# Who Do You Consider To Be the Worst Composer?



## baroque flute

Here is a more controversial one...everyone gets their own opinion.  

I would nominate Richard Strauss and Stravinsky, with Mahler coming second. 
I am afraid I don't consider Schoenberg and company to be classical music. That's just my own opinion.


----------



## Daniel

Schoenberg and the coming atonal, minimalistic, blablabla music are only experiments for me, not a living, emotional heartful music. 

Richard Strauss is a wonderful orchestrator. I really don't like Wagner, but i can't say he was bad, though his way in composing led to Atonalisme which I don't support.

Mahler is a strange case. His range is from near primitisme which he uses ingenious as in his 1 st symphony: the canon Frère Jacque (3 rd movement if i am right), and also in natural atmospheres....

But in general to nominate a worst composer is difficult for me in that way, because you must decide between personal opinion, if you like it or not and/or technical skill.


----------



## oistrach13

never heard any schoenberg (thank god).

Richard Strauss is strange, I haven't heard much of him, but he just doesn't seem to appeal to me emotionally.

Mahler is a strange case, he has some wonderful songs, particularly the Kindertotenlieder, some parts of the Lied von der Erde are also nice, but he has this quality about his music, I don't know what it is, but it puts me off in some of his works, I can fully understand why people might not like him.

but I hardly think Strauss and Mahler are fit for the worst composer prize, there are much worse composers, particularly some obscure american composers that you come across once in a while, and you understand perfectly why they're so obscure. I'm not too fond of this Glass fellow either :blink: .

the final result:

3-Stravinsky
2-some obscure guy from somewhere who can't write well, and still calls himself a composer.

and the prize goes to.............

1- ME  

the worst composer you'll ever meet


----------



## becky

I gotta say Stravinsky ... I have never seen what people liked about his music, but that's purely my personal taste!


----------



## The Angel of Music

I am the worst composer of all time


----------



## oistrach13

> _Originally posted by The Angel of Music_@Aug 28 2004, 02:52 AM
> *I am the worst composer of all time
> [snapback]1647[/snapback]​*


you haven't heard my compositions <_<


----------



## Daniel

We could make a competition. :lol:


----------



## oistrach13

that would be too horrible :blink: , I can't write two lines of music that make sense


----------



## Daniel

Come on, that's not true, i have heard some of your compositions, you should focus more on it, you have talent.


----------



## oistrach13

oh, I am sure I am horrible, maybe someday I will be better.


----------



## Daniel

Proove your non-ability in your eyes and post something....i am sure you will change your mind.


----------



## Quaverion

The worst ones are probably Sarasate, Lalo, Saent-saens, Bach, Mozart, Dvorak, et.c

P.S.
Just kidding.


----------



## Harvey

The worst WELL KNOWN composer (well not really, he arranges) I've ever heard is Richard Clayderman.


----------



## oistrach13

when I have something worth posting, then I might consider it, but currently


----------



## Gustav

I believe that there is no way to judge who is a good composer or a bad composer, i am shocked to see that someone mentioned mahler's name in the "worst composers". I have a deep belief that the only reason that somone doesn't like Mahler is because either they are deaf, or doesn't understand his music, I also believed that some times music is larger then the music itselft, it not just notes and papers, for example, the message the Shotakovich incoporated in his symphonies, if you don't know a little about the historical context, you might misunderstand his music and therefore condemn his music to be "bad". 
again, I just don't know why in the world people would not like mahler, perhaps some people dislike symphonies, but for the people that like symphonies, i would like to say that Mahler's symphonies is definitely the best.
here are my opinion of who composes best symphonies.
1. Mahler 
2. Beethoven
3. Bruckner
4. Dvorak
5. Haydn
6. Tchaikovsky


----------



## Music_Junkie

People hate Mahler, Stravinsky and Schoenberg  !!!!! 

Those are a few of my favorite composers, but then I like just about every composer on the planet! Particularly contemporary and new music. 

A composer who I dislike (but still have great respect for as a composer) would be Wagner. Brilliant at what he does but I have a hard time getting into an opera that repeats itself many times and drags on for over 15 hours. Yet I enjoy minimalism and composers like Reich, Glass and Cage so.........


----------



## karlhenning

Music_Junkie said:


> . . . Brilliant at what he does but I have a hard time getting into an opera that repeats itself many times and drags on for over 15 hours.


That's an unusually long *Tristan *!



Cheers,
~Karl


----------



## Todd

karlhenning said:


> That's an unusually long *Tristan *!


Only when all repeats are observed.


----------



## Music_Junkie

I wasn't thinking of Tristan actually.....It's The Ring Cycle that clocks in at over 15 hours.


----------



## Gustav

Music_Junkie said:


> People hate Mahler, Stravinsky and Schoenberg  !!!!!


I dislike Stravinsky and Schonenberg as well, but Mahler is much more different than those two composers, I will tell you my reasoning why Mahle's music is good.
He is the last great composer of the Beethovenian tradition, after him there is only Shostakovich, but he composes quite differently, so Mahler had all the Classical/baroque/early/late ROmantic muscal techique to compose his music, and let me say this, if you have heard Mahler, his music aren't Atonal like that of Stravinsky, he composes beautiful melodies, but they are often short lived, his only 'light' piece is the second movement of Symphony #2, the most innocent Mahler you will ever hear. But mostly his music has a sublime side to it, it is not linear as Mozart Vivaldi, or Bach. Nor is it chaotic like Stravinsky and Schoenberg, only in his 9/10 symphony did he begin to use a little dissonace, so I can't quite understand why you would put his name along wiht Stravinsky and Schoenberg, maybe you need to listen to Mahler more.
P.S I hated Mahler too, yes, once upon a time, I actually hated his music, it was very weird, but when I carefully examined the scores of his first symphony, I was convinced that he is a genius, and that's only an early work.

Listen to Mahler, don't say people hate mahler, they don't hate mahler, I can't like Beethoven without hearing beethoven, all they need is to listen more, maybe listen in a deeper level than just emotions.


----------



## Music_Junkie

Gustav, I didn't say I hated those composers, I was questioning why others hated them. I personally love the music of Mahler. One of my greatest concert experiences was hearing a Mahler Symphony performed. 

I do need to clarify something though, Stravinsky is not atonal, his music is an example of polyphony not atonalism. Stravinsky stretched the harmonic bounderies but he didn't fully abandon all sense of tonality and harmony. I do believe in his later years there are two works that I'm not sure have ever been performed, but if they have are very seldom heard, that he experimented with atonality but that is the extent of his atonalism. Atonality can be equally as beautiful as a Mahler, Beethoven or Brahms work it just depends on how you look at it and what your ear is comfortable with. I personally, often times, find myself much more connected to modern music like that of Schoenberg and composers of the present day. I've been very fortunate to perform several works that are "atonal" and written in the last few years and work with composers on their works and modern music that a lot of people call noise is actually quite amazing and brilliant. It's definetly ok to not enjoy listening to that music but it means a lot to someone and takes a lot of skill to write and to create. My biggest issue is with people writing off any modern music and not giving it the respect it deserves. Bach's harmonies were considered strange and odd at his time as were other composers in their respective years, yet we play their music now and call it a masterpiece. I think it's important to give music and it's creators respect even if we don't enjoy listening to such music. *end of speech*


----------



## LiLi

What about Scriabin? I just don't get it. Every piece I've heard sounds like a soundtrack to a Discovery Channel documentary about monkeys. I dont know maybe its too advanced for me.


----------



## sammy

*stravinsky on this list? you're kidding right?*

What kind of philistines are on this site?

Stravinsky is one of the greatest composers of all time--not one of the worst!


----------



## JANK

Ya what's up with that? How can you say Stravinsky sucks? You are obviously not very open minded nor are you away of the day an age that you are living in. Wake up and smell the coffee; the Romantic period is long gone! Lol...and those are the words of a traditionalist. =p


----------



## glezzery

All you folks who say Stravinsky is the worst composer should probably stick to one of a hundred cookie cutter Haydn Symphonies! If a lover of Orchestral music doesn't dig his Ballets or Dumbarton Oaks Concerto or L'Histoire du Soldat or SOMETHING and claim him the Worst is not to be trusted. Also Stravinsky is the most influential composer of the last Hundred years and NOT because he was the WORST! SHEESH please listen ssome more.
Not all music is easy listening background nicety!

If you like music that does nothing, my vote is Alan Hovaness!
If you like cobbled together fake emotion and bombast, Mahler is my second!
Mahler wrote great melodies and Symphony no. 6 is great, but most is overblown and self conscious nonsense!

To Gustav: I understand you like Mahler! A lot of folks do! BUT, Mahler is among the most controversial composers. His talent for melody and orchestral color carried him along way, but to my ears, a lot of Mahler sounds pushed or contrived. Take Sym. 5. going along nicely and all THE SUDDEN big Brass and overheated crescendo, from NOWhere with no relevence. Sym. No 1 Frere Jacques! How does one put a little Frere Jacque Nursery song in a serious work. Sym. 6 is mighty fine but 7 is all over the place, coming from nowhere and going there fast, in % MOVEMENTS! His final Sym. hints at the greatness he could have acheived but it is still long and tedious. Sym. 2 and 3 are fine, but two long. I find myself wondering when he will get to the point and all the sudden he is there, but doesn't satisfy. I have a theory. Those who LOVE mozart and Verdi Opera, love Mahler for the melody. Those who love Beethoven and Brahms prefer structure.
After all, it is a symphony and the largest structure and Mahler misses much more than hits, FOR ME. I do understand because my father loves Mahler. I prefer Bruckner!


----------



## glezzery

Gustav: I have to disagree that Mahler is in the Beethoven Tradition. Strauss and Mahler were actually the first modernists and the end of the Romantic! Beethoven's music stands on it's own as structure and usually the music may represent events but excepting his last works, is rarely about psychology. Mahler's music rarely exists on its own. He seems to be using psychology. He seems to be going for feelings and effects, something Beethoven didn't worry about. Mahler has the sound of Worldly Decay and fragmentation, something that doesn't exist but in a few late Beethoven works, when he was for all purposes probably clinically MAD! Beethoven informs his Music. A turbulent world at odds with modernity informs Mahlers Music. Anyhow, i understand Mahlers appeal. BUT, to me, his structures aren't solid or parts seem put together. Sometimes the music seems to seize up and stop, then shift gears into strange territory. Sometimes, crescendoes and fortes seem to arrive for no reason. Sometimes i wonder how he got therer from here and vice versa.
Sometimes, I will be enjoying Mahler and the point he seems to be building to never comes! Mahlers 8Th is the most over indulgent craziness i have every heard! I appreciate parts of it, BUT parts do not make good symphonies, so 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 are worth listening to! 6 is his masterwork. I have BIG problems with 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9! I guess in the end his symphony batting average is close to Shostakovich, but Dmitri was a better Musician and composer by far. Das Lied Von Der Erde is mighty nice, though!


----------



## soul_syringe

hhmmmn... tough one... i wouldn't really say "worst" but "least-liked" personally maybe... but with all due respect to the "masters", they would have to be schubert and schumann... sorry. schubert? don't even have "anything" to comment on. schumann? he had some great melodic lines in some works there but he isn't just that prolific a composer enough for me... sorry...


----------



## riverbank

This is an old thread i know .. but hey .. well my most disliked famous composer would have to be Handel (some of his stuff does my head in), but without doubt the worst ever 'classical' music I have ever listened to is by Penderecki .. I borrowed a CD out of my local library, listened to about 3 tracks, and gave up .. his music is sheer horror which should never be allowed into the world of classical music. 


Stravinsky .. yeah i quite like him, at least Firebird and Petrushka, but can understand why some ppl don't. I noticed someone earlier didn't like Alan Hovhaness. I think he is great.


----------



## Hexameron

riverbank - Don't give up on Handel. Handel is considered to be one of the most original and ingenious composers to come out of the Baroque era. I think the problem is that the public seems to decide what's popular and what's good. You can't trust what the public likes. The Water Music and the Messiah is all we seem to find in concerts. Much of his oratorios and just about all of his instrumental music are just as accomplished and excellent as Bach. Indeed, I think Handel's music is far more dramatic and powerful as well. He was a true master of the fugue, of the opera, and surprisingly, of the concerto too. Beethoven said of him, "Handel is the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head and kneel on his grave."

The worst composer(s) is a tough one because until I've heard every composition from every composer, how can I possibly judge? From what I've heard so far in my life, I'll list these guys: Edward Mac Dowell, Leonard Bernstein, John Cage, and George Philipp Telemann. In my opinion, they either fall flat, sound mediocre, have stupid ideas, or are just overrated.


----------



## Lynx

I cannot believe that Richard Strauss has been nominated as worst composer. Before judging please listen to his tone poem, Don Juan, it's magical.

As for the worst, Philip Glass and Einoudi (sp) leave me totally cold. I need to know if there's something wrong with my hearing because I find their compositions to be tuneless pap. To use modern terminology, I just don't 'get' it. There seems a total lacking in melody and the monotonous repeating of the same few notes makes me want to stick pins in my eyes.

Can anyone explain to me what I'm missing here? Am I just an ignoramous who doesn't appreciate this new style of childlike composing?

Lynne

*I hope I haven't offended anyone by posting this*


----------



## Topaz

I agree Einaudi. Ghastly candyfloss music. No depth to it at all. The kind of rubbish they sometimes play on radio stations as requests by ignoramuses for their grandmother's birthday who's probably deaf.


Topaz

P.S. Same as previous post: I hope I haven't offended anyone, or their grandmother.


----------



## riverbank

I like Einaudi myself, hmmm well different people have different tastes so that's fine. I agree that it is a bit odd that someone nominated Richard Strauss as their worst composer, not my fave by any means but certainly pretty good.


----------



## Mahler Maniac

I don't like Bach or Beethoven at all really...


I love Mahler (of course) Liszt, Mozart.....

I love drama and passion in classical pieces, with intermitten periods of calm..not all calm...thats why I dont find Bach or Beethoven apppealing....its too prim and proper..haha


----------



## Hexameron

Mahler Maniac - How can you love Mozart but think Beethoven "prim and proper"? Are you making that judgment on Beethoven without having heard all of his piano sonatas, the Egmont overture, all the symphonies, and the Missa Solemnis?


----------



## 3rdplanetsounds

So amusing hearing you all protecting and bitching about your likeable/dislikeable composers.What about the most 'fun'composer to listen to?With the limited amount of knowledge I have of the most famous, I'll say that honour falls to Ravel.He incorporates little snippets of actual quotes or composes in the stlye of other composers in his music that makes you say "oh thats... Beethoven,Berlioz,Wagner,Mahler,Sibelius,Rachmaninov.....etc..etc..."which is done in such a suttle manner, you don't really hear it at first.This to me makes Ravel so amusing and a joy to listen to!


----------



## riverbank

3rdplanetsounds said:


> So amusing hearing you all protecting and bitching about your likeable/dislikeable composers.What about the most 'fun'composer to listen to?With the limited amount of knowledge I have of the most famous, I'll say that honour falls to Ravel.He incorporates little snippets of actual quotes or composes in the stlye of other composers in his music that makes you say "oh thats... Beethoven,Berlioz,Wagner,Mahler,Sibelius,Rachmaninov.....etc..etc..."which is done in such a suttle manner, you don't really hear it at first.This to me makes Ravel so amusing and a joy to listen to!


Yay Ravel is wicked! Esp La Valse and Bolero! A lot of his stuff is fun to listen to indeed. But I would have to say that the 'most fun' is Gershwin in my opinion. Rhapsody in Blue, I Got Rhythm, Piano Concerto, An American in Paris, all of these pieces rule!


----------



## Celloman

I don't like Offenbach, or at least the music I've played from him. And as for Liszt...he's not on my list.


----------



## Hexameron

Well you're a celloman, so I can see how piano composers wouldn't appeal to you. Unfortunately, this whole thread has turned into an opinion-fest on who we dislike the most. The title of this thread should press us to reflect wisely on who we think is the *worst* composer. Ignorant choices like Mahler, Strauss, Liszt, Stravinsky and Ravel should be omitted. I'd even say I went too far with my mentioning of Telemann.

Who is really the most untalented and inferior musical peon of a composer? That's the question.


----------



## robert newman

The worst composer ? Easy - it's Johann Sebastian Bach. 

Why ? Well, who likes cod liver oil ? Who really likes medicine ? But the more I take it the more I just love Bach. The most stupendous gift ever given to mankind of musicianship.


----------



## Hexameron

Robert, I would have thought Rod's influence over at the Handel forum might have finally turned you away from Bach.  For me, it's a tough decision: cod-liver oil of Bach or the raw egg-yolk of Handel. Well actually it's not - I'll always take the zesty nutri-grain bar of Beethoven.


----------



## robert newman

Ah, yes Beethoven. Music's answer to the Declaration of Independence !

Sublime.


----------



## Lynx

3rdplanetsounds said:


> So amusing hearing you all protecting and bitching about your likeable/dislikeable composers.What about the most 'fun'composer to listen to?With the limited amount of knowledge I have of the most famous, I'll say that honour falls to Ravel.He incorporates little snippets of actual quotes or composes in the stlye of other composers in his music that makes you say "oh thats... Beethoven,Berlioz,Wagner,Mahler,Sibelius,Rachmaninov.....etc..etc..."which is done in such a suttle manner, you don't really hear it at first.This to me makes Ravel so amusing and a joy to listen to!


I'm not too fond of the word 'bitching'. Opinion and open debate hardly constitutes bitching. I do, however, appreciate being given the title of a work which is worthy of a listen.


----------



## Oneiros

Quite a strange question. The worst composers are probably all unknown...


----------



## linz

The worst composer, (of famous composers) might be Cesar Cui of 'The Five'?


----------



## Hexameron

Why, linz?


----------



## Edward Elgar

In my opinion, a bad composer is one who is maladaptive and cannot write for a wide range of emotions and occasions. One such composer is Mahler. He always wears his heart on his sleve and it irritates the hell out of me! I try to stay clear of Mahler and don't even go near the atonal ******** such as Schonberg!


----------



## linz

He is almost never played anymore and is by far the least talented of 'the five', yet was a prolific composer, I geuss he simply hadn't the slightest clue that his compositions were banal?


----------



## Hexameron

Have you heard his Op. 64 Preludes? This is not a rhetorical question because I haven't heard them myself. I noticed the Naxos label recorded these and I'm curious about how well he can compose miniatures.


----------



## linz

Anyone, and I mean anyone, can get lucky with a few miniatures!


----------



## Hexameron

They can get lucky with "a few" but rarely do they get lucky with all (i.e. Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn), which is what I'm curious to find out with Cui. If you haven't heard these preludes, what works of his did you find "banal"?


----------



## ezydriver

I will admit I haven't read this thread, but I want to nominate. So please excuse me if they have already been mentioned.

I think the recently deceased Sir Malclm Arnold and that idiot from the beatles, Paul McCartney get my vote.


----------



## linz

A musical encyclopedia I read in my teens said he was a poor composer, yet was prolific, therefore never realizing how poor he was. I can tell by your many threads, Hexameron, that your not nessesarily drawn to the more famous composers. Has it occured to you that prehaps less known composers became defunct because, how do I say this, they weren't gifted?


----------



## Topaz

I'm not sure this thread is making a lot of sense (and I admit I have contributed to it) because there is no field of candidates from whom to choose the "worst". It's almost limitless, from the very famous to the most obscure. 



Topaz


----------



## Hexameron

linz said:


> I can tell by your many threads, Hexameron, that your not nessesarily drawn to the more famous composers. Has it occured to you that prehaps less known composers became defunct because, how do I say this, they weren't gifted?


It's true I have an affection for such a niche, but such a liking for the obscure composers doesn't cloud my acknowledgement and adoration for the "famous composers." I rank Bach and Beethoven above all others; they are my benchmark. Mozart, Brahms, Chopin, Liszt and Schubert then follow. The genius of those composers should never be disputed, but that doesn't mean other composers are completely worthless. Many of the lesser known composers _are_ gifted. I think many who give them a chance would certainly say this. For me, it took a sidetrack into Alkan, Rubinstein, and Hummel to realize that there are hundreds of scores collecting dust when they would only enhance the current repertoire.

However, I also perfectly understand obscure composers are obscure for a reason. They are either old-fashioned, mediocre, superficial, or lacking innovation. For pianist-composers like Dreyschock, Kalkbrenner, and Herz, they certainly pale in comparison to the masters like Chopin, Schumann and Liszt. But not everything from these guys is drivel. Dreyschock's piano concerto is pure delight and Herz writes damn good operatic fantasies. They don't have colossal symphonies like Mahler or timeless operas like Verdi, but I think some of their works _are_ worthy of praise. It's tough to pass a final judgment on such composers, though, when most of their compositions are never recorded. I don't think this signifies that the performers have dismissed them as trivial, but rather that they never bothered looking at them in the first place.

Well, I don't know how we meandered into this, I was really just asking an innocent question of what Cui pieces you thought banal? I will respect any analysis you have to give and I might even avoid the ones you found disagreeable.


----------



## Saturnus

Linz: If you think popularity decides the matter of quality, you'd be forced to call Steven Segal a genius and nominate Britney Spears the best of contemporary musicians.

For composer to become famous it is not enough to write a number beautiful pieces, many composers died completely unfamous but where later discovered, probably by people who didn't only listen to already famous composers. 
Other's composer's works were literally held captive! Most of Zelenka's works languished in a Dresden library where weaponed soldiers stood guard, accessible to almost nobody untill after WWII.

Hexameron: I think it is quiet normal, in a thread about the worst composers, to talk about how to identify bad composers.


----------



## linz

I don't mean any offense, I'm simply trying to express that I don't have time for every Tom, Dick, and Harry. The vastly brilliant give me enough to focus on. I probaly listen to Mahler 80% of the time anyway, and his music, though vast in scale, isn't in quantity. We were talking about 'philsophy towards music' in a thread once. I think people should focus on their true favorites instead of feel the need to listen to everything in the repetoire, besides Hemameron, you'd probably agree, that there more great music then anyone could listen to in a lifetime, You might aswell distinguish yourself as a true expert on someone who you feel extremely passionately about. For me it is Mahler.


----------



## Topaz

Part of the enjoyment of classical music is reading up on the lives of the composers you like. This is a totally different point from the one made by some people that you have to know about their lives and social situations in order to appreciate fully their works. I don't really buy this last argument, although I accept there may be some validity up to a point. 

As may be obvious, my three favourites are Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann. I also like several others: Brahms, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Wagner (plus a few others to a lesser extent). This selection isn't arbitrary, and is not merely based on some popular list. I spent a lot of time listening to many composers - mostly the big names - but apart from those listed here they've been largely cast aside except for short periods of revived interest now and then.

I have read a great deal about first three mentioned above, and am fascinated by their lives. Having reached this point, this fascination and huge admiration for them has made me far less inclined to want to explore other less well-known composers. Although I am not totally closed to new ideas, I don't particularly want to find out about others. I know for sure there's more than enough material (some yet to be obtained) among the above-mentioned composers to keep me going indefinitely.

I know that some fervent classical music fans are far more open-minded than me. They want to wander far and wide finding forgotten heroes. There's nothing wrong with that approach either. Good luck to them. It's all a question of what makes you happy.


Topaz


----------



## Saturnus

Well, you never know what is just behind that corner. And that is the reason me, and I think Hexameron too, keep checking out lesser known composers.

I do not support this method of worshiping the composer himself. I think listening to his lesser known contemporaries gives you much better understanding of your "hero's" works. I think the function in reading about the composer's life is letting you connect the creation of his works to events in his life, and that is in my opinion the wrong thing to do. Composers heard the work of their contemporaries, they, maybe without knowing it, used musical ideas they heard. 
My point is that the music of the great masters is far more inspired by their contemporary composers, which are less known today, than it is inspired by their life. I think the history of music is the work of a huge number of "mediocore" composers, but not of a few geniuses. The great masters simply offer you a simplified version of music history. Don't think I am underestimating the great masters, they were in most cases better artists and more creative than their contemporaries (that is something you hear when listening to the lesser known work), but not so fiendishly creative that they make up the whole music-history!
I can promise you that after listening a great deal to Telemann, and the forgotten Dresden composers, Bach does not sound like the demi-god master you once thought he was.


----------



## JfW

> I can promise you that after listening a great deal to Telemann, and the forgotten Dresden composers, Bach does not sound like the demi-god master you once thought he was.


I've heard plenty of Bach and Telemann, and while I like both, I can't say that I agree with any suggestion of Telemann being Bach's better.

The topic is of a nature that it can't properly addressed. The name of what we should reguard as the worst composers of the tradition of literary music have all been long lost to history for the sub-mediocrity they were. Almost everyone here have named composers that others hold as great, and are all certainly great when named in absolute terms.

It seems to come down to the question of what great composer do you not care for. For me, the one great composer who I don't understand the esteem given to is Mozart. I don't enjoy the cliches he uses nor really much of the music of his time.

Hexameron:



> The worst composer(s) is a tough one because until I've heard every composition from every composer, how can I possibly judge? From what I've heard so far in my life, I'll list these guys: Edward Mac Dowell, Leonard Bernstein, John Cage, and George Philipp Telemann. In my opinion, they either fall flat, sound mediocre, have stupid ideas, or are just overrated.


I do like Bernstein. He wasn't one of the inner-circle greats to me, but he represents what i'd deem a sane evolution of literary music during the 20th century. He combined the orchestral tradition with latin and jazz pop music which contrasts the movement towards introverted atonalism, which is where I think most of the genre has now gone


----------



## linz

I think phatic 'hit the nail on the head', the worst composers are going to be the ones we have never heard of, the only reason J. S. Bach was forgotten is because they were to obsessed with music of their own time during the Classical and early Romantic periods. Today many Historians are scurtinizing endlessly to find and establish fallen greats, like Pergolasi, Telemann, C. P. E. Bach. It is surely a matter of oppinion and not open to debate, whether to "glorify" a composer; This doesn't mean thinking of him as a 'God' (which would be quite silly), but simply stressing your enthuisiam, nothing more.


----------



## Saturnus

I never said that Telemann was better, I was simply saying that listening to one composer's contemporaries tells you a lot more about where their ideas come from and how they developed them, than reading their biographies. If you only listen to Bach and read about his life, but listen not to his contemporaries, you might accidentaly give him and his life the credit for other composer's idea.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Hexameron said:


> Unfortunately, this whole thread has turned into an opinion-fest on who we dislike the most. The title of this thread should press us to reflect wisely on who we think is the *worst* composer ... Who is really the most untalented and inferior musical peon of a composer? That's the question.


Very true. There is a big difference between music that you don't like and music that is "bad". The first you do not have to justify, as it is a personal opinion which can be based on subjective emotional reactions. But if we are to talk objectively about "Bad Composers", there must be some sort of criteria to which we refer when discussing the relative flaws of composers.

So what is this criteria?

Is anyone bold enough to suggest a list of traits that good composers "should" exhibit and therefore bad ones don't?

I won't attempt a comprehensive list, but I will suggest one point:

Good composers don't write "derivative" music. Music that simply grinds out things that are similar to that which has been written before, possibly even by themselves. This is a very subtle point, because this "derivative" music can often be very skillfully written from a technical point of view. Furthermore, it is hard to draw the line between what is derivative (negative) and what adheres to a tradition (positive).

I hope that this one little point shows us that it shouldn't be that easy to simply list off "Bad Composers".


----------



## Topaz

*How to Define a "Bad" Composer*

I would say that "bad" composers straddle both the innovative and the non-innovative. They are not confined to one set or the other; they are sub-sets of each.

Thus we have a total population of composers who are:


innovative good, innovative bad
non-innovative good, non-innovative bad
Three qualifications: (i) Obviously, "bad" is not a black and white concept, but instead there are many shades of grey. The point at which the term "bad" is truly appropriate is difficult to gauge. (ii) The concept is also time dependent, in that the fortunes of someone once considered "good" or "bad" could change over time. (iii) "Innovation" is not black and white either.

There will always be some people who like "bad" composers. There will also always be people who dislike "good" composers. But a lot of people won't like "bad" composers, and a lot of people won't dislike "good" composers. These statements are especially true in the longer term. Hence "bad" composers are those who produce work for which there is no, or only weak, market demand. A simple test is to look at CD sales and other radio requests etc. It's a market-based test, not a personal one.

Note that at a purely technical level, some of the "bad" composers might be only slightly below the quality of the "good". But that's tough in a competitive world. It's often small differences that make all the difference to the decisions of cost-conscious consumers. If the latter's material isn't wanted then the market has clearly determined they are "bad".

Topaz


----------



## James

The worst composer is not known to the general public, hopefully


----------



## 4/4player

If I may quote from David W. Barber's "If it ain't Baroque...:More music history as it ought to be taught".....he says" But really there are only good music and bad music".
So, I hope that helps!=)

4/4player

P.S. Hope I didn't offend anybody and correct me if im wrong...(I'll love to get into an interesting conversation about this with Kurkikohtaus,Topaz, and Hexameron,lol=)


----------



## Odocoileus

*Philp Glass*

Philp Glass. Do you want a list? How many times can I list Philp Glass? I suspect he has inhaled too many gas fumes while driving his cab.


----------



## Asperjames

I actually Schoenberg's "Transfigured Night" a lot. Berg I enjoy too, well, the violin concerto, lyric suite, and three orchestral pieces are nice, but...Wozzeck...-_- 

Cage, I haven't heard any but he wrote 4:23 right? I've never heard it (no pun intended), but I really don't see the point of anything like that. I haven't heard much of Glass so I can't say anything for him either...


----------



## IAmKing

Asperjames said:


> Cage, I haven't heard any but he wrote 4:23 right? I've never heard it (no pun intended), but I really don't see the point of anything like that.


Its a difficult concept to grasp, but I think the brilliance of many of Cage's works lie in their bizarre and interesting concepts... seeing as the actual sound is not directly dictated by Cage.

I don't think I could name my worst composer. It would have to be a composer that composed what he did and hated it himself... was ONLY in it for the money. I mean, who am I to judge another composer's work as being "the worst" if they enjoy their work themselves.


----------



## robert newman

About 2 years ago I saw an article somewhere about a piece of church music that is scored to take several thousands of years to perform. It consists of playing a few notes every few decades or so. (Give or take a few months, that is !). The composer started the piece at a church in Germany somewhere and there was a lot of publicity about it. 

Such things are ridiculous, of course. 

Well we live in an age where art is whatever people want it to be. And where it's supposed to be wrong to look for objectivity in anything. If man destroys a piano with a mallet in 20 minutes he can be regarded as a modern musician. The problem is not so much that highly subjective views exist about music - it's that those who disagree with such nonsense seem unable to define what is meant by good or bad music. It's a real problem. But I don't think we need to become philosophers. Maybe we need simply to discover what music is in nature. 

Great music in the future may not really be composed as such but discovered somehow. Or deciphered even. From nature itself. 

(Just a few heretical thoughts to end the year on). 

Regards


----------



## Topaz

*Robert:* I detect a possible Platonic view of the world you have just described, where "good" and "bad" music exist as "forms" in nature, and all we have to do is tune ourselves in - by a process of education - and discover them (at least the "good"). I am not a Platonist by nature, far more an Empiricist in my philosophical outlook. With that in mind, I repeat my view that "good" music is what appeals to the majority of people, and this is entirely an empirical matter.

It is rather like trying to define what is "money". Various objective attempts have been made based on itemising different possible components. However, probably the best definition ever proposed (many years ago) is _"money is as money does", _meaning that whatever is commonly accepted as "money" is money.

I suggest is the same with "good" and "bad" music, that what the majority of people consider good and bad is probably the best definition we will get. Such a categorisation does not imply permanent fixity. The notion that some people may disagree is irrelevant. Some people do not agree with speed restrictions on roads, or paying taxes, but that does not make them right in their view. It is the majority view that should prevail if definitions are required, although in the case of defining good/bad music I'm not sure they are.

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

A few quickquips to start:


4/4player said:


> "But really there are only good music and bad music".


Certainly the author meant this tongue in cheek, as the title of the book would suggest.



Topaz said:


> I am not a Platonist by nature, far more an Empiricist in my philosophical outlook.


Really? Who would have thought... 



Odocoileus said:


> Philp Glass. Do you want a list? How many times can I list Philp Glass?


Knock knock.
_Who's there?_
Knock knock.
_Who's there?_
Knock knock.
_Who's there?_
Knock knock.
_Who's there?_
... Philip Glass.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, allow me to mount my noble defence of *Phillip Glass*, *Steve Reich* and *Terry Riley*. The minimalist movement of the 70's is in my opinion grand and noble for 2 reasons:

It was a direct reaction against the Serialist domination of modern music
It was completely and totally original at the time
That's not to say that *all *minimalist music that followed, even that of Phillip Glass, *John Adams* and hybrids like *Henryk Gorecki* and *Arvo Part* is just as original and revolutionary as it was in the 70's. Nor does it mean that minimalism has made leaps and bounds in its own development. But the minimalist movement injected something into contemporary music that still appeals to audiences today, almost 40 years after its conception.

Phillip Glass is therefore by my reckoning not a bad composer. He is a composer that _created_ a niche in contemporary music, a niche that so far has stood the test of time.


----------



## Odocoileus

It is odd to me that Gorecki is considered to be in the same catagory as Glass. I hate Glass' compositions while Gorecki's symphone #3 is currently at the top of my best list.


----------



## Odocoileus

Here is a better response to who I consider to be the worst composer:

Phillip Glass
Phillip Glass
Phillip Glass
Phillip Glass
Phillip Glass
Glass Phillip
Glass Phillip
Glass Phillip
Glass Phillip
Phillip Glass
Phillip Glass .....


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

About *Gorecki*, he is not a pure minimalist in the sense that Phillip Glass was.

In harcore minimalism, like Glass' _Einstein_ or Adams' _Short Ride_, the.content.is.the.form.is.the.content.

Gorecki seperates the content from the form, by applying minimalist techniques to longer ideas, resulting in a much more linear or "conventional" style. That's why I called him a "hybrid" and not a true minimalist.


----------



## linz

One of my favorite tunes is "News has a kind of mystery" from Adams: Nixon in China; Brilliant even if your not a fan of such things.


----------



## orquesta tipica

Oh, come on, you're missing the obvious choice for worst composer. If the criteria is that he must be "well-known", and that he has composed "classical music", then you'd have to say...

Paul McCartney


----------



## orquesta tipica

Kurkikohtaus said:


> A few quickquips to start:
> 
> Certainly the author meant this tongue in cheek, as the title of the book would suggest.
> 
> Really? Who would have thought...
> 
> Knock knock.
> _Who's there?_
> Knock knock.
> _Who's there?_
> Knock knock.
> _Who's there?_
> Knock knock.
> _Who's there?_
> ... Philip Glass.
> 
> Now that I've gotten that off my chest, allow me to mount my noble defence of *Phillip Glass*, *Steve Reich* and *Terry Riley*. The minimalist movement of the 70's is in my opinion grand and noble for 2 reasons:
> 
> It was a direct reaction against the Serialist domination of modern music
> It was completely and totally original at the time
> That's not to say that *all *minimalist music that followed, even that of Phillip Glass, *John Adams* and hybrids like *Henryk Gorecki* and *Arvo Part* is just as original and revolutionary as it was in the 70's. Nor does it mean that minimalism has made leaps and bounds in its own development. But the minimalist movement injected something into contemporary music that still appeals to audiences today, almost 40 years after its conception.
> 
> Phillip Glass is therefore by my reckoning not a bad composer. He is a composer that _created_ a niche in contemporary music, a niche that so far has stood the test of time.


I concur in part, and in fact I've been pretty unhappy with much of Glass's later compositions, but there are some early ones that I still am fond of today, and there are flashes of brilliance he has shown, which maybe aren't numerous, but you can't for instance listen to Satyagraha or Akhenaton and say there's nothing of quality there. I think some of his music can hold up pretty well over time.


