# Composers that shouldn't be famous but are



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

A thread on the opposite topic to Manok's. What composers that are famous haven't really written any music of technical brilliance? A thread for composers that often leave you wondering why their music is well known. Pärt comes to mind. I like his music, but I find most of his more recent stuff to be a bit rehash. Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten, Fratres, Spiegel im Spiegel and various vocal and choral works from the 70s and 80s were all nice but I think he's just doing the same thing over and over now. Tintinnabuli was nice, but not great compared to other styles of the second half of the 20th century.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> A thread for composers that often leave you wondering why their music is well known. Pärt comes to mind. I like his music, but I find most of his more recent stuff to be a bit rehash. Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten, Fratres, Spiegel im Spiegel and various vocal and choral works from the 70s and 80s were all nice but I think he's just doing the same thing over and over now. Tintinnabuli was nice, but not great compared to other styles of the second half of the 20th century.


I wouldn't necessarily criticize composers for sticking to a style or system they've discovered for themselves.

Perhaps from a certain age onward, one becomes hesitant to explore new paths. Pärt was 40 when he found his tintinnabuli style, Schoenberg was close to 50 when he developed the twelvetone system. Still early enough to write a good portion of their entire oeuvre in those styles.

And so they do that for 20, 25 years. Now, they're getting older, they're starting to see the finish line, if I may say so. Noone lives forever. I could understand that they're reluctant to look for something new. Imagine Schoenberg would've made his twelvetone invention at the age of 75. He would've said: Damn! I've finally got it, but I've got no time left to use it.

On the other hand, though, there is plenty of room for development and evolution within a certain style. I find that both Pärt and Schoenberg did develop their respectives styles over time. Perhaps they could have done more, I don't know. Schonberg possibly didn't feel the urge that much, knowing that he had already made all things new. And Pärt, well, perhaps he's long past the phase of striving anyway. Wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

There are many composers in the past that I think had survived purely for the need of virtuosic ear-candy in a performer's repertoire, or for superficial listening on part of an uneducated audience; Pablo de Saraste, Paganini, and to a much much lesser extent, Liszt and Rachmaninov (this is only pertaining to a very small minority of their works; most of them are astounding). Some of the lesser Late Romantics as well, who I will not name due to respect of people's likes, I think are slightly overrated. Other than that, I think history has been quite astute on weeding out what doesn't endure the test of time.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Fame is meaningless.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mozart, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Elgar, Wagner, and Mahler come to mind. Though I like them sometimes, I feel they are being way overrated in general.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Why start such a thread. Dinosaurs like me are bound to say Stockhausen, Liegti etc etc and wise guys like the OP will say Mozart, Brahms etc etc. 

Totally meaningless and just another chance for the wicked to snub and insult music they don't like.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I'm going to annoy quite a few people by saying this, I imagine, but I have to say Philip Glass. I am of course willing to be proven wrong.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

I think Rachmaninov's larmoyant aesthetics should easily get him damned for ever, but I do get how fun it is to play such music. I would not name Liszt in such a list (pardon for the pun), even if some of his music is superfluous: as we say in Italy, _persino lui doveva campa'_. (=even he had to make a living)  In general virtuoso composers are unremarkable and owe their popularity to the pleasure every musician feels in showing his/her skill.
I agree on Glass. Reich is just much better IMHO.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Rinaldino said:


> In general virtuoso composers are unremarkable and owe their popularity to the pleasure every musician feels in showing his/her skill.


Ridiculous.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Why start such a thread. Dinosaurs like me are bound to say Stockhausen, Liegti etc etc and wise guys like the OP will say Mozart, Brahms etc etc.
> 
> Totally meaningless and just another chance for the wicked to snub and insult music they don't like.


I wouldn't say Mozart or Brahms because their composition technique is quite good. You obviously know a lot about the music of Stockhausen etc. to say they shouldn't be as famous as they are. What is it about their composition technique that isn't as good as, say, Bach's Brandeburg Concerti? Counterpoint, structure, orchestration etc.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Ridiculous.


I said "in general". I'm obviously not questioning the quality of the works of such composers as Beethoven, Mozart or even Liszt who were regarded very highly in their time as performers. I refer to people like Alkan, Thalberg, Sarasate, Milstein's Paganiana, Wieniawski etc. They're a great fun to play, but not at all great music. At least, that's my opinion.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I wouldn't say Mozart or Brahms because their composition technique is quite good. You obviously know a lot about the music of Stockhausen etc. to say they shouldn't be as famous as they are. What is it about their composition technique that isn't as good as, say, Bach's Brandeburg Concerti? Counterpoint, structure, orchestration etc.


Sorry I just plucked some names out of thin air to illustrate and I probably chose L because you always rave about him - probably not the best thing to do - on the basis of the few pieces of Ligeti I have heard - (ha - mainly from 2001 film) he is obviously a composer with considerable imaginative power.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Rinaldino said:


> I said "in general". I'm obviously not questioning the quality of the works of such composers as Beethoven, Mozart or even Liszt who were regarded very highly in their time as performers. I refer to people like Alkan, Thalberg, Sarasate, Milstein's Paganiana, Wieniawski etc. They're a great fun to play, but not at all great music. At least, that's my opinion.


