct him? It changes nothing, yet we'd do it anyway.

It's because the ego longs to be fed. Whilst the ego can be fed when we're agreeing on things, it's not that feeling of superiority. There's no way to put someone down and discredit their opinions if we find ourselves agreeing with each other.

There we go, and that's my ego suitably fed for the day.


----------



## Elgarian

HerrSchnaufer said:


> That part of you that wants to go over and correct the person you overhear is the ego.


I'd question that. The reasons for intervening are not so simple, and often it's more about a sense of fairness; a wish to see the record set straight - to distinguish between the two statements 'this is rubbish' and 'I dislike this'. In such cases it would be just as satisfying to see someone else intervene, and on such an occasion one's own ego is not involved - well, not directly, anyway. It matters more what is said than who says it.


----------



## Mirror Image

HerrSchnaufer said:


> Well, if this forum is representative of humanity in any way at all, then it's probably got something to do with the ego.
> 
> One of the greatest analogies I was ever given was one describing the ego. It was given to me with authors, so I'll tell it as such, though it works exactly the same with composers.
> 
> You're walking down the street, and you overhear someone saying that an author (or composer) you love is rubbish. Instantly, a part of you wants to go over and correct that person. That author isn't rubbish, they obviously don't know that book, and they don't know the authors views on that, or why he did that.
> 
> That part of you that wants to go over and correct the person you overhear is the ego. Nothing you say to that man will increase his appreciation of the author, it's clear he doesn't like the writings, and just because he doesn't enjoy them, none of your enjoyment has been stripped. Why then, do we see the need to go over and correct him? It changes nothing, yet we'd do it anyway.
> 
> It's because the ego longs to be fed. Whilst the ego can be fed when we're agreeing on things, it's not that feeling of superiority. There's no way to put someone down and discredit their opinions if we find ourselves agreeing with each other.
> 
> There we go, and that's my ego suitably fed for the day.


Interesting post. I think we all feed our own egos on regular basis.


----------



## starry

But which is worst, attacking a composer unduly or making him a saint?


----------



## Mirror Image

starry said:


> But which is worst, attacking a composer unduly or making him a saint?


Honestly, now that I think about it and the more older I get the more I realize that I shouldn't have to defend a composer I enjoy. It's just not important to me anymore.

There are plenty of people here who don't like say Sibelius or Berlioz. Two composers I'm in absolute awe over, but that's perfectly okay with me. It doesn't matter in the end. I still like who I like and that person still likes who they like.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

*To Help with Your Ego*

That part of you that wants to go over and correct the person you overhear is the ego. Nothing you say to that man will increase his appreciation of the author, it's clear he doesn't like the writings, and just because he doesn't enjoy them, none of your enjoyment has been stripped. Why then, do we see the need to go over and correct him? It changes nothing, yet we'd do it anyway.

Stimmt! :tiphat: Herr S., I quite agree, though I might add that because our favorite music seems to speak so intimately to us that it is almost unbearable (it amounts to being a personal affront) to hear negatives about one's favorites. I have found it helpful to make a solid effort to better appreciate music I dislike or do not understand in order to 'broaden my horizons.' Many times one can equate 'Dislike of Composer X' to _'Lack of ability _to appreciate Composer X.'


----------



## violadude

Berlioznestpasmort, you're like the Jesus of Talkclassical, bringing completely dead threads back to life.


----------



## hpowders

Tapkaara said:


> It's because this forum thrives on negativity and bitchiness.


Why don't you tell us how you really feel. Please don't hold back.


----------



## Blake

It's been 5 years.... I hope he hasn't harbored that concept for so long.

... but he has a point... people gravitate to negativity like flies to ****.


----------



## Blake

One more collection of thoughts:

Funny story... true story. In my area, the local news tried to broadcast a show talking about "positive/good news." It lasted about a week.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Blake said:


> One more collection of thoughts:
> 
> Funny story... true story. In my area, the local news tried to broadcast a show talking about "positive/good news." It lasted about a week.


Negative news create outrage and controversy, you get the people talking. Maybe this also has to do with the original function of news, which is that of 'warning' the populace - good news would present no 'useful' information, since good things can't harm anyone. Although most modern newscasts attempt to present at least one positive report a day, I guess to simply revoke the notion that they're only showing 'negative' news. 'Good news' are also quite popular in sports headliner, say if the nation's sports team won a championship, etc.


----------



## KenOC

Hmmm, good news wanted here eh? My FM station seldom plays Wagner operas or Schoenberg, I guess that's pretty good.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

KenOC said:


> Hmmm, good new wanted here eh? My FM station seldom plays Wagner operas or Schoenberg, I guess that's pretty good.


there's a recent 'flaming' trend here at TC, guess that 'Where are all the good threads?' post made its mark .