----------



## gillingham_51

Philip Glass isn't a bad composer. Though you may not care for his music, he didn't get into julliard and after that study in paris with Nadia Boulanger (also taught copland), by being bad at this craft. 

I find Glass' music to be extremely enjoyable and interesting. I think a lot of people just hear his music and think that there's repeats everywhere (if you've seen any of his scores you'll notice that there's hardly any). Minimalism is actually a very rigorous musical system.


----------



## Explorer-8

*worst composer*

I cannot tell you my worst composer because when I hear any boring, nothingness, wallpaper musak on Classic FM or on Radio 3, I don't take any notice of who composed it or what it was called. They often play alot of later Baroque music which can often all sound the same and never really goes any where with no real melody or variation of any sort. There is some good Baroque music, but there is also some drivel as well. I have often heard some Romantic period music, by composers I can't remember, that was just so boring that I had to switch it off.

The composers so far listed on this thread are by no means the worst. Mahler is the greatest composer; not the worst. Stravinsky; Wagner; Strauss; Schoenberg; Glass; Gorecki and McCartney can all be difficult to listen to for different reasons, but they are not the worst by any means.


----------



## Topaz

Explorer-8 said:


> I cannot tell you my worst composer because when I hear any boring, nothingness, wallpaper musak on Classic FM or on Radio 3, I don't take any notice of who composed it or what it was called. They often play alot of later Baroque music which can often all sound the same and never really goes any where with no real melody or variation of any sort. There is some good Baroque music, but there is also some drivel as well. I have often heard some Romantic period music, by composers I can't remember, that was just so boring that I had to switch it off.


Agreed. Baroque can be good but I too find so much of it boring and monotonous. As observed elsewhere, if you set the CD player on "random play" it sounds the same. Some just love it of course, but for others it sounds good only for a few years until the richer and more varied tones of Classical and Romantic music are discovered. Then one discovers there also a lot of very boring - or none too great - Classical and Romantic music. To get variety, some dip their toes into the 20 th C. Some like it and finish up staying there. As for me, I mostly beat a hasty retreat back into the 19th C. If you dig around on this Forum you will see a number of threads promoting "forgotten" or "under-rated" composers. Rather than any of these, what I find more rewarding is to check out the lesser-known works of the more famous composers. For example, I'm intrigued about some of Mendelssohn's lesser known symphonies, referred to elsewhere, which I admit not having heard (e.g. Symphony No. 2). As a general proposition, I feel happier with known, high or higher quality composers than the ones that got completely left behind, or who never made it. It's my possible loss perhaps, but that's the way it is with me. I'm always left in doubt as to whether these "forgottens" are really any good. I agree with an earlier comment that the "worst" composers are the ones you never hear. It's the market working again, but don't get me back on that ....


----------



## Manuel

baroque flute said:


> Here is a more controversial one...everyone gets their own opinion.
> 
> I would nominate Richard Strauss and Stravinsky, with Mahler coming second.
> I am afraid I don't consider Schoenberg and company to be classical music. That's just my own opinion.


Come on chap... you want to nominate bad composers and this three come to your mind?
Strauss? One of the most profficient orchestrators is on the list?
Stravinsky? His ballets are the most perfect study of rythm
Mahler? There's nothing bad you can say about Mahler, IMO.

I don't want to sound like lecturing you, but from this three names came works that can be considered amongst the best 50 works composed in history. IMHO, you just need to wait some time, and navigate through easier orchestrators. Once you are ready to appreciate them you will see how great they are.

The worst composers are those whose works aren't even published. You may never know from them.

Besides, if you want to make a list with *non-great composers*, you can list Wetz, Ropartz, Hummel, etc.

Somebody said the best symphonies come from Beethoven, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Haydn, et al. And if you think a bit, you will discover why.

...

They're all under the Legacy of Haydn: composing using music cells; as they develop the whole work/movements from this basic ideas (cells). You can appreciate this also in Bruckner, Mahler, Vaughan-Williams, Beethoven piano sonatas, and many, many more.


----------



## Topaz

I think, on reflection, that the best way to regard this thread is as the antithesis of the “forgotten composers” one elsewhere. Just as some people think there are forgotten composers who should be much higher up the rankings, so it follows that there must some famous composers who some consider are over-rated. Of course, if everyone who has an opinion on these matters were to participate in some kind of huge vote on the “correct” rankings, the chances are we would finish more or less exactly where we started, i.e. with the status quo. This is because the present rankings are themselves the result of a huge vote, alias "public opinion".


----------



## Manuel

Topaz said:


> This is because the present rankings are themselves the result of a huge vote, alias "public opinion".


Right, If we used them as reference we should forget about Wetz, Ropartz, Alfven, Rott, Peterson-Berger, Tubin, Enescu, Chausson, Khrennikov, Wolf-Ferrari, Menotti, Bacewicz, Lyatoshinsky, Miaskovsky, both Halffters, Catoire, Liapunov, Zemlinsky and even Porumbescu.

Manuel.


----------



## Hexameron

Manuel said:


> Right, If we used them as reference we should forget about Wetz, Ropartz, Alfven, Rott, Peterson-Berger, Tubin, Enescu, Chausson, Khrennikov, Wolf-Ferrari, Menotti, Bacewicz, Lyatoshinsky, Miaskovsky, both Halffters, Catoire, Liapunov, Zemlinsky and even Porumbescu.


My God... I thought I was familiar with a great deal of obscure composers. I've only heard works from three of those mentioned above (Liapunov, Catoire, Zemlinsky) and I've only _heard_ of two others from that list.

I'm afraid the classical music mainstream has forgotten Wetz, Ropartz, Alfven et al because there are at least 20 established "greats" that have enough of an oeuvre to occupy everyone's time. I could spend years just exploring Beethoven and Brahms. The average listener won't get to those guys you mentioned while Mozart and Mahler exist. Until DG and EMI start recording all of those guys, they'll never escape obscurity, and that's the way it goes. Is public opinion wrong? How can they even be accused if they haven't heard the music?

Perhaps this thread should be abandoned, though, or at least revamped, in favor of a new criteria: I can list 50 composers found and ranked in Phil Goulding's book, _The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1,000 Greatest Works._

We can then vote on who we believe is the most uninspired, unoriginal and worst composer out of those 50.


----------



## Manuel

Hexameron said:


> I could spend years just exploring Beethoven and Brahms.


Me too, even when you happen to know their complete output in full detail, you can get different recordings of those works. And appreciating them will take many, many years.



> Until DG and EMI start recording all of those guys, they'll never escape obscurity, and that's the way it goes. Is public opinion wrong? How can they even be accused if they haven't heard the music?


Most obscure composers are released by lesser known companies, and many times their production is hard to get.

IMO, this forums help a lot to find rare composers and works, as they are an easy way to get suggestions from everybody.

You may want to check a list I've just posted. But now it read that post, I realise it sounds a bit like a lecture, sorry to everybody.


----------



## Hexameron

Manuel said:


> Most obscure composers are released by lesser known companies, and many times their production is hard to get.


Indeed. I don't know about most of the general classical music fans out there, but I couldn't live without Naxos and Hyperion, labels that actually have some guts to dig deeper. Decca, ASV and a few other foreign labels I can't remember at the moment also deserve praise. You mentioned Catoire and I heard Marc-Andre Hamelin's recording of his piano music on Hyperion... what a discovery; a shining example of unjust neglect.


----------



## Manuel

Hexameron said:


> Indeed. I don't know about most of the general classical music fans out there, but I couldn't live without Naxos and Hyperion, labels that actually have some guts to dig deeper. Decca, ASV and a few other foreign labels I can't remember at the moment also deserve praise. You mentioned Catoire and I heard Marc-Andre Hamelin's recording of his piano music on Hyperion... what a discovery; a shining example of unjust neglect.


The elder Oistrakh recorded Catoire's violin sonatas, with Alexander Goldenweiser at the piano. They're very good works in truly romantic style. I suggest you to get them.

JPC is a very good place to purchase online. They have almost every cd that was released.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Manuel said:


> Mahler? There's nothing bad you can say about Mahler, IMO.


Certainly Mahler is a fantastically skilled composer with an incredible imagination and mastery of the orchestral medium.

But in my opinion, there is one bad thing that one can say about him, and that is that he didn't have the courage to write an opera.

Can you imagine what that opera would have been like? With his incredible gift of writing for the voice, orchestration, and his bountiful experiences in the opera house, it would have been an opera for the ages.


----------



## Manuel

Kurkikohtaus said:


> But in my opinion, there is one bad thing that one can say about him, and that is that he didn't have the courage to write an opera.


*LOL*

That's true. But if his symphonies are about 85 minutes long, an opera might have had 8 acts, with a total duration of 8 or 9 hours. Perhaps more.

BTW, he completed Die drei pintos, by Weber. He took the job as requested by Weber's grandson, after Meyerbeer (?) had rejected it.


----------



## MarkLV

baroque flute said:


> Here is a more controversial one...everyone gets their own opinion.
> 
> I would nominate Richard Strauss and Stravinsky, with Mahler coming second.
> I am afraid I don't consider Schoenberg and company to be classical music. That's just my own opinion.


I believe Stravinsky to be by far the most overrated composer in the history of classical music, closely followed by Schoenberg. Infact, all composers of this ilk simply do not deserve any recognition at all. Their music is soulless, lacking emotion or melody - the exact antithesis of music.

Rcihard Strauss is not that bad. Not a genius, but a good orchestrator and all round musician. Gustav Mahler is a mixed bag - some of his works are magnificent, others indescribably awful. Infact, even within his symphonies there are grandiose, majestic movements, followed by banal, nonsensical movements.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Ok, *MarkLV*, this is the third reply after the two other points of contention that I raised, and I won't be so nice this time.



MarkLV said:


> I believe Stravinsky to be by far the most overrated composer in the history of classical music, closely followed by Schoenberg. Infact, all composers of this ilk simply do not deserve any recognition at all. Their music is soulless, lacking emotion or melody - the exact antithesis of music.


The fact that *you personally *do not like and/or understand the music of these and other composers does not make them overrated and undeserving of recognition.

Please be aware that statements such as the one you made above say much more about *YOU* than they do about the composers you are talking about.


----------



## R.Zhao

Schoenberg I simply can't interpret.
Cage, is the worst.
Shostakovich and Mahler are the best.


----------



## Manuel

R.Zhao said:


> Shostakovich and Mahler are the best.


As Kurkikohtaus mentioned, please note that



> statements such as the one you made above say much more about YOU than they do about the composers you are talking about.


Then, we all know you Zhao are a cool guy.


----------



## robert

Odocoileus said:


> Here is a better response to who I consider to be the worst composer:
> 
> Phillip Glass
> Phillip Glass
> Phillip Glass
> Phillip Glass
> Phillip Glass
> Glass Phillip
> Glass Phillip
> Glass Phillip
> Glass Phillip
> Phillip Glass
> Phillip Glass .....


Could you please be specific about Philip Glass's music. Exactly what it is that qualifies him as being the worst composer....


----------



## robert

R.Zhao said:


> Schoenberg I simply can't interpret.
> Cage, is the worst.
> Shostakovich and Mahler are the best.


I take it you can interpret Cage, Shosty and Mahler...Can you please tell me what makes Shos and Mahler the best....

(Curious minds need to know)

Robert


----------



## Mr Salek

Composers I have come across and disliked include Stravinsky and Delius. Some of Delius' music is OK, but I can't forgive what he said about Mozart! I may not have given Stravinsky much of a chance, though. I just remember his Rite of Spring and Firebird to be incredibly boring.


----------



## captaintim

There are so many bad composers out there, but from my perspective the one composer who has a big reputation that I just cannot get on with is Poulenc. I just can't stand it, his music actually hurts me when I listen to it and its even worse to play because you're involved in the hideous noise!!!! I actually do think he's a poor composer, not that I just don't like it. Most of his phrases are so 'regular' in length and predicatble but they have such awful harmony, I wish I could delete him!!


----------



## oisfetz

With the exception of Bach, Domenico Scarlatti and Tartini, I can't stand barroque
composers. They bored me to death. In particular Vivaldi,with his hundreds of versions
of his same concerto. And can't neither stand the music composed after Shostakovich.
I'm not saying that they are bad composers. Simply, I don't like they.


----------



## Manuel

> In particular Vivaldi,with his hundreds of versions
> of his same concerto.


It's not the same... hi just .... resampled a bit some works. Over and over, and over again.

Just joking. I do like Vivaldi.



> And can't neither stand the music composed after Shostakovich.


Why would we need more? There could be no life after Shosty and Prok; and I would not care.

(I'm attending Prok's 5th Op.100 tomorrow night; isn't that a pretty way to start the weekend?)


----------



## captaintim

baroque music boring? How much have you heard and what have you been listening too. Have you really been listening? Most of the developments of western music since the baroque already happened in the baroque - there was already atonal music, even if it was only on a very short scale. Bach wrote at least one fugue, for instance that comprises of all 12 chromatic notes.

Boy, you need to listen to some cool music. You've gotta try some castello. Try some Monteverdi - have you listened to tancredi? Get a libretto of it and sit down following it through - its only 20 mins long. Tell me that's not cool. How many handel operas have you heard? Actually, you need to go see one not just buy a recording. If handel were alive today he'd be writing musicals on broadway. That's the sort of music he wrote, not stiff upper class baroque death music.

Get this dvd - il gardino armonico. The production is awful, but the music is cool. Lots of different pieces and a good introduction to funky italian baroque music, inclucing vivaldi but maybe you won't have heard it in this way before


----------



## oisfetz

Relax, Captain. I won't do any of that. Can't stand barroque. I don't tell you
what do you should listen to, so stop telling me.


----------



## opus67

If Stravinsky had kept his mouth shut, would anyone be even mentioning that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto hundred of times?


----------



## cmb

Although this gets slightly off topic, someone earlier mentioned that Naxos does a great job of issuing less familiar composers, I can't agree more, and also have to throw EMI into the mix - they are re-releasing some more non-mainstream composers, such as Hindemith, which we all know gets very little airplay.

When I'm settign up the programming for the station, I get to make great discoveries - such as Silvus Weiss, who wrote for the lute - amazing stuff, but no I had never heard of him in 20+ years of listening.

Back on topis - a similar thread has been playing out regarding opera singers on opera-l: it has denigrated into a full-blown flame war about listers personally, when the truth is - musical tastes are SO diverse, so personal and SO subjective it is impossible to come up with a consensus regarding "best" or "worst". 

To do so would force us to first define the standards by which each composer would be judged a truly Sisyphean task. Personally I don't think it can be done - thoughts, anyone?


----------



## MarkLV

Kurkikohtaus said:


> Ok, *MarkLV*, this is the third reply after the two other points of contention that I raised, and I won't be so nice this time.
> 
> The fact that *you personally *do not like and/or understand the music of these and other composers does not make them overrated and undeserving of recognition.
> 
> Please be aware that statements such as the one you made above say much more about *YOU* than they do about the composers you are talking about.


Maybe. Let's just agree to disagree on this one, but I stand by what I said.


----------



## Lisztfreak

I mostly agree as goes for Schönberg, but Stravinsky? At least the 'Rite of Spring' is reasonably good, in melodic and harmonic sense.


----------



## Manuel

cmb said:


> non-mainstream composers, such as Hindemith


Hindemith a not well known composer?

LOL.

That's new.

I would cast my "obscure" vote for Shebalin, Barsukov, Tischenko, Taktakishvili, Ferneyhough, and others. But not Hindemith.



oisfetz said:


> Relax, Captain. I won't do any of that. Can't stand barroque. I don't tell you
> what do you should listen to, so stop telling me.


Captain,
you can be sure this guy knows a lot. Enough to aknowledge what to keep and what to discard and avoid.

Besides, you should use baroque violin music to convince him: like Biber's rosenkrantz sonaten.
Or Manze playing Tartini's Devil sonata. (I think Carlos prefers OIstrakh on this one though  )


----------



## captaintim

yeah, I think I had a bad day and took out my frustrations here - apoogies!!! I still go along with poulenc though as being hideous - has anyone ever heard a piece of poulenc that they like?


----------



## Mark Harwood

For me, it's anyone who'll insert a crass key change into a song because it's going nowhere.


----------



## Manuel

Mark Harwood said:


> For me, it's anyone who'll insert a crass key change *into a song* because it's going nowhere.


Only songs? Why not compositions in general?


----------



## Mark Harwood

Manuel said:


> Only songs? Why not compositions in general?


Good point, Manuel; it's just that I've generally noticed them in popular songs, although, now you mention it, there is a living composer of some wealth who's culpable. 
Pop music and bad compositions are largely avoidable if you're fortunate or careful, but occasionally I hear a vile key change, and wince. It's a bit like an ugly building or mangled English on the radio.


----------



## Manuel

Mark Harwood said:


> Good point, Manuel; it's just that I've generally noticed them in popular songs, although, now you mention it, there is a living composer of some wealth who's culpable.
> Pop music and bad compositions are largely avoidable if you're fortunate or careful, but occasionally I hear a vile key change, and wince. It's a bit like an ugly building or mangled English on the radio.


That's why I just avoid pop songs. Get songs by Vaughan-Williams, Poulenc, Fauré, Brahms, Bantock, Berlioz... and why not Respighi's Cantatas. You can be sure there's no mediocrity in their works.

However, some changes do make sense... Like the sudden change in the initial bars of the Appasionatta, the neapolitan harmony/chord.


----------



## Mark Harwood

Thanks, Manuel. Advice like that is the reason I joined this forum.


----------



## Mark Harwood

Saturnus said:


> I can promise you that after listening a great deal to Telemann, and the forgotten Dresden composers, Bach does not sound like the demi-god master you once thought he was.


Saturnus, I enjoy both Bach and Telemann, and I'm curious as to who the forgotten Dresden composers were. I know we can all Google such questions, but I'm here to learn, so I'd appreciate any guidance. Thanks.


----------



## Hanon

I will not have Motzarts music in the house. I think I have already out stayed my welcome with my second post? Second to Motzart is Bartok.

Best wishes,

Mike


----------



## Manuel

> I will not have Motzarts music in the house. I think I have already out stayed my welcome with my second post? Second to Motzart is Bartok.


Poor fellow poster. You're _ignoring _great, great music.


----------



## Hanon

Hi Manuel,

Thanks for the reply. I can assure you I am not ignoring Motzart, I wished I could, lol.

I enjoy so much classical music and cant understand myself why I am so anti Motzart?
Whenever discussing music and I mention this I am seen as some sort of semi music illiterate who has an immature palate? I detest music 'snobs' and just can't get on with Motzart. I have tried.
I find his music acceptable for back ground entertainment while sitting in the dentist but to sit and listen to anything of his would drive me crazy?
I do relise that this post will inflame you but assure you I just cant help myself in disliking Motzart?
I like Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky, Saint-saens, Malher, in fact the list is rather endless.

Have you any suggestions that I may be able to listen to? I like passionate music with change and tempo and gusto. Motzart seems to be rather 'thin' and though 'tuneful' rather uninspiring to me?

Oh dear and me new here and not wishing to offend?

Sincerely, best wishes.

Mike


----------



## ChamberNut

Mike,

What are some of the compositions of Mozart's that you've heard and don't enjoy or find uninspiring?

The composers you mention that you like are all from the Romantic era. Perhaps it is simply you find Romantic era music more to your liking and more inspiring?  

Ray


----------



## Hanon

Hi Chambernut,

I have yet to find a piece of Motzart that I can even tolerate? Even I find this strange as I like something from most composers? I do like the romantic era as you mentioned.

I wished I could articulate exactly what it is about Motzart I dont like, I cant.......HELP!

Best wishes to you.


----------



## Lisztfreak

An interesting post there, Hanon. 

While I certainly like some pieces by Mozart that sound more emotional, powerful or dark (Don Giovanni, a few symphonies, two or three concertos and, my favourite, Requiem) I have some problems in finding his other music expressive.

Just my opinion - but Mozart sounds somewhat generic in a fair number of his works.


----------



## ChamberNut

Mike,

As Lisztfreak mentioned, he likes Mozart's Requiem, as do I.

Have you heard it? I think it is very powerful, inspiring music.


----------



## Krummhorn

captaintim said:


> . . . . . I still go along with poulenc though as being hideous - has anyone ever heard a piece of poulenc that they like?


Yes, actually, I have and do  ... _Concerto in G Minor for Organ, String Orchestra and Timpani._ A great piece, imho, to be in a darkened room when listening to it.

Kh


----------



## Manuel

Hanon said:


> I do relise that this post will inflame you but assure you I just cant help myself in disliking Motzart?


I have no problem with that. I like Mozart and this works for me. If you don't find him interesting... walk it through and listen what you really like.



> Whenever discussing music and I mention this I am seen as some sort of semi music illiterate who has an immature palate? I detest music 'snobs' and just can't get on with Motzart. I have tried.


I had the same situation with Bruckner just a few months ago. First I carefully listened to his 4th and my first impression was... it was just a piece of cr*p. The same with the 8th, 9th, 7th, 5th. On a regular basis I gave them a try, as almost everybody agrees Bruckner was one of the best symphonists ever. And i must confess after listening each symphony I always had one and the same idea in my mind:

"what a piece of cr*p".

A couple of months ago something changed. I was going through the 7th and it seems to have worked its magic, because I now love the work. After that I moved to the 8th and the 9th; wonderful and deep works too.



> The composers you mention that you like are all from the Romantic era. Perhaps it is simply you find Romantic era music more to your liking and more inspiring?


If this is true. Don't waste your time with a Mozart you don't like right now. There are lots of romantics out there ready to be discovered: Raff, Bortkiewicz, Arensky, Borodin, Magnard, Sinding, Elgar, Kopylov...


----------



## Hanon

Hi CN,

I just bought a copy and as usual I just dont like it YET? I am going to endeavour though. I do like Faures though. I now own a Motzart CD will I ever forgive you!?

All the best,

Mike Hanon


----------



## Manuel

> I just bought a copy and as usual I just dont like it YET? I am going to endeavour though. I do like Faures though. I now own a Motzart CD will I ever forgive you!?


So... you have ONE cd with works by Mozart... and you dare to despise him?
Isn't that a bit too... _presto_?


----------



## frenchhornkid12896

Has anyone said Barber yet? I hate Samuel Barber! His compositions make no sense. 
As far the the best goes, I love Debussy, Tchaikovsky, and Rimsky Korsikov. I love debussy's impressionistic works, and Tchaikovsky's power and heh heh good horn parts, and I don't know what it is about Korsikov... I just like his music.


----------



## Manuel

> , and I don't know what it is about Korsikov... I just like his music


.

It's Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

frenchhornkid12896 said:


> I hate Samuel Barber! His compositions make no sense.


I had abandoned this thread for some time, and after revisiting it today, posts like the one above remind me why I left it alone in the first place.

But unfortunately, this type of thread draws many new members into quick posts about composers that they "hate" and therefore are "obviously" *Bad Composers*. As I have stated so many times before, the idea of *Bad*, *Worst* and *Best* need criteria. The criteria are by no means universal and can change from person to person, but everyone should at least _attempt_ to set up criteria (see Topaz's posts in this thread) that _define_ what qualities good and therefore by comparison bad composers exhibit.

To simply say "I hate so-and-so" is not a serious discussion about what "good" and "bad" composing is. It is an "OpinionFest", as stated above. Expressing opinions in a forum about Classical Music is of course the entire point of the excercise, but I find that this thread _substitutes the expression of opinion for real analysis_.

I would so love to see this thread closed and locked, as no-one, *myself included* dares to take on the challenge of defining *universal criteria *by which good and bad composers are judged. Newcomers probably skim through the posts and then proceed to take a shot at their least favourite composer, and this thread goes nowhere, because the discussion just bounces back and forth between people's incomplete definitions of the difference between WORST and LEAST FAVOURITE.

So...

I will boldly dare to create a new thread about your *Least Favourite Composers*, where opinion fests will be the order of the day, and at least the discussion will be more concentrated and clear than it is here.

Click HERE to start bashing.


----------



## Manuel

@Kurkikothaus

As was stated before, phrases like this one



> I hate Samuel Barber! His compositions make no sense.


speak more about the poster than what it does of the composer that (this time) is being attacked.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Interesting that you mention that, *Manuel*, the point rang a familiar tone with me, so I did some digging and found that the quote is actually mine, and can be found in this thread! 



Kurkikohtaus said:


> Ok, *MarkLV* ... Please be aware that statements such as the one you made above say much more about *YOU* than they do about the composers you are talking about.


Manuel was the first to brave the new "Least Favourite Composers Thread", I hope he starts a good trend and that soon we'll be able to consider this "Worst" thread Closed for Business.


----------



## Manuel

> Interesting that you mention that, Manuel, the point rang a familiar tone with me, so I did some digging and found that the quote is actually mine, and can be found in this thread!


LOL. I knew that. Then I said someone was a cool guy because he likes Mahler...


----------



## Lisztfreak

Lisztfreak said:


> I mostly agree as goes for Schönberg,


What an ignorant noob I was... Schönberg, the worst?! A sacrilege!

And someone long ago asked if there was a work of Poulenc's that I actually like. Well, pretty much so.  In fact, all of his works I've heard - they're excellent (Gloria, Clarinet sonata, Violin sonata).

One more thing. It seems that composers whose music is not *accessible* live the fate of being declared the worst. I'm aware that Schönberg is not really accessible. Stravinsky often isn't, too. Wagner and Strauss are heavy and gigantic, as is Bruckner. But that *doesn't* mean they're bad composers. They are simply very different. 
It is extremely hard to judge an artist's work as good or bad. Artists express their 'inner selves'. Simply because those 'inner them' are hard, derranged, mixed-up, sad, desperate or whatever, their art seems such, too. And can we say that one is bad because one's got an unusual character?


----------



## david johnson

the worst of classical have faded away. now we pick the worst of the best.

for pop music, i can't stand burt bacharach. i'm sure he weeps all the way to the bank!

dj


----------



## Saturnus

captaintim said:


> yeah, I think I had a bad day and took out my frustrations here - apoogies!!! I still go along with poulenc though as being hideous - has anyone ever heard a piece of poulenc that they like?


Yep, all of them... Particulary his late chamber music for piano and winds.


----------



## alan sheffield

Philip Glass and nearly all minimalists except John Adams and other non-composers like John Cage plus all those "dullsville" Baroque composers like Telemann who just churned it out week after week.


----------



## Handel

It is probably me since I wrote a few "works"


----------



## Mark Harwood

alan sheffield said:


> Philip Glass and nearly all minimalists except John Adams and other non-composers like John Cage plus all those "dullsville" Baroque composers like Telemann who just churned it out week after week.


Hello Alan.
If you ever feel curious about Telemann's work, having perhaps been put off so far by his great output of concertos and overtures, please allow me to recommend the "Paris" Quartets for their elegant blend of melody and construction. He wasn't Handel, but he could write lovely music.


----------



## Gustav

Ferdinand Ries.


----------



## Morigan

Telemann was the most popular composer of his day, and he was far better known to the public than Bach. Now I agree that his oeuvre is very vast, redundant and sometimes uninspired, but you can find very good music in there.

Just have a look at his famed Tafelmusik... many gems in there. Telemann's style had some elements that remind me of Mozart's style.


----------



## Michael Ferris

I think to consider someone a bad composer is a bit harsh. Many of the composers were great for a reason, because they tried new and innovative things. Everyone has a right to a certain point of view, but *I* would never consider a composer bad. He / She may not have written for the ears of some, but to others these people were incredible musicians with music out of this world. In their experimentations and compositions, they worked to advance the understanding of music to what it is today. (Schönberg and his innovations in 12-tone music have brought forth a lot of our contemporary music and inspired a lot of its composers. I quite like his pieces.) I have to agree with Gustav in the post above mine: It would better to ask who the best composer is and go from there.


----------



## Manuel

Michael Ferris said:


> I think to consider someone a bad composer is a bit harsh. Many of the composers were great for a reason, because they tried new and innovative things. Everyone has a right to a certain point of view, but *I* would never consider a composer bad. He / She may not have written for the ears of some, but to others these people were incredible musicians with music out of this world.


Now really... When I say Henri Collet was awful is because he really sucked. I can't yet understand what did a well known violinist as Regis Pasquier see in his _Concierto Flamenco_, to record it and to dare play it in public.


----------



## Handel

Morigan said:


> Telemann's style had some elements that remind me of Mozart's style.


style galant maybe.


----------



## David C Coleman

Strange question. If you asked who I least like, I would say that later twentieth century "plink-plonk" composers. I just can't comprehend this stuff. Maybe someone can help me understand this stuff sometime...


----------



## Krummhorn

Ok, I give up  who are the "plink-plonk" composers? Can someone enlighten us and maybe give an example - I need to keep expanding my horizons in music ...


----------



## LFcatface

Any composer that creates music that sounds like the "warmed over" music of another composer would be the least interesting. These would include most of (but not all)of the more conservative American composers around today.-Probably not the "plink-plonks" of which DCC is speaking.

Sometimes there is sense behind the plink-plonk and sometimes there isn't. There are plenty of great works of art in museums that many people would not want above their couch, likewise there are many great work of music that one would not play during a dinner party.


----------



## trojan-rabbit

I dislike Beethovem Some of his Sonatas were quite good, (21st) but otherwise I think he transitions poorly, and is too repetitive. 

Rachmaninoff on the other hand....... Good


----------



## trojan-rabbit

Krummhorn said:


> Ok, I give up  who are the "plink-plonk" composers? Can someone enlighten us and maybe give an example - I need to keep expanding my horizons in music ...


Bach, Mozart, the plinkyest of all


----------



## David C Coleman

Sorry, Maybe I should be more specific. I don't understand a lot of modern music. I sometimes hear this and that piece commissioned for the first time. I usually don't like it because it seems tuneless, formless and downright uninteresting. I'm not saying that there's no value or importance to it. But my ears are more tuned to the older stuff. Just my taste that's all...


----------



## Ephemerid

Michael Ferris said:


> I think to consider someone a bad composer is a bit harsh. Many of the composers were great for a reason, because they tried new and innovative things. Everyone has a right to a certain point of view, but *I* would never consider a composer bad. He / She may not have written for the ears of some, but to others these people were incredible musicians with music out of this world. In their experimentations and compositions, they worked to advance the understanding of music to what it is today. (Schönberg and his innovations in 12-tone music have brought forth a lot of our contemporary music and inspired a lot of its composers. I quite like his pieces.) I have to agree with Gustav in the post above mine: It would better to ask who the best composer is and go from there.


Agreed-- I am shocked how many people here seem to start to have problems with music at 1899... I have my own personal preferences-- I don't care for Schoenberg at all, even after many repeated listenings (I have tried), but my personal experience doesn't make it objective fact! After all, how can anyone expand their own musical horizons with that attitude? I'm surprised that people want to limit themselves mostly to 19th century music...

I'm shocked so many people here consider Stravinsky to be a BAD composer. Apollon musagetes? Symphony of Psalms? He's not my favourite composer (he's high on my list but not in my top 5), but he certainly knew what he was doing and was innovative.

That being said, here are my biased nominations of composers who I don't think are particularly *effective*:

Hindemith certainly hasn't dated well and most of his stuff sounds so, well, non-interesting... not even Glenn Gould could catch my attention to his music... There's something rather "neutral" sounding about his music, rather cold and clinical I feel (there are a few exceptions, like the Metamorphoses).

Milton Babbitt was a composer who took serialism for too seriously (or should I say serialsly? heh) and to be honest I find it impossible to see value in his music personally. Even as a serial composer, I think he took it to the point of absurdity-- perhaps there is *mathematical* value to it, but *aesthetic* value? I'm not so sure.

Philip Glass is one of the most overrated composers-- and don't get me wrong-- I think Einstein on the Beach and his early stuff from the 70s was actually quite good, and I do enjoy minimalist music (its not the greatest music, but I appreciate and enjoy it). Beginning with Satyagraha though, Glass literally started repeating himself, using the same bloody arpeggios and chord progressions and it wasn't as radical as his earlier stuff-- its just harmless muzak made up of arpeggios. And pretentious as hell. He started off with a lot of potential but there's just no hope for him now.

~ josh


----------



## Rondo

I agree with you on Glass, however his Concerto for Timpani is pretty good...but, then again, you can still hear his signature repetitiveness throughout. Though, fortunately for this piece, it doesn't really become a nuisance until the final movement.


----------



## Rondo

Still...I have to also admit Im a bit perplexed as to why you refer to Bach and Mozart as "plink-plonk" composers. Someone please clarify...


----------



## Edward Elgar

trojan rabbit said:


> I dislike Beethovem Some of his Sonatas were quite good, (21st) but otherwise I think he transitions poorly, and is too repetitive.
> 
> Rachmaninoff on the other hand....... Good


Don't get a closed mind. Beethoven, Mozart and Bach are well established masters of composition and deserve respect and admiration.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

trojan rabbit said:


> I dislike Beethovem Some of his Sonatas were quite good, (21st) but otherwise I think he transitions poorly, and is too repetitive.


@_Edward Elgar_, I think you were a little too leniant in your reprimand of _Trojan Rabbit_. While I respect everybody's right to an opinion and to their own likes and dislikes, I believe that _Trojan Rabbit's_ contribution sadly underlines everything that is wrong with this thread in the first place.

To establish the (absolute) best and worst in any field, there must be a set of criteria that they are measured against. These criteria must both very detailed but also somewhat universal, so that all (composers) can be measured and compared by them. As no one has set to try to establish such crietria in this ridiculous thread, I believe that all contributions in this thread can be dismissed as "personal dislikes" and not as some sort of absolute "worst" list.

It is one thing to say _why_ one doesn't like Beethoven, but to say he is one of the _worst_ composers is simply ignorant....

______________________EDIT___________________________

For the love of pete. I've already said all of this. Check post 127 from March 2007 in this thread.

The "Counter-Thread" is HERE, a much more reasonable thread called "Who is you least favourite composer". To re-iterate, that thread much more accurately describes what is actually happening in _this_ one, without confusing the _real_ issue at hand, which is _preference_, not absolute criteria.

Which makes me think... didn't I already start a counter-thread to this one? A long time ago? Let me check.


----------



## ncherone

Having read ALL the posts on this thread, it is clear that most of those who have posted have neglected to recognize the difference between a bad composer and a personal disdain for a given musical genre. The fact that names like Stravinsky, Mahler, Cage, Glass, Shoenberg, Telemann, Mozart, etc. have been mentioned is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These are composers whose names are known BECAUSE they were important composers in a specific genre and context.

As for the worst composer... I do not want to suggest any new names; rather, I would like to reiterate the names of two composers that have been mentioned that I DO believe to be among the worst composers of all time (even if it is just my opinion): 

Alan Hovhannes
Cesar Cui


----------



## World Violist

ncherone said:


> Having read ALL the posts on this thread, it is clear that most of those who have posted have neglected to recognize the difference between a bad composer and a personal disdain for a given musical genre. The fact that names like Stravinsky, Mahler, Cage, Glass, Shoenberg, Telemann, Mozart, etc. have been mentioned is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These are composers whose names are known BECAUSE they were important composers in a specific genre and context.
> 
> As for the worst composer... I do not want to suggest any new names; rather, I would like to reiterate the names of two composers that have been mentioned that I DO believe to be among the worst composers of all time (even if it is just my opinion):
> 
> Alan Hovhannes
> Cesar Cui


First of all, welcome to the forum!

I understand your reasoning as to the first paragraph. But would you mind justifying your inclusion of Hovhaness in your contribution? I happen to rather enjoy his output that I've heard so far.


----------



## ncherone

World Violist said:


> First of all, welcome to the forum!
> 
> I understand your reasoning as to the first paragraph. But would you mind justifying your inclusion of Hovhaness in your contribution? I happen to rather enjoy his output that I've heard so far.