Agreed on the whole - what about Kreisler?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Elgar, Wagner, and Mahler come to mind. Though I like them sometimes, I feel they are being way overrated in general.


What a very strange list.

HOW DO I CANCEL THIS??


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Elgar, Wagner, and Mahler come to mind. Though I like them sometimes, I feel they are being way overrated in general.


What a very peculiar list, one hardly knows where to start so I won't. I think the laughter will take care of the problem.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I wouldn't say Mozart or Brahms because their composition technique is quite good. You obviously know a lot about the music of Stockhausen etc. to say they shouldn't be as famous as they are. What is it about their composition technique that isn't as good as, say, Bach's Brandeburg Concerti? Counterpoint, structure, orchestration etc.


I think you can discount counterpoint as it isn't hard to write counterpoint that doesn't have to take account of the vertical ( harmonic) relationships of the voices. 
Can you tell me what you would consider to be good and bad non-tonal or non-harmony based counterpoint?


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

If this is not great, I don't know anymore what is.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Agreed on the whole - what about Kreisler?


He's the king of them all.
I have recently attended a really nice concert with Enrico Pace and Liza Ferschtman playing violin sonatas by Poulenc, Ravel and Beethoven. The sheer joy of the evening was istantly erased by Liebeslied and Liebes-something else I'm glad I have forgotten.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

neoshredder- Mozart, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Elgar, Wagner, and Mahler come to mind. Though I like them sometimes, I feel they are being way overrated in general.

BurningDesire- I have every right to express how I feel about Frank (Zappa) and his music. I'm being no more enthusiastic about his work than many on the forum are with Mozart or Beethoven or Wagner or Chopin.

Moody- What a very strange list.

One must surely appreciate that value of the internet in allowing ignorance and foolishness to become a thing of permanent record.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

lol Those taking the internet seriously. Chill out.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> lol Those taking the internet seriously. Chill out.


Stop trolling in your posts and maybe, just maybe people won't take the internet seriously.

It seems like it is popular to downgrade Mozart, you and your "buddies" do it on this forum.

It looks innocent, like a childish game, but still, quite annoying. Have you even listened to all the works Mozart, Brahms and Mendelssohn composed? Or do you just want to be cool by saying they shouldn't be famous?

I don't think fame is important, but I've listened to all of Mozart's, Brahms' works and 3/4 of Mendelssohn and believe me they are famous for a reason.

But then again, this is the internet, you can't win arguments here, everyone has an opinion, everyone is entitled to it, no matter how much knowledge/experience they have in different subjects.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> Stop trolling in your posts and maybe, just maybe people won't take the internet seriously.
> 
> It seems like it is popular to downgrade Mozart, you and your "buddies" do it on this forum.
> 
> ...


Mozart is noise. Its not music at all. Just random incoherent emotionless sounds. Its just technical stuff, not music.

Thats the kind of stuff alot of other composers get. Mozart isn't immune from criticisms, and most of the criticisms he gets are WAAAAAAAAY kinder than those leveled at other composers. At least most of us criticizing him will say that he did write good music, and that he wasn't bad, just that he's over-rated.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mozart is very boring and predictable with his music. I regret my purchases with him knowing all his pieces sound the same. Alright maybe that is extreme but very little surprises to his music.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

MozzZzzzZzzzZzzzZzzart.

Without Mozart what would we listen to in elevators?

What would fancy snobs play at parties?

Which operas would college amateurs perform?

What would be heard on "easy listening" CDs?

What classical music would people who don't listen to classical music listen to?


The world is a scary place without Mozart.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

CoAg you have stolen my thunder re Arvo Part in your OP. That's what I've been saying about him on this forum for ages. But I like some of his stuff (predating early 1990's, I see the 'Berliner Messe' as a high point of his output so far, its downhill from there - well, rehash).

*But seriously, its not that they should not be famous, but they should not be allowed to eclipse other composers who are equally good if not offer more to the listening public. *When I was listening to classical FM radio (I don't any more), if they played a living composer, 9 times out of 10 (virtually) it would be Arvo Part. Other times it would be guys like Penderecki and Glass (composers whose music I generally like). Local composers where rarely played. In a few years of listening, I only heard Hovhaness and Varese's music once. Funnily enough it was on drive time (afternoon) but now and then they'd throw something in from 'left field.' When I heard these works, I really got a lot out of them, as they are very rarely given airtime.

Same goes for our concert halls. Well for the flagship orchestras at least. Things like chamber groups here do better, more varied programming.

So its about variety as always. Give us the real deal, not rehash. At a concert a couple of years back, of Australian Youth Orchestra, I heard a piece by contemporary Aussie Brett Dean. They put him between Mahler and Shostakovich. & to my ears, the music of our countryman was just as engaging, creative and imaginative as the two dead European giants where. So I think there are good things going on, we just need to tell them, tell everyone - WE WANT THE GOOD STUFF, DON'T GIVE US REHASH (or the same old same old).

Another rant over.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I'd have to go for Johann Strauß II.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I saw Johann and was about to faint. j/k


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'd have to go for Johann Strauß II.