----------



## Sloe

KenOC said:


> Hmmm, good new wanted here eh? My FM station seldom plays Wagner operas or Schoenberg, I guess that's pretty good.


How can it be pretty good if they seldom plays Wagner operas.
Two days ago I turned on the radio and I heard wonderful singing to wonderful music.
It was the second act of Tristan und Isolde.


----------



## Woodduck

The only time I want to know the "worst" anything is during election years.


----------



## Polyphemus

Tapkaara said:


> It's because this forum thrives on negativity and bitchiness.


Lets have a poll on who is the bitchiest contributor.


----------



## Polyphemus

Polyphemus said:


> Lets have a poll on who is the bitchiest contributor.


I've got a little list.


----------



## ArtMusic

UniverseInfinite said:


> So, the current statistics in the forum seems to show that people like to discuss more in the topic of "Worst" than in the topic of "favorite"?? The "Worst" topic originated from several years ago and still is active now?
> 
> Hahahahaha, human nature!
> 
> It's easier to point out the "bad" than the "good"!
> 
> Me, too!
> 
> Hahahahahahaha...


That's usually because the favorites are often undisputed great composers, proven and tested by time.


----------



## hpowders

Why are horror movies more popular with the general public than love story films? Same deal.
Human nature.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> Why are horror movies more popular with the general public than love story films? Same deal.
> Human nature.


Because horror movies are targeted at everyone. Love story films are mostly targeted at a certain half of the population


----------



## Ingélou

It's also easier to inject comedy or satire into grumbling and pointing out weaknesses. Satire is based on cutting pretensions down to size - a negative process. If you love something, all you can do is praise.

Man slips on banana skin = enjoyable to watch.

Man walks along road without slipping = boring to watch.

In real life, of course, it wouldn't be funny to see one's nearest and dearest slip on a banana skin. But I remember a Naked Video sketch of a man presenting a current affairs programme - the actor was Gregor Fisher, the Rab C. Nesbit guy; he slips on a banana skin, then turns up with a crutch - slips again, two crutches - slips again, one arm in sling... and so on.

I laughed my socks off.

In real life, I'd be so sorry for the person. 

But with the anonymity of the web, sadly....


----------



## OlivierM

Ingélou said:


> Man slips on banana skin = enjoyable to watch.
> 
> Man walks along road without slipping = boring to watch.


There is also the inherent need for everyone to feel better about themselves. If I wanted to make a caricature, taking your example :
Man slips on a banana -> it didn't happen to me -> I feel better about my pathetic life
Man doesn't slip on the banana -> what's in it for me ? nothing -> booh

That's how most people function, and a part of why society is so stable, in my opinion.


----------



## mstar

I have absolutely no idea how I ended up in this thread - I must have accidentally clicked on it. 
Really though - I haven't read anything but the title, and I'm compelled to bump it.


----------



## Blake

OlivierM said:


> There is also the inherent need for everyone to feel better about themselves. If I wanted to make a caricature, taking your example :
> Man slips on a banana -> it didn't happen to me -> I feel better about my pathetic life
> Man doesn't slip on the banana -> what's in it for me ? nothing -> booh
> 
> That's how most people function, and a part of why society is so stable, in my opinion.


Stably unhappy, it seems. Otherwise we'd be celebrating other's accomplishments a lot more.

Happy people don't get off on pointing fingers at someone else's misfortune. Oh, and this is from direct experience, as I've been happy once or twice.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

lol Why has everyone been resurrecting this thread in January? We should make it a tradition now or something. See you in 2017! lol

Gives some perspective though. I wasn't on TC back then, and it goes to show that really... there's not much new under the sun when it comes to critical/cynical people on the internet...


----------



## Woodduck

Is it really?

I can't even imagine choosing a "worst" composer. It's hard enough to say what makes composers good. Saying what makes them bad means trying to describe an absence of what makes composers good. To do that you'd have to listen to a lot of music you can't stand. Why bother?


----------



## science

This thread was old when it was bumped two years ago. Six years ago it referred to two active threads.


----------



## Morimur

Dang, this thread is as ancient as Egypt.


----------



## Dim7

The year 2009 doesn't sound that distant to me. On the other hand if you think how many years ago it was.... that is somehow unsettling.


----------



## Art Rock

Tapkaara said:


> It's because this forum thrives on negativity and bitchiness.


Unfortunately 7 years later this is still true. At least for a handful of frequent posters.


----------



## Blancrocher

Badasses are always hotter, I've heard.


----------