Firstly, please don't forget that my goal was not to suggest any NEW composers, but to instead reiterate what others had suggested. For this reason, please don't think that I have some sort of vendetta against either Hovhaness or Cui. Those two just happened to have been mentioned earlier, and I found myself agreeing.

Honestly, I don't have any issue listening to Hovhaness' music... I just do not believe him to be original, or particularly clever given his context and specific endeavors. Perhaps "worst" was the wrong label.


----------



## Lang

trojan-rabbit said:


> I dislike Beethovem Some of his Sonatas were quite good, (21st) but otherwise I think he transitions poorly, and is too repetitive.
> 
> Rachmaninoff on the other hand....... Good


Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Composer1992

I think that Patrick Doyle is a -good- composer, however I find his music aggravating because it uses so much cliched material.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Beethoven on his off day. On hid good day he challenges for first.
Chopin for a large amount of his output.
Bizet.
3rd stream composers.
Cage's later pieces (the pieces that got him 'known' were actually good).
Electronic 'composers'.
Actually... most 20th/21st century composers who are either pretentious, arrogant, trying to be different for the purpose of being different (i.e. not being different for the benefit of the music), or have no history of any musical training (and are thus lying to themselves and any listeners).

You *could* through Berlioz in, but he was influential, and some pieces were 'okay'.

Oh, all the waltz composers.

I know he isn't a composer, but Andre Reui (or whatever) is one of the scums of the earth, closely followed by Cheney, Howard etc. etc.

Blasphemy to call R.Strauss, Mahler, Mozart, Beethoven (on god day), Shostakovich or Bach the worst.



> Don't get a closed mind.


What a terrible argument. As soon as anyone dislikes a 'great' composer they are closed minded. How does science further itself? By questioning excepted 'truths'.


----------



## Sid James

*Worst anthem*

I don't actually know the composer but I think it would have to be the guy who composed the Australian national anthem, "Advance Australia Fair." It's so banal and uninspiring. Surely someone should come up with a new one, whether or not we become a republic.

I disagree that Andre Rieu is bad - actually he's very good for classical music, he is introducing many people who were not aware of classical music to the popular classics and melodies. Hopefully, many people thus introduced will go beyond what he offers - which I agree is pretty bland and repetitive - to sample the many other good things that classical music has to offer.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I don't actually know the composer but I think it would have to be the guy who composed the Australian national anthem, "Advance Australia Fair." It's so banal and uninspiring. Surely someone should come up with a new one, whether or not we become a republic.


Agreed.



> I disagree that Andre Rieu is bad - actually he's very good for classical music, he is introducing many people who were not aware of classical music to the popular classics and melodies. Hopefully, many people thus introduced will go beyond what he offers - which I agree is pretty bland and repetitive - to sample the many other good things that classical music has to offer.


What he does, does not represent a shred of classical music at all. If they do chose to further their appreciation, they will be shocked and bored.


----------



## JTech82

Whoever mentioned Stravinsky was one of the worst composers obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. Stravinsky's compositions are regarded as some of the best in the 20th Century.

I mean seriously how could someone off-handedly say he wasn't that good when he composed such great works as "The Rite of Spring," "Firebird Suite," "Symphony Of Psalms," "Symphony In Three Movements, "Symphony In C," etc. You need your ears checked!


----------



## PostMinimalist

Franz Lehar. Simple as that.


----------



## jhar26

The worst composer in history is someone who has been long forgotten - if anyone ever knew him to begin with - and who's music was probably never recorded.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> The worst composer in history is someone who has been long forgotten - if anyone ever knew him to begin with - and who's music was probably never recorded.


Depends on the category.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

post-minimalist said:


> Franz Lehar.


I can not support that. His operettas are very entertaning. And he also composed a fantasy on gypsy themes for violin and orchestra which is funny enough for him to deserve not being listed here.


----------



## World Violist

PDQ Bach. Who else would plagiarize pieces of music so blatantly and write for such obviously absurd instruments/combinations???


----------



## Air

This is one's a joke... Leopold Mozart.


----------



## mueske

World Violist said:


> PDQ Bach. Who else would plagiarize pieces of music so blatantly and write for such obviously absurd instruments/combinations???


Examples please!


----------



## PostMinimalist

PDQ Bach could actually plagerise from composers who were not even born yet when he was alive!


----------



## Sid James

Just thought I'd add this. I have thought of two composers whose work I feel is superficial compared to others of their generationg: Saint Saens and Glazunov. Saint Saens was a brilliant orchestrator, but when you compare him to those of a similiar generation (eg. Bizet and Gounod) his works simply lack profundity. He could belt out some good tunes, and do things that are different compared to before (eg. writing a symphony with an organ) but one gets the feeling that its all just superficial. He was also critical of, and rubbished the work of younger composers like Debussy. One of his students, the young Edgard Varese, described him as a "powdered wig" and I think this description is apt. And Glazunov's music is just simply put bland. It might be pleasant to listen to but ultimately it's quite boring.

I wouldn't call these the worst composers but they're the most superficial composers I can think of.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Andre said:


> I wouldn't call these the worst composers but they're the most superficial composers_ I can think of_.


A comment which brings us something to focus on. There are lots of composers that apart from sounding superficial brought nothing new to the world through their creation, and they would quickly replace *masters *Saint-Saens and Glazunov on your list. You just need to be less ignorant about them, or in general. Think of Pixis, Collet, Ropartz, Herz, Foerster, Monasterio, DeGreef, Tovey... You just need to get out more and do some research.


----------



## Lang

Yagan Kiely said:


> Beethoven on his off day.


I must admit, 'Wellington's Victory' is an amazingly awful piece of music. But despite his pride in it, it _was_ just a piece of hack work.


----------



## Sid James

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> A comment which brings us something to focus on. There are lots of composers that apart from sounding superficial brought nothing new to the world through their creation, and they would quickly replace *masters *Saint-Saens and Glazunov on your list. You just need to be less ignorant about them, or in general. Think of Pixis, Collet, Ropartz, Herz, Foerster, Monasterio, DeGreef, Tovey... You just need to get out more and do some research.


Thanks for your comments but I think I have a right to be critical of composers like Saint Saens & Glazunov. They were suspicious of new trends in music, rubbished the work of younger composers. I gave you an example of what Varese said about S-S. & Glazunov walked out of the premiere of Prokofiev's Scythian Suite, saying it was nothing more than jangled noise. I mean lets face it, these were not the masters at all, they were second rate, Prokofiev and Varese (who they rubbished) were the masters. You and I probably have different taste. I am simply saying that I don't respect composers whose output isn't as significant as compared to those of their own generation, and they have the temerity to rubbish the upcoming generation because they only see things superficially. I'm not really interested in those composers you mention. If Saint Saens and Glazunov are second rate, then those are probably third rate.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Andre said:


> Thanks for your comments but I think I have a right to be critical of composers like Saint Saens & Glazunov. They were suspicious of new trends in music, rubbished the work of younger composers. I gave you an example of what Varese said about S-S. & Glazunov walked out of the premiere of Prokofiev's Scythian Suite, saying it was nothing more than jangled noise. I mean lets face it, these were not the masters at all, they were second rate, Prokofiev and Varese (who they rubbished) were the masters. You and I probably have different taste. I am simply saying that I don't respect composers whose output isn't as significant as compared to those of their own generation, and they have the temerity to rubbish the upcoming generation because they only see things superficially. I'm not really interested in those composers you mention. If Saint Saens and Glazunov are second rate, then those are probably third rate.


The thread is about "worst" composer.



> *worst *(wûrst)
> adj. Superlative of bad, ill.
> 1. Most inferior, as in quality, condition, or effect.
> 2. Most severe or unfavorable.
> 3. Being furthest from an ideal or a standard; least desirable or satisfactory.
> adv. Superlative of badly, ill.
> In the worst manner or degree.


If you acknowledge there are third rate composers, with Saint-Saens and Glazunov being second rate; then, by definition, they can not be "the worst" composers. Do you get this?

You have no interest in those I mentioned, you don't want to know more. You rejoice in your ignorance and blame Saint-Saens only because of your limited knowledge. For you he was only capable of writing good tunes. Well, other guys there were who didn't even have that skill, and so they rank considerably lower than these *masters *you are bashing.


----------



## JoeGreen

Oh I could never say their is a worst composer... that is just too subjective and relies too much on personal taste.
I could say there are composers whose music I don't like to listen to.

But if I had to label someone as worst....Hans Zimmerman, that hack.






oh and Alan Hovhaness rocks!


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

JoeGreen said:


> Oh I could never say their is a worst composer... that is just too subjective and relies too much _on personal taste_.


Knowledge is also important. Otherwise you may do like Andre, claiming some composers rank low just because your knowledge is limited.


----------



## Sid James

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> The thread is about "worst" composer.
> 
> If you acknowledge there are third rate composers, with Saint-Saens and Glazunov being second rate; then, by definition, they can not be "the worst" composers. Do you get this?
> 
> You have no interest in those I mentioned, you don't want to know more. You rejoice in your ignorance and blame Saint-Saens only because of your limited knowledge. For you he was only capable of writing good tunes. Well, other guys there were who didn't even have that skill, and so they rank considerably lower than these *masters *you are bashing.


Well I admit you are right, Glazunov and Saint Saens are not the worst composers by any means, I think I made that clear though earlier. I was simply expressing an opinion that *comparatively* their works were superficial. I may not be familiar with the composers you mention, but I know about the two men's well known contemporaries to make a comparison. In any case, I got off track because I am very angry at how they treated younger composers. I suppose I was more emotional than rational...

All this said, Saint Saens' Organ Symphony was one of the first works I saw live in concert and I think its basically a solid, good piece of music. But that was 20 years ago and I was in my early teens. I thought it was really original how he included the organ in a symphony, but now my taste has moved on. I can now appreciate the more difficult works of his pupil, Edgard Varese. I suppose, in a way, they are two sides of the same coin. One represented the old, the other, the new. It's useful to know the earlier one to be able to appreciate the other, in a way.


----------



## alan sheffield

*Worst composer*

Without doubt Telemann. Baroque mediocrity in spades! I'd rather listen to Webern than this guy!


----------



## PostMinimalist

I just discovered Mikhail Kollontay (he is mentioned in the 'rare - difficult to play' thread that came up recently). His music is truely awful! I cannot recomend it highly enough as an example of what to avoid!


----------



## mueske

alan sheffield said:


> Without doubt Telemann. Baroque mediocrity in spades! I'd rather listen to Webern than this guy!


I don't get how it is baroque mediocrity when in his time, he was the most celebrated composer around.


----------



## JTech82

mueske said:


> I don't get how it is baroque mediocrity when in his time, he was the most celebrated composer around.


Not everybody likes baroque music, Mueske and I'm one of them! The Romantic period, for me, is the most beautiful era in classical music.

This is not to say I don't respect the history of classical, I'm not saying that, I just connect with the Romantic period more than any other period.


----------



## mueske

JTech82 said:


> Not everybody likes baroque music, Mueske and I'm one of them! The Romantic period, for me, is the most beautiful era in classical music.
> 
> This is not to say I don't respect the history of classical, I'm not saying that, I just connect with the Romantic period more than any other period.


I don't like baroque music either, in fact, it's more mathematics to me than music, but still, I was just pointing out how flawed this question is. Like numerous have done so before me.


----------



## David C Coleman

In order for me to establish who I think is the worst composer, I think I would have to sit down and listen to samples of all major composers, whose works have survived, say from Gillaume de Machaut onwards and see which ones I like and disliked. I'm afraid that would be a physically impossible task for me. 
So I can only say which composers I dislike the most - not necessarily the worst.
So the only thing I can say is that the music I struggle with the most is a lot of twentieth century, say from about 1940 onwards-in other words since the break down of tonal music (or whatever the terminology is!). But that's an era not a specific composer!
Of the well-known, mainstream composers, I would say the music I least get on with is Robert Schumann, although his solo piano music is very good..


----------



## jhar26

It's already impossible to answer who the best composer is. But at least in the case of best composers people are motivated to familiarize themselves as much as they can with the music of composers that they like which helps them to come to a opinion that is inevitably still subjective. Deciding on the worst is even more absurd. Nobody is going to buy a bunch of cd's from composers he doesn't like just to find out who's the worst of them all. Besides, there are a zillion composers throughout history that even the most knowledgable people here don't know about because their music is never performed or recorded. The worst composers are no doubt to be found in that group and not among the composers that are recognized by many (or some) as great - or at least good composers who might not appeal to some because they as a rule don't like the music of a particular style or era.


----------



## David C Coleman

jhar26 said:


> It's already impossible to answer who the best composer is. But at least in the case of best composers people are motivated to familiarize themselves as much as they can with the music of composers that they like which helps them to come to a opinion that is inevitably still subjective. Deciding on the worst is even more absurd. Nobody is going to buy a bunch of cd's from composers he doesn't like just to find out who's the worst of them all. Besides, there are a zillion composers throughout history that even the most knowledgable people here don't know about because their music is never performed or recorded. The worst composers are no doubt to be found in that group and not among the composers that are recognized by many (or some) as great - or at least good composers who might not appeal to some because they as a rule don't like the music of a particular style or era.


Here, Here!!...


----------



## JoeGreen

^^ 

I agree!


----------



## JTech82

mueske said:


> I don't like baroque music either, in fact, it's more mathematics to me than music, but still, I was just pointing out how flawed this question is. Like numerous have done so before me.


Right on, man.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

mueske said:


> I don't like baroque music either, in fact, *it's more mathematics to me than music*,


Why?................


----------



## mueske

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Why?................


It's more logic than it is emotion, a lot of the time at least. I admit, I'm not very familiar with baroque music, I only listened to pieces by the most popular composers from that era, Vivaldi, Bach and Haendel to name a few.

Much like classicism, it doesn't really appeal to me, it's nice to listen to, but the music from the great romantics and forward (modernism, minimalism,...) sounds less constraint, more freedom, and because of that, much more emotion.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> It's more logic than it is emotion, a lot of the time at least


Regardless of how you hear it, I can assure you, that was the definitely _not_ what was intended.

The emotion of Baroque music is indeed much more subtle, but once you do find it, it can be as emotional as all others.


----------



## Elgarian

mueske said:


> It's more logic than it is emotion, a lot of the time at least.


It's not often I agree with Yagan, but I'm delighted to find that on this matter, I do. Music of the Baroque period has been mostly closed to me for a very long time, but I've finally made a huge breakthrough, and for weeks now I've listened to little else. Works like Handel's _Acis and Galatea_, or _Apollo and Daphne_; Purcell's _Dido and Aeneas_; the vocal works by Couperin, Charpentier, Lully, Durante, etc etc - these are _full_ of emotion. I just never heard it before now.

This illustrates the problem of responding in this thread. I'm so ignorant of whole swathes of music that doesn't appeal (or hasn't yet appealed) to me, that for me to attempt to pass any judgement on it would be ridiculously presumptive and, indeed, completely pointless.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Elgarian said:


> It's not often I agree with Yagan, but I'm delighted to find that on this matter, I do.


And I agree with both of you. *** The Earth crumbles ***

I do not think, however, that baroque emotion is _much _more subtle. There many pieces in which excitement rapidly strikes the listener, as in Vivaldi's g minor violin concerto "The summer".

The hymn-like multiple stops in Bach's Chaconne, a part the violin plays as if it was a huge choir, does speak about emotion.



> Much like classicism, it doesn't really appeal to me, it's nice to listen to, but the music from the great romantics and forward (modernism, minimalism,...) sounds less constraint, more freedom, and because of that, much more emotion.


To you. Let's make it clear: "much more emotion" to you.

You will eventually get the slow movement from Mozart's Piano concerto K488, his 40th symphony and the d minor concerto are more than just ear-friendly.


----------



## JTech82

Allan Pettersson is a composer I have yet to get into. His music is grim all the time. It's like there's no light at the end of the tunnel. It stays in one mood almost all of the time.

Do any of you guys know what I'm talking about?


----------



## bassClef

I don't think anyone can argue a case for "worst composer" - they would just list the composers that are furthest from their personal tastes. Stravinsky for example, mentioned a few times here, is my complete and utter favourite composer bar none - even the Rite of Spring has moved me to tears! He cannot be described as the worst, though I can appreciate he's not to everyone's taste. Not everyone gets it. I'm left cold by the likes of Brahms and Haydn - but I know they are still considered geniuses by people much more knowledgeable about classical music than me.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

jezbo said:


> even the Rite of Spring has moved me to tears!


Tears? The only time I had to attend a performance of The Rite of Spring, a concert version, I was so excited my heart almost jumps off my chest.


----------



## bassClef

Yes, tears from the sheer passion of it - when I saw it played on TV. It's my dream to hear in a live concert - I have 8 versions of it on CD.


----------



## livemylife

I can't listen to any of Bartok's String Quartets. My ears bleed.
I HATE playing Mozart music as a cellist. Ugh.
Overall, I would say Telemann, Correlli or Clementi. And most contemporary composers... *shudders*


----------



## FlyMe

Birtwhistle - ever since I sat through The Second Mrs Kong at Glyndebourne, scarred me for life!


----------



## jamzky

Boccherini !


----------



## Lang

captaintim said:


> yeah, I think I had a bad day and took out my frustrations here - apoogies!!! I still go along with poulenc though as being hideous - has anyone ever heard a piece of poulenc that they like?


I like all the Poulenc I have ever heard. Admittedly, his harmonic language can be 'interesting' at times, but it always makes sense. The 'Banalites' - a set of songs based on poems by Apollinaire - is a work which provides an insight into his harmonic language. It is very French (the affinity with Debussy and Ravel is obvious), and it is also quite approachable. If you don't know this work it would be worth hearing - you might suddenly find that you 'get' Poulenc.


----------



## Lang

Andre said:


> I don't actually know the composer but I think it would have to be the guy who composed the Australian national anthem, "Advance Australia Fair." It's so banal and uninspiring. Surely someone should come up with a new one, whether or not we become a republic.


I am really hoping that when Australia eventually becomes a republic, they will adopt Grainger's 'Colonial Song' as their anthem. A bit difficult to sing, but it would be the best national anthem in the world, with the possible exception of the Welsh one.


----------



## Lang

This thread asks for the names of the worst composers ever. The following names appear:-

Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Mahler, Schoenberg, Wagner, Beethoven, Chopin, Bartok and Mozart, among others. 

I think this indicates that many of us take our own subjective views as being an objective reality. Is it not possible to dislike the work of a composer, but also recognise that he is highly valued in the world, and appreciate that there just might be something about his music that we don't understand or appreciate? To imagine that our own personal view is a characteristic of the objective world is surely a dangerous psychological place to be, but it's a place inhabited, it seems, by more and more people today.


----------



## Rondo

Lang said:


> This thread asks for the names of the worst composers ever. The following names appear:-
> 
> Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Mahler, Schoenberg, Wagner, Beethoven, Chopin, Bartok and Mozart, among others.


In my head I can hear all the cliche arguments people make against the listed composers. What's most unfortunate is the fact that a few of those listed are _generally_ disliked simply due to (not to refer to any arguments made here) their nature, personal views or histories--as opposed to the quality of the music they produced.


----------



## d.kowlesar

Erm... ME?


----------



## jamzky

I agree with you Lang. Actually Mozart was a great composer... so too the others in the list. This is not my opinion, it is an objective reality based on how the tradition of Western music has come to recognise greatness. If the discussion was... what composer do you like least, then we could remain subjective about it. If you don't like Mozart or Mahler, fine. If you think they are rubbish, you are wrong. Simply as that.


----------



## R-F

The worst composer I have ever heard is a guy called James, in my High School.

As part of composition in music class we composed a theme and variation piece. He used something like 3 Blind Mice for his theme, then for his first variation, decided to simply start playing on the 3rd bar. What inspired musicality!

I could go on about how I don't like someone like Schoeberg's music. But that wouldn't make him the worst composer.


----------



## Elgarian

The world's worst composer is me. For proof, here is the beginning of my concerto for kazoo and four synthetic budgerigars:


----------



## JTech82

Since music is subjective, it's pointless to have threads like these in the first place.

There are a bunch of composers that I don't like, but that's just my opinion. It doesn't make my opinion right or wrong, it makes it my individual choice of preference.


----------



## mueske

Elgarian said:


> The world's worst composer is me. For proof, here is the beginning of my concerto for kazoo and four synthetic budgerigars:


Want to bet I can do worse? 

I once downloaded some composing program demo (Sibelius), I took a screenshots of a few composition as they didn't sound that bad, but still, probably the worst ever!

An attempt at a double concerto, for violin, piano and strings, the start of it, though I didn't get much further. played at an andante tempo, maybe a bit faster, don't remember.:

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1138/naamloost.jpg

And below a solo piano piece, this one, I thought was great, don't know why, it sounded fun!  This one is played very fast, prestissimo or something. I think I set the tempi at 130 beats per minute.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6893/21892409.jpg (It's larger, so please click it!)

So, do I have any hope making it as a composer, or am I as bad as I think I am!?  But seriously, I am curious about what people who actually do know something about this stuff think of it, so a few serious comments would be appreciated!  Not that I have any aspiration to become a composer or anything.

Edit: sorry, that image is lager than I thought it would be... Just click the link if you want to see it.


----------



## Elgarian

mueske said:


> But seriously, I am curious about what people who actually do know something about this stuff think of it


That rules me out completely, I'm afraid .... I don't know one end of a crochet from the other. Well, I do, actually. But that's about the limit of what I know.


----------



## mueske

Elgarian said:


> That rules me out completely, I'm afraid .... I don't know one end of a crochet from the other. Well, I do, actually. But that's about the limit of what I know.


I don't even know that, still, it looked fun, so I took a screenshot of it...  Who knows, I might be the next (fill in influential composer)!


----------



## JSK

The worst composer I've ever heard is Louise Le Beau if anyone else here has heard of her. Most of her work is one long and irritating sequence of sequences. I've been exposed to several very good obscure composers in Women as Composers class, like Louise Farrenc and Elfrida Andree, but Le Beau is just bad.


----------



## hdk132

Vivaldi. Maybe I just missed it, but I am very suprised nobody has mentioned him...
I haven't listened to vivaldi in so long. He makes me want to break my speakers. The repetition is agonizing to listen to.

As for Schoenburg, I don't think he is a bad composer, I just can't understand/appreciate (philosophy of music: is there a difference between understanding and appreciating) a-tonal music.


----------



## nickgray

> Vivaldi


Him? C'mon... He's one of the best baroque composers. I'm... sorta... surprised, I guess.


----------



## JTech82

baroque flute said:


> Here is a more controversial one...everyone gets their own opinion.
> 
> I would nominate Richard Strauss and Stravinsky, with Mahler coming second.
> I am afraid I don't consider Schoenberg and company to be classical music. That's just my own opinion.


You think Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, and Mahler are bad composers? Are you sure you like classical music?

I'll tell you something, "Baroque Flute," I HATE Baroque music. I find most of that Baroque crap pointless drivel. It all stays in one mood and doesn't stray much from that mood at all. There also seems to be no emotion and motivic developments aren't that interesting. It is also music for dainties. 

How's that for brutal honesty?


----------



## JTech82

nickgray said:


> Him? C'mon... He's one of the best baroque composers. I'm... sorta... surprised, I guess.


One of the best Baroque composers? That's not saying much considering that Baroque is pointless drivel.


----------



## hdk132

JTech82 said:


> I'll tell you something, "Baroque Flute," I HATE Baroque music. I find most of that Baroque crap pointless drivel. It all stays in one mood and doesn't stray much from that mood at all. There also seems to be no emotion and motivic developments aren't that interesting. It is also music for dainties.


I know what you're saying, but there are deffinitly exceptions. Most any Bach is very expressive--it might be one mood, but each movement is so short anyway...There is some good Corelli (cello sonata could have been early Chopin). I can't stand listening to recordings of Bach because I hate other interpretations, but playing the cello suites or the piano partitas can be very expressive. I think there is some good Handel but I have yet to find it.


----------



## JTech82

hdk132 said:


> I know what you're saying, but there are deffinitly exceptions. Most any Bach is very expressive--it might be one mood, but each movement is so short anyway...There is some good Corelli (cello sonata could have been early Chopin). I can't stand listening to recordings of Bach because I hate other interpretations, but playing the cello suites or the piano partitas can be very expressive. I think there is some good Handel but I have yet to find it.


Bach, Handel, and Corelli are something you practice in your bedroom. Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Stravinsky are for the concert halls to be heard before an audience who appreciates and KNOWS real music when they hear it.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> Bach, Handel, and Corelli are something you practice in your bedroom. Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Stravinsky are for the concert halls to be heard before an audience who appreciates and KNOWS real music when they hear it.


Don't forget that some of the above composers drew inspiration from earlier periods of music, like the Baroque. Bruckner was a professional organist, and he must have played many Baroque pieces. He also studied counterpoint, the use of which is apparent in his masses and symphonies. Not to mention Stravinsky and his Neo-classical period, which drew heavily from Baroque influences - listen to the _Violin Concerto _of _Oedipus Rex_, for example. There are many other such composers, such as Martinu and Villa-Lobos (in his _Bachianas Brasilieras_), who were inspired by music of the Baroque period.

I think that it was an important period of musical development, genres like different types of concerti in particular have their roots in the Baroque. Without that, composers like C.P.E Bach, Mozart and Haydn would not have been able to do what they did in the classical period. Although it might not be as varied as later periods, I think there was much significant music that came out of the Baroque period. So it is unwise to totally dismiss it, even though I too find more variety and enjoyment from the classical period onwards. It can get repetitive, as Stravinsky said about Vivaldi how he wrote the same concerto 300 times. But this, I think, was a type of tounge in cheek homage to Vivaldi. Despite the repetition, there is some variety in the instruments he used, for example.

Alot of the Baroque repertoire is still heard in concert halls, such as works by Corelli, Vivaldi, Handel and Bach, to name the more famous ones. It was an important phase in the development of classical music.


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> Don't forget that some of the above composers drew inspiration from earlier periods of music, like the Baroque. Bruckner was a professional organist, and he must have played many Baroque pieces. He also studied counterpoint, the use of which is apparent in his masses and symphonies. Not to mention Stravinsky and his Neo-classical period, which drew heavily from Baroque influences - listen to the _Violin Concerto _of _Oedipus Rex_, for example. There are many other such composers, such as Martinu and Villa-Lobos (in his _Bachianas Brasilieras_), who were inspired by music of the Baroque period.
> 
> I think that it was an important period of musical development, genres like different types of concerti in particular have their roots in the Baroque. Without that, composers like C.P.E Bach, Mozart and Haydn would not have been able to do what they did in the classical period. Although it might not be as varied as later periods, I think there was much significant music that came out of the Baroque period. So it is unwise to totally dismiss it, even though I too find more variety and enjoyment from the classical period onwards. It can get repetitive, as Stravinsky said about Vivaldi how he wrote the same concerto 300 times. But this, I think, was a type of tounge in cheek homage to Vivaldi. Despite the repetition, there is some variety in the instruments he used, for example.
> 
> Alot of the Baroque repertoire is still heard in concert halls, such as works by Corelli, Vivaldi, Handel and Bach, to name the more famous ones. It was an important phase in the development of classical music.


You're preaching to the choir. Did you not think I already knew it impacted the further development of classical? I knew all of that.

Anyway, I'm not denying it's importance and influence. It just doesn't do anything for me musically.


----------



## hdk132

Oh, the music is there. Have you played any serious Bach? What insturment do you play?


----------



## JTech82

hdk132 said:


> Oh, the music is there. Have you played any serious Bach? What insturment do you play?


That's your opinion buddy.

It doesn't matter what I play or if I played any Bach. I said I don't like Baroque music what part of that did you not understand?


----------



## livemylife

I think that if Bach were to be played in the baroque style, it wouldn't sound half as good as if it were played romantically. Specifically, I'm referring to the cello suites.


----------



## hdk132

livemylife said:


> I think that if Bach were to be played in the baroque style, it wouldn't sound half as good as if it were played romantically. Specifically, I'm referring to the cello suites.


THANK YOU!!! I never ever play Bach 1700 style. I play it like Chopin or Brahms. Prelude from the 2nd suite is a great example. People accused du Pre of being overexpressive: as long as the musician is being serious, I don't think there's a such thing.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> You think Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, and Mahler are bad composers? Are you sure you like classical music?


Indeed, you can say you don't like it... but no one will ever believe you saying they are bad composers.



> I think that if Bach were to be played in the baroque style, it wouldn't sound half as good as if it were played romantically. Specifically, I'm referring to the cello suites.


I can understand it if a harpsichord piece were played on the piano, then I could see how playing it romantically would work, but playing a cello piece romantically? How gross....

Listening to a Mozart Piano sonata played romantically is horrible! Crescendoing on a downward scale.... it's so immature. It sounds as if they haven't done any study and are to ignorant to know different. And the music _is not designed_ for it. You can see, *in the music* that it isn't supposed to be played that way, it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> are for the concert halls to be heard before an audience who appreciates and KNOWS real music when they hear it.


Um... can I say... speak for yourself? Most people in the concert hall are old, rich people who don't know **** about music.


----------



## JTech82

Yagan Kiely said:


> Um... can I say... speak for yourself? Most people in the concert hall are old, rich people who don't know **** about music.


That's probably not far from right.

I have been to seen the CSO a few times, but generally the people who go on a regular basis make me sick. Needless to say, I haven't seen a live classical performance since 1998.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I still prefer to see a Late Classical and later live than Baroque. IMO the actualy physical ellement improves Late Classical and later, while it doesn't do much to Baroque which (IMO) can be enjoyed just as well from speakers of some kind (preferably good quality obviously).


----------



## KScott

Hmmm...who do I consider to be the worst composer?

This is a very interesting question. But before I give my answer, I want to comment about some of the posts I have read thus far.

To say to those that do not like the music of Richard Strauss is only because many of us are exposed to the big symphonic poems and the popular operas like _Rosenkavalier_, _Elektra_ and _Salome_. But how many of these same people heard Strauss' last operas like _Daphne_ and _Capriccio_, his two sonatinas for wind ensemble, the oboe concerto, the Duet Concertante for clarinet, bassoon and orchestra, the devastating _Metamorphosen_ for 23 solo strings, or the incandescent beauty of the _Four Last Songs_? If you close your mind to Strauss because all you think he can write is bellicose brilliance like _Ein Heldenleben _or _Eine Alpensinfonie_, and not hear _ANY_ of his lieder, then you have not begun to understand this man's music, his life and his sorrows. (His stupidity in dealing with the Nazis is another matter for discussion.)

Mahler...I remember a young soprano looking at the score of his eighth symphony with me in college and she said, "it's silly music. Silly, insignificant music." Hmmm...

Or the young evangelical Christian who heard his ninth symphony and described it as the "music of the Devil," and when I proceeded to play him Mahler's fourth, he took the cassette tape out and said "this is what I think of your Mahler," and spit on it and threw it to the ground. I was lucky I didn't throw him to the ground as well.

Now this is what I call hatred of a composer. Mahler frightens, belittles and bemoans the listener and the performer alike. One has to reconcile with his sound world, his personality and his conflicts. He is not an easy composer to approach on first hearing, but he's far, far, far from the worst.

Schoenberg? The only reason people say he's bad is because they don't understand why he broke all the rules and invented new ones. He never invented them, because his style is a metamorphosis of what came before. Brahms' cellular thematic material, Wagner's and Liszt's harmonic adventures into the endless chromatic cadences and lack of them, Dvorak's usage of building long thematic material from fragments, and Bruckner's sense of strict Baroque counterpoint. All of these, and more, make his music unique, but in the end, he realized he couldn't take his theories any further because he had no more to say with it, which is why _Moses und Aron _remained unfinished, in my opinion.

Post-serial composers? Many of them are imitators who were told that this was the way to go in order to get performances. How many of them are remembered today? Very, very few, and the few that did survive and get performances and continue to are those who found new paths to trod without bowing to the academic and the elite.

In conclusion, who do I consider to be the worst composer? Those who use gimmicks and gadgets and trends to keep up with the current times, yet not have an identity that makes us want to hear more; those who defy tradition and think they're inventing something new, but not trained sufficiently to deal with new sounds and music, because they've barely understood what came before them; those who place ego before substance, and empty rhetoric before persuasive argument and reconciliation.

They come from all eras, all styles, all walks of life, the young and the old, the most seasoned and the barely begun. It is only a matter of personal taste of what suits us and what does not.


----------



## hdk132

Yagan Kiely said:


> I still prefer to see a Late Classical and later live than Baroque. IMO the actualy physical ellement improves Late Classical and later, while it doesn't do much to Baroque which (IMO) can be enjoyed just as well from speakers of some kind (preferably good quality obviously).


I don't want to hear anything before Beethoven in a concert, and late Beethoven at that . IMO Baroque and Classical is to be played and not heard (take that with a grain of salt please, not much beats Bach's Ciconne from whichever violin sonata [SP])--playing Hayden's London Trios is a blast. IMO the Bach cello suites cannot be played anyway but romantic (in expression not nessisarily style). I want to shoot anyone who uses seperate bows. Bach was so ahead of his time; and quite frankely I don't care when a piece was written in the first place. I am a suscriber to the philosophy that I am going to play a piece as expressively as I can regardless of its title or date.

I did play Bach on piano and organ, but never harpsichord


----------



## handlebar

Mahler among the worst??? 

He is my FAVOURITE LOL
I have been a Mahler disciple since age 18.

Jim


----------



## alvarohenrique

I know who is the worst composer: me!!!

For the humanity's joy, I am not a professional composer.

All the others, well, one can like or dislike, but I can tell for sure that all of them are far much better than me.


----------



## KScott

hdk - what you're missing when you play Bach on the harpsichord!

Granted, I'm rather finnicky when it comes to Bach on the piano - I can listen to Gould, Richter or Hewitt, but someone like Schiff leaves me cold. Bach was aware of the early fortepianos before he died, so it would be interesting to see how his music is played on that instrument, and to my knowledge, no one has recorded Bach on a fortepiano.

Bach was indeed ahead of his time, but there is still a stylistic approach one must take without making it sound maudlin, syrupy or soupy. On the other hand, it should not so mechanical, as some period-instrument performers do. There should be a fine balance of both styles to make the music truly transcendental.

Now...back to the worst composer, and Bach certainly is not the worst!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I am a suscriber to the philosophy that I am going to play a piece as expressively as I can regardless of its title or date.


You can do that without sacrificing the performance style of the baroque which the piece demands.


----------



## hdk132

Yagan Kiely said:


> You can do that without sacrificing the performance style of the baroque which the piece demands.


Well not the way I hear it...Things like baroque style ortaments and articulation are good for the most part, but I refuse to play metranomically. If metronomes were alive I'd be dead long ago.


----------



## TresPicos

I constantly get disappointed when I hear music by Liszt and Saint-Saëns. I've heard only one good piece by Liszt and none by Saint-Saëns. 

Also, as a Debussy fan, I feel I need to vote for Saint-Saëns.


----------



## hdk132

I agree that Liszt is over-rated. His music is show off music--in his time he was a rockstar and many a lady-folk was wooed by his piano playing, but its all flash and not serious music.


----------



## jhar26

hdk132 said:


> I agree that Liszt is over-rated. His music is show off music--in his time he was a rockstar and many a lady-folk was wooed by his piano playing, but its all flash and not serious music.


The question remains though whether all music has to be 'serious' (whatever that means) to be good. What's wrong with music that's simply fun?


----------



## Aramis

hdk132 said:


> I agree that Liszt is over-rated. His music is show off music--in his time he was a rockstar and many a lady-folk was wooed by his piano playing, but its all flash and not serious music.


What about his Faust and Dante symphonies? Or symphonic poems, which are his invention? You think it's nothing?