And returning to our old method of critical commentary:

And your opinion would be WRONG!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Since no one mentioned it yet, I'll go ahead and do it. JS Bach.  *Goes and hides under the bed for cover*


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Since no one mentioned it yet, I'll go ahead and do it. JS Bach.  *Goes and hides under the bed for cover*


I politely disagree. :3


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I'm actually a big Bach fan. (I'm pretty sure you knew that) I just wanted to see the reactions I got. lol The whole family is great in music actually. (CPE, JC, and WF Bach). We can thank JS Bach for all the music he brought to the world and for his sons to add more later. And I did get carried away with my comments on Mozart. He is enjoyable music in small doses. I'll leave it at that as I don't want to rile up anyone too much.


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

Lil Wayne, Wiz Khalifa, Nickelback, One Direction...

I mean there are SO many!!!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> ...We can thank JS Bach for all the music he brought to the world and for his sons to add more later ...


Well he had ten kids didn't he? Sounds like he was quite the busy man in the boudoir.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Mozart is very boring and predictable with his music. I regret my purchases with him knowing all his pieces sound the same. Alright maybe that is extreme but very little surprises to his music.


I have found that a number of people posting here are boring and predictable.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> I'm actually a big Bach fan. (I'm pretty sure you knew that) I just wanted to see the reactions I got. lol The whole family is great in music actually. (CPE, JC, and WF Bach). We can thank JS Bach for all the music he brought to the world and for his sons to add more later. And I did get carried away with my comments on Mozart. He is enjoyable music in small doses. I'll leave it at that as I don't want to rile up anyone too much.


I think you may be too late !


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well he had ten kids didn't he? Sounds like he was quite the busy man in the boudoir.


Actually a half of his children did not survive infancy, but his wifes gave birth to twenty of them. O:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I wouldn't say Mozart or Brahms because their composition technique is quite good. You obviously know a lot about the music of Stockhausen etc. to say they shouldn't be as famous as they are. What is it about their composition technique that isn't as good as, say, Bach's Brandeburg Concerti? Counterpoint, structure, orchestration etc.


I feel the world is a better place and that I can relax now that Brahms and Mozart have your limited blessing.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

I don't know exactly how to put it in a not too harsh way, but... am I the only one believing that Stockhausen indeed is pretentious and most of the time quite boring? Sure he's important, I simply think there are better XXth century composers out there.
Also, I dislike both Messiaen's insisted love-glance at Catholicism and Nono's dedication of all his work to communism. I don't really share Mahler's nihilistic aesthethics, too.
Obviously, these people I mentioned above don't need my approval at all, just giving my opinion.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> Stop trolling in your posts and maybe, just maybe people won't take the internet seriously.
> 
> It seems like it is popular to downgrade Mozart, you and your "buddies" do it on this forum.
> 
> ...


We have to face it - due to the esteem the musical world has for Mozart - and I mean in the conservatoires (I never met a professor or performer who did not talk about M in the highest terms) - there are those, who - because they are deaf to his genius - out of green envy (becuase they have to fish around on here for someone - anyone - anywhere! to say something nice about the music they like) - keep their little egos from collapsing into a mouse's squeek - with digs and insults at one of music's accepted and acknowledged masters. You have to be indifferent to it and I believe this forum is like a pile of dung to them so they all gather here. Unfortunately - we who have come to be constructive and add enthusiasm to this wonderful life affirming hobby have to endure them. Consider this - if someone came onto a literary forum and said Chaucer or Shakespeare are well over rated and should not be famous - how would that sound? It's the same thing. There are famous composers I am yet to find a real appeciation for - like Britten and Prokofiev - but I would never fail to acknowledge their deserved position and achievements in 20th C music and prove my ignorance and lack of taste by coming on here and saying they should not be respected - or saying something so infantile as them being over-rated. Ignore the cranks - rise above them - and don't respond to the jibes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Rinaldino said:


> I don't know exactly how to put it in a not too harsh way, but... am I the only one believing that Stockhausen indeed is pretentious and most of the time quite boring? Sure he's important, I simply think there are better XXth century composers out there.


That is your opinion and I agree with the last sentence of that paragraph. As to being boring, I have found that some of his music really didn't grab my attention on the first listen (Klavierstuck IX for example) and some of then I found to be very entertaining to listen to, but that all comes down to the listener's opinion rather than the skill of the composer.



Rinaldino said:


> Also, I dislike both Messiaen's insisted love-glance at Catholicism and *Nono's dedication of all his work to communism*. I don't really share Mahler's nihilistic aesthethics, too.
> Obviously, these people I mentioned above don't need my approval at all, just giving my opinion.


Wow I actually didn't know that. Now I must become a Nono fanatic.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Wow I actually didn't know that. Now I must become a Nono fanatic.


You mean you never realized what such titles as "La fabbrica illuminata" or "Non consumiamo Marx" were referring to? 
Nono was a member of Italian communist party, which now no longer exists.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rinaldino said:


> I don't know exactly how to put it in a not too harsh way, but... am I the only one believing that Stockhausen indeed is pretentious and most of the time quite boring? Sure he's important, I simply think there are better XXth century composers out there...


Its like John CAge. I listen to Stockhausen's actual music - eg. Klavierstucke as CoAg mentioned - not his concept pieces (eg. the helicopter thing) which I have zero time for. I choose as if from a smorgasbord. 'Tierkreis' is a lot of fun, a chamber work with strong theatrical element. Love it, and live its just quite a good performance piece with real music, not wierd at all.



> ...
> Also, I dislike both Messiaen's insisted love-glance at Catholicism
> ...


WEll it was not religion of the dogmatic kind...unlike a certain wig's who did like 60 cantatas...but lets just not go there... 



> ... and Nono's dedication of all his work to communism. ...


I think he toned down the communist rhetoric after a while. But I have not heard a lot of his stuff, I just think that towards the end the ideology got less important. But if you can separate say Wagner from his ideology, why not Nono? Or BAch? Or anyone? I can't separate Wagner, but then again, I see him primarily as a great innovator and not much else. Aesthetically speaking as like zero to fulfill my needs as a listener.



> ...
> I don't really share Mahler's nihilistic aesthethics, too...


I have been getting into him again over the years, I am not a huge fan of dark music, but I think in some works there is optimism (eg. the triumphant end of his first symphony...but not his ninth, obviously). So it depends. 'Kindertotenlieder' is no walk in the park though, it touches a raw nerve for me, not to speak of 'Das Liede von erde' after which Mahler asked Bruno Walter whether people would want to top themselves after hearing it. Forget what Walter answered but again this aint no uplifting work.



> ...
> Obviously, these people I mentioned above don't need my approval at all, just giving my opinion.


Well you won't find me throwing mud balls back at you. I love Messiaen for one, and Cage and Mahler on the whole I admire. He was a pivotal figure not only in his time but as influence way beyond.

But these are sacred cows (so is Bach, so is Mozart, Wagner etc.), so BEWARE as some people end up getting nasty when you do this. They see it as felling their sacred cows.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Its like John CAge. I listen to Stockhausen's actual music - eg. Klavierstucke as CoAg mentioned - not his concept pieces (eg. the helicopter thing) which I have zero time for. I choose as if from a smorgasbord. 'Tierkreis' is a lot of fun, a chamber work with strong theatrical element. Love it, and live its just quite a good performance piece with real music, not wierd at all.
> * I was thinking exactly of that silly helicopter quartet. Except for Gruppen, I don't really like - or sometimes even get - his music. I think I have a recordings of Tierkreis somewhere. I'll surely listen to it carefully. *
> 
> WEll it was not religion of the dogmatic kind...unlike a certain wig's who did like 60 cantatas...but lets just not go there...
> ...


* I believe I was respectful in expressing my reservation about those composers. If not, I'm sorry. BTW, thank you for your answer and for not trowing mud balls at me  *


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

stomanek- We have to face it - due to the esteem the musical world has for Mozart - and I mean in the conservatoires (I never met a professor or performer who did not talk about M in the highest terms) - there are those, who - because they are deaf to his genius - out of green envy (becuase they have to fish around on here for someone - anyone - anywhere! to say something nice about the music they like) - keep their little egos from collapsing into a mouse's squeek - with digs and insults at one of music's accepted and acknowledged masters. You have to be indifferent to it and I believe this forum is like a pile of dung to them so they all gather here. Unfortunately - we who have come to be constructive and add enthusiasm to this wonderful life affirming hobby have to endure them. Consider this - if someone came onto a literary forum and said Chaucer or Shakespeare are well over rated and should not be famous - how would that sound? It's the same thing. There are famous composers I am yet to find a real appeciation for - like Britten and Prokofiev - but I would never fail to acknowledge their deserved position and achievements in 20th C music and prove my ignorance and lack of taste by coming on here and saying they should not be respected - or saying something so infantile as them being over-rated. Ignore the cranks - rise above them - and don't respond to the jibes.

Actually, as an incurable bibliophile I have been a long-term member at several literature sites, and what you describe is certainly not unknown. Indeed, I would estimate that we get the adolescent proclaiming that Chaucer/Dante/Shakespeare suck every few months. More irritating are the pretentious university sophomores trolling about and making similar claims when one would expect that they would know far better. We certainly have a number of these ourselves making inflated claims for every minor contemporary composer while dismissing acknowledged masters in a sad attempt to portray themselves as more hip and knowledgeable than those with far more knowledge and experience than themselves.

Perhaps we should only expect as much. It is but one product of our modern educational theory. Teachers have been told that the child's fragile sense of self-esteem is far more important than actual learning and thus we have "social promotion", and continual unwarranted praise, and an elimination of the concepts of "passing" and "failing" as well as "winners" and "losers". I remember one memo that directed us to stop using red pens to mark wrong answers and to instead employ "friendlier colors" like purple or green so as to not negatively effect the child's sense of self-esteem when confronted with a test with numerous red markings. The result has been a generation which the most inflated egos and expectations of praise and every sort of entitlement... without needing to earn any of these things. Certainly, everyone has the right to express his or her opinions, but we have many who feel entitled to having these opinions not only published in a public forum, but also taken seriously... afforded the greatest level of respect without having earned this respect... and in spite of repeatedly making the most absurd and ignorant statements.