----------



## jhar26

Aramis said:


> What about his Faust and Dante symphonies? Or symphonic poems, which was actually his invention? You think it's nothing?


Or the Piano Sonata in B Minor.


----------



## howlingmadhowie

hdk132 said:


> Well not the way I hear it...Things like baroque style ortaments and articulation are good for the most part, but I refuse to play metranomically. If metronomes were alive I'd be dead long ago.


i think there's more to it than that. there's a difference between playing with a regular internal pulse and playing in accordance with a regular external pulse. i play bach pretty metronomically, if you wish, because that's the way i like to play it. to me, it sounds better that way. thinking about it, i presume the largest rhythmical deviation from my ideal which i will tolerate when playing bach is smaller than the largest rhythmical deviation from my ideal i tolerate when playing chopin.


----------



## Herzeleide

Aramis said:


> What about his Faust and Dante symphonies? Or symphonic poems, which are his invention? You think it's nothing?


Indeed. Liszt is basically the daddy of Wagner and Debussy. His approach to harmony and sometimes form is astonishingly original. Check out Bénédiction de Dieu dans la Solitude.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Aramis said:


> Or symphonic poems, which are his invention?


Isn't Saint-Saens Danse Macabre the first symphonic poem?


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

jhar26 said:


> Or the Piano Sonata in B Minor.


Or the Trascendental Etudes.


----------



## Aramis

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Isn't Saint-Saens Danse Macabre the first symphonic poem?


As far as I know, Liszt is the one who definied this musical form and, by influencing other composers, made it popular.


----------



## Herzeleide

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Isn't Saint-Saens Danse Macabre the first symphonic poem?


It isn't, no.


----------



## TresPicos

Hm... After having listened to some more of Saint-Saëns, for example the third symphony and the fifth piano concerto, I have to admit that he wasn't all that useless. In fact, I look forward to listening to more of his stuff. 

Humble pie - yummy!



Edit: However, I will learn nothing from this, but instead firmly stick with Liszt as my "worst composer".


----------



## Mirror Image

TresPicos said:


> Hm... After having listened to some more of Saint-Saëns, for example the third symphony and the fifth piano concerto, I have to admit that he wasn't all that useless. In fact, I look forward to listening to more of his stuff.
> 
> Humble pie - yummy!


To be honest, I wasn't impressed by Saint-Saens all that much until I heard Charles Dutoit and the Montreal Symphony Orchestra perform "Danse Macabre" and now I'm liking his piano concertos a lot more. "Symphony No. 3" is a very good piece as well.

He's not a bad composer, but he's somebody I don't return to very much, but I would have probably never given the time of day until I heard Dutoit.


----------



## Bach

TresPicos said:


> Hm... After having listened to some more of Saint-Saëns, for example the third symphony and the fifth piano concerto, I have to admit that he wasn't all that useless. In fact, I look forward to listening to more of his stuff.
> 
> Humble pie - yummy!
> 
> Edit: However, I will learn nothing from this, but instead firmly stick with Liszt as my "worst composer".


.....

Why?


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> .....
> 
> Why?


There's a lot of reasons not to like Liszt, Bach. His critics all say the same things: terrible orchestrator, pompous compositions, lack of compositional range, etc.

I love Liszt, but I understand why some people would not.


----------



## Mirror Image

I will say I'm starting to see a "changing of the guard" so to speak in your classical listening, Bach.

I mean Wagner and now Liszt? This is very interesting. Both Wagner and Liszt were very emotional composers. Could it be that Bach is finally coming around to the Romantic side of music?

He will be a Mahlerian before the month is out if he continues this road of exploration.


----------



## Tapkaara

Don't forget, we are trying to turn him to Sibelius, too!


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Don't forget, we are trying to turn him to Sibelius, too!


That will take a while, Tapkaara.


----------



## livemylife

My sisters watched this korean figure skater about 100 times and the music to her routine was Danse Macabre.

I never want to hear that piece again.

Saint-Saens cello concerto is pretty good IMO. Especially played by Jacqueline du Pre.
I thought the violin concerto was nice also.


----------



## drth15

Scriabin. Had grand ideas, tremendous ambition. Never originated lasting musical ideas. Piano Sonata scores are amazing to read for their psychic expressive markings.


----------



## Mirror Image

livemylife said:


> My sisters watched this korean figure skater about 100 times and the music to her routine was Danse Macabre.
> 
> I never want to hear that piece again.
> 
> Saint-Saens cello concerto is pretty good IMO. Especially played by Jacqueline du Pre.
> I thought the violin concerto was nice also.


Have you ever heard his Piano Concerto No. 5 or his "Organ" Symphony?


----------



## Bach

Mirror Image said:


> I will say I'm starting to see a "changing of the guard" so to speak in your classical listening, Bach.
> 
> I mean Wagner and now Liszt? This is very interesting. Both Wagner and Liszt were very emotional composers. Could it be that Bach is finally coming around to the Romantic side of music?
> 
> He will be a Mahlerian before the month is out if he continues this road of exploration.


Well, Wagner was one of my first loves - and Liszt, well, his virtuoso music has always been special - I'm just beginning to comprehend how powerful a voice he really is.

I agree about the poor orchestrator comment though - At the moment I'm sticking to his piano works. I quite enjoyed Les Preludes though, so I might return to it later today..

As for Mahler - I like him, but not for the entire duration of a symphony. There's just not enough formal rigidity there to grab me. And Sibelius - I like his small things, like his songs and piano works, but I think the lack of structural rigidity is my main complaint again - same for any 20th century symphonist - RVW or Shosty too.


----------



## bassClef

Why is formal rigidity a good thing?


----------



## Bach

Because it retains your interest over a prolonged period. For a supreme structural achievement see Beethoven's Op. 53 No. 1 - aka. the first Rasumovsky quartet.


----------



## Cyclops

Hmmm this is a tough one for me,as there is still so much out there that I've not heard, so my opinion would not be all that valid. Most modern composers don't appeal to me. From what I've heard of Bartok,which is very little, I'd say he was atonal and not enjoyable,same with Tippet and Britten. I've only heard one Straus piece,Also Sprach Zarathustra and that piece is on my wishlist. Same with Schoenberg-all I've heard is Verklarchte Nacht and want that piece too. But those are exceptions. In the classical ouvre for example I can't think of one composer I don't like,it seems to be the moderns that upsets me. I like Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faune but can't get his La Mer. Same with Ravel. I love Bolero and one or two other pieces but on the whole he leaves me cold. Now I have found one other composer that has singularly left me unimpressed and that is Copland. The Fanfare is great,but what else I've heard I can take or leave. So he may be my worst composer but I really need to hear more. I want to be convinced that Bartok is not worth this title of worst composer.


----------



## Bach

Bartok is fantastic, and not atonal.


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> Bartok is fantastic, and not atonal.


Any examples I can sample please?


----------



## bassClef

Second that - Bartok is great.

But back to the structural rigidity thing - I don't analyse music in this way, it sounds almost like an overly technical evaluation, music should be about emotion. I base my tastes purely on what moves me, I don't care if the musical purists would criticise it for being not rigid enough or lacking in structure or depth or whatever.


----------



## Bach

jezbo said:


> Second that - Bartok is great.
> 
> But back to the structural rigidity thing - I don't analyse music in this way, it sounds almost like an overly technical evaluation, music should be about emotion. I base my tastes purely on what moves me, I don't care if the musical purists would criticise it for being not rigid enough or lacking in structure or depth or whatever.


Well, I do care about that.

And as for Bartok samples, it really depends on your favourite genre - you might find his String Quartets (my favourite pieces by him) a bit heavy-going.

Try the Miraculous Mandarin, the suite from the ballet.


----------



## bassClef

I just heard his symphonic poem Kossuth for the first time - definitely something worth sampling. But from the pieces I know more, and if you Shostakovich's 11th (the louder dynamic bits), try MM as Bach says, his Dance Suite, or Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, or of course his Concerto for Orchestra.


----------



## Cyclops

No symphonies or piano/violin sonatas from Bartok? I must admit I'm intrigued by the man! He's a bit of a cult figure in the US I hear


----------



## bassClef

I've just been reading about him. He was one of the first to really immerse himeslf in studying the authentic native folk melodies and themes from his homeland then weaving those into his compositions - unlike others that just used "popular" gypsy themes.


----------



## Bach

Bartok's piano sonata:


----------



## Cyclops

jezbo said:


> I've just been reading about him. He was one of the first to really immerse himeslf in studying the authentic native folk melodies and themes from his homeland then weaving those into his compositions - unlike others that just used "popular" gypsy themes.


Should be some nice catchy tunes in there then!


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> Bartok's piano sonata:


Cheers mate tho I'll have to check those out later as the laptop is in use at the moment. My other half is designing some cross stitch patterns.


----------



## Cyclops

Mirror Image said:


> Have you ever heard his Piano Concerto No. 5 or his "Organ" Symphony?


I have the Organ symphony, fabulous!


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> Well, I do care about that.
> 
> And as for Bartok samples, it really depends on your favourite genre - you might find his String Quartets (my favourite pieces by him) a bit heavy-going.
> 
> Try the Miraculous Mandarin, the suite from the ballet.


Playing this now, still sounds pretty atonal to me, but interesting. Need more hearings to decide but at first I'm not sure. Sounds like he's using a strange scale,the notes dont fall where I would expect them to. I love the oboe section though!


----------



## Bach

A lot of film composers take influence from 20th century ballet masters like Stravinsky and Bartok because of the way their music so perfectly mirrors the action.


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> Bartok's piano sonata:


 Wow an electrifying performance(Thats some pianist there!) but oh my ears! And you say he's not atonal? No tune as such and the rythms seem all mixed up! Of course it doesnt help that the speakers built into the laptop are dreadful!! I will look out for him on a CD in the library(wish me luck there!)


----------



## Bach

It's not atonal, well - obviously key centers are hard to discern and often polytonal but it's actually quite modal and rich in melodic character owing to the pervading folk influence.


----------



## Cyclops

But is not accessible. You have to learn to like such music, and peiople will then think, ooh he must be clever that one, he likes Bartok.


----------



## Bach

It's not fantastically accessible, but then compared to this: 



 it's quite accessible.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Daniel said:


> Schoenberg and the coming atonal, minimalistic, blablabla music are only experiments for me, not a living, emotional heartful music.


Maybe Shoenberg was an experiment, but there are far worse (or failed) experiments than him, at least his uses some form of orthodox musical theory instead of just abandoning it all. Im talking composers like John Cage who wrote for silence and all those who wrote solo pieces for weird things such as the 'Prepared Piano', Ive never heard a worse sounding instrument in my life.

And what is up with all the Mahler hate? Maybe his music doesnt fit your tastes but hes is generally popular and there must be some reason for this, he cant be anywhere near the worst composer ever. The same goes for Strauss and Stravinsky.

Personally i love The Rite of Spring, the haunting melodies and the hypnotic jarring rhythms creat such a feeling of violence.


----------



## starry

This thread should really be retitled 'who is the most overrated composer' because everyone has an opinion on that. 'Worst composer' is a meaningless title as nobody wants to listen to bad music much so they could never answer that question properly.

Of course Bartok did good pieces, so did Shostakovich. But it is one of my annoyances that music critics want to champion just a few composers as the music geniuses of the last century while writing off hundreds of others as hardly worth hearing just because they don't consider them as groundbreaking (even if they did good music). I think this might be the source of some people's dissatisfaction with modern music. They go to hear Bartok or Shostakovich and because of their colossal reputation expect them to be the modern equivalent of Beethoven/Mozart/Bach or whoever, then they are disappointed.


----------



## starry

emiellucifuge said:


> Im talking composers like John Cage who wrote for silence


Cage wrote plenty of pieces which were far from silent. Blame the success of that piece on music critics who would champion anything considered groundbreaking instead of just judging something on real musical quality.


----------



## Cyclops

The problem arises Starry when people use phrases like 'good music' but forget that its totally subjective. There is no good or bad, there is just what you like and what you dont like. But some folks alienate you for not liking a piece or a composer that they do or dont like-its silly and infantile. And I agree with your statement 'This thread should really be retitled 'who is the most overrated composer'


----------



## emiellucifuge

Agreed also


----------



## bassClef

That's the problem with classical music - it's considered quite rightly to be music on a higher plane than all (most) other genres - I think the only "bad" composers are those who never made it and so we've never heard of them - what remains we either like or we don't, but it's obviously earned it's place in the global repertoire from centuries of music so I don't think any of it could be called rubbish. Compare that with pop music - now some/most of that definitely is rubbish.


----------



## starry

Cyclops said:


> The problem arises Starry when people use phrases like 'good music' but forget that its totally subjective. There is no good or bad, there is just what you like and what you dont like. But some folks alienate you for not liking a piece or a composer that they do or dont like-its silly and infantile. And I agree with your statement 'This thread should really be retitled 'who is the most overrated composer'


I'm a bit cautious about being completely relativistic because that leads to anarchy. I don't mind if someone doesn't like some music as long as they say why, what part of the piece don't they like and why. If they just say it's 'not my cup of tea' then I suspect they haven't made much effort anyway. For me music should about continuously trying to broaden my horizons and not restrict them according to one type of music I could be familiar with. Different kinds of music require the listener being attuned to the different structure of the music so you can really assess it according to what it is trying to do. That isn't easy.


----------



## Cyclops

jezbo said:


> Compare that with pop music - now some/most of that definitely is rubbish.


some yes is pretty dire,but not all. And again its subjective although I will say that rap is most definitely trash,not even worthy of the title music.


----------



## Bach

No, a lot of rap is quite funky and witty. Better than rock and metal. 

And music isn't purely subjective - there's good music and bad music.


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> No, a lot of rap is quite funky and witty. Better than rock and metal.
> 
> And music isn't purely subjective - there's good music and bad music.


i disagree,on both points!


----------



## Bach

Then you're wrong then.


----------



## starry

Cyclops said:


> some yes is pretty dire,but not all. And again its subjective although I will say that rap is most definitely trash,not even worthy of the title music.


Rap on it's own I haven't been convinced by, but if it's used within a more musical context (with a singing voice and/or music alongside) it can give some energy to music.

I think pop music has to be judged on it's own terms. Rock critics try and build it up a bit ridiculously sometimes and are quite snobby. Most popular music is at the level of the 3/4 minute form and at it's best is in the true democratic spirit of the twentieth century - direct, accessible and popular. If there is far more bad pop music than classical that is probably because there is far more pop music than classical. I think someone said once that anyone can have a song in them. That's liberating but at the same time you will get quite alot of bad stuff as a result.


----------



## bassClef

No no, some music is just BAD, not even subjectively good (except perhaps to a 3 year old):






There's no one genre that's all bad.


----------



## bassClef

In general I dislike rap/hiphop - but there's some of it I love (Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy - Television the Drug of the Nation, for example), so I can understand why people love more of it. Same with country and metal too.


----------



## starry

jezbo said:


> There's no one genre that's all bad.


I agree. Although the very use of genres by people with music almost seems a way to keep some music separate and alien to people. Or it's just a way of marketing a particular type of music to people by keeping something in a limited style so people don't hear how music can actually be simply music (and not just a genre) and can take things from different styles and create something fresh.


----------



## Mirror Image

Cyclops said:


> Playing this now, still sounds pretty atonal to me, but interesting. Need more hearings to decide but at first I'm not sure. Sounds like he's using a strange scale,the notes dont fall where I would expect them to. I love the oboe section though!


Okay, Cyclops here is one thing I don't understand. You like Shostakovich, but you don't like Bartok? You think Bartok is atonal? I don't think so. Bartok's music is tonal. Perhaps he's a bit more barbaric for some people's tastes, but so is Stravinsky and Shostakovich. Bartok composed some of the most brilliant music in the 20th Century. One listen to "The Wooden Prince" I think would change your mind.


----------



## Mirror Image

Cyclops said:


> No symphonies or piano/violin sonatas from Bartok? I must admit I'm intrigued by the man! He's a bit of a cult figure in the US I hear


Probably the closest thing to a symphony is his "Concerto For Orchestra." A truly marvelous piece of music.


----------



## Cyclops

jezbo said:


> No no, some music is just BAD, not even subjectively good (except perhaps to a 3 year old):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no one genre that's all bad.


Its maybe not so black and white,true,but I would say there are one or two genres I can live without. Rap and country being two


----------



## Mirror Image

Cyclops said:


> Its maybe not so black and white,true,but I would say there are one or two genres I can live without. Rap and country being two


Cyclops I responded to you above. I asked you a question.


----------



## Cyclops

Mirror Image said:


> Okay, Cyclops here is one thing I don't understand. You like Shostakovich, but you don't like Bartok? You think Bartok is atonal? I don't think so. Bartok's music is tonal. Perhaps he's a bit more barbaric for some people's tastes, but so is Stravinsky and Shostakovich. Bartok composed some of the most brilliant music in the 20th Century. One listen to "The Wooden Prince" I think would change your mind.


But Mirror,I have only heard a few pieces of Shostakovich,and yet what I do hear sounds more,more musical to me than anything by Bartok that I've heard(again very little)
It seems to me that bartok is more of an 'arty' composer than shostakovich


----------



## Mirror Image

Cyclops said:


> But Mirror,I have only heard a few pieces of Shostakovich,and yet what I do hear sounds more,more musical to me than anything by Bartok that I've heard(again very little)
> It seems to me that bartok is more of an 'arty' composer than shostakovich


I've got three words for you "The Wooden Prince."


----------



## Cyclops

Mirror Image said:


> I've got three words for you "The Wooden Prince."


I shall look out for this piece!


----------



## Cyclops

Mirror Image said:


> Cyclops I responded to you above. I asked you a question.


I think I replied.


----------



## Herzeleide

I wonder what happens if someone places the letter 'c' before rap?


----------



## Cyclops

Herzeleide said:


> I wonder what happens if someone places the letter 'c' before rap?


You get a better definition of the 'music'
Unfortunately its been done to death on numerous forums.


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> It's not fantastically accessible, but then compared to this:
> 
> 
> 
> it's quite accessible.


Ah yes the wonderfully modern Boulez. I'm surprised you don't like him,he's brilliant


----------



## Mirror Image

Herzeleide said:


> I wonder what happens if someone places the letter 'c' before rap?


 I like that, because it's true. Rap is crap.


----------



## Clancy

I'm setting myself up for a fall here, but I'm going to have to stand up for the artistic possibilities of hip hop:

Behold the battle rap, suckahs! If you can transcribe all this, I'd be impressed. It's witty, funky, and the guy's verbal virtuosity is, well, breath-taking.

on-topic: So far, John Cage. More interesting to read about than listen to, nothing I've heard of his impressed me.. and I have no beef with modern composition, I just don't think he is all that great.


----------



## Mirror Image

Clancy said:


> I'm setting myself up for a fall here, but I'm going to have to stand up for the artistic possibilities of hip hop.


So you're standing up for something that doesn't have melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure?


----------



## Clancy

Mirror Image said:


> So you're standing up for something that doesn't have melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure?


Hip hop doesn't have rhythm? What do you think is the point of the vocal - it is voice as a rhythm instrument. Melody is optional, but often there is one. The structure is usually very simple, mainly since it is just a base for the rhythms of the vocals.

I'm not about to declare it rocket science, obviously. This doesn't mean it can't be used as a platform for lyrical & rhythmic expression, and so, y'know, it has artistic possibilities.

Did you listen to that link I posted? That guy certainly pushes the limits in terms of technique.


----------



## Tapkaara

There is good rap, and there is bad rap. The same way there is good rock and bad rock, good classical and bad classical.

Before switching to classical just about completely, I listened to a lot of rock, punk and rap. One of my all-time favorite non-classical groups is the Beastie Boys. These three Jewish kids from New York are regarded as rap pioneers and rightlfully so. If you've not heard albums like their Paul's Boutique or Check Your Head (where they effectively combine rap and rock), I don't think you can justifiably condemn all rap music with one broad and final stroke. It's not just spouting rhymes to a simple beat. There is much complexity to be found here, and that is not hyperbole.

Now, if you listen to Soulja Boy, then that is 100% certifiable cRap.


----------



## Cyclops

Clancy said:


> Hip hop doesn't have rhythm? What do you think is the point of the vocal - it is voice as a rhythm instrument. Melody is optional, but often there is one. The structure is usually very simple, mainly since it is just a base for the rhythms of the vocals.
> 
> I'm not about to declare it rocket science, obviously. This doesn't mean it can't be used as a platform for lyrical & rhythmic expression, and so, y'know, it has artistic possibilities.
> 
> Did you listen to that link I posted? That guy certainly pushes the limits in terms of technique.


Rap,hip hop,dance,techno,trance,trash/death metal. All modern artless trash in my eyes(or rather ears)


----------



## Tapkaara

Cyclops said:


> Rap,hip hop,dance,techno,trance,trash/death metal. All modern artless trash in my eyes(or rather ears)


What tiny ears you have, Cyclops.


----------



## Clancy

Cyclops said:


> Rap,hip hop,dance,techno,trance,trash/death metal. All modern artless trash in my eyes(or rather ears)


Do you want a medal or something?


----------



## kg4fxg

*Posting New Thread*

What do you have to do to be able to post a new thread in this forum?

Thanks


----------



## Cyclops

Tapkaara said:


> What tiny ears you have, Cyclops.


One eye and 2 small but perfectly formed ears that listen to many types of different music from blues to jazz to classical to electronica. When you think that it was common for people of the 19th century,early 20th,to be able to not only read but to write music,and play an instrument from an early age,and then look at the young of today its obvious we have lost so much!


----------



## Cyclops

Clancy said:


> Do you want a medal or something?


What? Now why would I want one of those?


----------



## Bach

Cyclops said:


> Ah yes the wonderfully modern Boulez. I'm surprised you don't like him,he's brilliant


I love him, he's one of my favourite composers - YOU like him? But you think Bartok's atonal? I can't believe that..


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> I love him, he's one of my favourite composers - YOU like him? But you think Bartok's atonal? I can't believe that..


I was being ironic


----------



## Tapkaara

Cyclops said:


> One eye and 2 small but perfectly formed ears that listen to many types of different music from blues to jazz to classical to electronica. When you think that it was common for people of the 19th century,early 20th,to be able to not only read but to write music,and play an instrument from an early age,and then look at the young of today its obvious we have lost so much!


Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook.


----------



## starry

Cyclops said:


> When you think that it was common for people of the 19th century,early 20th,to be able to not only read but to write music,and play an instrument from an early age,and then look at the young of today its obvious we have lost so much!


Obviously things have changed in all kinds of ways since that period, but have they changed for the worse? The variety of music around now is bigger than it ever has been. The number of people producing music of one kind or another *worldwide* is probably bigger than ever. The accessibility of music with recordings and now the internet has changed for the better.


----------



## Cyclops

Tapkaara said:


> Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook.


Lol you need a new keyboard there,its sticking.


----------



## Cyclops

> The accessibility of music with recordings and now the internet has changed for the better.


Has it though? After all, the kids round here go around with their cell phones playing this stuff they call music which isn't even as good as rap,but is just like chanting or shouting,on full blast,and thats what they aspire to! But then I'm working class,in a working class environment and seen as a bit of an oddity or a boring old fart because I like classical!


----------



## bdelykleon

But musical literacy is down. And it is a reflex of the gramophone. Both recording houses and piano sellers enjoyed less sales in absolute numbers than they had in the early 1900. You can just check Steinway's serial numbers, between 1880 and 1900 the growth is about 5 tousand a year, now from 1985 until 2000, the growth is about 4 tousand a year. Considering that European population is coming very close to a peak, and US population still grows considerably, this means that the population now has a much lower musical literacy than it had before. I think this is one reason for the sliight decrease of classical music in the European countries.


----------



## starry

Cyclops said:


> Has it though? After all, the kids round here go around with their cell phones playing this stuff they call music which isn't even as good as rap,but is just like chanting or shouting,on full blast,and thats what they aspire to! But then I'm working class,in a working class environment and seen as a bit of an oddity or a boring old fart because I like classical!


But classical music or better popular music is out there for them if they want it, if they don't want it then you can't force them. For some people maybe music isn't so important to them as it may be to us (has anything really changed with that?).


----------



## Mirror Image

Clancy said:


> Hip hop doesn't have rhythm? What do you think is the point of the vocal - it is voice as a rhythm instrument. Melody is optional, but often there is one. The structure is usually very simple, mainly since it is just a base for the rhythms of the vocals.
> 
> I'm not about to declare it rocket science, obviously. This doesn't mean it can't be used as a platform for lyrical & rhythmic expression, and so, y'know, it has artistic possibilities.
> 
> Did you listen to that link I posted? That guy certainly pushes the limits in terms of technique.


Well I'm not down with (c)rap music, so all I can say is I don't like it and that's all I will say about it.


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> There is good rap, and there is bad rap. The same way there is good rock and bad rock, good classical and bad classical.
> 
> Before switching to classical just about completely, I listened to a lot of rock, punk and rap. One of my all-time favorite non-classical groups is the Beastie Boys. These three Jewish kids from New York are regarded as rap pioneers and rightlfully so. If you've not heard albums like their Paul's Boutique or Check Your Head (where they effectively combine rap and rock), I don't think you can justifiably condemn all rap music with one broad and final stroke. It's not just spouting rhymes to a simple beat. There is much complexity to be found here, and that is not hyperbole.
> 
> Now, if you listen to Soulja Boy, then that is 100% certifiable cRap.


Beastie Boys are thoroughly nauseating.

I don't like hip-hop. Though it has occurred to me that there's some *trip*-hop which is reasonable (like Massive Attack).


----------



## Bach

Massive Attack are sikkkkkkk


----------



## Cyclops

Mirror Image said:


> I've got three words for you "The Wooden Prince."


Just sampling that now on http://www.classical.com/album/CD3X+3015
Not bad at all actually!


----------



## Purcell25

In my opinion I consider Muzio Clementi to be one of the most stiff composers for his time period. And I share Mozart's view concerning Clementi when he surmised that Clementi's playing lacked feeling and was very mechanical in his playing (although this did not keep Mozart from using Clementi's B-Flat Major Sonata in a later work) As I type this the only source from which my feeling derived is a set of Clementi Works done by Petro Spada which makes me wonder if its actually clementi "speaking" or rather Spada's interpretation

Daniel


----------



## JAKE WYB

anything thatS MINIMALIST ifind to be both boring and says nothing musical in ayway and in no way stimulates the mind or inspires - STEVEN REICH typifies this

also the current trends in contemporary music to have all sorts of exotic percussion and irreoavant unsubtle orchestral colouring that troes to find something new and just sounds without thought structure shape subtlety - SIEGERSTAM , MACMILLAN etc typify this

and the other current trend towads shallow empty tonality yet is sterile and frothy in its expressionlessness and dulnesss - MICHAEL NYMAN and DEBORAH WISEMAN typify this - 

all these i think are candidates for my worst composer - theyt are all allive because maybe all past worst ciomposers have sunk into oblivion like i hope the above may do

in terms of a huge composer the most overrated i find include mozart, britten, handel, carter, but that is my opinion- i find only emptyness and sterility and mediocrity in the above thoug im sure im a minority so its probably my failing 

however im sure I am justified in naming as my worst composer to be 

JOHANN STRAUSS - ive never seen this name mentione onthis forum so am i okay to sugggest he can hardly be judged a classical art composer due to the superficiality and pointlessnesss of his to me, meagre tiresome froths?


----------



## Lisztfreak

JAKE WYB said:


> JOHANN STRAUSS - ive never seen this name mentione onthis forum so am i okay to sugggest he can hardly be judged a classical art composer due to the superficiality and pointlessnesss of his to me, meagre tiresome froths?


You're being unjust to Strauss. He never even tried to be a serious composer, he wasn't interested in depth and unveiling of the secrets of humanity, he was just a composer of pop-music of his day. Music people liked and enjoyed, as some do today. So comparing him with, say, Brahms is like comparing a walnut with a carrot.


----------



## Sid James

JAKE WYB said:


> in terms of a huge composer the most overrated i find include mozart, britten, handel, carter, but that is my opinion- i find only emptyness and sterility and mediocrity in the above thoug im sure im a minority so its probably my failing...


I think, as many probably do, that those were among the best composers of their generation.

& I think Reich, Nyman or J Strauss Jr are ok composers, although they are definitely not composers I really like. I agree with Lisztfreak regarding the latter...


----------



## Mirror Image

I despise the serialistic composers: Schoenberg (though his "Verklarte Nacht" is a classic), Webern, Berg, Martin, Rochberg (he's really terrible), Eisler, etc. I also despise a lot of these modern composers like Ligeti, Carter, Reich, Glass, Adams, Cage, Berio, Stockhausen, etc.


----------



## Sid James

I think we have to distinguish between composers we don't like & composers who are really bad. There is a huge difference. It's probably been pointed out by someone else here...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I think we have to distinguish between composers we don't like & composers who are really bad. There is a huge difference. It's probably been pointed out by someone else here...


There aren't any "bad" composers, just people with different tastes. For every composer somebody doesn't like, there's always someone else who does like that composer.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> I think we have to distinguish between composers we don't like & composers who are really bad. There is a huge difference. It's probably been pointed out by someone else here...


What would be, then, and example of a composer who is really bad?


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> What would be, then, and example of a composer who is really bad?


 That's impossible to answer objectively. Music is subjective and that's all there is to it.


----------



## Sid James

I think that there are/where definitely 'bad' composers. It's just that thier names & works get lost in the mists of time, for obvious reasons. There was a 'bad' composer that I read about in a book on classical music a while back. He wrote operas in the Wagnerian style & lived around that time. I forget his name, but the writer gave some pretty objective reasons as to why this guy's work was pretty atrocious by any standard...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I think that there are/where definitely 'bad' composers. It's just that thier names & works get lost in the mists of time, for obvious reasons. There was a 'bad' composer that I read about in a book on classical music a while back. He wrote operas in the Wagnerian style & lived around that time. I forget his name, but the writer gave some pretty objective reasons as to why this guy's work was pretty atrocious by any standard...


I don't think you understand, Andre, being a "bad" composer (i. e. a composer that writes terrible music) is purely subjective to the listener. Opinion is not fact.


----------



## Tapkaara

I agree with MI on this. I don't think a bad composer can be scientifically proven. Let's imagine we have a horrible ocmposer whose melodies are dull, harmonies are unoriginal and seems to have limited technical capabilities in general. Is this a bad composer? Not if there s someone out there that likes him.


----------



## Air

Mirror Image said:


> I don't think you understand, Andre, being a "bad" composer (i. e. a composer that writes terrible music) is purely subjective to the listener. Opinion is not fact.


But when everyone's subjectivity falls under the same line of opinion, you can almost assume it is a fact. Mozart is a great composer, Mozart's father is not. Stravinsky is an important composer, I am not. I think everyone agrees with these lines of objectivity.

I'm not saying it is totally objective, science can never prove this, like Tapkaara pointed out. Well, you get my point (I hope).



> Not *if* there s someone out there that likes him.


if... the magic word that make dreams come true. No, I really don't think so, Tapkaara. C'mon, no one will like my compositions, i guarantee.


----------



## Mirror Image

airad2 said:


> But when everyone's subjectivity falls under the same line of opinion, you can almost assume it is a fact. Mozart is a great composer, Mozart's father is not. Stravinsky is an important composer, I am not. I think everyone agrees with these lines of objectivity.


But when you're listening to music, which is much more important than talking about it, then it comes down to personal tastes regardless of what is written or what has been said about a composer.

I share a lot of different opinions about a lot of different composers, but they're just opinions, they are not facts.


----------



## Mirror Image

airad2 said:


> if... the magic word that make dreams come true. No, I really don't think so, Tapkaara. C'mon, no one will like my compositions, i guarantee.


Nobody will like your compositions? So you're speaking for everyone on this planet now? Come on...


----------



## Tapkaara

airad2 said:


> But when everyone's subjectivity falls under the same line of opinion, you can almost assume it is a fact. Mozart is a great composer, Mozart's father is not. Stravinsky is an important composer, I am not. I think everyone agrees with these lines of objectivity.
> 
> I'm not saying it is totally objective, science can never prove this, like Tapkaara pointed out. Well, you get my point (I hope).
> 
> if... the magic word that make dreams come true. No, I really don't think so, Tapkaara. C'mon, no one will like my compositions, i guarantee.


Actually, I think you are a GREAT composer, Airad.


----------



## Sid James

Well I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. But here's a part of that article from _The Rough Guide to Classical Music _(4th. ed., p. 603). It's on the composer *August Bungert*:

"...However, the most spectacular case of Wagnerian devotion was that of August Bungert, a gloriously mad and justifiably forgotten composer, born in 1845, whose life work for the theatre was devoted to outdoing Wagner in everything but talent. Like his idol he secured himself a royal patron, Queen Elizabeth of Romania, who supported his work in return for Bungert agreeing to set her doggerel verse to music under the pseudonym Carmen Sylva.

...Where Wagner had restricted himself to one cycle of four operas for his _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, Bungert set out during the 1880s to create in _Homerische Welt _(The Homeric World) two cycles totalling seven operas for which, like Wagner, he would write both the words and the music...The first cycle of three operas remained unfinished, but he did complete the second cycle of four, entitled _Die Odyssee_. Like the _Ring_ on which it was modelled, Bungert's tetralogy was scored for monstrous, economically suicidal forces, and each opera suffered from the appearance of more named characters than _Die Meistersinger_. He nonetheless managed to oversee the first performances of each of the operas, in Dresden between 1896 and 1903, and even persuaded his patron to consider the construction of a Bungert Festival Theatre...to rival Wagner's monument in Bayreuth. Despite the support of a band of enthusiasts...Bungert's plans never left the drawing board, and the unrelieved tedium of his music consigned _Homerische Welt _to an eternity of indifference and neglect. He died in 1915 convinced that his work would be discovered and resurrected after his death."

I think we can safely say that Bungert was a bad composer...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Well I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.


Yes, it is. There are no "bad" composers. Only composers that you either like or dislike due to your own personal taste.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> Well I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. But here's a part of that article from _The Rough Guide to Classical Music _(4th. ed., p. 603). It's on the composer *August Bungert*:
> 
> "...However, the most spectacular case of Wagnerian devotion was that of August Bungert, a gloriously mad and justifiably forgotten composer, born in 1845, whose life work for the theatre was devoted to outdoing Wagner in everything but talent. Like his idol he secured himself a royal patron, Queen Elizabeth of Romania, who supported his work in return for Bungert agreeing to set her doggerel verse to music under the pseudonym Carmen Sylva.
> 
> ...Where Wagner had restricted himself to one cycle of four operas for his _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, Bungert set out during the 1880s to create in _Homerische Welt _(The Homeric World) two cycles totalling seven operas for which, like Wagner, he would write both the words and the music...The first cycle of three operas remained unfinished, but he did complete the second cycle of four, entitled _Die Odyssee_. Like the _Ring_ on which it was modelled, Bungert's tetralogy was scored for monstrous, economically suicidal forces, and each opera suffered from the appearance of more named characters than _Die Meistersinger_. He nonetheless managed to oversee the first performances of each of the operas, in Dresden between 1896 and 1903, and even persuaded his patron to consider the construction of a Bungert Festival Theatre...to rival Wagner's monument in Bayreuth. Despite the support of a band of enthusiasts...Bungert's plans never left the drawing board, and the unrelieved tedium of his music consigned _Homerische Welt _to an eternity of indifference and neglect. He died in 1915 convinced that his work would be discovered and resurrected after his death."
> 
> I think we can safely say that Bungert was a bad composer...


He sounds, interesting, really. And how can one definitively say he's bad just from reading this? I'd like to hear this music for myself, quite honestly.


----------



## Conservationist

Composers I detest:

Copland
Mendelssohn
Stravinsky
Rachmaninoff
Schoenberg
Prokofiev

Each one seems to me to completely miss the unitive nature of this music -- it is technical and artistic, and spiritual in a very abstract way -- and so completely ruins the experience. Their recordings should be used to make outhouses.


----------



## Conservationist

Mirror Image said:


> Only composers that you either like or dislike due to your own personal taste.


That's true -- a monkey banging on stones is equally valid music as Beethoven.

...do you really believe this?


----------



## Mirror Image

Conservationist said:


> That's true -- a monkey banging on stones is equally valid music as Beethoven.
> 
> ...do you really believe this?


Don't patronize me, Conservationist. You know the point I'm making. Whether we like a composer or not depends on our own musical tastes, so therefore, it's subjective.


----------



## Bach

In fairness, Conservationist offers a valuable point. Somebody might prefer the music of monkeys banging on stones to Beethoven, but I don't think this puts them on equal terms. Those are quite clearly hyperbolical examples, but the question is - where draw the line?


----------



## Dedrater

Mirror Image said:


> Don't patronize me, Conservationist. You know the point I'm making. Whether we like a composer or not depends on our own musical tastes, so therefore, it's subjective.


The word 'subjective' essentially refers to anything interpreted through the experience of a living organism capable of some level of consciousness. Everything you do in life, excepting those extra-personal acts which produce effects of which you aren't aware elsewhere in the world/universe, is subjective. 'Subjective' does _not_ mean, "I can make things up, because the world is a fun, protected playground." My aversion to eating hard granite, for example, is a subjective reaction, but it's grounded in reality: the granite has no valuable nutrients for my survival.

Composers who generally don't seem to know what they're doing:

Stravinsky
Prokofiev
Mahler
Ravel
Schoenberg and the atonalists
Gershwin
Reich, Cage, et al. (any avant-garde crap)
Strauss


----------



## Bach

Conservationist said:


> Composers I detest:
> 
> Copland
> Mendelssohn
> Stravinsky
> Rachmaninoff
> Schoenberg
> Prokofiev
> 
> Each one seems to me to completely miss the unitive nature of this music -- it is technical and artistic, and spiritual in a very abstract way -- and so completely ruins the experience. Their recordings should be used to make outhouses.


Those are some fairly random choices there, Conservationist.. I'm surprised you don't like Stravinsky..


----------



## Bach

Dedrater said:


> The word 'subjective' essentially means anything interpreted through the experience of a living organism capable of some level of consciousness. Everything you do in life, excepting those extra-personal acts which produce effects of which you aren't aware elsewhere in the world/universe, is subjective. 'Subjective' does _not_ mean, "I can make things up, because the world is a fun, protected playground." My aversion to eating hard granite, for example, is a subjective reaction, but it's grounded in reality: the granite has no valuable nutrients for my survival.
> 
> Composers who generally don't seem to know what they're doing:
> 
> Stravinsky
> Prokofiev
> Mahler
> Ravel
> Schoenberg and the atonalists
> Gershwin
> Reich, Glass, et al. (any avant-garde crap)
> Strauss


I'm afraid neither Reich or Glass are avant-garde. Do you mean minimalists?

I assure you that all of those composers knew exactly what they were doing.


----------



## Dedrater

Bach said:


> I'm afraid neither Reich or Glass are avant-garde. Do you mean minimalists?


I edited the post and substituted Glass for Cage, which was who I had originally meant. I'd consider minimalism a kind of avant-garde music in its own right.


----------



## Bach

Minimalism is musical pap.


----------



## Mirror Image

Dedrater said:


> Composers who generally don't seem to know what they're doing:
> 
> Stravinsky
> Prokofiev
> Mahler
> Ravel
> Schoenberg and the atonalists
> Gershwin
> Reich, Cage, et al. (any avant-garde crap)
> Strauss


 This is one of the funniest posts I've ever read! Yeah, none of these composers didn't know what they were doing.....hahahahahahahaha!

All of these composers knew exactly what they were doing and how to achieve the music they were going for. You clearly don't have any idea of what you're even talking about.


----------



## Tapkaara

Dedrater said:


> The word 'subjective' essentially refers to anything interpreted through the experience of a living organism capable of some level of consciousness. Everything you do in life, excepting those extra-personal acts which produce effects of which you aren't aware elsewhere in the world/universe, is subjective. 'Subjective' does _not_ mean, "I can make things up, because the world is a fun, protected playground." My aversion to eating hard granite, for example, is a subjective reaction, but it's grounded in reality: the granite has no valuable nutrients for my survival.
> 
> Composers who generally don't seem to know what they're doing:
> 
> Stravinsky
> Prokofiev
> Mahler
> Ravel
> Schoenberg and the atonalists
> Gershwin
> Reich, Cage, et al. (any avant-garde crap)
> Strauss


This is a very telling post.


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> This is a very telling post.


What does it tell you, Tapkaara?


----------



## Dedrater

Mirror Image said:


> This is one of the funniest posts I've ever read! Yeah, none of these composers didn't know what they were doing.....hahahahahahahaha!
> 
> All of these composers knew exactly what they were doing and how to achieve the music they were going for. You clearly don't have any idea of what you're even talking about.


If you like Indiana Jones soundtracks, claw machines, and frivolity, we're not going to see eye to eye. Do you really get the same from the following two pieces?










Probably not, so what makes the first one enjoyable?

For the minimalism and avant-garde nonsense: Reich's clapping music or Cage's absolutely ridiculous 4'33" have no place in academic circles.


----------



## Mirror Image

Dedrater said:


> If you like Indiana Jones soundtracks, claw machines, and frivolity, we're not going to see eye to eye. Do you really get the same from the following two pieces?


 There's not a chance we would ever see eye-to-eye anyway, so what's your point?

Anyway, don't compare apples and oranges.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> What does it tell you, Tapkaara?


Stravinsky, for example, had no idea what he was doing? This is a very telling post and I think it clearly speaks for itself.


----------



## Dedrater

Mirror Image said:


> There's not a chance we would ever see eye-to-eye anyway, so what's your point?
> 
> Anyway, don't compare apples and oranges.


My point exactly. Some people detest oranges!

Except, in this case, we're really comparing apples and happy meals.


----------



## Mirror Image

Dedrater said:


> My point exactly. Some people detest oranges!


You don't have a point. My point is quit comparing apples and oranges. You don't have any argument whatsoever.


----------



## Dedrater

Mirror Image said:


> You don't have a point. My point is quit comparing apples and oranges. You don't have any argument whatsoever.


To continue the analogy: Let's say the thread was actually about what we consider to be _the worst food._ Neglecting how healthy a particular food is, most of the posters list things like broccoli. Someone else comes along, says that lard-encrusted foods are the worst, and gets called out for comparing, well, broccoli and lard-encrusted foods.

Where's the logic in the attack? There is none; knee-jerking is its substitute.


----------



## Conservationist

Mirror Image said:


> Don't patronize me, Conservationist. You know the point I'm making. Whether we like a composer or not depends on our own musical tastes, so therefore, it's subjective.


I'm not patronizing you. I'm trying to gently use an absurdist example to point out how what you're saying might require further consideration.


----------



## Conservationist

Bach said:


> Those are some fairly random choices there, Conservationist.. I'm surprised you don't like Stravinsky..


I have tried for years to like Stravinsky, but I do not -- his thinking is incomplete, somehow. I don't know exactly what I'm trying to express here but it is a repeated perception.



Bach said:


> In fairness, Conservationist offers a valuable point. Somebody might prefer the music of monkeys banging on stones to Beethoven, but I don't think this puts them on equal terms. Those are quite clearly hyperbolical examples, but the question is - where draw the line?


I think this is an important point of debate. In fact, it's kind of a cornerstone of a dilemma in the West at this point: do we try to "prove" there's a right way to do things, or accept all ways as aesthetic choices of equal footing?

If we make any choice subjective, soon all become subjective, even interpretation of facts; if we leave no room for subjectivity, we lose the necessary randomness of whim.


----------



## Mirror Image

Conservationist said:


> I'm not patronizing you. I'm trying to gently use an absurdist example to point out how what you're saying might require further consideration.


I still feel that music all comes down to personal tastes, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Bach

Conservationist said:


> I have tried for years to like Stravinsky, but I do not -- his thinking is incomplete, somehow. I don't know exactly what I'm trying to express here but it is a repeated perception.


I love Stravinsky, because he wrote some fantastic music - but I can see exactly what you're getting at. I think there are two reasons for this: His desire for commercial success and his eclecticism.


----------



## Bach

Conservationist said:


> I have tried for years to like Stravinsky, but I do not -- his thinking is incomplete, somehow. I don't know exactly what I'm trying to express here but it is a repeated perception.
> 
> I think this is an important point of debate. In fact, it's kind of a cornerstone of a dilemma in the West at this point: do we try to "prove" there's a right way to do things, or accept all ways as aesthetic choices of equal footing?
> 
> If we make any choice subjective, soon all become subjective, even interpretation of facts; if we leave no room for subjectivity, we lose the necessary randomness of whim.


It is an important debate, but one nigh on impossible to touch.. believe me, I've tried.


----------



## Sid James

Bach said:


> It is an important debate, but one nigh on impossible to touch.. believe me, I've tried.


Yep, I think I'll sit on the fence on this one...

As for August Bungert, I omitted to copy the part in the article that one of his operas was basically about the Protestant work ethic. How exciting. Imagine sitting through a three hour opera about that!


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> Yep, I think I'll sit on the fence on this one...
> 
> As for August Bungert, I omitted to copy the part in the article that one of his operas was basically about the Protestant work ethic. How exciting. Imagine sitting through a three hour opera about that!


Sitting through an opera is sitting through an opera, no matter WHAT the storyline!


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> Sitting through an opera is sitting through an opera, no matter WHAT the storyline!


I strongly disagree with you. The operas which appeal to me have interesting storylines, eg. Fidelio, Carmen, Faust, most Verdi & Puccini operas I've heard, Wozzeck. It's not just a matter of an opera having good music.

But, based on what we know, Bungert's efforts had neither interesting storylines, empathetic characters or good arias. However, I have read on Wikipedia that he composed some chamber music of merit, which was commended by none other than the great Brahms. Maybe that is more representative of him than his operatic attempts at meglomania and one-upmanship over Wagner...


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> I strongly disagree with you. The operas which appeal to me have interesting storylines, eg. Fidelio, Carmen, Faust, most Verdi & Puccini operas I've heard, Wozzeck. It's not just a matter of an opera having good music.
> 
> But, based on what we know, Bungert's efforts had neither interesting storylines, empathetic characters or good arias. However, I have read on Wikipedia that he composed some chamber music of merit, which was commended by none other than the great Brahms. Maybe that is more representative of him than his operatic attempts at meglomania and one-upmanship over Wagner...


Carmen is easy to sit through. I once saw Turandot and thought it was pretty well done. Really, my comment was more tongue in cheeck that anything.


----------



## JamesEdgar

You're kidding right... you don't like one of the greatest composers of the 20th century...?...


----------



## JamesEdgar

As far as I'm concerned, all composers are great. They are all unique in their own way and we should just be grateful for the music they have left us.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

What does mean don&39?

Martin, puzzled


----------



## PetrB

The wealthy dilettante compser Richard Nanes has got to be right up there 





After that, it is a toss-up.

Wagner's Tristan und Isolde is truly brilliant, but to me all that followed, other than the Siegfried Idyll, is a huge fail.

Alan Hovhaness ~ antithetical to my aesthetic, and by that criterion, I think almost anti-musical.

Solieri wrote plenty of truly dull music: I don't know how it is possible to orchestrate badly when it is that early classical registration of strings, a couple of horns, flutes and clarinets, but he manages to mess it up nonetheless.

But this has brought a number of the retro-reactionary conservatives out of the woodwork, as in "I've never heard anything by Schoenberg, thank God!" LOL. [To that lot, read any good books lately? any of them written after 1883? ~ Lol, oh lol.]

To my way of hearing, Sorabji littered the scene with some unbearably boring and academic music - Those Busoni Bach transcriptions are pretty dreadful, and there is more of course. Thinking around the same time, Respighi has a lot to account for in the way of sins. Copland's "Lincoln Portrait" is enough to defame the balance of that composer's good works.

Puccini, successful as he is, was, is to me a dreadful composer.

Other than "Einstein on the Beach" I find Philip Glass really 'bad.'

Leonard Bernstein - other than West Side Story (Broadway) and 'Candide' (Broadway) wrote pretty bad music.

Tchaikovsky, in the symphonies, anyway, is a bad composer - and most people just love it.


----------



## PetrB

Sid James said:


> Yep, I think I'll sit on the fence on this one...
> 
> As for August Bungert, I omitted to copy the part in the article that one of his operas was basically about the Protestant work ethic. How exciting. Imagine sitting through a three hour opera about that!


...about as exciting as Wagner's ring, I would think


----------



## PetrB

JamesEdgar said:


> You're kidding right... you don't like one of the greatest composers of the 20th century...?...


Hey, their are 'serious' classical music lovers who 'don't get' Mozart ~ Go figure.


----------



## PetrB

JamesEdgar said:


> As far as I'm concerned, all composers are great. They are all unique in their own way and we should just be grateful for the music they have left us.


Sorry, not all cultures, works, coins or bills are of equal value. You'll actually find eventually a need to commit to something, and find yourself completely out of practice and in an alien land.


----------



## kv466

Yeah,...while I don't exactly sit around wondering about this and I would like to be of the opinion that they're all great and unique in their own way,...I'll be the first to tell you when I think something sounds like ****. Thing is, I tend to go for the interpreter and not the composer,...usually.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> ...
> Wagner's Tristan und Isolde is truly brilliant, but to me all that followed, other than the Siegfried Idyll, is a huge fail...


I think he's not the 'worst' composer by any means. In my view, he was a great innovator, but that's all I'll give to him, basically. What it comes down to is his seeming inability to edit.

I disagree with you re Puccini, Bernstein, Tchaikovsky. I quite like Copland's _Lincoln Portrait_. I like Hovhaness, mostly in measured doses (eg. not regularly, he does have that 'sameness' problem, a bit like Delius & Takemitsu).

Respighi I'm not that keen on, but he's okay I guess. Busoni is good in his own original works, but I haven't heard his Bach transcriptions, which Glenn Gould said where not good - he was similarly critical of what Stokowski and Schoenberg did with Bach.

I think Glass is good, he has a unique style. Problem is - or is it a problem? - he's a great tunesmith and sometimes his music easily becomes an earworm (can't get it out of my head).

That leaves Sorabji and Salieri, who I don't know at all, or not in living memory. & re Nanes, I'll have to give that a listen at some other time.


----------



## Prodromides

In my 20 years of buying "blind" some discs of music whose composers I either hadn't heard before or heard of, I can honestly state that the number of disappointments is relatively small.
However, the one album that I wish I had never gotten is a CD of "music" by Julia (bang on a can) Wolfe.

I'm all for modern/avant-garde female composers like Edith Canat de Chizy or Olga Neuwirth, but Julia Wolfe's program of anti-social/anti-anything is simply not for me.

Wolfe = Worst in my book, anyway...


----------



## neoshredder

Brahms = boring
Wagner some good orchestral works. Just don't like it that much overall
Maybe I just don't like the German Romantics. Oh well there are plenty that don't like the Italian Baroque music.


----------



## norman bates

i don't know who is the worst, but few days ago i've discovered john rutter





i mean, i don't know his other works but this is even worse than einaudi


----------



## Art Rock

I like Rutter's Requiem. Light-weight but a pleasure to listen to.


----------



## norman bates

Art Rock said:


> I like Rutter's Requiem. Light-weight but a pleasure to listen to.


what do you think about the piece i've posted?


----------



## Vesteralen

I am the worst composer ever.


----------



## Art Rock

norman bates said:


> what do you think about the piece i've posted?


Rubbish.......


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

norman bates said:


> i don't know who is the worst, but few days ago i've discovered john rutter


This has to have a very special place amongst pieces of music that are truly awful - I've just hit the stomach-turning modulation at 1:47. It's not just the cheesy accompaniment complete with ghastly drumkit - ultra-unimaginative; and the words which are all too clear (I guess you can take them or leave them); but the triteness of the melody and harmony, would-be "sanctified" by its subject matter. A case of the whole being even worse than the sum of its parts.

Rutter has written better.


----------



## norman bates

Jeremy Marchant said:


> This has to have a very special place amongst pieces of music that are truly awful - I've just hit the stomach-turning modulation at 1:47. It's not just the cheesy accompaniment complete with ghastly drumkit - ultra-unimaginative; and the words which are all too clear (I guess you can take them or leave them); but the triteness of the melody and harmony, would-be "sanctified" by its subject matter. A case of the whole being even worse than the sum of its parts.


yes, it sounds like a classical kenny g. or something like that.
But i will try with the requiem.


----------



## Couchie

I don't see the point in rating composers as good or bad or ranking them when Wagner is simply vastly superior to all of them. 

Let us pat them all on the back and congratulate them for taking the time to write the world some music, hang it on the fridge, and then go listen to some Wagner.


----------



## Arsakes

At the End, no composer is worse than *John Cage*! :lol:


----------



## clavichorder

The worst composer ever had to by definition, have tried to compose(in some vague sense of the word?) right? Can't say where or when this poor individual lived who tried to go so much against the grain of his own abilities, but probably no one paid attention to him/her anyway so how would we know?


----------



## neoshredder

The better question is who was the worst composer that is considered top 50 by many?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ultimately, when someone places Wagner or Mozart or Brahms, Puccini, and Tchaikovsky a list of the "worst composers" one can't really take that list... or the critical opinions of those individuals... at all seriously. In all reality this thread has little or nothing to do with the "worst composers" and everything to do with which composers a given member dislikes. To proclaim that Mozart or Puccini or Wagner is one of the worst composers of all time is simply moronic. To simply declare, on the other hand, "I really can't stand Mozart, Puccini, and Wagner."... Well this is simply a statement of personal opinion and there's really no way to debate this. 

In other words, the question should be: "What composers do you really dislike?"


----------



## neoshredder

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Ultimately, when someone places Wagner or Mozart or Brahms, Puccini, and Tchaikovsky a list of the "worst composers" one can't really take that list... or the critical opinions of those individuals... at all seriously. In all reality this thread has little or nothing to do with the "worst composers" and everything to do with which composers a given member dislikes. To proclaim that Mozart or Puccini or Wagner is one of the worst composers of all time is simply moronic. To simply declare, on the other hand, "I really can't stand Mozart, Puccini, and Wagner."... Well this is simply a statement of personal opinion and there's really no way to debate this.
> 
> In other words, the question should be: "What composers do you really dislike?"


Are you calling me a moron? lol Worst composer to many means the composers they dislike. And no one cares about the Composers that didn't make it big. They like to talk about Composers that are hyped to be great but are disappointed in their experience.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Arsakes- At the End, no composer is worse than John Cage! 

Actually... I would far rather listen to any of these...





















... than that God-awful Rutter piece. And I say this in spite of quite liking some of Rutter's works. The fact is that I quite like some of Cage's works as well, and I greatly suspect that most of those who immediately dismiss him have never taken the time to listen to his work.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Are you calling me a moron?

I think everyone is guilty of a degree of moronic proclamations when we confuse our personal likes and dislikes with objective value judgments such as "greatest"/"worst" composer.

Perhaps the closest we can get to an objective value judgment when it comes to art is to consider the collective opinions (after the passage of time) of those who have invested the greatest time and effort into the appreciation of a given art form. We can also speak objectively upon issues of influence, sustained popularity, innovation, etc... but after all that, we still can only rely upon whether we appreciate... like... take a degree of pleasure in the work of a given composer.

Perhaps more interesting than the simple choice of which composers we like or dislike, is a degree of critical discussion explaining why we dislike or like a given composer/musical work.


----------



## violadude

norman bates said:


> i don't know who is the worst, but few days ago i've discovered john rutter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i mean, i don't know his other works but this is even worse than einaudi


Oh god....I had to sing this when I was in my Lutheran High school choir. Bad memories.......


----------



## maestro267

There is no greatest composer, only composers you personally favour over others. And there is no worst composer, only composers you personally don't like. End of.


----------



## Quartetfore

Worst can`t say, but Boccherini i find is better than a sleeping pill.


----------



## neoshredder

Quartetfore said:


> Worst can`t say, but Boccherini i find is better than a sleeping pill.


If you meant great music to chill to, I would agree. So relaxing.


----------



## PhileasFogg

captaintim said:


> has anyone ever heard a piece of poulenc that they like?


Yes definitely, particularly his Sonata For Oboe And Piano


----------



## neoshredder

Well my opinion has changed. There is no such thing as the worst Composer. Yes I went through a anti-Romanticism period. I'm over that and enjoying basically anything Romantic. Maybe the worst popular Composer would be Philipp Glass. Though that is just my opinion. Even then, I would enjoy the movie Koyaanisqatsi on occasion. So I have no hate for anyone.


----------



## Cnote11

One day you'll revisit this thread singing the praises of Glass... 

I wasn't aware that so many people hated Stravinsky. HOW?! All my favorite composers are being thrashed in this thread.


----------



## neoshredder

Cnote11 said:


> One day you'll revisit this thread singing the praises of Glass...
> 
> I wasn't aware that so many people hated Stravinsky. HOW?! All my favorite composers are being thrashed in this thread.


Would I have to sing it 10 times simultaneously?


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> i don't know who is the worst, but few days ago i've discovered john rutter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i mean, i don't know his other works but this is even worse than einaudi





violadude said:


> Oh god....I had to sing this when I was in my Lutheran High school choir. Bad memories.......


I went to the link and listened to this. It is beautiful! I really mean that. I would have given anything to sing that in a choir, and experience the pure joy of it!

Listen, guys, don't ever think you're "too cool" for this! You are lucky you got to hear it, much less sing it!

Don't ever let go of that part of yourself, or you're dead in the heart! Always remember this place!


----------



## violadude

millionrainbows said:


> I went to the link and listened to this. It is beautiful! I really mean that. I would have given anything to sing that in a choir, and experience the pure joy of it!
> 
> Listen, guys, don't ever think you're "too cool" for this! You are lucky you got to hear it, much less sing it!
> 
> Don't ever let go of that part of yourself, or you're dead in the heart! Always remember this place!


I didn't mean to say that the piece wasn't pretty or good. I just had bad highschool memories.


----------



## millionrainbows

violadude said:


> I didn't mean to say that the piece wasn't pretty or good. I just had bad highschool memories.


I get that; I hated high school too. I was depressed all through High school, and when I got out, I bounced back and realized this. Anyway, the Rutter piece is a "living prayer," and I would have dismissed it too when I was 18 or whatever. Anyway, the piece just "got to me"... I guess I'm just gettin' old. Peace!


----------



## superhorn

What criteria determine who is the "worst" composer ? Is it just plain dullness , or is it something you find off-putting or annoying about the music ? Is the music boring, or irritating, or both ? Are there extra-musical factors in who is the worst, such as what kind of person the composer was or is, or his opinions on this or that composer or whatever topic ? Could it be the composer happenened to hate the music of a composer you love ?


----------



## Mahlerian

superhorn said:


> Could it be the composer happenened to hate the music of a composer you love ?


I don't think any of us could use criteria like this. I know many of my favorites couldn't stand each other's music.


----------



## millionrainbows

superhorn said:


> What criteria determine who is the "worst" composer ? Is it just plain dullness , or is it something you find off-putting or annoying about the music ? Is the music boring, or irritating, or both ? Are there extra-musical factors in who is the worst, such as what kind of person the composer was or is, or his opinions on this or that composer or whatever topic ? Could it be the composer happenened to hate the music of a composer you love ?


Who knows? As violadude demonstrated, human experience is complicated. A piece may conjure-up a whole circle of associated memories, some good, some bad, and like the reaction to Beethoven by "Alex" in _A Clockwork Orange,_ it might be due to any number of things.


----------



## millionrainbows

Cnote11 said:


> One day you'll revisit this thread singing the praises of Glass...
> 
> I wasn't aware that so many people hated Stravinsky. HOW?! All my favorite composers are being thrashed in this thread.


I can see how Stravinsky might grate on some people. Yes, I see it all, yet, I have transcended!:lol:

I feel lucky to hear any good quality music. Lucky.


----------



## BurningDesire

Meh, the Rutter piece sounds corny to me, and I'm unimpressed by religious things, so I find the cheap corniness fitting of the subject matter.


----------



## neoshredder

Are you unimpressed by Bach's religious things?


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Are you unimpressed by Bach's religious things?


I'm unimpressed in the religious subject matter. The music is great, way better than the subject deserves.


----------



## SottoVoce

BurningDesire said:


> I'm unimpressed in the religious subject matter. The music is great, way better than the subject deserves.


As Glenn Gould said, "I believe in Bach's God". There is a beautiful passage in Crucifitxus in the Mass in B Minor at the end when the verse comes "and when he died"; instead of putting it in the minor like most settings go, he puts it on G major. Says a lot about what religion meant to him.

EDIT: I'm not espousing a religous belief, I just think that Bach's conception of religion is admirable. I don't literally believe in Bach's God.


----------



## BurningDesire

SottoVoce said:


> As Glenn Gould said, "I believe in Bach's God". There is a beautiful passage in Crucifitxus in the Mass in B Minor at the end when the verse comes "and when he died"; instead of putting it in the minor like most settings go, he puts it on G major. Says a lot about what religion meant to him.
> 
> EDIT: I'm not espousing a religous belief, I just think that Bach's conception of religion is admirable. I don't literally believe in Bach's God.


I don't find any religion admirable.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

BurningDesire said:


> I don't find any religion admirable.


I haven't read any previous posts...but I'll just say I find all religions admirable. I'm not religious but I've always been fascinated by the idea of religions and how they work and the good and bad sides of all of them. They are an important part of humanity.


----------



## neoshredder

I think she means about the Bible thumpers. If not that, than I don't know why she hates religion.


----------



## Crudblud

Oh no, let's not have *that* argument again. Please, guys?


----------



## bassClef

Cnote11 said:


> I wasn't aware that so many people hated Stravinsky. HOW?!


Quite so. I think for those people it's not the fault of the composer, but a failing in the listener!

I don't think there is any WORST composer that we could name - all those any of us would have heard of have had their name and music immortalised for a fairly good reason.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Now if I was asked how to nominate for the worst composer, I would cut to the chase and nominate he who's name I cannot say but his initials are ALW and he has a peerage........ 

I would acknowledge that it is debatable whether one would consider him a composer at all but that just goes to show that he is the worst............ I could also call him the Paul McCartney of the classical world eeeeweeee


----------



## neoshredder

Hint. It's where you keep a bird. lol


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I was thinking more of something you can BBQ a bird with.....


----------



## Trout

neoshredder said:


> Hint. It's where you keep a bird. lol


Have you tried some of his more accessible works? I think it may seem a little harrowing if you just dive face-first into his more experimental and conceptual works. I have found the following to be a few of his more enjoyable works of his repertoire, especially the first two if you like Satie. I do not know if Cage's intention for these pieces was just simple enjoyment; I do not claim to be a Cage expert in the slightest; however I do find some pleasure in them.




















 (sorry, only 3 videos allowed per post)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Trout said:


> Have you tried some of his more accessible works? I think it may seem a little harrowing if you just dive face-first into his more experimental and conceptual works. I have found the following to be a few of his more enjoyable works of his repertoire, especially the first two if you like Satie. I do not know if Cage's intention for these pieces was just simple enjoyment; I do not claim to be a Cage expert in the slightest; however I do find some pleasure in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sorry, only 3 videos allowed per post)


I too don't dislike Cage and admire anyone who tries to be different and expand horizons but would also say that ongoing knocks are not funny............


----------



## bigshot

I think Satie was the worst major composer. I think it was a conscious choice on his part. He seemed to always be looking for shortcuts. He was the first dissipated slacker in classical music.


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> I think Satie was the worst major composer. I think it was a conscious choice on his part. He seemed to always be looking for shortcuts. He was the first dissipated slacker in classical music.


Implying that he was not the last? C'mon, name some names!


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> I think Satie was the worst major composer. I think it was a conscious choice on his part. He seemed to always be looking for shortcuts. He was the first dissipated slacker in classical music.


How do you figure that?


----------



## jani

The ultimate flaming thread V.1,2


----------



## bigshot

Satie's wikipedia article goes into great detail about his exploits. It isn't hard to read between the lines.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Worst composer ever? Handel. The man was a hacker.


----------



## KenOC

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Worst composer ever? Handel. The man was a hacker.


"Brahms...what a giftless *******!" --Tchaikovsky


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

KenOC said:


> "Brahms...what a giftless *******!" --Tchaikovsky


"There are quite a few I could lump into that category as described by Tchaikovsky" -- HarpsichordConcerto


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Daniel said:


> Proove your non-ability in your eyes and post something....i am sure you will change your mind.


That is a dangerous request- very tempting. Maybe you should start a post competing for the worst composer on the site- I'd have a go at it - no worries....... and win maybe (the depths of poor composition maybe even below my poor standards? - Now there is a challange!).


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> Satie's wikipedia article goes into great detail about his exploits. It isn't hard to read between the lines.


Yeah, he's so much of a slacker that he wrote a ton of great pieces for the piano. o3o


----------



## bigshot

Considering that most of these are miniatures, I wouldn't call this a "ton"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Erik_Satie

Everyone criticizes Grieg for being non productive. Compare...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Edvard_Grieg

Satie despised Wagner, and yet he was just as much of an *** himself as the Potentate of Bayreuth. But the difference is the scale of the work. Wagner actually created a "ton" of great music. Satie created a little pile of jingles for commercials advertising feminine products.


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> Satie created a little pile of jingles for commercials advertising feminine products.


Some truth in that. But all who have practiced the piano with Clementi, Kuhlau, etc., need to hear Satie's "Sonata Bureaucratique"! Revenge is sweet.

Somehow I ended up with Satie's complete works...


----------



## bigshot

How many CDs is his complete works? I'm guessing that it's no more than 7 or 8. I have two CDs of Satie's piano works and it is mighty thin.


----------



## mensch

Since when is quantity a deciding factor in determining quality?

Apart from his piano music, Satie also wrote the music for two important ballets Parade and Relâche. I think it's important to recognise that Satie is a satirist with strong connections to the cabaret culture of Paris, who was both capable of biting musical sarcasm (viz. the aforementioned ballets, Trois morceaux en forme de poire) and profound depths (Socrate, Messe des pauvres, Trois petites pièces montées, Sarabandes). Also the amount of experimentation in his music is important, he was one of the first to experiment with pieces in "free time" (one of his Gnossiennes is an example).

I think measuring his accomplishments by the amount of discs his music fits on is the wrong way to approach a miniaturist like Satie.


----------



## Chrythes

I think bigshot might be some sort of a musical inquisitor. The quantity of music that Satie wrote is supposed to be another indication of his "laziness". I guess that if his output was four times bigger he would still be considered as a "lazy" composer that wrote a lot of "lazy" works. The output here has nothing to do with the composer.


----------



## Mahlerian

mensch said:


> Since when is quantity a deciding factor in determining quality?


Hmm? Isn't Telemann considered the best composer of all time?


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Hmm? Isn't Telemann considered the best composer of all time?


Yes, and Hovhaness is the greatest symphonist.

Of course Cage's ASLSP is the single greatest work.


----------



## neoshredder

Mahlerian said:


> Hmm? Isn't Telemann considered the best composer of all time?


Telemann has lots of quality as well. Could very well be the greatest ever. You never know.


----------



## bigshot

mensch said:


> Since when is quantity a deciding factor in determining quality?


If someone is a composer their whole life, and all they come up with of any value is about an hour or two of music, I would hope that they're doing something else productive with their time. Of course with Satie, that was creating crackpot religions and drinking Absynthe...


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> If someone is a composer their whole life, and all they come up with of any value is about an hour or two of music, I would hope that they're doing something else productive with their time. Of course with Satie, that was creating crackpot religions and drinking Absynthe...


Satie's piano music alone exceeds six hours. But on re-reading, it's apparent that you meant "an hour or two" of *real* music, in which case you're being generous... :devil:


----------



## bigshot

Precisely.


----------



## ProudSquire

I consider Knight Baron to be the worst composer of all.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

neoshredder said:


> Telemann has lots of quality as well. Could very well be the greatest ever. You never know.


if Telemann is the best - then logically ..... is the worst........ someone called Opposite Speak lady.........
which could be Hillary Clinton.......


----------



## Turangalîla

I think that Alkan must be the worst composer of all time...well, at least the worst one that most people have heard of. The only reason I am all that familiar with his music is because I have a virtuosity-obsessed pianist friend that plays me his music *all the time*...


----------



## Lisztian

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I think that Alkan must be the worst composer of all time...well, at least the worst one that most people have heard of. The only reason I am all that familiar with his music is because I have a virtuosity-obsessed pianist friend that plays me his music *all the time*...


So Alkan is the worst composer ever solely because of what you've heard from your, presumably young, friend, who is 'virtuosity obsessed'...while hardly hearing his music anywhere else? Hmm...


----------



## KenOC

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I think that Alkan must be the worst composer of all time...


Well, sir, your view has the virtue of originality.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'll still vote for Hillary Clinton- as the worst composer.........


----------



## Mahlerian

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I'll still vote for Hillary Clinton- as the worst composer.........


How about Richard Nixon?


----------



## moody

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I think that Alkan must be the worst composer of all time...well, at least the worst one that most people have heard of. The only reason I am all that familiar with his music is because I have a virtuosity-obsessed pianist friend that plays me his music *all the time*...


A very strangs verdict--of course your friend may be a lousy pianist.Why don't you ask him what he sees in it?


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> A very strangs verdict--of course your friend may be a lousy pianist.Why don't you ask him what he sees in it?


That may qualify as 'belaboring the obvious'. My listening experience has been that some supposedly competent professional pianists have such difficulty with Alkan that getting past playing the majority of the notes is an insurmountable task. _CJP_'s friend 'surmounts'? Hah!


----------



## ptr

Mahlerian said:


> How about Richard Nixon?


ROTFLOL(Squared)

/ptr


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

ptr said:


> ROTFLOL(Squared)
> 
> /ptr


I was rollin on the floor too - I wonder...... did Stalin ever do any composition (this could be a thread).

PS I don't think he was very uncultured (could be wrong there)- all I can find is the his favorite piece was a georgian lullaby "soulika' by the soviet army chorus. Or maybe it would have been Dicky is such an ****#### by Zappa.


----------



## KenOC

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> PS I don't think he was very uncultured (could be wrong there)- all I can find is the his favorite piece was a georgian lullaby "soulika' by the soviet army chorus. Or maybe it would have been Dicky is such an ****#### by Zappa.


Stalin was very fond of Mozart's 23rd Piano Concerto, especially as played by Maria Yudina. He played it the night he died. She once made a special recording of this piece for Stalin, who sent her a nice letter and a check for 20,000 rubles. Her reply was said to have been:

"Dear Josef Vissairyonovich,

I wish to thank you for your most generous gift and express to you how much it touched my heart. I will continue to pray for you and your soul every day and every night for the rest of my life. Please remember that God's love for you is as infinite as His mercy, and if you but confess and repent He will forgive your many sins against our homeland and our countrymen.

Once again, I wish to thank you for your gift. I have donated it in its entirety to the church which I regularly attend.

Most sincerely,
Maria V. Yudina"

Stalin let this pass without recorded comment.


----------



## spradlig

Telemann. He may be the most prolific major composer in history, and his music is performed all the time, but I have NEVER heard ANYTHING by him that I liked. Maybe I am missing something.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Stalin was very fond of Mozart's 23rd Piano Concerto, especially as played by Maria Yudina. He played it the night he died. She once made a special recording of this piece for Stalin, who sent her a nice letter and a check for 20,000 rubles. Her reply was said to have been:
> 
> "Dear Josef Vissairyonovich,
> 
> I wish to thank you for your most generous gift and express to you how much it touched my heart. I will continue to pray for you and your soul every day and every night for the rest of my life. Please remember that God's love for you is as infinite as His mercy, and if you but confess and repent He will forgive your many sins against our homeland and our countrymen.
> 
> Once again, I wish to thank you for your gift. I have donated it in its entirety to the church which I regularly attend.
> 
> Most sincerely,
> Maria V. Yudina"
> 
> Stalin let this pass without recorded comment.