I have been struck by the contrast with one of our most recent members, Rinaldino, an adolescent by his own admission. And yet he is an adolescent that has been able to call attention to a composer he feels is underrated, with logical arguments and examples, while not displaying the embarrassing need for inflated claims as to this composers superior "genius", nor the need to bolster such questionable assertions with dismissive attacks upon the acknowledged masters of the past. My hope is that Rinaldino, and other new and young members like him are not ultimately put off by the behavior of our other younger members with their inflated sense of entitlement and continual pleasure in trolling.

A good many of our "older" members are not ignorant nor inexperienced when it comes to Modern and Contemporary composers. Many also admire and/or enjoy a good portion of the same. As such, the entire "dinosaur" nonsense and "US vs Them" mentality is particularly egregious and misleading. Most older members do acknowledge and even admire the achievements of Modern and Contemporary composers, however they also recognize that there is far from any common agreement as to which Modern/Contemporary composers are the "best" and which are but minor figures at best. At the same time, none of us, to my knowledge, have the prognosticative ability needed to predict which of these composers will continue to resonate with future listeners and continue to grow in stature to the point of being generally acknowledged as "masters" of the age. For this reason, most of us tend to avoid inflated claims as to the towering genius of living or recently living composers, and embarrassing comparisons with Beethoven, Mozart, and Wagner.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> A good many of our "older" members are not ignorant nor inexperienced when it comes to Modern and Contemporary composers. Many also admire and/or enjoy a good portion of the same. As such, the entire "dinosaur" nonsense and "US vs Them" mentality is particularly egregious and misleading. Most older members do acknowledge and even admire the achievements of Modern and Contemporary composers, however they also recognize that there is far from any common agreement as to which Modern/Contemporary composers are the "best" and which are but minor figures at best. At the same time, none of us, to my knowledge, have the prognosticative ability needed to predict which of these composers will continue to resonate with future listeners and continue to grow in stature to the point of being generally acknowledged as "masters" of the age. For this reason, most of us tend to avoid inflated claims as to the towering genius of living or recently living composers...




This portion was, IMO, very nicely expressed. It would be so much better if people just posted to their enthusiams and avoided ill-judged attempts at comparisons. If you don't think there are enough threads on certain composers you like, start one or two more and hope for traffic.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have been struck by the contrast with one of our most recent members, Rinaldino, an adolescent by his own admission. And yet he is an adolescent that has been able to call attention to a composer he feels is underrated, with logical arguments and examples, while not displaying the embarrassing need for inflated claims as to this composers superior "genius", nor the need to bolster such questionable assertions with dismissive attacks upon the acknowledged masters of the past. My hope is that Rinaldino, and other new and young members like him are not ultimately put off by the behavior of our other younger members with their inflated sense of entitlement and continual pleasure in trolling.



I'm surprised. I couldn't have imagined such a post could impress someone so much. I mean, what kind of sick megalomaniacs have you met? I smashed my face on the ground (not literally LOL, does such an idiom exist?) enough times to erase that childlish omnipotence delyrium you seem to portray.
Except for free thinking (i.e. philosophy), I recognise the superiority of accomplished masters, whether I do like them or not. Boredom and disgust do not belong to the phenomenon we experience, but to ourselves: hence, if I don't like something, it's just my responsibility. Sometimes I feel I should try harder and in the end I succeed in appreciating my former hates, some others I choose to avoid that particular work. Either way, I'm happy. Being an amateur pianist, poet and composer and having a big field of interests I've easily learnt to accept my mediocrity in comparison. So, I really don't see the point of brutally attacking a composer: if you don't like him, just don't listen to his music. 
It is different, however, to express a negative opinion on somebody's work: I think everyone's got the right to have peculiar aesthethic ideals (I call aesthethic ideal the idea everyone's has of the perfect work of art). I am likely to give a lot of importance to formal issues - especially in poetry and literature, but also in music. 
Since I am new here it's possible I haven't already experienced that, but I really didn't see the problems you mentioned.

P.S. I think tolerance is a great thing even in the opposite way: if you're confident in your appreciation, you won't be shaken by some ol' nice trolling, so let it pass.
P.P.S. I don't like Dante 
P.P.P.S. I think I've really messed up with language here D:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rinaldino said:


> ...
> I think I have a recordings of Tierkreis somewhere. I'll surely listen to it carefully.
> ...


That's good, there are videos of performances on youtube of tierkreis. Its a good idea to see it as well as hear it. It is theatrical and a performance piece, but more kind of slapstick and visual than conceptual. But you have to see it to get what I mean. In the performances here I saw, the performers where dressed in gold gowns and they made these choreographes moves. It was almost like a ritual. Wierd but fun and the music is not hard to 'access' and enjoy.



> ...
> Let's say it was a strange approach to some aspects of Catholicism. I really do enjoy most of Messiaen works, but I can't deny I like them best when the performer doesn't push the religious thing to hard (e.g. Aimard Vingt Regards or Trio Wanderer+Moragues Quatuor pour la fin du temps). ...


Yes, Messiaen did have a strange or different approach to his religion, and to spirituality in general. Of course, it incorporates many things, incl. birdsong and even Hindu mysticism (eg. in 'Turangalila symphony,' there's both and more).

His open proclamation of faith in a secular - and also to some atheistic - age did bring him heaps of flack. But he stood aloof from the avant-garde and their navel gazing. As a professor, he of course taught things like serialism, but he had not much use for it as a composer himself. So he tried to separate his own ideology from others, including I think the listener. I personally often do connect with the faith aspect in his music, but not everyone does, its not essential to enjoy his music.

The other thing is that I was joking of my sly allusion to Bach. He, like Messiaen, had a strong religious faith (but also humanitarian) and he influenced Messiaen strongly.



> ...
> I agree on that. I really don't like Wagner myself, except for Tristan und Isolde which is indeed a masterwork. I don't really value Wagner either as a person or as a thinker. I think Nietszche got it right on him. I'm not sure I've understood the last sentence, could you explain it please?  ...


I mean I accept Wagner as a great innovator but he does not do a lot (or not enough) for me in terms of enjoyment of his music. & what I do enjoy is kind of killed off by associations - real or imagined - to his ideology and the subsequent playing out of that in the 20th century.



> ...
> Das Lied von der Erde can be listened to only if you're already emptied or tremendously sad. Then it's like being held and caressed on mother Earth's breast. It's a sick feeling though. That's why I can't say I like his music. The confidence and serenity Richard Strauss conveys are his opposite. No surprise I rank him in my very very favourite (with Beeth, Bach and Bruckner). I think a comparison of the Lied with the Vier Letzte Lieder could be interesting...


I never much compared Mahler and R. Strauss but its interesting what you say there. I think that definitely Mahler has more doubt, angst, a kind of neurotic outlook compared to his partial contemporary Bruckner, who overall has some confidence, at least in God, nature, triumph over darkness at the end. Not to speak of Brahms. I think Mahler was a whole new ball game compared to those two. He kind of really goes to areas that are very ambigious and kind of morbid and dark sometimes. But as I said he does have symphonies that end in triumph (eg. Nos. 1 & 5 - the latter obviously a 'take' on Beethoven's own 5th, the classic tragedy to triumph narrative).



> ...
> * I believe I was respectful in expressing my reservation about those composers. If not, I'm sorry. BTW, thank you for your answer and for not trowing mud balls at me  *


No, no, you where respectful. I was just trying to ward off people who immediately jump on others here at even a skerric of criticism of their sacred cows, whoever those composers may be. They make mountains out of molehills. Which immediately gets heated, potentially ugly. So to those people, I just say it's not on, basically. I can't put it in any other way.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

Sid James said:


> That's good, there are videos of performances on youtube of tierkreis. Its a good idea to see it as well as hear it. It is theatrical and a performance piece, but more kind of slapstick and visual than conceptual. But you have to see it to get what I mean. In the performances here I saw, the performers where dressed in gold gowns and they made these choreographes moves. It was almost like a ritual. Wierd but fun and the music is not hard to 'access' and enjoy.
> *Got it, tomorrow I'll search it on the net  *
> 
> Yes, Messiaen did have a strange or different approach to his religion, and to spirituality in general. Of course, it incorporates many things, incl. birdsong and even Hindu mysticism (eg. in 'Turangalila symphony,' there's both and more).
> ...


I got it. Don't worry, you were clear enough


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

P.P.S. I don't like Dante

First Wagner... and now Dante. I take back all I said in your favor.:lol:

Seriously, it is fine to dislike a given artist... even an acknowledged master. This is far different cry from declaring that highly respected master X sucks or is grossly overrated... or that some living or near living artist whose achievements have yet to be absorbed is equal or superior to master X.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> P.P.S. I don't like Dante
> 
> First Wagner... and now Dante. I take back all I said in your favor.:lol:
> 
> Seriously, it is fine to dislike a given artist... even an acknowledged master. This is far different cry from declaring that highly respected master X sucks or is grossly overrated... or that some living or near living artist whose achievements have yet to be absorbed is equal or superior to master X.


Dante created my own language (and that's maybe the only thing who truly connects Italy) and Wagner influenced hugely some of my favourite composers (e.g. Bruckner). It would be silly to despise them.  for the first sentence.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Rinaldino said:


> He's the king of them all.
> I have recently attended a really nice concert with Enrico Pace and Liza Ferschtman playing violin sonatas by Poulenc, Ravel and Beethoven. The sheer joy of the evening was istantly erased by Liebeslied and Liebes-something else I'm glad I have forgotten.


What about Kreisler ? He is hardly famous as a composer but as possibly the greatest violinist of all time with the sweet and golden tone.
His compositions were mostly written as encores for him to play at his concerts. The Liebeslied and its companion piece are echt Viennese and greatly loved. They were played at your concert as encores I am sure and your two violinists must have thought them worthwhile.---do lighten up!!
Furtwaengler ,Klemperer and Schnabel were pretty lousy composers but so what, they were fairly famous for other things don't you think ?