Very interesting and good points raised - after all I guess Stalin was a jesuit priest trainee before marxism came calling. Maybe that explains why he was so vicious to his countrymen....


----------



## Trout

spradlig said:


> Telemann. He may be the most prolific major composer in history, and his music is performed all the time, but I have NEVER heard ANYTHING by him that I liked. Maybe I am missing something.


I am in half-agreement in that quite a lot of what I have heard by Telemann is uninteresting to me. However, I think his Paris Quartets are pleasant works. This is the first part of the 1st one:






His Tafelmusik is a collection of various concertos, orchestral and chamber pieces which comprise of a lot of his nicer music, in my opinion. I would suggest the following two concertos:

_Concerto for 2 Horns in E-flat major_






_Concerto for 3 Violins in F major_ (part 1 of 3)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

spradlig said:


> Telemann. He may be the most prolific major composer in history, and his music is performed all the time, but I have NEVER heard ANYTHING by him that I liked. Maybe I am missing something.


Do you also like Hillary Clinton? Just asking answer will further my studies........


----------



## neoshredder

spradlig said:


> Telemann. He may be the most prolific major composer in history, and his music is performed all the time, but I have NEVER heard ANYTHING by him that I liked. Maybe I am missing something.


Speechless  Tafelmusik and Overtures ftw.


----------



## violadude

Whoever wrote this obnoxiously badly written piece has got to be the worst composer of all time.


----------



## Turangalîla

Lisztian said:


> So Alkan is the worst composer ever solely because of what you've heard from your, presumably young, friend, who is 'virtuosity obsessed'...while hardly hearing his music anywhere else? Hmm...


Lisztian, why do you always have to make my logic sound so simplistic? :lol: However, there was a clear miscommunication-my (yes, he is young) friend does not play me his music in the sense that he performs it himself...he emails links to me and I listen, because I am a good friend () and he wants my opinion on it. I have actually heard a large amount of Alkan's music.

...Just so you all didn't think that I was so ridiculous to say that "Alkan must be the worst composer _ever_ because I've heard my friend play his music, and I thought it was _terrible_!" I am youg, but I don't think that my logic is _that_ poor.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> Whoever wrote this obnoxiously badly written piece has got to be the worst composer of all time.


Now,now--you'll get the Mozart gang comong after you !


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> Whoever wrote this obnoxiously badly written piece has got to be the worst composer of all time.


Or one of the best.


----------



## Crudblud

moody said:


> Now,now--you'll get the Mozart gang comong after you !


A rather petty bunch, that.


----------



## Guest

I am not going to call anybody the worst composer - but there are definitely composers that for me, personally, are the worst, in the sense that I get little to no enjoyment from their works and have purchased few, if any, recordings of their works. Wagner, oddly enough, is in that list. I have a Wagner Without Words recording by Szell, and that alone satisfies all I care for with Wagner. Beyond that, I really don't care for Schoenberg or anybody else in that neck of the woods. I know - shocking, right?


----------



## neoshredder

Crudblud said:


> A rather petty bunch, that.


I'd rather be part of that than the Modernist bunch. Ones that feel the need to insult Mozart to show how hip they are.


----------



## jani

violadude said:


> Whoever wrote this obnoxiously badly written piece has got to be the worst composer of all time.


You could say that you don't like Mozarts music
but you can't say that Mozart is the worst composer ever,
because of the impact that he has had to our world.

Also i realize that you are trolling but my replay is directed to all of those people who really think that Mozart is the worst composer ever.


----------



## Crudblud

neoshredder said:


> I'd rather be part of that than the Modernist bunch. Ones that feel the need to insult Mozart to show how hip they are.


Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## neoshredder

I doubt anyone really thinks Mozart is the worst Composer ever. Trolling 101 here.


----------



## oogabooha

neoshredder said:


> I'd rather be part of that than the Modernist bunch. Ones that feel the need to insult Mozart to show how hip they are.


go to 3:20


----------



## neoshredder

Crudblud said:


> Thank you for proving my point.


I don't see what you proved. I'm just glad I can appreciate Mozart and the beautiful music he makes.


----------



## Mahlerian

neoshredder said:


> I'd rather be part of that than the Modernist bunch. Ones that feel the need to insult Mozart to show how hip they are.


You mean like Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Stockhausen? Composers that worshiped at Mozart's feet?


----------



## Kieran

I can stomach Wagner in small doses. Unfortunately, he doesn't come in small doses.

But I'd never think of him as the 'worst composer of all time.' Surely that accolade should rest on somebody unknown, like the Unknown Composer, or someone...?


----------



## Mahlerian

Kieran said:


> I can stomach Wagner in small doses. Unfortunately, he doesn't come in small doses.
> 
> But I'd never think of him as the 'worst composer of all time.' Surely that accolade should rest on somebody unknown, like the Unknown Composer, or someone...?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nanes





Listen to the sample of No. 2.
Your search is over.


----------



## neoshredder

Kieran said:


> I can stomach Wagner in small doses. Unfortunately, he doesn't come in small doses.
> 
> But I'd never think of him as the 'worst composer of all time.' Surely that accolade should rest on somebody unknown, like the Unknown Composer, or someone...?


Why does it have to be unknown? Why can't it be considered John Cage?


----------



## Kieran

Mahlerian said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nanes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to the sample of No. 2.
> Your search is over.


That sounds like some evil genius! He should have been introduced to this fine lass:






They could have created something...er...eh...um...together. :tiphat:


----------



## Art Rock

@neoshredder:
What compositions have you actually heard of Cage? The last Cage-basher whom I asked that never answered the question - probably for obvious reasons.


----------



## Mahlerian

Kieran said:


> That sounds like some evil genius! He should have been introduced to this fine lass:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could have created something...er...eh...um...together. :tiphat:


Well, they lived several decades apart, so without time travel, that's unfortunately impossible. Anyway, note the link at the bottom of his Wikipedia page...


----------



## neoshredder

In a Landscape. I didn't get too far in it.


----------



## Kieran

Mahlerian said:


> Well, they lived several decades apart, so without time travel, that's unfortunately impossible. Anyway, note the link at the bottom of his Wikipedia page...


Florence!

I have to say, I admire these not-so-gifted amateurs their pluck! How many really talented people have stayed hidden away for want of the performance gene?


----------



## Art Rock

neoshredder said:


> In a Landscape. I didn't get too far in it.


So you listened to a part of one composition by Cage, and you feel entitled to join the Cage-bashers. Noted.


----------



## neoshredder

Art Rock said:


> So you listened to a part of one composition by Cage, and you feel entitled to join the Cage-bashers. Noted.


I was talking about the cd. I put it on as background music and realized what is this rubbish?


----------



## moody

Art Rock said:


> @neoshredder:
> What compositions have you actually heard of Cage? The last Cage-basher whom I asked that never answered the question - probably for obvious reasons.


You get a lot of that here. You go to considerable trouble to prove a point and the other party disappears from sight never to be heard again.
Until he/she repeats the same exercise on another thread.
By the way Neoshredder this is not aimed at you,but in general.


----------



## violadude

moody said:


> Now,now--you'll get the Mozart gang comong after you !





neoshredder said:


> Or one of the best.


Erm...You guys know I was being sarcastic right?


----------



## Mahlerian

violadude said:


> Erm...You guys know I was being sarcastic right?


Given that you posted A Musical Joke, they should have.

A terribly written piece, but brilliantly terrible!


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> In a Landscape. I didn't get too far in it.


Judge a composer with pretty large output based on half-heartedly listening to a little of it in the background. Seems legit o3o


----------



## BurningDesire

violadude said:


> Whoever wrote this obnoxiously badly written piece has got to be the worst composer of all time.


I actually find that to be one of his more enjoyable works :3 I would love to hear one of the Mozart fanatics tell me _how _its "badly written" since they contend it was written poorly on purpose.


----------



## Mahlerian

BurningDesire said:


> I actually find that to be one of his more enjoyable works :3 I would love to hear one of the Mozart fanatics tell me _how _its "badly written" since they contend it was written poorly on purpose.


The themes are exceedingly banal, and their development filled with lots of run-ons where the composer seems to forget how everything is supposed to go together and simply gets carried away with one idea. He then repeats that idea far past its usefulness. There's a joke right at the beginning where the end of a phrase is used as the beginning of the next phrase, presumably because the only thing he could have done is simply repeated it twice in a row if he hadn't.

There are awkward harmonic progressions and retrogressions. The ensemble is inherently imbalanced, with the horns comically overpowering the strings every time they appear. Sometimes the material and its treatment do not fit together, so there's an odd disconnect. The runs and trills in the slow movement are completely tasteless and pointless.

I'd probably have to listen to it again to remember more.

Edit: Also right at the beginning, there's a chord progression, G7-F-C7-F, that seems to be leading away from the home key at first, but then jumps right back without any real reason, which is immediately followed by another motion towards the dominant.

Edit 2: Perhaps part of the problem is that people aren't hearing this in HIP. Then you can hear how the parts interact very awkwardly, especially the horns.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> Erm...You guys know I was being sarcastic right?


No I'm afraid I didn't not after some of the nonsense that has been aimed at Mozart here. I suppose that as it was you it should have given pause for thought.


----------



## tankership

While I can't say who the worst composer is since this is very subjective to what people like, I can say some that I don't like.

Unsuk Chin's cello concerto.






I heard it at the U.S. premiere with Alban Gerhardt as soloist and Susan Mälkk conducting. The music was so loud and dissonant that I was getting nauseous.

Others I don't care for are Schoenberg and Varese (granted I only heard Amériques).






I also don't like John Cage. I can remember I attended a BSO concert of his Renga with Apartment House 1776 in 1976.
About 25% of the audience left their seats (including me). When the performance ended everyone one returned and the boos overwhelmed the applause. Something that never happens nowadays. People are very afraid to show their displeasure.






I don't consider this type of music good or bad. It certinly has it's enthusiasts, I'm just not one.


----------



## violadude

Honestly, I don't consider any composer to be terrible or "the worst." If I had to pick someone, I guess I would pick someone like Karl Jenkins who isn't really taken all that seriously in the classical world anyway.


----------



## Mahlerian

tankership said:


> I don't consider this type of music good or bad. It certinly has its enthusiasts, I'm just not one.


What kind of music? Schoenberg, Chin, Varese, and Cage are all extremely different in their styles and methods. I'm a huge Schoenberg fan, have a strong interest in Chin, enjoy Varese, but mostly avoid Cage. I heard a radio broadcast of the same performance of the Cello Concerto, and enjoyed it thoroughly.

At least you didn't try to state your opinions as fact (and I believe that some composers are worse than others by any number of criteria we could probably agree on).


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> Honestly, I don't consider any composer to be terrible or "the worst." If I had to pick someone, I guess I would pick someone like Karl Jenkins who isn't really taken all that seriously in the classical world anyway.


You already said Mozart. Too late.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Mahlerian said:


> What kind of music? Schoenberg, Chin, Varese, and Cage are all extremely different in their styles and methods. I'm a huge Schoenberg fan, have a strong interest in Chin, enjoy Varese, but mostly avoid Cage. I heard a radio broadcast of the same performance of the Cello Concerto, and enjoyed it thoroughly.
> 
> At least you didn't try to state your opinions as fact (and I believe that some composers are worse than others by any number of criteria we could probably agree on).


Maybe if we changed his name to Egac- would that help. He could compete with Tarzom.


----------



## Tristan

I don't think I can pick a "worst composer" either. There are certain styles and sub-genres of classical music I don't care for, but that doesn't make the composers the "worst". The worst composer is probably some amateur whose music is nothing but a loose copy of another composer's work.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Tristan said:


> I don't think I can pick a "worst composer" either. There are certain styles and sub-genres of classical music I don't care for, but that doesn't make the composers the "worst". The worst composer is probably some amateur whose music is nothing but a loose copy of another composer's work.


Go on be brave - I've nominated Hillary Clinton and we've have Richard Nixon also!


----------



## KenOC

On another forum, there was a game to determine the composers "least likely to be on that desert island iPod." I will publish the top (or bottom) ten here, but only upon serious public clamor.


----------



## Kieran

KenOC said:


> On another forum, there was a game to determine the composers "least likely to be on that desert island iPod." I will publish the top (or bottom) ten here, but only upon serious public clamor.


I'm clamoring with a very serious face! ut:


----------



## Andolink

The worst composer is Alan Hovhaness hands down, no two ways about it. Blah, boring, saccharine note spinning. Yuck.


----------



## BurningDesire

Andolink said:


> The worst composer is Alan Hovhaness hands down, no two ways about it. Blah, boring, saccharine note spinning. Yuck.


He's like a 20th Century Mozart! :3


----------



## trazom

BurningDesire said:


> He's like a 20th Century Mozart! :3





BurningDesire said:


> The problem with jokes about 4'33'' is that they are always extremely unimaginative, have been done a million times, and aren't really funny o3o


It's like you were desribing your low-rent quips about Mozart perfectly :3


----------



## BurningDesire

trazom said:


> It's like you were desribing your low-rent quips about Mozart perfectly :3


Whether my occasional Mozart joke is funny or not is up to whoever reads it. But unlike the 4'33'' jokes, my Mozart jokes aren't always a variation on the same exact thing, and they haven't been done a million times by every single music fan ever.


----------



## bigshot

Is "Variations on the Same Thing" one of Cage's best works?

There ya go. A new Cage joke!


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> Is "Variations on the Same Thing" one of Cage's best works?
> 
> There ya go. A new Cage joke!


o3o Cage never wrote a piece called "Variations on the Same Thing"

Not a bad title for a piece though :3


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Benjamin Franklin was a terrible composer.


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> o3o Cage never wrote a piece called "Variations on the Same Thing"


I must have been thinkng of Philip Glass


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> I must have been thinkng of Philip Glass


HAH!

Not bad X3


----------



## Mahlerian

bigshot said:


> I must have been thinkng of Philip Glass


I don't know...does he actually vary it enough for that kind of title?


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> I don't know...does he actually vary it enough for that kind of title?


Yeah, I think "The Same Variations on the Same Thing" might be better.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Yeah, I think "The Same Variations on the Same Thing" might be better.


I thought that was by Mozart......


----------



## Jord

I'd have to say just about all atonalists and Minimalists, it's not really composition, just maths, variations, repetition, variations, repetition, maths, repetition, repetition


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Jord said:


> I'd have to say just about all atonalists and Minimalists, it's not really composition, just maths, variations, repetition, variations, repetition, maths, repetition, repetition


I thought that was Mozart......


----------



## BurningDesire

Jord said:


> I'd have to say just about all atonalists and Minimalists, it's not really composition, just maths, variations, repetition, variations, repetition, maths, repetition, repetition


I'd have to say if that's your genuine opinion on the matter, you need to do more research.


----------



## quack

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Benjamin Franklin was a terrible composer.


Benjamin Frankel wasn't too bad though.


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Benjamin Franklin was a terrible composer.


Well, that string quartet is only attributed to him. As one reviewer says, "The only thing in favor of the Franklin attribution is that it was obviously not written by a musician."


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> Well, that string quartet is only attributed to him. As one reviewer says, "The only thing in favor of the Franklin attribution is that it was obviously not written by a musician."


And that reviewer would be an idiot X3 since if he did write it, that would make him a musician.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Jord said:


> I'd have to say just about all atonalists and Minimalists, it's not really composition, just maths, variations, repetition, variations, repetition, maths, repetition, repetition


Isn't that how tonal harmony and form came about too? :lol:


----------



## KenOC

BurningDesire said:


> And that reviewer would be an idiot X3 since if he did write it, that would make him a musician.


Your standards for what a "musician" is seem a bit low.


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Isn't that how tonal harmony and form came about too? :lol:


Touché. that means "touch" and gives me ten letters.


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> Your standards for what a "musician" is seem a bit low.


Its not about standards. A musician is somebody who makes music. Simple as that.


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> Your standards for what a "musician" is seem a bit low.


Imagine if one was that openminded with doctors, chefs and architects!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^But with those type of standards imposed, as suggested in the previous post- all we would have would be music pre 1850's genre-- yuk! with some sort of ruling body to outlaw conformist music..... sounds almost like a concept there would if anyone has done that before.....

I would point out that, I don't believe architects conform to any standards- uncontrollable heathens


----------



## bigshot

What if a chef decided that instead of cooking animal flesh and vegetables, he was going to cook animal waste and rocks/dirt. It would be ever so conceptual, and about as appetizing as modern conceptual art.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Some people like cupcakes better. I for one care less for them!


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> What if a chef decided that instead of cooking animal flesh and vegetables, he was going to cook animal waste and rocks/dirt. It would be ever so conceptual, and about as appetizing as modern conceptual art.


Your analogies are a hammer without a master.


----------



## Art Rock

bigshot said:


> What if a chef decided that instead of cooking animal flesh and vegetables, he was going to cook animal waste and rocks/dirt. It would be ever so conceptual, and about as appetizing as modern conceptual art.


Already a hit in Japan.


----------



## defelics

Hello I am a piano/composition and conducting student from Pesaro, Italy. I'm new to this forum and I started to read this discussion thread. I read many different opinions on what famous composer seems to be the worst in general and as a student composer myself I just wanted to say this: always think twice before judging any composer. If composer's music has stood the test of time until now it's always a sort of miracle. When you judge mahler...strauss, Brahms, wagner, schoenberg or any other composer you should always consider the setting in which they where studying and composing. An opera in 1850 will be different from and opera by Puccini or by Strauss...Each composer has to *build* on someone else's shoulders, this you cannot escape, thus to renew interest you must add something new. People often criticize mahler for his symphonies comparing them with beethoven's or Mozart's...that is ridiculous. Mahler (i'm using him as an example) was a brilliant conductor...and his music not by coincidence is loved by conductors! He paved new ways for music and harmony using huge orchestral forces but the same structures used for a century. Take away any famous composer and you will alter music history. Without Brahms there is no Mahler...no schoenberg (who by the way is extremely musical once you accept the fact that he *wanted* his music to be dissonant!). Take away Wagner and you have no Puccini or Strauss...even Stravinsky ( and anti-wagnerian music in general). These aren't bad composers...these are people you dislike. Bad composers will never be heard from again as soon as they die. Don't judge by the ear....judge with the brain and heart. Instinct and reason.


----------



## arpeggio

:clap: Welcome. Outstanding first post!!!!!


----------



## hello

I can't think of any truly bad compositions / composers. Many mediocre composers, of course. But there doesn't seem to be a Design The Skyline of classical.


----------



## TrevBus

American composer Richard Nanes. Never heard of him you say? Well, believe me, you are better off not knowing.


----------



## handlebar

I'm with TrevBus...Nanes is insane for sure. I found a great deal on his CD's and now know why. He promoted himself and hyped it up so much that many people bought it.


----------



## hello

TrevBus said:


> American composer Richard Nanes. Never heard of him you say? Well, believe me, you are better off not knowing.







I retract my previous statement in this thread. That was awful.


----------



## Mahlerian

hello said:


> I retract my previous statement in this thread. That was awful.


His symphonies are even worse.


----------



## Guest

Re the Ricahrd Nanes _Nocturne_ posted above : Gosh, I got bored quite quickly and just clicked along the piece randomly and *everytime* it was always D-flat. Yes, he is a master of modulation.


----------



## CypressWillow

The Wikipedia article on Nanes lists, under "See Also" just one suggestion - are you ready? wait for it:

Florence Foster Jenkins.

Bwahhahaha!


----------



## GreenMamba

handlebar said:


> I'm with TrevBus...Nanes is *insane* for sure. I found a great deal on his CD's and now know why. He promoted himself and hyped it up so much that many people bought it.


I could deal with insanity, it's the inanity that I can't take.


----------



## Crudblud

GreenMamba said:


> I could deal with insanity, it's the inanity that I can't take.


Now I don't have to make the "Richard Inanes" joke I was toying with. That was a welcome relief of tension, thank you.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

How about Jacques Offenbach, German-born French composer- now that's always going to cause problems!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

glezzery said:


> All you folks who say Stravinsky is the worst composer should probably stick to one of a hundred cookie cutter Haydn Symphonies! If a lover of Orchestral music doesn't dig his Ballets or Dumbarton Oaks Concerto or L'Histoire du Soldat or SOMETHING and claim him the Worst is not to be trusted. Also Stravinsky is the most influential composer of the last Hundred years and NOT because he was the WORST! SHEESH please listen ssome more.
> Not all music is easy listening background nicety!
> 
> If you like music that does nothing, my vote is Alan Hovaness!
> If you like cobbled together fake emotion and bombast, Mahler is my second!
> Mahler wrote great melodies and Symphony no. 6 is great, but most is overblown and self conscious nonsense!
> 
> To Gustav: I understand you like Mahler! A lot of folks do! BUT, Mahler is among the most controversial composers. His talent for melody and orchestral color carried him along way, but to my ears, a lot of Mahler sounds pushed or contrived. Take Sym. 5. going along nicely and all THE SUDDEN big Brass and overheated crescendo, from NOWhere with no relevence. Sym. No 1 Frere Jacques! How does one put a little Frere Jacque Nursery song in a serious work. Sym. 6 is mighty fine but 7 is all over the place, coming from nowhere and going there fast, in % MOVEMENTS! His final Sym. hints at the greatness he could have acheived but it is still long and tedious. Sym. 2 and 3 are fine, but two long. I find myself wondering when he will get to the point and all the sudden he is there, but doesn't satisfy. I have a theory. Those who LOVE mozart and Verdi Opera, love Mahler for the melody. Those who love Beethoven and Brahms prefer structure.
> After all, it is a symphony and the largest structure and Mahler misses much more than hits, FOR ME. I do understand because my father loves Mahler. I prefer Bruckner!


Haydn symphonies cookie cutter? You must have not been listening to them. Haydn was made to compose a lot of them, true, but each has good material in it and some have astounding material, take for eg. the first movement of the Farewell symphony or all of the London symphonies, amongst many others.


----------



## Joris

But Mahler prepared those 'sudden' parts I think, not seldom with half steps working towards modulation


----------



## deggial

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> How about Jacques Offenbach, German-born French composer- now that's always going to cause problems!


and here I thought a chap in a dress would enjoy Offenbach's humour! it's one of these cases where it's so bad it's good.


----------



## Art Rock

Quoting and arguing over a post that is over seven years old by someone who [given glezzery's grand total of 22 posts in all those years] is probably not around anymore may not be the most productive....


----------



## Blancrocher

Art Rock said:


> Quoting and arguing over a post that is over seven years old by someone who [given glezzery's grand total of 22 posts in all those years] is probably not around anymore may not be the most productive....


No no -- don't say it, Art Rock!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Dude, Haydn will be defended - doesn't matter how old the post is.


----------



## PetrB

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Now if I was asked how to nominate for the worst composer, I would cut to the chase and nominate he who's name I cannot say but his initials are ALW and he has a peerage........
> 
> I would acknowledge that it is debatable whether one would consider him a composer at all but that just goes to show that he is the worst............ I could also call him the Paul McCartney of the classical world eeeeweeee


It seems that -- oh, Lordy -- ALW is about the only one who considers "that stuff" classical. That composer is then right along with those who think of Les Miserables as 'opera' and 'classical,' having to agree with the non or misinformed, since nowhere else has the music of ALW been seriously considered as 'classical.'


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> It seems that -- oh, Lordy -- ALW is about the only one who considers "that stuff" classical. That composer is then right along with those who think of Les Miserables as 'opera' and 'classical,' having to agree with the non or misinformed, since nowhere else has the music of ALW been seriously considered as 'classical.'


Of course it's not "classical", musicals are a different genre altogether. What's going on here ?


----------



## BurningDesire

Except musicals are operas. Doesn't make them great, nor does it diminish what opera means. Opera is musical theater. Its a story acted out with music and singing.


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> Except musicals are operas. Doesn't make them great, nor does it diminish what opera means. Opera is musical theater. Its a story acted out with music and singing.


Far too close to saying "It is all the same," and I'm agin that (if they are interchangeable without any distinctive differences, they have little or no personality / character / individual traits - characteristics), while I also advocate the definition of any particular genre is not written in stone.


----------



## Cosmos

I would say he's the worst, but Saint-Saens. Idk what it is about his music that everyone else adores, to me it all sounds very childish. Even when he tries to be serious.


----------



## cantante

John Cage anyone?


----------



## Art Rock

cantante said:


> John Cage anyone?


Which Cage compositions have you listened to?


----------



## Blake

There has to be a certain strangeness in your mind to consciously want to search for the worst composers....


----------



## scratchgolf

Vesuvius said:


> There has to be a certain strangeness in your mind to consciously want to search for the worst composers....


I so completely agree. The only composer who I feel I'm banging my head against a wall with is Shostakovich. Still, it's as easy as stopping and returning at another time, in another mood. It may be 10 years before I give enough attention to a composer who I mostly dislike, and I'll probably die before I confirm it.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Myself! Although I did like the piano piece I wrote in my fresher year!


----------



## Blake

scratchgolf said:


> I so completely agree. The only composer who I feel I'm banging my head against a wall with is Shostakovich. Still, it's as easy as stopping and returning at another time, in another mood. It may be 10 years before I give enough attention to a composer who I mostly dislike, and I'll probably die before I confirm it.


Shosty originally took me some time. But now he's up there in my top 10. There's definitely a quirky darkness to him that I'm not always in the mood for though.


----------



## neoshredder

No such thing as the worst Composer. The hardest ones to get into are obviously after WW II though.


----------



## BillT

Frank Zappa? 

I guess the question is what makes a composer "bad". That I don't like him? (There are many, including Handel, Mozart, Telemann,...). That many people don't? (Mahler, Shostakovich, anyone after 1950,...) That many people DO like him but you don't (see my first list). 

There is no way to answer this question. 

- Bill

BTW, the ones that I do not like but others do -- I still try with them once in a while, hoping the light will go on, as it has for me with many other composers that I did not like and now do (Mahler, Scriabin, ...)


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

BillT said:


> Frank Zappa?
> 
> I guess the question is what makes a composer "bad". That I don't like him? (There are many, including Handel, Mozart, Telemann,...). That many people don't? (Mahler, Shostakovich, anyone after 1950,...) That many people DO like him but you don't (see my first list).
> 
> There is no way to answer this question.
> 
> - Bill
> 
> BTW, the ones that I do not like but others do -- I still try with them once in a while, hoping the light will go on, as it has for me with many other composers that I did not like and now do (Mahler, Scriabin, ...)


Ah, poor Telemann, he's such a fun and capable composer though.


----------



## Joris

cantante said:


> John Cage anyone?


Yes, although not as bad as Einaudi


----------



## EricABQ

BillT said:


> BTW, the ones that I do not like but others do -- I still try with them once in a while, hoping the light will go on, as it has for me with many other composers that I did not like and now do (Mahler, Scriabin, ...)


It's funny that you would mention Mahler and Scriabin, because those are my two biggest turnaround composers. I went from really not enjoying either one, despite trying both repeatedly, to now them both being solidly in my top 6 or 7 most listened to composers.


----------



## bigshot

Eric Satie gets my vote.


----------



## Copperears

Not a fan of Morton Subotnick, even though a friend of mine in college ended up studying with him.

What's Latin for the opposite of an ad hominem attack? Is that what that was?

Oh god is someone going to insist I listen to his stuff in penance, now? Noooooo.......

Back to Charles Dodge and "Earth's Magnetic Field," electronic piece for computer and planet....


----------



## spradlig

NOOOOOOO!!!!!! Richard Strauss and Mahler are two of my favorites.

I like Stravinsky's Big Three ballets. I haven't warmed to anything else, except his Violin Concerto. I admit I haven't really heard his other works that many times.

I don't "get" most of Schonberg's music, but I like one or two of his Chamber Symphonies, and I think _Verkarte Nacht_ is generally considered to be a masterpiece (I certainly think so). Anyone who could compose _Verkarte Nacht_ must be taken seriously as a composer.

If one considers Strauss's music excessively bombastic, loud, unsubtle, or unsophisticated, one should consider some of his later works, such as the Metamorphosen or the Oboe Concerto.

But I agree with you, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

My personal "worst" are Telemann, and anyone whose last name ends with "Bach" and doesn't start with "Johann Sebastian". I haven't heard a single piece by any of those folks in which I could pick out a melody I liked.



baroque flute said:


> Here is a more controversial one...everyone gets their own opinion.
> 
> I would nominate Richard Strauss and Stravinsky, with Mahler coming second.
> I am afraid I don't consider Schoenberg and company to be classical music. That's just my own opinion.


----------



## Copperears

Vesuvius said:


> Shosty originally took me some time. But now he's up there in my top 10. There's definitely a quirky darkness to him that I'm not always in the mood for though.


Listen to Draconian's "Arcane Rain Fell" all the way through and then come back to the 14th Symphony; the results will be positively cheering.


----------



## neoshredder

Telemann is awesome. I don't get how anyone can not like him. Tafelmusik ftw.


----------



## spradlig

Of course, it is hard for anyone to understand why someone else doesn't like one's favorite composers.. I'd be willing to listen to "Tafelmusik" if you could recommend a good section to listen to (isn't it a huge collection of pieces?)



neoshredder said:


> Telemann is awesome. I don't get how anyone can not like him. Tafelmusik ftw.


----------



## neoshredder

spradlig said:


> Of course, it is hard for anyone to understand why someone else doesn't like one's favorite composers.. I'd be willing to listen to "Tafelmusik" if you could recommend a good section to listen to (isn't it a huge collection of pieces?)


I guess the beginning is a good place to start. Try the first 10 minutes or so.


----------



## brotagonist

Today's worst composer is the one I will fall in love with tomorrow.


----------



## science

brotagonist said:


> Today's worst composer is the one I will fall in love with tomorrow.


I was about to declare that I am the worst composer, but now I need to precede that with a warning that I am happily married.


----------



## starthrower

BillT said:


> Frank Zappa?


Why the question mark? Are you interested in the opinion of others, or unfamiliar with Zappa's music? I have at least 50 albums, and there's a lot of great music to be discovered beyond the Yellow Snow, Dancin' Fools, and poodle dogs. I don't think Zappa could have earned the respect of Pierre Boulez, the London Symphony, Zubin Mehta, Emil Richards, Tommy Tedesco, Jean Luc Ponty, L Shankar, George Duke, and hundreds of other great musicians if he was a lousy composer. And his music lives large 20 years after his death.


----------



## KenOC

Although I am not an enthusiastic fan of Zappa's music, I give him credit for great album covers at least.


----------



## starthrower

Be a weasel and scratch below the surface. You'd be surprised how many great melodies are lurking on Zappa albums. So many conservatives lamenting tuneless modern music never bother with Zappa, a tonal composer and gifted melodist.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

My personal "worst" are Telemann, and anyone whose last name ends with "Bach" and doesn't start with "Johann Sebastian". I haven't heard a single piece by any of those folks in which I could pick out a melody I liked.

I always suspect that those who dismiss Telemann simply haven't really listened to Telemann... or Telemann performed well...



Johann Sebastian Bach didn't admire the man for nothing.

As for Bach's children. My God! J.C. Bach's arias are fabulous:










As for CPE Bach... where does one even begin?



Again the performance makes all the difference in the world, and Telemann and the junior Bach's deserve to be performed with the same degree of passion and talent as Johann Sebastian.


----------



## Blancrocher

MagneticGhost said:


> Myself! Although I did like the piano piece I wrote in my fresher year!


I'm actually impressed--it's probably almost as hard to be the worst composer as it is to be the best, given how many of us there are clustered at the very bottom!


----------



## cantante

Art Rock said:


> Which Cage compositions have you listened to?


4'33" comes to mind. Basically any of his avant garde stuff;its noise. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but that is not music.


----------



## ahammel

cantante said:


> 4'33" comes to mind. Basically any of his avant garde stuff;its noise. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but that is not music.


What's the difference between noise and music?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

spradlig said:


> NOOOOOOO!!!!!! Richard Strauss and Mahler are two of my favorites.
> 
> I like Stravinsky's Big Three ballets. I haven't warmed to anything else, except his Violin Concerto. I admit I haven't really heard his other works that many times.
> 
> I don't "get" most of Schonberg's music, but I like one or two of his Chamber Symphonies, and I think _Verkarte Nacht_ is generally considered to be a masterpiece (I certainly think so). Anyone who could compose _Verkarte Nacht_ must be taken seriously as a composer.
> 
> If one considers Strauss's music excessively bombastic, loud, unsubtle, or unsophisticated, one should consider some of his later works, such as the Metamorphosen or the Oboe Concerto.
> 
> But I agree with you, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
> 
> My personal "worst" are Telemann, and anyone whose last name ends with "Bach" and doesn't start with "Johann Sebastian". I haven't heard a single piece by any of those folks in which I could pick out a melody I liked.


Telemann is an excellent melodist though! Just listen to the melody at 07:43:


----------



## BurningDesire

cantante said:


> 4'33" comes to mind. Basically any of his avant garde stuff;its noise. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but that is not music.


You can't call somebody "the worst" based on a single piece. Actually listen to some of his music. Cage lived a long time, and wrote a ton of music, and had several diverse creative periods. Also, all of Cage's music is music. You're free to disagree, but then you'd be wrong ^^


----------



## Aramis

ahammel said:


> What's the difference between noise and music?


Or between gibberish and poetry.


----------



## ahammel

Aramis said:


> Or between gibberish and poetry.


'Twas brillig and the slithey toves...


----------



## Aramis

ahammel said:


> 'Twas brillig and the slithey toves...


Here the difference is easily detectable, it lies in the transparent rhythm and form which are both very traditional, despite abstract words. Analogy can be made to dissonant movement in sonata form, not to so-called "noise music".

BUT LET'S NOT GO THERE


----------



## Blancrocher

BurningDesire said:


> You can't call somebody "the worst" based on a single piece.


Does this include Pachelbel?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Because Pachelbel, of course, never composed anything else.


----------



## Blancrocher

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Because Pachelbel, of course, never composed anything else.


I'm duly chastened, and will be sure never to disparage the whole of the Pachelbel canon.


----------



## cantante

ahammel said:


> What's the difference between noise and music?


music is supposed to sound pleasing. It shouldn't sound like finger nails on the chalkboard.


----------



## KenOC

cantante said:


> music is supposed to sound pleasing. It shouldn't sound like finger nails on the chalkboard.


Indeed, some people have said music is "supposed to" sound pleasing. And some people have disagreed.


----------



## cantante

BurningDesire said:


> You can't call somebody "the worst" based on a single piece. Actually listen to some of his music. Cage lived a long time, and wrote a ton of music, and had several diverse creative periods. Also, all of Cage's music is music. You're free to disagree, but then you'd be wrong ^^


I did, his piano sonata is still boring. So is "In Landscape"


----------



## BurningDesire

cantante said:


> I did, his piano sonata is still boring. So is "In Landscape"


Cage didn't write a piano sonata. In a Landscape isn't boring.


----------



## BurningDesire

cantante said:


> music is supposed to sound pleasing. It shouldn't sound like finger nails on the chalkboard.


no. Music is supposed to be art in the medium of sound. Thats it. Beyond that it can sound any conceivable way. Besides, those two things you listed aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Benjamin Franklin was a terrible composer.


Hey, he gave us the Glass Armonica!


----------



## PetrB

bigshot said:


> Is "Variations on the Same Thing" one of Cage's best works?
> 
> There ya go. A new Cage joke!