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

You should have a very bitter and hard soul not to love Kreisler's short pieces!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Odnoposoff said:


> You should have a very bitter and hard soul not to love Kreisler's short pieces!


There are loads of great Kreisler short pieces. Some are legendary and all the great violinists have played them.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

This is a topic about composers, Kreisler's ability as a performer doesn't matter here. I'm not questioning it. His short pieces are just nice sounding petit-bourgeois affectatious compositions. They're cute, but simply shouldn't be performed so much, even as encores. BTW, Enrico Pace is a pianist. I wouldn't compare Furtwangler, Schnabel and Klemperer to Kreisler: _in primis_ they're far more important than Kreisler even as performers, then at least they wrote ambitious works. They failed, I agree on that (Schnabel maybe is the best among them). 
I'm not really hostile towards Kreisler as a person. I simply don't believe he should be considered a composer.
Not sure about having an embittered soul, though. Maybe I'm just allergic to affectation. It's like those fops you find in literature who faked tears with a onion in their display handkerchief.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Odnoposoff said:


> You should have a very bitter and hard soul not to love Kreisler's short pieces!


You have to be careful with accusations like that.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Rinaldino said:


> This is a topic about composers, Kreisler's ability as a performer doesn't matter here. I'm not questioning it. His short pieces are just nice sounding petit-bourgeois affectatious compositions. They're cute, but simply shouldn't be performed so much, even as encores. BTW, Enrico Pace is a pianist. I wouldn't compare Furtwangler, Schnabel and Klemperer to Kreisler: _in primis_ they're far more important than Kreisler even as performers, then at least they wrote ambitious works. They failed, I agree on that (Schnabel maybe is the best among them).
> I'm not really hostile towards Kreisler as a person. I simply don't believe he should be considered a composer.
> Not sure about having an embittered soul, though. Maybe I'm just allergic to affectation. It's like those fops you find in literature who faked tears with a onion in their display handkerchief.


Petit Bourgeois ?? Good grief it sounds like something fom the 30's.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Kreisler was a 19Th,century composer, and remaind so all his life. He was romantic, sentimental and emotive, and wrote some of the most beautiful romantic, sentimental and emotive pieces for violin ever. Certainly everybody who hates romantisism, sentiments and emotions, can't like his music.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

Odnoposoff said:


> Kreisler was a 19Th,century composer, and remaind so all his life. He was romantic, sentimental and emotive, and wrote some of the most beautiful romantic, sentimental and emotive pieces for violin ever. Certainly everybody who hates romantisism, sentiments and emotions, can't like his music.


On the contrary, you need to have a great amount of respect and love to romanticism in particular and to emotions in general to dislike Kreisler. Beethoven's Heiliger Dankgesang, Schumann op. 17 or Keat's poems are emotional, Kreisler is just superficial. I mean, you aren't really suggesting that Kreisler's music can have a long-lasting impact on the soul, are you?
By petit bourgeois I mean that they're the kind of works amateur girls from bourgeois family could enjoy back in the 19th century. It is a well-crafted consumer good, an objectified amount of pleasure, but not Art at all.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Odnoposoff said:


> Kreisler was a 19Th,century composer, and remaind so all his life. He was romantic, sentimental and emotive, and wrote some of the most beautiful romantic, sentimental and emotive pieces for violin ever. Certainly everybody who hates romantisism, sentiments and emotions, can't like his music.


Kreisler was the old styles' recycle bin. I suppose you could say he was both romantic, rehash and should have stuck to violin playing.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Rinaldino said:


> On the contrary, you need to have a great amount of respect and love to romanticism in particular and to emotions in general to dislike Kreisler. Beethoven's Heiliger Dankgesang, Schumann op. 17 or Keat's poems are emotional, Kreisler is just superficial. I mean, you aren't really suggesting that Kreisler's music can have a long-lasting impact on the soul, are you?
> By petit bourgeois I mean that they're the kind of works amateur girls from bourgeois family could enjoy back in the 19th century. It is a well-crafted consumer good, an objectified amount of pleasure, but not Art at all.


It's a pity that nobody told Ruggiero Ricci, Heifetz, Menuhin, Alfredo Campoli,Henryk Szeryng, Aarond Rosand,Michael Rabin, usw about this. they are supposed to be superficial but do have an effect on the soul through the pleasure and enjoyment gained.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Kreisler was the old styles' recycle bin. I suppose you could say he was both romantic, rehash and should have stuck to violin playing.


I suppose I could say, please make an effort to bring some sensible remarks with you and if this is your opinion as a composer perhaps you could be more succinct. Some will say that I should not expect someone who loves Ligetti so much to like these bon-bons, but yes I do and you would be a more complete man. They, as I have said,were written to be played as encores which is where this whole thing started. I find this conversation quite ridiculous, I have known these inoffensive little pieces for years and years and have never asked myself whether they are earth moving.


----------



## Rinaldino (Aug 2, 2012)

moody said:


> They, as I have said,were written to be played as encores which is where this whole thing started. *I find this conversation quite ridiculous*, I have known these inoffensive little pieces for years and years and have never asked myself whether they are earth moving.