Aren't you thinking of "Variations on one and a half things," i.e. the entire body of work by Aaron Copland?


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> No such thing as the worst Composer. The hardest ones to get into are obviously after WW II though.


For YOU, of course


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Indeed, some people have said music is "supposed to" sound pleasing. And some people have disagreed.


Hot tubs and scented candles are "pleasing." Pleasing is very much over-rated


----------



## Blake

Pleasing is in the mind of the pleasure-seeker.


----------



## ahammel

BurningDesire said:


> Cage didn't write a piano sonata. In a Landscape isn't boring.


_Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_, perhaps?

Certainly not a "boring" piece, whatever else it is.


----------



## BurningDesire

ahammel said:


> _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_, perhaps?
> 
> Certainly not a "boring" piece, whatever else it is.


Sonatas and Interludes is not a piano sonata though, the conventional sense of that term. It is a masterpiece at any rate :3


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Hot tubs and scented candles are "pleasing." Pleasing is very much over-rated 

Sex is pleasing too. Is sex overrated?


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hot tubs and scented candles are "pleasing." Pleasing is very much over-rated
> 
> Sex is pleasing too. Is sex overrated?


How's this?

Rather like Bach, great, but vastly over revered -- even by those inexperienced -- while not actually done enough.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

PetrB said:


> Hey, he gave us the Glass Armonica!


I'd rather put _my_ money with Cristifori when it comes to inventing instruments


----------



## hpowders

Salieri. Made mediocrity into an art form.


----------



## Yardrax

I don't really care for Cage that much. I tried the Sonata's for Prepared Piano, Music of the I-Ching and a couple of other pieces that escape me. The whole eastern philosophy vibe rubs me the wrong way.

I will admit that he's too inventive to be truly offensive.

Composers of music that makes me want to murder small children would probably include the likes of Karl Jenkins, Howard Goodall and Ludovico Einaudi.


----------



## Aramis

hpowders said:


> Salieri. Made mediocrity into an art form.


Oh. Another "Amadeus" fan.


----------



## violadude

Yardrax said:


> I don't really care for Cage that much. I tried the Sonata's for Prepared Piano, Music of the I-Ching and a couple of other pieces that escape me. The whole eastern philosophy vibe rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> I will admit that he's too inventive to be truly offensive.
> 
> Composers of music that makes me want to murder small children would probably include the likes of Karl Jenkins, Howard Goodall and Ludovico Einaudi.


I "liked" this post for the last statement. I love Cage though.


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> Oh. Another "Amadeus" fan.


No, I think yet another non-fan of mediocrity is more like it.


----------



## violadude

My least favorite composers, or group of composers rather, are probably the ones that are mostly only known for virtuoso show-pieces, especially for the violin. Guys like Wienawski, Sarasate, Vieuxtemps, and maybe to a slightly lesser degree Paganini. I feel like these composers are propped up by their virtuoso violin writing and nothing else of musical merit really justifies us knowing who they are, and virtuosity is one of the least interesting things about music to me.


----------



## hpowders

Based on my latest efforts, me.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

Cage I can easily do without. On one of his PDQ Bach records, Peter Schickele tried to parody Phillip Glass, and demonstrated that Glass cannot be parodied.

However, my real loathing is given to the Second Vienna School. In 1974, on Schoenberg's 100th birthday, the local classical music radio station played a lot of his music. The man who was hosting it said something along the lines of "Schoenberg has always had a following among the musical cognoscenti, but has never had any sort of popular appeal" with an unspoken, but clearly implied "and I've always wondered why."

Well, I could have told him why. Schoenberg's music is ugly. I well recall listening to "Der kranke Mond" from _Pierrot Lunaire_, and thinking, "If he is trying to arouse feelings of mild nausea in the listener, he is succeeding brilliantly". During one of the serial pieces, I thought "He must have made a mistake, I could almost detect a melody for a moment there." As I said in another post, I walked out of _Wozzeck_ during the interval.

Theodor Adorno criticized "the culture industry", but his reaction to it was to champion pieces that were, shall we say, inaccessible to the general public.


----------



## neoshredder

Yep the Second Vienna School is ugly sounding.


----------



## hpowders

I couldn't stand Alban Berg's music. Then I heard his violin concerto. Now I'm an advocate.


----------



## Blake

neoshredder said:


> Yep the Second Vienna School is ugly sounding.


Stay open to it. They're saying something beautiful; you just need to be open to hear it.


----------



## masoodrodman

Iam new here. can u help me be my guide here


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

No, the 2nd Vienna School has produced EXTREMELY UGLY music. I can think of no piece of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern et al that I would ever want to hear again, because it is EXTREMELY UGLY.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

Here is "Der kranke Mond":






Tell me, with a straight face, that listening to this is enjoyable


----------



## scratchgolf

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> No, the 2nd Vienna School has produced EXTREMELY UGLY music. I can think of no piece of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern et al that I would ever want to hear again, because it is EXTREMELY UGLY.


This type of finality may be better suited for a Facebook post. It is your choice though and if it brings you happiness, then who is anyone to tell you differently? I'm not sure that it adds to any particular discussion but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Blake

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> No, the 2nd Vienna School has produced EXTREMELY UGLY music. I can think of no piece of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern et al that I would ever want to hear again, because it is EXTREMELY UGLY.


I think it would be a complete waste of time to try and convince you out of your EXTREME BIAS. You're apparently not open in the least bit to see things differently. Live how you want.


----------



## ahammel

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Tell me, with a straight face, that listening to this is enjoyable


I enjoy _Pierrot_ very much. I find the selection you posted has a particularly beautiful and haunting quality.

If you don't like it, you don't like it; that's fine. But I'm always curious about the attitude that _nobody could possibly enjoy this music_. People claim to, you know. _Pierrot_ premiered more than 100 years ago, and it's still performed, and people go see it on purpose and say they like it. Do you think they're lying?


----------



## Crudblud

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Here is "Der kranke Mond":
> 
> [...]
> 
> Tell me, with a straight face, that listening to this is enjoyable


Having listened to it, I can tell you that not only did I find it enjoyable, but that it has convinced me to go back and listen to the whole of _Pierrot_ for the first time in over a year.


----------



## hpowders

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> No, the 2nd Vienna School has produced EXTREMELY UGLY music. I can think of no piece of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern et al that I would ever want to hear again, because it is EXTREMELY UGLY.


Try the Berg violin concerto. Curiously refreshing.


----------



## Ukko

Aside from Schönberg being a ridiculous choice... the 'worst' published composer is a _published composer_.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

I have heard quite a bit of the Second Vienna School's music. Enough to have the opinion that none of it is worth listening to. You can call it an extreme bias if you like, but if someone says "They're saying something beautiful", then I must disagree. They are saying something ugly.


----------



## Ukko

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I have heard quite a bit of the Second Vienna School's music. Enough to have the opinion that none of it is worth listening to. You can call it an extreme bias if you like, but if someone says "They're saying something beautiful", then I must disagree. They are saying something ugly.


"Beauty is in the ear of the hearer." Calcified opinion is in the mind.


----------



## Art Rock

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I have heard quite a bit of the Second Vienna School's music. Enough to have the opinion that none of it is worth listening to. You can call it an extreme bias if you like, but if someone says "They're saying something beautiful", then I must disagree. They are saying something ugly.


I corrected it for you:



Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I have heard quite a bit of the Second Vienna School's music. Enough to have the opinion that none of it is worth listening to *for me*. You can call it an extreme bias if you like, but if someone says "They're saying something beautiful", then I must disagree. They are saying something *that sounds* ugly *to me*.


----------



## DrKilroy

Have you listened to Schoenberg's Gurrelieder or String Quartets in D major and D minor?

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Flamme

masoodrodman said:


> Iam new here. can u help me be my guide here


Im not sure this is a topic to begin with cause now its a battlefield...Try something else...


----------



## ahammel

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I have heard quite a bit of the Second Vienna School's music. Enough to have the opinion that none of it is worth listening to. You can call it an extreme bias if you like, but if someone says "They're saying something beautiful", then I must disagree. They are saying something ugly.


So when I say I find _Pierrot_ beautiful, do you think I'm lying, or deluded, or tone deaf, or what?


----------



## violadude

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Here is "Der kranke Mond":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, with a straight face, that listening to this is enjoyable


It is very beautiful. Pierrot Lunaire is a masterpiece.

*completely straight face*


----------



## Nevum

Worst composer? Thats an easy one:

Glazunov


----------



## dgee

There's so often a boiling rage and resentment behind the hatred of "modern" music, isn't there? I think it's fear. 

It often seems to be the less well-rounded listener feeling just that little bit tense that some people really like the "yucky stuff" when they thought it was a big cosy club of "fine music" listeners all clinking champagne glasses and feeling better than everyone else. This is where the real snobbism exists in classical music; where "classical music" - Verdi/"the opera", Beethoven, Mozart, DAHling - as a marker of taste and class is vastly more important than the joy of exploring the world of music. When the ritzy patronage winds down in the C20 and the urbane age of the intellectual/creative begins see the black tie brigade turn their noses up! Only those who can handle their views challenged cope

Just for fun y'all ;-)


----------



## ahammel

dgee said:


> It often seems to be the less well-rounded listener feeling just that little bit tense that some people really like the "yucky stuff" when they thought it was a big cosy club of "fine music" listeners all clinking champagne glasses and feeling better than everyone else.


Well I never! *monocle pops out*


----------



## DrKilroy

Nevum said:


> Worst composer? Thats an easy one:
> 
> Glazunov


Don't you know that it's better not to mess up with moderators? 

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Mahlerian

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> During one of the serial pieces, I thought "He must have made a mistake, I could almost detect a melody for a moment there."


For a moment, you may have almost been listening and following the music. Sorry about the rest of your experience.


----------



## moody

dgee said:


> There's so often a boiling rage and resentment behind the hatred of "modern" music, isn't there? I think it's fear.
> 
> It often seems to be the less well-rounded listener feeling just that little bit tense that some people really like the "yucky stuff" when they thought it was a big cosy club of "fine music" listeners all clinking champagne glasses and feeling better than everyone else. This is where the real snobbism exists in classical music; where "classical music" - Verdi/"the opera", Beethoven, Mozart, DAHling - as a marker of taste and class is vastly more important than the joy of exploring the world of music. When the ritzy patronage winds down in the C20 and the urbane age of the intellectual/creative begins see the black tie brigade turn their noses up! Only those who can handle their views challenged cope
> 
> Just for fun y'all ;-)


Be careful how you go because the entirely opposite to what you describe is equally bad.


----------



## Mahlerian

ahammel said:


> So when I say I find _Pierrot_ beautiful, do you think I'm lying, or deluded, or tone deaf, or what?


Well, let's add Ravel and Stravinsky to whatever he selects here too.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> No, the 2nd Vienna School has produced EXTREMELY UGLY music. I can think of no piece of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern et al that I would ever want to hear again, because it is EXTREMELY UGLY.


"A Survivor from Warsaw" was the first piece of music to show me that music itself can evoke emotion rather than pure intellect which I find most often in music by Mozart (his music I had been listening to quite a lot at the time of discovering Schoenberg), but I have never properly understood why some people think it sounds "ugly."

I'm going to listen to "Pierrot Lunaire" now, thanks for reminding us of the piece!


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> There's so often a boiling rage and resentment behind the hatred of "modern" music, isn't there? I think it's fear.
> 
> It often seems to be the less well-rounded listener feeling just that little bit tense that some people really like the "yucky stuff" when they thought it was a big cosy club of "fine music" listeners all clinking champagne glasses and feeling better than everyone else. This is where the real snobbism exists in classical music; where "classical music" ... as a marker of taste and class is vastly more important than the joy of exploring the world of music.
> 
> ...Just for fun y'all ;-)


But you really nailed it... you just did not detail that other aspect of once joined and accepted, it very much also is about your _intellectual status / esteem_: Ergo, if there is a bunch from 'The Club' clearly enjoying some more modern - contemporary repertoire, and one of those who thought they were a member "does not get it," they feel left out.

Their "I'm intellectually high up there because I'm a member of the classical music club" bubble gets burst. Whomever they objectify as having burst that bubble, well -- now you have one seriously pissed-off music 'lover.'

as you said...

just for fun y'all ;-)


----------



## PetrB

ahammel said:


> Well I never! *monocle pops out*


"Well, I never!"

"Well now you have." [[ Feel free to use it, call it your own ]]


----------



## hpowders

Nevum said:


> Worst composer? Thats an easy one:
> 
> Glazunov


His violin concerto is pretty good though.


----------



## PetrB

DrKilroy said:


> Don't you know that it's better not to mess up with moderators?
> 
> Best regards, Dr


Hey, if you can not in a benevolent and good natured manner lighty jerk someone's chain, mods included, then something...

wait for it ...

is rotten in the State of Denmark.

(Apologies, I could not resist.)


----------



## TrevBus

I have said it before on this site and here goes again: RICHARD NANES. At least of the ones I have heard and that covers a lot. Here is hoping I haven't heard worse because IMO that would be really WORSE. :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Whatever happened to him?


----------



## PetrB

TrevBus said:


> I have said it before on this site and here goes again: RICHARD NANES. At least of the ones I have heard and that covers a lot. Here is hoping I haven't heard worse because IMO that would be really WORSE. :lol:


I've heard worse; it just did not get as far because those composers did not have the financial success from their business endeavor to vanity produce their own work, i.e. those 'worse' pieces died a natural death, where Nanes' works before he died were on artificial life support.

After his death (2009), those youtube clips are floating about with a life of their own, as the big "in joke" of bad music, much like Florence Foster Jenkins lives on as a terrible performer.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Whatever happened to him?


Richard Nanes; 1941 - 2009.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> I've heard worse; it just did not get as far because those composers did not have the financial success from their business endeavor to vanity produce their own work, i.e. those 'worse' pieces died a natural death, where Nanes' works before he died were on artificial life support.


Perhaps we should talk about Gordon Getty?


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Perhaps we should talk about Gordon Getty?


The gentleman composer of means whose works are -- coincidentally, of course -- performed once by major orchestras right after he just happened to make a seriously sizable donation to said orchestras?

Naw.

[Besides, Getty's music may not be much more memorable, but is nonetheless far more interesting than the treacle - tinkle by Nanes.]


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

PetrB said:


> After his death (2009), those youtube clips are floating about with a life of their own, as the big "in joke" of bad music, much like Florence Foster Jenkins lives on as a terrible performer.


Just looked up Florence Foster Jenkins and had a listen to a couple of clips on YouTube. Best laugh I've had all week.


----------



## Ingélou

I am a fan of Ludwig Van*;

Ach, ach - who doesn't like Bach?
Liebe, so liebe, sonatas of Biber!
Only a vandal could be mean about Handel.
Time will ne'er sully the music of Lully.
Live in my old heart, Mozart, my Mozart!

But my thoughts about Britten had best not be written.

(*A couplet filched from PetrB, to whom much thanks! :tiphat: )


----------



## PetrB

Ingélou said:


> I am a fan of Ludwig Van*;
> 
> Ach, ach - who doesn't like Bach?
> Liebe, so liebe, sonatas of Biber!
> Only a vandal could be mean about Handel.
> Time will ne'er sully the music of Lully.
> Live in my old heart, Mozart, my Mozart!
> 
> But my thoughts about Britten had best not be written.
> 
> (*A couplet filched from PetrB, to whom much thanks! :tiphat: )


But my friend, I am not nearly so clever with verse as that -- in fact, I pretty much suck at it. Take a bow


----------



## KetchupOnIce

baroque flute said:


> Here is a more controversial one...everyone gets their own opinion.
> 
> I would nominate Richard Strauss and Stravinsky, with Mahler coming second.
> I am afraid I don't consider Schoenberg and company to be classical music. That's just my own opinion.


As far as the more famous composers go, I would have to say William Byrd. I absolutely hate his music. It makes little sense. I think you are also right, in that Stravinksy and Mahler don't really appeal to me at all. It seems I can only _really_ get into music between 1650 and 1820. Before or after that, just isn't as good. Music started to decline after Mozart's death. Debussy is pretty good though, he's the only composer after Beethoven that I enjoy.


----------



## differencetone

I can't think of a bad composer off the top of my head because I don't remember them. By definition, the famous ones who have withstood the test of time can't be bad, they are just composers you can't stand listening to. That is different than a bad composer.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

There aren't really many composers whose music I actually dislike. I am indifferent to some, but that's different I suppose.


----------



## violadude

I'm glad I didn't join the site in 2005-2007. I would have gotten into a loottttt of fights.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde




----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> I'm glad I didn't join the site in 2005-2007. I would have gotten into a loottttt of fights.


I probably would fit in best with that group.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> I probably would fit in best with that group.


We are all very aware of that.


----------



## omega

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


>


Disappointing composition. It definitely lacks of schmaltz.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

He's done much worse than that, which though worthless as classical it would at least qualify for film music standards.


----------



## DeepR

That Nanes piece is still better than Einaudi
edit: or maybe not... hmmm


----------



## ArtMusic

I listened to a couple of operas and symphonies by Hans Werner Henze. Quite unimpressive stuff. He doesn't seem to get much of a mention here. He died two years ago in 2012.


----------



## violadude

ArtMusic said:


> I listened to a couple of operas and symphonies by Hans Werner Henze. Quite unimpressive stuff. He doesn't seem to get much of a mention here. He died two years ago in 2012.


What made it "unimpressive"?


----------



## Nevum

I will have to go with Schoenberg. Not because he was a bad composer. On the contrary, he was a great composer. The problem is that in my opinion atonal music sucks. In that sense I think Schoenberg damaged classical music by developing atonal music. Thats the reason I would call him the "worst composer for classical Music".


----------



## hpowders

Rossini. Lots of runs. Lots of fluff. It all sounds the same. Dull!


----------



## aajj

I am not entirely comfortable with this topic but my least favorite, the one who disappoints and repels me time and time again, is Tchaikovsky. I am ok with some segments from Nutcracker (partly due to a happy childhood memory of attending the ballet). But i am forever disappointed when attempting his music. His 1st piano concerto is the nadir of Romantic music to my ears. I approached the 'Pathetique' symphony with hopes, knowing it featured a slow final movement. But it sounded like the work of a hack from beginning to end; when i think of the finale of Maher's 9th by comparison... well, there is no comparison. One gets to the depths of human emotions while the other barely scratches the surface.


----------



## Mahlerian

Nevum said:


> I will have to go with Schoenberg. Not because he was a bad composer. On the contrary, he was a great composer. The problem is that in my opinion atonal music sucks. In that sense I think Schoenberg damaged classical music by developing atonal music. Thats the reason I would call him the "worst composer for classical Music".


He didn't develop atonal music; he developed a new extension of traditional tonality which some critics decided to lump with Mahler, Debussy, Reger, Scriabin and others as somehow against the nature of harmony, calling it "atonal". Unfortunately, the label stuck, regardless of the fact that it means absolutely nothing beyond (usually, but not always) the music's not adhering to traditional tonality and being relatively chromatic.

And Schoenberg was great as an influence on music, opening up new worlds of expression that would not have otherwise been possible. He was a fine teacher who fostered a diversity of talents who sometimes differed quite significantly from him.


----------



## aleazk

Nevum said:


> I will have to go with Schoenberg. Not because he was a bad composer. On the contrary, he was a great composer. The problem is that in my opinion atonal music sucks. In that sense I think Schoenberg damaged classical music by developing atonal music. Thats the reason I would call him the "worst composer for classical Music".


_"In fact, the influence of Schoenberg may be overwhelming on his followers, but the significance of his art is to be identified with influences of a more subtle kind-not the system, but the aesthetic, of his art. I am quite conscious of the fact that my Chansons madécasses are in no way Schoenbergian, but I do not know whether I ever should have been able to write them had Schoenberg never written."_

-Maurice *Ravel*

No offence, but I trust more on Ravel's ears than yours


----------



## Ukko

aleazk said:


> _"In fact, the influence of Schoenberg may be overwhelming on his followers, but the significance of his art is to be identified with influences of a more subtle kind-not the system, but the aesthetic, of his art. I am quite conscious of the fact that my Chansons madécasses are in no way Schoenbergian, but I do not know whether I ever should have been able to write them had Schoenberg never written."_
> 
> -Maurice *Ravel*
> 
> No offence, but I trust more on Ravel's ears than yours


It isn't an ears problem; other head areas must share the b.... - responsibility.


----------



## differencetone

Schoenberg did not limit himself to 12 tone music.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> _"In fact, the influence of Schoenberg may be overwhelming on his followers, but the significance of his art is to be identified with influences of a more subtle kind-not the system, but the aesthetic, of his art. I am quite conscious of the fact that my Chansons madécasses are in no way Schoenbergian, but I do not know whether I ever should have been able to write them had Schoenberg never written."_
> 
> -Maurice *Ravel*
> 
> No offence, but I trust more on Ravel's ears than yours


There is a reason many knowledgeable folks keep referring to Ravel... and it aint the pastries. Subtleties, that many of us notice, but can't be directly labeled. Things alluded to from one's command of language, but never sufficiently described.

Verging on a religion if there weren't so many pragmatics finding the bread crumbs.


----------



## Albert7

Honestly I never met a composer that I didn't like.

I love all music!


----------



## dgee

Wow, what a question. Separating quality issues from taste is just the start. There are some shockers in the player/composers of yesteryear who wrote virtuoso showpieces of stunningly little music value riddled with musical flaws (some interesting names might fall into this category - try the Koussevitsky Bass Concerto some time!). Ballet music from C19 also had some rubbish writers - Minkus, Adam and Delibes distinguish themselves here. And who can forget Massenet and Meyerbeer? 

However, if I had one name to put forward, I think it might be Havergal Brian


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mahlerian... is it not telling that you (and others) immediately rushed to the defense of Schoenberg, but allowed the hack-job on Tchaikovsky to stand... to say nothing of Rossini.

Hmmm...


----------



## Blake

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mahlerian... is it not telling that you (and others) immediately rushed to the defense of Schoenberg, but allowed the hack-job on Tchaikovsky to stand... to say nothing of Rossini.
> 
> Hmmm...


It's really not so confusing if you think about it. Tchaikovsky and the like sit cozy for most. Even though Schoenberg isn't "groundbreaking" anymore, there still are many who talk as if he just molested music yesterday... which warrants some explanation.


----------



## ahammel

dgee said:


> However, if I had one name to put forward, I think it might be Havergal Brian


He is responsible for my all time favourite performance direction, though.


----------



## tdc

I quite like Havergal Brian's first and second symphonies, after listening to those I got excited and bought a bunch more of his recordings, most of which didn't do much for me. Still I think _worst_ composer is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mahlerian... is it not telling that you (and others) immediately rushed to the defense of Schoenberg, but allowed the hack-job on Tchaikovsky to stand... to say nothing of Rossini.
> 
> Hmmm...


zOMG! Isn't it equally as "Telling" that instead of rushing in to the defense of the hack jobs on Tchaikovsky and Rossini that instead a body would choose to rush in _to do a Hack Job on the person_ who instead opted to defend Schoenberg?

Seriously, that kind of behavioral supposed ethical / moral superiority as a compass is a quality I can not further comment upon without breaching this site's ToS.


----------



## Sloe

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mahlerian... is it not telling that you (and others) immediately rushed to the defense of Schoenberg, but allowed the hack-job on Tchaikovsky to stand... to say nothing of Rossini.
> 
> Hmmm...


At least Mahlerian is good at defending Shönberg.


----------



## mtmailey

*Not sure*

I am not sure because there are many composers out there that make crap music therefore there is no one worst composer to me but many of them.Also i do not listen to crappy music just the best.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> What made it "unimpressive"?


The listener, of course.


----------



## violadude

PetrB said:


> The listener, of course.


Henze's is one of the finest cycle of symphonies the last half of the 20th century. I would think even some conservative composers would find his music at least somewhat good


----------



## ArtMusic

violadude said:


> Henze is one of the finest cycle of symphonies the last half of the 20th century. I think even some conservative composers would find his music at least somewhat good


Henze doesn't get much of mention/discussion relative to say Shostakovich, far from it as an example. Henze is mediocre stuff.


----------



## Morimur

Everyone, calm the fck down! We all know that Schönberg was a _much_ better composer than Tchaikovsky -- it's a fact!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

ahammel said:


> He is responsible for my all time favourite performance direction, though.


My all time favourite performance direction is _Think of autumn and Tchaikovsky_. Although, in this case, the piece in question is actually good.


----------



## aajj

The debate over Schoenberg has me wondering if the new year is 2015 or 1915 - which could be a tribute to ol' Arnold, that he can still generate such debate.


----------



## violadude

ArtMusic said:


> Henze doesn't get much of mention/discussion relative to say Shostakovich, far from it as an example. Henze is mediocre stuff.


Is your entire taste in music based on what's popular? Or can you actually tell me why YOU found Henze to be mediocre?


----------



## ArtMusic

violadude said:


> Is your entire taste in music based on what's popular? Or can you actually tell me why YOU found Henze to be mediocre?


His music doesn't engage me as much as other contemporary composers, just a personal opinion/preference, nothing more ,nothing less.


----------



## starthrower

Nevum said:


> I will have to go with Schoenberg. Not because he was a bad composer. On the contrary, he was a great composer. The problem is that in my opinion atonal music sucks. In that sense I think Schoenberg damaged classical music by developing atonal music. Thats the reason I would call him the "worst composer for classical Music".


I understand what you're saying, but what's the point? Is music supposed to stay the same for centuries? And how did Schoenberg's music "damage" classical music? Do you want all new music to sound like the old stuff? IMO, Schoenberg's music sounds very classical, and is a logical extension of what came before.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> Is your entire taste in music based on what's popular? Or can you actually tell me why YOU found Henze to be mediocre?


Just recall the post where it was pronounced that 20th century music, and most later music missed its chance to "be popular" when it did not stay in the vein of the more popular Hollywood film scores. (i.e. within the taste limit of that writer). That is fine, but after that -- it was near two years ago -- to still be whining that classical composers "are not writing songs of love for me," is both, imho, obsessive and, well, nearly disturbed, really. But everyone has the right to say what they say, even if it is the damned near same things endlessly and over a period of years.

Perhaps some vague perception those with such limited taste have makes them aware they are missing something going on all around them, even if their taste is for the simpler stuff, so resent it, and then whine about the disparity between what is going on and their personal taste?

At any rate, "Simple minds are simply entertained." I'm sure you knew that


----------



## ArtMusic

PetrB said:


> Just recall the post where it was pronounced that 20th century music, and most later music missed its chance to "be popular" when it did not stay in the vein of the more popular Hollywood film scores. (i.e. within the taste limit of that writer). That is fine, but after that -- it was near two years ago -- to still be whining that classical composers "are not writing songs of love for me," is both, imho, obsessive and, well, nearly disturbed, really. But everyone has the right to say what they say, even if it is the damned near same things endlessly and over a period of years.
> 
> Perhaps some vague perception those with such limited taste have makes them aware they are missing something going on all around them, even if their taste is for the simpler stuff, so resent it, and then whine about the disparity between what is going on and their personal taste?
> 
> At any rate, "Simple minds are simply entertained." I'm sure you knew that


Well put, I agree.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

These old vs new music debates are hilarious at times. And throwing mud at dear old Arnie just doesn't stick. One can keep trying for another century, his place as a giant of 20th century music will stay grounded.


----------



## violadude

ArtMusic said:


> His music doesn't engage me as much as other contemporary composers, just a personal opinion/preference, nothing more ,nothing less.


Ya, but I'm asking what you found not engaging about the music. Sorry to grill you about this, but surely if you are on a classical music site to talk about music then you have the capacity to identify a specific trait that you don't like about certain musics? I mean, isn't that part of what discussion is about? I'm honestly curious what you found mediocre about Henze's music because I certainly don't hear mediocrity in the least, so perhaps through discourse one of us may convert the other, so to speak. But why not get specific about it?


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> Well put, I agree.


Well, you might want to get on with it, then. Start posting the positives, topics on music and composers you love, instead of who did or did not make music not to your taste. It is like whining about what you did not get for Christmas instead of thinking about all the great gifts you were given... and staying within that analogy, you got plenty, from the past through the present, to sing happier tunes about.


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mahlerian... is it not telling that you (and others) immediately rushed to the defense of Schoenberg, but allowed the hack-job on Tchaikovsky to stand... to say nothing of Rossini.
> 
> Hmmm...


I'm not a good devil's advocate, so I wouldn't get involved there, but there is a difference; neither of those posts claimed that the composer in question actually was active in damaging the classical tradition. The one on Tchaikovsky was stating a matter of personal taste, disappointment in his works as compared to others', while the one on Rossini was, likewise, a stylistic criticism (unfair though it certainly is).

Also, if people today say that Tchaikovsky's music is barbaric and "stinks to the ear" they would be laughed out of the room, just as they would if they claimed that Wagner's music sounds like a cat running up and down a piano. But for some reason, saying such comments about Schoenberg, Boulez, Carter or whatever modernist you may name gets one not only taken seriously, but praised.


----------



## EdwardBast

violadude said:


> Ya, but I'm asking what you found not engaging about the music. Sorry to grill you about this, but surely if you are on a classical music site to talk about music then you have the capacity to identify a specific trait that you don't like about certain musics? I mean, isn't that part of what discussion is about? I'm honestly curious what you found mediocre about Henze's music because I certainly don't hear mediocrity in the least, so perhaps through discourse one of us may convert the other, so to speak. But why not get specific about it?


I understand what you are trying to get out of your interlocutor and why, and I sympathize. However, asking someone why they are unimpressed by a composer is like asking someone why they don't believe in God. The answer in both cases is: one doesn't need a reason. Belief requires reasons, aesthetic preference requires the recognition or appreciation of positive qualities. The absence of belief and the absence of interest require nothing. Which is what you are going to get for your effort …


----------



## Morimur

I cannot comprehend how anyone, regardless of taste, is not in awe of Schönberg's supreme musical talent. He is truly one the greatest musical minds of the 19/20th centuries -- of all time, even. Humans cannot be perfectly objective, but we can exercise just enough clear judgement so as to appreciate worthwhile things that may not necessarily be to our individual taste.


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> I cannot comprehend how anyone, regardless of taste, is not in awe of Schönberg's supreme musical talent. He is truly one the greatest musical minds of the 19/20th centuries -- of all time, even. Humans cannot be perfectly objective, but we can exercise just enough clear judgement so as to appreciate worthwhile things that may not necessarily be to our individual taste.


And listeners who don't share your love/taste for Schoenberg will not comprehend your astonishment. There is no accounting for taste. I enjoy the music of Schoenberg, while others don't. That's life. Why belabor the point?


----------



## aajj

Just want to state that Schoenberg's music is not a monolith of twelve tone structure. He created quite a spread of music, some of which is relatively accessible and i don't mean the early stuff such as Verklärte Nacht. His violin concerto, piano concerto and 2nd chamber symphony are all pretty approachable. The violin concerto in particular is becoming less "scary" to a wider audience, thanks to performances by Hilary Hahn and others. 

The comment about Tchaikovsky's music stinking to the ear gave me a smile because i am one of those people. I would happily leave the Tchaikovsky room and find another. Just had to throw that in.


----------



## Morimur

starthrower said:


> And listeners who don't share your love/taste for Schoenberg will not comprehend your astonishment. There is no accounting for taste. I enjoy the music of Schoenberg, while others don't. That's life. Why belabor the point?


That what forums are for, to 'belabor' points.


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> That what forums are for, to 'belabor' points.


Well then, how about some concrete musical examples for why Schoenberg is great, or Tchaikovsky stinks? Instead of just stating ones likes or dislikes. Arriving at the conclusion that someone is a bad composer based on personal dislikes, isn't a valid point.


----------



## Morimur

starthrower said:


> Well then, how about some concrete musical examples for why Schoenberg is great, or Tchaikovsky stinks? Instead of just stating ones likes or dislikes. Arriving at the conclusion that someone is a bad composer based on personal dislikes, isn't a valid point.


One can say whatever one wants, in any manner of one's choosing, and others are likewise free to respond. I don't recall saying that 'Tchaikovsky stinks'. He was a composer of great talent, but simply not my cup of tea.


----------



## Nevum

Morimur said:


> One can say whatever one wants, in any manner of one's choosing, and others are likewise free to respond. I don't recall saying that 'Tchaikovsky stinks'. He was a composer of great talent, but simply not my cup of tea.


In my opinion neither Schoenberg nor Tsaikofsky were great. However, Tsaikofsky wrote at least some great pieces. What did Schoenberg write? Atonal noise?


----------



## aajj

I also did not literally mean that Tchaikovsky stinks, though i cannot hear the value of his music. This is why i was reluctant to stick my little nose into this thread; it all comes down to personal taste.


----------



## Morimur

Nevum said:


> In my opinion neither Schoenberg nor Tsaikofsky were great. However, Tsaikofsky wrote at least some great pieces. What did Schoenberg write? Atonal noise?


----------



## Guest

For Nevum.


----------



## starthrower

Nevum said:


> In my opinion neither Schoenberg nor Tsaikofsky were great. However, Tsaikofsky wrote at least some great pieces. What did Schoenberg write? Atonal noise?


And am I to believe you've actually listened to his music at length to form your opinion?


----------



## Mahlerian

Nevum said:


> In my opinion neither Schoenberg nor Tsaikofsky were great. However, Tsaikofsky wrote at least some great pieces. What did Schoenberg write? Atonal noise?


Great music.














The first of these is traditionally tonal (though it makes use of the whole tone scale, quartal chords, and other such things), and I hear clear tonal leanings in both of the other two as well.


----------



## Nevum

starthrower said:


> And am I to believe you've actually listened to his music at length to form your opinion?


I admit I have not. I have been unable to, as atonality bothers me and I find it incredibly boring. Nevertheless, I apologize for being silly in my previous comment. Did not mean to offend Schoenberg fans.


----------



## starthrower

Try this.


----------



## Morimur

Nevum said:


> Nevertheless, I apologize for being silly in my previous comment. Did not mean to offend Schoenberg fans.


IT'S TOO DAMN LATE!!!

...and the rent is too damn high!!!


----------



## Chronochromie

starthrower said:


> Try this.


This is beautiful, but is it atonal?


----------



## starthrower

Der Leiermann said:


> This is beautiful, but is it atonal?


No, it's Schoenberg. He wasn't strictly an atonal composer. And if you can't tell and have to ask, then it shouldn't be an issue one way or another.


----------



## Nevum

Morimur said:


> IT'S TOO DAMN LATE!!!
> 
> ...and the rent is too damn high!!!


So then it does not matter. I retract my apology  and, yes, the music of Schoenberg sucks.


----------



## Nevum

starthrower said:


> No, it's Schoenberg. He wasn't strictly an atonal composer. And if you can't tell and have to ask, then it shouldn't be an issue one way or another.


That is my point. In his pre-atonal version Schoenberg was a great composer. Until he came up with the idea of atonality.


----------



## Chronochromie

starthrower said:


> No, it's Schoenberg. He wasn't strictly an atonal composer. And if you can't tell and have to ask, then it shouldn't be an issue one way or another.


I do know that Schoenberg didn't only write atonal works...and it wasn't necessary to answer my question. Nevum said he was bothered by atonality, so giving him an early tonal Schoenberg work kinda misses the point. With that logic you could also have given him Verklarte Nacht.


----------



## starthrower

Nevum said:


> That is my point. In his pre-atonal version Schoenberg was a great composer. Until he came up with the idea of atonality.


Somebody had to do it. And Arne wrote some cool stuff. It doesn't really matter to my ears. I consider each piece individually regardless of the tonalities.


----------



## starthrower

Der Leiermann said:


> I do know that Schoenberg didn't only write atonal works...and it wasn't necessary to answer my question. Nevum said he was bothered by atonality, so giving him an early tonal Schoenberg work kinda misses the point. With that logic you could also have given him Verklarte Nacht.