I'm glad we can agree on something


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Nobody can say seriously that the one and only Kreisler's string quartet is just a romantic nonentity. A very well written, strange, highly chromatic work, with nothing to do with all the rest of his production. And if that isn't Art, what is?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Odnoposoff said:


> Nobody can say seriously that the one and only Kreisler's string quartet is just a romantic nonentity. A very well written, strange, highly chromatic work, with nothing to do with all the rest of his production. And if that isn't Art, what is?


Actually its all art, even if its total crap. I don't think I've heard any of Kreisler's work, anything in addition to the quartet that you'd recommend?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I suppose you could say he was both romantic, rehash and should have stuck to violin playing.

I suppose many may eventually say that of you as well...


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I suppose you could say he was both romantic, rehash and should have stuck to violin playing.
> 
> I suppose many may eventually say that of you as well...


Why do you have to be so mean?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Why do you have to be so mean?

And CoAG's sweeping dismissal of Kreisler wasn't "mean"? The reality is that any artist who achieves any degree of recognition is going to face negative criticism. I have faced my own share of it. It lead me to think twice about directing snide comments at artists who have achieved even the smallest degree lasting recognition.

Of course the last 100 years are wide open for debate. Not because the work is "Modern" or too experimental... but simply because the work is too new... still open to fierce disagreements... still being absorbed by the culture and the musical world as a whole.

Beside which... I sense that this thread as a whole... it very intention (begun by CoAG) is mean-spirited. It's nothing more than a forum for spewing out hatred and envy toward those we personally dislike who have achieved some level of recognition.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why do you have to be so mean?
> 
> And CoAG's sweeping dismissal of Kreisler wasn't "mean"? The reality is that any artist who achieves any degree of recognition is going to face negative criticism. I have faced my own share of it. It lead me to think twice about directing snide comments at artists who have achieved even the smallest degree lasting recognition.
> 
> ...


His comment was mean, but the difference is Kreisler was a successful composer and he's dead. CoAG is still a kid and you said that right to him, you don't have to be a jerk. Shouldn't you strive to be the better person, especially if you're going to call him out for it?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Seriously, nothing is wrong with this topic. Just honesty. Why do we always have to talk about the good things in Composers? A little criticism can't hurt.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Why do you have to be so mean?


Sometimes it's the only way, particularly with someone you know won't listen to reason.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Kreisler was the old styles' recycle bin. I suppose you could say he was both romantic, rehash and should have stuck to violin playing.


In the conservatoires they don't agree.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Professional violinists and violin fans neither. And I dare to say nor the 99% of classical music lovers.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

moody said:


> Sometimes it's the only way, particularly with someone you know won't listen to reason.


When did uninformed, arrogant opinion become reason?  Jeez language evolves in unexpected ways. X3


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Elgar, Wagner, and Mahler come to mind. Though I like them sometimes, I feel they are being way overrated in general.


Ouch Neoshredder! You hit on all of the three "M"s-- my top three favorite composers. And Brahms to boot!

Seriously though, being "overrated" is one thing (though not something I see Mendelssohn being accused of often) but quite another to say these above shouldn't at all be famous, don't you think?


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> When did uninformed, arrogant opinion become reason?  Jeez language evolves in unexpected ways. X3


You seem to have a knack for calling anyone but yourself and your buddies "arrogant" and "uninformed". I see that provocative attitude consistently in every post I see of yours. Maybe that's why there seems to be "arrogance" wherever you go.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> When did uninformed, arrogant opinion become reason?  Jeez language evolves in unexpected ways. X3


Who's opinion is uninformed and arrogant as you put it in so charming a manner ?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Sonata said:


> Ouch Neoshredder! You hit on all of the three "M"s-- my top three favorite composers. And Brahms to boot!
> 
> Seriously though, being "overrated" is one thing (though not something I see Mendelssohn being accused of often) but quite another to say these above shouldn't at all be famous, don't you think?


I took it as being another overrated type of thread. Or being too famous for what they deserve. I'm not saying they are amateurs. Just way too known for what they made. I get that bored feeling whenever I listen to these Composers. Sorry you disagree.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> I took it as being another overrated type of thread. Or being too famous for what they deserve. I'm not saying they are amateurs. Just way too known for what they made. I get that bored feeling whenever I listen to these Composers. Sorry you disagree.


No need to be sorry. I simply took the post title quite literally, composers that don't deserve any fame.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

If a composer has become famous, then he must have done something worthwhile to achieve that status.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I wouldn't say Mozart or Brahms because their composition technique is quite good. You obviously know a lot about the music of Stockhausen etc. to say they shouldn't be as famous as they are. What is it about their composition technique that isn't as good as, say, Bach's Brandeburg Concerti? Counterpoint, structure, orchestration etc.


Hey, while technique, in a way is Everything, it ain't everything....


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

presto said:


> If a composer has become famous, then he must have done something worthwhile to achieve that status.


Justin Bieber is pretty famous


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Hey, while technique, in a way is Everything, it ain't everything....


I agree with this ^_^


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Justin Bieber is pretty famous


Justin Bieber is a composer in the same way the yellow stuff they put on burgers is cheese.


----------