Well, we already know his opinion of the latter. "It sucks."


----------



## Chronochromie

Nevum said:


> That is my point. In his pre-atonal version Schoenberg was a great composer. Until he came up with the idea of atonality.


----------



## Mahlerian

Nevum said:


> That is my point. In his pre-atonal version Schoenberg was a great composer. Until he came up with the idea of atonality.


Of course, you know he kept writing tonal works, and his early works are very clearly the work of the same composer as the later works.

Atonality, at any rate, is not an idea. It is not even a consistent description of a style. Criticizing something on the basis of its being "atonal" is as meaningless as criticizing a string quartet on the basis of not using the bassoon. It is irrelevant to the quality of the music.


----------



## Nevum

Der Leiermann said:


>


Thanks. Do you like this?


----------



## ptr

Nevum said:


> Thanks. Do you like this?


Yes, its awesome!

/ptr


----------



## Chronochromie

Nevum said:


> Thanks. Do you like this?


I heard it complete for the first time yesterday! (What a way to start 2015) But yes, I do, even if I need to re-listen to it a couple of times. Maybe you could try Berg's Violin Concerto (I love this one, more than those overly long and a bit dull late Romantic ones like Brahms's and Dvorak's) if you want some even more "accessible" 12-tone music, most people say Berg in general is the most accessible of the 2nd Viennese School actually.


----------



## Nevum

Der Leiermann said:


> I heard it complete for the first time yesterday! (What a way to start 2015) But yes, I do, even if I need to re-listen to it a couple of times. Maybe you could try Berg's Violin Concerto (I love this one, more than those overly long and a bit dull late Romantic ones like Brahms's and Dvorak's) if you want some even more "accessible" 12-tone music, most people say Berg in general is the most accessible of the 2nd Viennese School actually.


Yes, I have heard Berg and I like his music. He is definitely the most refined of the 2nd Viennese school. Schoenberg is not though.


----------



## Jobis

Nevum said:


> Yes, I have heard Berg and I like his music. He is definitely the most refined of the 2nd Viennese school. Schoenberg is not though.


Berg was the most heavily romantic (and I mean that in the best possible way). I'm not sure what you mean by 'refined', but Schoenberg was certainly not inferior, and eclipsed Berg in his output if simply because he lived longer and consistently produced great works.

However you must recognise how subjective this all is; you consider Schoenberg unrefined because you don't understand him well enough yet.


----------



## Chronochromie

Nevum said:


> Yes, I have heard Berg and I like his music. He is definitely the most refined of the 2nd Viennese school. Schoenberg is not though.


Have you heard the Schoenberg Piano Concerto yet? What did you think?
Anyway, I'm not a connoisseur of 12-tone music, I'm only beggining to explore it, I too have not liked everything I've heard, other members like Mahlerian will point you in the right direction if you do want to change your opinion about Schoenberg and the like.


----------



## Mahlerian

Nevum said:


> Yes, I have heard Berg and I like his music. He is definitely the most refined of the 2nd Viennese school. Schoenberg is not though.


Berg was the most intellectualized of the bunch as well. He was, to a far greater degree even than Schoenberg, obsessed with extra-musical codes, palindromes, and the like which are completely (or nearly) inaudible.

Schoenberg had a broader emotional and musical range than either Berg or Webern, wonderful though their music certainly is.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mahlerian- I'm not a good devil's advocate, so I wouldn't get involved there, but there is a difference; neither of those posts claimed that the composer in question actually was active in damaging the classical tradition. The one on Tchaikovsky was stating a matter of personal taste, disappointment in his works as compared to others', while the one on Rossini was, likewise, a stylistic criticism (unfair though it certainly is).

Mahlerian, to be fair the member nominating Schoenberg as the "worst composer" did admit that this was all personal opinion:

"I will have to go with Schoenberg. Not because he was a bad composer. On the contrary, *he was a great composer*. The problem is that *in my opinion* atonal music sucks."

Also, if people today say that Tchaikovsky's music is barbaric and "stinks to the ear" they would be laughed out of the room, just as they would if they claimed that Wagner's music sounds like a cat running up and down a piano. But for some reason, saying such comments about Schoenberg, Boulez, Carter or whatever modernist you may name gets one not only taken seriously, but praised.

Certainly, there are those who take the attitude that Modernism as a whole stinks based upon their personal taste... and present their tastes as if they were fact (What I like is "good"; What I dislike is "bad".) But is this any worse than the frequent snarky comments by those enamored of the more avant garde dismissing the intellect of those who fail to share their tastes:

_At any rate, "Simple minds are simply entertained." I'm sure you knew that._

Strikes me as somewhat insulting.

But what do I know... I've never warmed to Schoenberg myself.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

starthrower- And am I to believe you've actually listened to his music at length to form your opinion?

If ones opinion is the result of hearsay combined with a single listen to a few snippets... well then I would agree that one's opinion leaves something to be desired. But how much must one listen before venturing an opinion? Couldn't we say the same of Tchaikovsky... suggesting that anyone not enthralled by his music simply hasn't listened to enough of it?

Personally I turn to music and the arts as a whole for pleasure. Pleasure need not be limited to that which is easily accessible or immediately grasped/understood... or that which is traditionally "pretty". On the other hand, there is so much music (and art and literature) that I find does bring me great pleasure that I cannot fathom investing endless hours trying to like something I find unpleasant simply because others have found pleasure there.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Atonality, at any rate, is not an idea. It is not even a consistent description of a style. Criticizing something on the basis of its being "atonal" is as meaningless as criticizing a string quartet on the basis of not using the bassoon. It is irrelevant to the quality of the music.

Perhaps... but I think of the move away from the common practice of tonality as rather akin to the abandonment of imagery in the visual arts. Not unlike the situation with Schoenberg there are more than a few who cannot appreciate anything "abstract". Indeed, there are more than a few who still struggle with Matisse and Picasso... and even the Impressionists.

Returning to the OP I will suggest that one of the worst composers IMO is also one of the most "accessible": Karl Jenkins. I picked up a couple of discs after hearing a few brief snippets on Amazon. Almost immediately after playing them through I gave them away. Blech!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Mahlerian said:


> Of course, you know he kept writing tonal works, and his early works are very clearly the work of the same composer as the later works.
> 
> Atonality, at any rate, is not an idea. It is not even a consistent description of a style. Criticizing something on the basis of its being "atonal" is as meaningless as criticizing a string quartet on the basis of not using the bassoon. It is irrelevant to the quality of the music.


That's probably the best explanation of the abandonment of tonality I've ever heard.


----------



## Chronochromie

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Returning to the OP I will suggest that one of the worst composers IMO is also one of the most "accessible": Karl Jenkins. I picked up a couple of discs after hearing a few brief snippets on Amazon. Almost immediately after playing them through I gave them away. Blech!



Agreed. 




No comment...


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Der Leiermann said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No comment...


I shall join you in not commenting by making this comment that I'm not commenting.


----------



## violadude

EdwardBast said:


> I understand what you are trying to get out of your interlocutor and why, and I sympathize. However, asking someone why they are unimpressed by a composer is like asking someone why they don't believe in God. The answer in both cases is: one doesn't need a reason. Belief requires reasons, aesthetic preference requires the recognition or appreciation of positive qualities. The absence of belief and the absence of interest require nothing. Which is what you are going to get for your effort …


I disagree. I can always identify what I don't like about a piece of music. I believe anyone can learn to do that.


----------



## violadude

Nevum said:


> So then it does not matter. I retract my apology  and, yes, the music of Schoenberg sucks.


You just said that you haven't listened to much of his music.


----------



## Morimur

Well, what can I say . . . If you don't like Schönberg's music, then you automatically relinquish your human rights -- TA-DA!


----------



## Nevum

violadude said:


> You just said that you haven't listened to much of his music.


True. In the same way that I have not listened to much of rap music. I can not. That does not mean that if I am forced to listen to rap music I will like it at the end.


----------



## violadude

Nevum said:


> True. In the same way that I have not listened to much of rap music. I can not. That does not mean that if I am forced to listen to rap music I will like it at the end.


Ya, but how can you say that it sucks either?


----------



## PetrB

Nevum said:


> In my opinion neither Schoenberg nor Tsaikofsky were great. However, Tsaikofsky wrote at least some great pieces. What did Schoenberg write? Atonal noise?


LOL. You don't get it, at all. Tchaikovsky wrote some excessively runny / drippy / saggy _tonal noise._

Some, and you must take my word for it, find it just as horrid as others find 'that atonal noise' horrid. If I have a classical radio station on, and Tchaikovsky comes on, I have to turn it off, because to me it is truly repellent music.

Both Tchaikovsky and Schoenberg were great composers, by the way.

But hey, I'm not a layman when it comes to music, so really do think (and know better) to not say either was 'a bad composer' (because I know enough to know they were not, _whether I like or detest their music.)_

I'm also vain enough to not want to say such things about any great composer, or good to great piece, because I would rather not so publicly demonstrate to others that I am a fool


----------



## Nevum

PetrB said:


> LOL. You don't get it, at all. Tchaikovsky wrote some excessively runny / drippy / saggy _tonal noise._
> 
> Some, and you must take my word for it, find it just as horrid as others find 'that atonal noise' horrid. If I have a classical radio station on, and Tchaikovsky comes on, I have to turn it off, because to me it is truly repellent music.
> 
> Both Tchaikovsky and Schoenberg were great composers, by the way.
> 
> But hey, I'm not a layman when it comes to music, so really do think (and know better) to not say either was 'a bad composer' (because I know enough to know they were not, _whether I like or detest their music.)_
> 
> I'm also vain enough to not want to say such things about any great composer, or good to great piece, because I would rather not so publicly demonstrate to others that I am a fool


Are you implying that I am a fool?  No problem if so. I find it kind of cool. I have to agree somehow about Tasikofsky. I never understood whats the big deal with him. I never liked much his music.


----------



## bigshot

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Tchaikovsky. He was one of the most skillful and talented and creative composers who ever lived. Some people tend to associate fame and popularity with being low class or "so bad it's good". Those are usually the people who judge things by standards other than quality... seriousness and pretentiousness. There is just as much serious and pretentious dreck as anything else... more of it probably.

Back when I was in high school, before I knew much of anything about classical music, I listened to "art rock" and I thought I was "high class" because I listened to rock that had orchestral parts... Rick Wakeman albums, Alan Parson's Poe, Jeff Waynes War of the Worlds, etc. If it had a narrator with a British accent speaking multi-sylable words over the top, oh boy! I was just DRIPPING with high classiness!

Recently, I dug out my old albums and listened to a few of them. I was the stupidest human being on earth. Even though Orson Welles was reciting Poe and Richard Burton was reading lines from H G Welles, that stuff was a noodly, over produced, numb headed hash. AWFUL.

I listen to the Nutcracker and I hear brilliant orchestration and plenty of opportunities for a good conductor to dig in and really perform. I listen to Rick Wakeman and I hear a bunch of noodly finger exercises plastered over the top of a bunch of orchestral chords copped from Wagner and Liszt.

So much for high class... Belch!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Nevum said:


> True. In the same way that I have not listened to much of rap music. I can not. That does not mean that if I am forced to listen to rap music I will like it at the end.


I think that the reasons people dislike rap and dislike Schoenberg are _ever so slightly_ different.
And listening can work. It did for me, I used to hate Schoenberg, now I don't mind his music at all. I'm not massively fond of a lot of it, but some of it seems to make a lot more sense that it used to.
I'm not saying that you will end up loving Schoenberg, just that repeated listening can work.


----------



## hpowders

OP: Possibly Scriabin. I've yet to sit still through to the end of any of his compositions.


----------



## starthrower

MoonlightSonata said:


> I think that the reasons people dislike rap and dislike Schoenberg are _ever so slightly_ different.
> And listening can work. It did for me, I used to hate Schoenberg, now I don't mind his music at all. I'm not massively fond of a lot of it, but some of it seems to make a lot more sense that it used to.
> I'm not saying that you will end up loving Schoenberg, just that repeated listening can work.


It sure can! And this is how the beauty is revealed. In the future. Not in one's present state of shock and discomfort. And Schoenberg new this, and he had the courage to follow the musical imperative burning inside of him. Because an artist deals in the truth, and the beauty will be revealed to those listeners who hunger for it.


----------



## DeepR

hpowders said:


> OP: Possibly Scriabin. I've yet to sit still through to the end of any of his compositions.


What a load of bullocks.
Start with Etude Op. 2 No. 1 written when he was 15




And sit still for a while.


----------



## starthrower

DeepR said:


> What a load of bullocks.


Made me laugh! Of course hpowders is telling us nothing about the music, but about his inability to listen to it.

So maybe the thread should be re-titled, Who do You Think Is The Worst Listener?


----------



## KenOC

I had an allergy to Scriabin until I heard a startling recital performance of Vers la flame by Sokolov that absolutely blew me away. Now I'm more receptive...


----------



## ptr

I love Rap, Schönberg more or less invented it! (Sprechgesang), but You all know the heavy guy's like Ricky Wagner and Bertie Humperdinck had already touched base on the subject in the mid 1800's!

/ptr


----------



## DeepR

starthrower said:


> Made me laugh! Of course hpowders is telling us nothing about the music, but about his inability to listen to it.
> 
> So maybe the thread should be re-titled, Who do You Think Is The Worst Listener?


Agreed. I for one admitted in Brahms' composer guestbook that I don't get his music, at all. That doesn't make me consider him as the worst composer, just because I don't get it.



KenOC said:


> I had an allergy to Scriabin until I heard a startling recital performance of Vers la flame by Sokolov that absolutely blew me away. Now I'm more receptive...


His earlier music is very different and I'd say very accessible from the start. For the life of me I cannot understand what would be so off-putting about his earlier music, take this charming etude:

Richter: Scriabin - Etude Op. 8 No. 5





Also you have to ask yourself what you're not hearing when quite a lot of accomplished and celebrated pianists, past and present, have his music in their repertoire. I think Scriabin is actually still gaining in popularity. At more piano-oriented internet forums I have seen Scriabin become pretty much standard top 10 material.


----------



## dgee

DeepR said:


> Also you have to ask yourself what you're not hearing when quite a lot of accomplished and celebrated pianists, past and present, have his music in their repertoire.


Same goes for Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti and Chopin. Boy, it took me a while to get that last one. The greats can't be super-wrong although they still sing Verdi for reasons beyond my ken - might as well be bashing through Bordogni!


----------



## ahammel

ptr said:


> I love Rap, Schönberg more or less invented it!


That is, of course, why he is known in the hip-hop community as Big Poppa Arnie.


----------



## scratchgolf

starthrower said:


> Made me laugh! Of course hpowders is telling us nothing about the music, but about his inability to listen to it.
> 
> So maybe the thread should be re-titled, Who do You Think Is The Worst Listener?


Classic post. A+++


----------



## hpowders

The worst composer? Whichever composer has the most ridiculously expensive comprehensive boxed set for purchase on Amazon.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> The worst composer? Whichever composer has the most ridiculously expensive comprehensive boxed set for purchase on Amazon.


Liszt?

http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Complet...qid=1420216345&sr=1-1&keywords=liszt+complete


----------



## starthrower

If you really want to know the "worst" composers, you have to get a copy of this book. It's hilarious!


----------



## ArtMusic

Nevum said:


> Are you implying that I am a fool?  No problem if so. I find it kind of cool. I have to agree somehow about Tasikofsky. I never understood whats the big deal with him. I never liked much his music.


Fact: in 1891, Tchaikovsky was the most famous musician alive. He came home from a triumphal tour in America after conducting the opening performances of Carnegie Hall. His music appealed to the elite of the concert world and to the masses of the working class. Now for any composer to achieve that past or present is something that speaks for itself.


----------



## SimonNZ

DeepR said:


> What a load of bullocks.


A _drove_ of bullocks.


----------



## Albert7

I never met a composer that I didn't like.


----------



## trazom

SimonNZ said:


> A _drove_ of bullocks.


I'm pretty sure it's '********,' unless you were referring to Sandra.


----------



## SimonNZ

trazom said:


> I'm pretty sure it's '********,' unless you were referring to Sandra.


No, no...the collective term for that is "pair".

But yes: if you go to the video store and get three or four Sandra Bullock films you've got a drove.

Um...which thread have I stumbled into with my silliness? Worst Composer?

Any of the hundreds of rock guitarists who think they're clever writing a Concerto For Electric Guitar or some such.

Or maybe Billy Joel's classical turn.


----------



## violadude

ArtMusic said:


> Fact: in 1891, Tchaikovsky was the most famous musician alive. He came home from a triumphal tour in America after conducting the opening performances of Carnegie Hall. His music appealed to the elite of the concert world and to the masses of the working class. Now for any composer to achieve that past or present is something that speaks for itself.


More arguments ad populem huh?


----------



## Classicalophile

I have to say Charles Ives. I had the unfortunate displeasure of hearing one of his sketches when I was awaiting to perform in my youth band. It was designed to make the band sound as if they were amateurish; he wrote in purposefully wrong notes and instructed the percussion to _not_ follow the conductor at all times. If that doesn't take the worst composer prize then I don't known what does. In addition his piano piece composer for a quarter tone piano sounds disgusting.


----------



## isorhythm

Classicalophile said:


> I have to say Charles Ives. I had the unfortunate displeasure of hearing one of his sketches when I was awaiting to perform in my youth band. It was designed to make the band sound as if they were amateurish; he wrote in purposefully wrong notes and instructed the percussion to _not_ follow the conductor at all times. If that doesn't take the worst composer prize then I don't known what does. In addition his piano piece composer for a quarter tone piano sounds disgusting.


I'm not the biggest fan of Ives either, but listen to this:


----------



## Albert7

Havergal Brian for me would be the worst composer... drawn and directionless without good transitions in his first symphony.


----------



## hpowders

isorhythm said:


> I'm not the biggest fan of Ives either, but listen to this:


Yes. The Ives Concord Sonata is his masterpiece.


----------



## hpowders

For me the worst composer is Franz Liszt. His music gives me a migraine.
I call it "pseudo-heroic".

Schubert isn't too far behind. Can't see what the fuss is about. I find his rhythms tedious and his themes overly repetitive. Perhaps if he got his glasses at Walmart's Optical Department back in the day...they really fit you well....he may have seen the need to revise some of his scores.


----------



## Albert7

Oh and Wiliam Furtwangler's compositions are next to Brian's in terms of being a yawner to me. Very syrupy and you can see what his heroes are... not really a unique voice in composition. But still a great conductor.


----------



## Celloman

hpowders said:


> For me the worst composer is Franz Liszt. His music gives me a migraine.
> I call it "pseudo-heroic".


Yes, Liszt is my least favorite of the well-known composers. Much of his music is falsely pretentious and artistically dry. Some of his piano music is brilliant, though - I'll give him that much.


----------



## Morimur

Lloyd Webber. Is he even considered a 'proper' composer? Not to me-_horrible!_.


----------



## BubbleBobble

ok, I know the comments are 12 years old, but.. Stravinsky as the worst composer? are you guys kidding?


----------



## Pugg

BubbleBobble said:


> ok, I know the comments are 12 years old, but.. Stravinsky as the worst composer? are you guys kidding?


Not everyone has the same taste.


----------



## Dedalus

Wow gotta blow the dust off this one. Must be the oldest thread on TC. Oldest one I've seen anyway.

It certainly does show how the culture of TC has changed over time.


----------



## Pugg

Dedalus said:


> Wow gotta blow the dust off this one. Must be the oldest thread on TC. Oldest one I've seen anyway.
> 
> It certainly does show how the culture of TC has changed over time.


Exactly what I was thinking.:lol:


----------



## ArtMusic

This thread is over ten years old.


----------



## Dedalus

Mozart. Hands down. He just sucks. Can't compose a melody, can't orchestrate, can't handle more than one instrument at a time. Just total bullocks. The only thing that made his operas good is De Ponte and whoever did the other ones. What a terrible composer.


----------



## KenOC

I think we really need a new thread for this, like the Beethoven one. And, of course, somebody to stir the pot. Not me though, I've done my duty with Bach and Haydn.


----------



## ArtMusic

Who do I think are the worst composers? Like I have always said, it is without any doubt: J.S. Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. My favorite worst composers of all time.


----------



## Xenakiboy

If someone likes a composer, then the composer probably sucks and if someone doesn't like a composer also sucks, so if you're reading this, your favorite composer probably sucks! :devil:

Now seriously guys, why does a thread have to exist? you know how it's going to go down, yet you do it?  :lol:


----------



## TurnaboutVox

BubbleBobble said:


> ok, I know the comments are 12 years old, but.. Stravinsky as the worst composer? are you guys kidding?


To be fair, by page two there are people saying much the same as you, 12 years later.

But what about that Beethoven guy, *so* superficial!


----------



## BoggyB

I've long opined that in the realm of classical music, what one loathes says more about one's taste than what one loves.

What this olde thread is asking for is composers who are way overrated. Liszt has already been mentioned. I will add the two sh*s, who are Schumann and Shostakovich.

I might come bach later to add some more, unless something exciting happens here in britten that distracts me.


----------



## ArtMusic

I listened to some music by Harrison Birtwistle, not impressive to me at all.


----------



## Rhombic

Reading the first page is a dismal experience. Thank god that this is not like that anymore.


----------



## Marinera

I suspect we've never heard the worst composer.. he/she sank into oblivion for the obvious reason.

About well known composers I don't think good/bad, but rather like/dislike or interested/indifferent/can't listen


----------



## Morimur

ArtMusic said:


> I listened to some music by Harrison Birtwistle, not impressive to me at all.


What was unimpressive about it?


----------



## lehnert

For me the worst composer I know is Ravel. Although I have to admit I haven't heard many of his works, the ones I know make me fall asleep. And just thinking about the snare drum in Bolero is driving me nuts.


----------



## Marinera

lehnert said:


> For me the worst composer I know is Ravel. Although I have to admit I haven't heard many of his works, the ones I know make me fall asleep. *And just thinking about the snare drum in Bolero is driving me nuts*.


About Ravel's Boléro first performance: The premiere was acclaimed by a shouting, stamping, cheering audience in the midst of which a woman was heard screaming: "Au fou, au fou!" ("The madman! The madman!"). When Ravel was told of this, he reportedly replied: "That lady… she understood."

I don't think I ever understood that madman comment, but perhaps you do. Still Bolero is not one of my favourite works from all the Ravel's output. However, I've seen Ballet choreographed to Bolero on you tube with Maya Plesetskaya performing it, and it has strangely mesmerising quality. Here it is.






And Ravel's comment on it: "I am particularly desirous there should be no misunderstanding about this work. It constitutes an experiment in a very special and limited direction and should not be suspected of aiming at achieving other or more than it actually does."

I like Ravel quite a lot myself.


----------



## Strange Magic

I vaguely remember the author Henry Miller writing, after attending a very early performance of _Bolero_, that "Ravel, if he wanted, could have driven us all insane."

Johannes Brahms is universally regarded as the Wurst composer--bits of it usually seen clinging to his ample beard and neck cloth.


----------



## DavidA

lehnert said:


> For me the worst composer I know is Ravel. Although I have to admit I haven't heard many of his works, the ones I know make me fall asleep. And just thinking about the snare drum in Bolero is driving me nuts.


Frankly you appear to be judging Ravel on one work. Heard the Daphnis and Chloe music? I hardly think that deserves the title of 'worst'.


----------



## Dim7

It's a pity that MoonlightSonata didn't post here back in 2004.


----------



## Woodduck

My favorite comment on _Bolero_ (though I don't agree with it) is, slightly paraphrased: "The limit on the length of time a composer can go on writing in a single rhythm is reached by Ravel toward the end of _La Valse_ and toward the beginning of _Bolero_."

Anyone recall the source of that?


----------



## KenOC

Somebody on another forum said it's from British composer/conductor Constant Lambert's book "Music Ho!"


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

KenOC said:


> Somebody on another forum said it's from Constant Lambert's book "Music Ho!"


How times have changed, and language too. You just wouldn't call a book "Music Ho!" these days.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Somebody on another forum said it's from British composer/conductor Constant Lambert's book "Music Ho!"


Lambert himself was a pretty good composer - or at least not the worst composer.


----------



## Woodduck

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> How times have changed, and language too. You just wouldn't call a book "Music Ho!" these days.


Not unless it's a book about a young singer who advances her career by sleeping with record producers.


----------



## KenOC

Deleted because of egregious repetition.


----------



## Casebearer

The French impressionists (Debussy, etc) generally bore me to death. As does Ludovico Einaudi. 

They all might be very important composers from a historical viewpoint but my experience mostly is that I put it on, then turn it off and by that time I forgot what I was hearing in between. Ravel's Bolero is a positive exception to this rule.


----------



## smoledman

Antonio Salieri - because the film 'Amadeus' told me he was a total mediocrity and sexually harassed Constanza Mozart.


----------



## dgee

Some of the most dismal and incompetent music I've heard was the Don Quixote ballet music by Ludwig Minkus. On this basis alone, I would nominate as a potential worst composer


----------



## Woodduck

dgee said:


> Some of the most dismal and incompetent music I've heard was the Don Quixote ballet music by Ludwig Minkus. On this basis alone, I would nominate as a potential worst composer


 Poor obscure Minkus.

When I saw some of _Don Quixote_ danced, I asked myself "Would I be listening to this without the dancing?" But I haven't been motivated to find out.

Having been a ballet accompanist and cranked out stuff like that at the piano for aspiring ballerinas, I can admit that Minkus is very danceable and his tunes hummable. That's what was required of him. But Tchaikovsky he isn't, nor even Delibes.


----------



## lehnert

DavidA said:


> Frankly you appear to be judging Ravel on one work. Heard the Daphnis and Chloe music? I hardly think that deserves the title of 'worst'.


Well, it would probably be more appropriate for me to say that he is 'the most overrated' composer rather than 'the worst'. I don't want to sound like a hater.

I have heard more works than just Bolero, but I find Bolero particularly annoying. I have also listened to Daphnis and Chloe, Le Tombeau de Couperin and Introduction and Allegro for Harp, Flute, Clarinet and String Quartet and I didn't really enjoy any of them. If you have any Ravel recommendations then I'll gladly listen to them, but I think that his music is simply not for me.


----------



## KenOC

lehnert said:


> If you have any Ravel recommendations then I'll gladly listen to them, but I think that his music is simply not for me.


If Ravel's music is not for you, then there's probably little point in listening to his piano concertos, Alborada del gracioso, Miroirs, Valses nobles et sentimentales, Ma mère l'Oye, or Le tombeau de Couperin. And little point in suggesting other excellent works as well.


----------



## lehnert

KenOC said:


> If Ravel's music is not for you, then there's probably little point in listening to his piano concertos, Alborada del gracioso, Miroirs, Valses nobles et sentimentales, Ma mère l'Oye, or Le tombeau de Couperin. And little point in suggesting other excellent works as well.


I am open-minded and my opinion may change. For example, the first time I listened to Mahler (it was his 6th, by the way) I thought that it was absolutely terrible. Now he's one of my favorite composers of all time.


----------



## DeepR

Casebearer said:


> As does Ludovico Einaudi.


Finally a composer who actually deserves to be mentioned here.


----------



## Morimur

*Eric Whitacre* is king of this thread.


----------



## DeepR

lehnert said:


> I am open-minded and my opinion may change. For example, the first time I listened to Mahler (it was his 6th, by the way) I thought that it was absolutely terrible. Now he's one of my favorite composers of all time.


Try the orchestrated Le Tombeau de Couperin


----------



## GreenMamba

Einaudi, Whitacre....

Richard Nanes!


----------



## DeepR

Einaudi: it doesn't work as melodic, "classical" piano music and it doesn't work as ambient piano music. It doesn't have the qualities to be either and what remains is simply very bland and annoying.


----------



## Woodduck

GreenMamba said:


> Einaudi, Whitacre....
> 
> Richard Nanes!


Nanes! Nanes! How long has it been? Oh the painful memories. How, how did he do it? (I know. He had money.)

A good friend of mine loved Nanes. It was one of those things about which I knew we must not speak. Even between us and those we love there are unbridgeable chasms, profound mysteries which we will never fathom.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

smoledman said:


> Antonio Salieri - because the film 'Amadeus' told me he was a total mediocrity and sexually harassed Constanza Mozart.


Um...no. 

space filler text


----------



## Woodduck

If Salieri were alive now he'd have grounds to sue for defamation.


----------



## ArtMusic

Woodduck said:


> If Salieri were alive now he'd have grounds to sue for defamation.


I think Salieri would have been quite popular today perhaps owing to his non-musical abilities to promote his art. Successful composers during their own life times were also acute promoters/managers of themselves.


----------



## Gordontrek

Karlheinz Stockhausen.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Whoever your favorite composer is....is probably the worst


----------



## Pugg

Xenakiboy said:


> Whoever your favorite composer is....is probably the worst


That's a firm statement, does it count for yourself also .


----------



## Xenakiboy

Pugg said:


> That's a firm statement, does it count for yourself also .


Yes!!!!! As to you, now tell me what the point of this thread is?

I feel like playing some devil's advocate here. :devil:


----------



## Xenakiboy

The Angel of Music said:


> I am the worst composer of all time


The thread should have closed here.......... :devil:


----------



## Pugg

Xenakiboy said:


> The thread should have closed here.......... :devil:


It started in 2004 so that says it I think.:lol:


----------



## Xenakiboy

[Insert composer's face] is the worst composer
[Insert same composer's face] is also the greatest composer of all time!

:tiphat:


----------



## Metronom

lehnert said:


> I am open-minded and my opinion may change. For example, the first time I listened to Mahler (it was his 6th, by the way) I thought that it was absolutely terrible. Now he's one of my favorite composers of all time.


I think you do need to listen to some piano works of Ravel, seeing that all you have listed before are orchestral works (unless you have listened to Tombeau in its original version). You may try the Miroirs suite, it contains what are probably the most known piano melodies of Ravel, although, as KenOC might have hinted in his comment, the dislike for the variety of his works which you have mentioned may already indicate adverse feelings and some sort of bias even towards Ravel's music in general.

However, I highly recommend you do not stop trying, especially with the Bolero


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Woodduck said:


> If Salieri were alive now he'd have grounds to sue for defamation.


True, true. Salieri and Richard III must be the two biggest bores in heaven.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Gordontrek said:


> Karlheinz Stockhausen.


No-one capable of producing such works as _Gruppen_, _Kontakte_, _Mantra_, _Stimmung_, _Momente_ or _Punkte_ (to name a few) could be a "bad" composer, never mind a "worst" composer. Sure, his music isn't an easy ride, and he wrote the occasional damp squib, but he was a skilled and original composer nonetheless.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Part of me thinks the final argument for the defense of Stockhausen should be the electronic study #2. https://books.google.com/books?id=vUaSBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA70


----------



## micro

Probably Stockhausen, most unintentional noise by anyone and anything in this universe would make a much more profound and meaningful music than his most complicated supposedly "composition". Can't believe that somebody did really make a living from this s***.


----------



## Woodduck

micro said:


> Probably Stockhausen, most *unintentional noise by anyone and anything* in this universe would make a much more profound and meaningful music than his most complicated supposedly "composition". Can't believe that somebody did really make a living from this s***.


So you prefer Cage to Stockhausen.


----------



## micro

Woodduck said:


> So you prefer Cage to Stockhausen.


I hate them both


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

micro said:


> Probably Stockhausen, most unintentional noise by anyone.


Apart from his improvisatory works, very few of Stockhausen's compositions contain "unintentional" anything; the majority are very tightly constructed. Of course, nobody's forcing anyone to _like_ his music, and I can understand why most people can't. That's cool. However, we shouldn't confuse "I don't like his/her music" with "He/she was a bad composer".


----------



## micro

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Apart from his improvisatory works, very few of Stockhausen's compositions contain "unintentional" anything; the majority are very tightly constructed. Of course, nobody's forcing anyone to _like_ his music, and I can understand why most people can't. That's cool. However, we shouldn't confuse "I don't like his/her music" with "He/she was a bad composer".


Of course I am aware of that and everything I write is just my opinion as an utterly amateur listener and may develop to something else as time goes by. My problem with Stockhausen and many 20th century composers is that they aren't bad due to a lack of ability, ignorance or mediocrity (on the contrary, they might be more competitive, talented and knowledgeable than any prior era) but due to complete intention to move away from any music that has to do with sublimity, beauty, order and convention.
And the result is boring, pretentious and ugly "music" to many, many ordinary amateur listeners that appreciate classical music in general.


----------



## Adam Weber

micro said:


> ...but due to complete intention to move away from any music that has to do with sublimity, beauty, order and convention.


That simply isn't true.


----------



## violadude

As we all know, sublimity and beauty can only be expressed through triadic harmony and a duple or triple rhythmic structure.


----------



## isorhythm

micro said:


> complete intention to move away from any music that has to do with sublimity, beauty, order and convention


There were some composers in the 20th century who really did reject traditional notions of sublimity, beauty and order (and that's not necessarily bad), but Stockhausen wasn't one of them.


----------



## Juan Gonzalez

Verdi. For the love of god, everytime I have to play Verdi...

PD: A lot of his fame 
come from his name


----------



## Pugg

Juan Gonzalez said:


> Verdi. For the love of god, everytime I have to play Verdi...
> 
> PD: A lot of his fame
> come from his name


_You don't have to play anything_, so why such a comment?


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Juan Gonzalez said:


> Verdi. For the love of god, everytime I have to play Verdi...
> 
> PD: A lot of his fame
> come from his name


Verdi?! Che? The worst? I'll admit that he's often overrated; outside Italy he was seen as second rate, not in the same class as Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini, Weber or Meyerbeer. In many of his works, the instrumentation is dull, the plots preposterous, and the characters bipolar. The early ones are gloomy, crude and bombastic, but there's at least one moment of genius in each - even in Il corsaro, Giovanna d'Arco, Lombardi and Attila, works which probably wouldn't be performed if they weren't by Verdi. I lose interest in Luisa Miller and La forza del destino. But after Rigoletto, each opera has its own distinctive feel; from Un ballo in maschera, the operas are genuinely great - musically and dramatically inspired. Don Carlos, Aida and Otello are three masterpieces of opera.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

"Don Carlos, Otello, and Falstaff are three masterpieces of opera" - Fixed.

(Luisa Miller, Rigoletto, La traviata, Il trovatore, & Un ballo in maschera are also masterpieces, & some of the others are Flawed Masterpieces, notably La forza del destino & the revised Simon Boccanegra.)


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

violadude said:


> As we all know, sublimity and beauty can only be expressed through triadic harmony and a duple or triple rhythmic structure.


And then only if there isn't too much repetition.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

micro said:


> And the result is boring, pretentious and ugly "music" to many, many ordinary amateur listeners that appreciate classical music in general.


Well maybe - but you go long enough without liking anything new in classical music, and eventually you DON'T appreciate "classical music in general" any more, you just appreciate the first ~800 years (so by 2700 that'll be less than half).


----------



## ArtMusic

Franz Lehár's music didn't speak to me much at all. I listened to most of _The Merry Widow_, and it didn't do much to me. Maybe one day it might come around.


----------



## David C Coleman

Greetings everybody. Been a while since I've been on this forum.
The question about who they consider to be the worst composer is/was is rather a matter of personal taste. But can I put forward a lot of seventeenth and eighteenth century court music, churned out like sausage skin primarily written for erm ...... Entertainment and not of particularly high quality and rather considered to be the "Muzak " of the day. This doesn't address the argument of who is the worst composer as many of the "big names " found themselves composing in this way to make a living.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Lately Zozart doesn't ring very well to me.............


----------



## TurnaboutVox

micro said:


> Of course I am aware of that and everything I write is just my opinion as an utterly amateur listener and may develop to something else as time goes by. My problem with Stockhausen and many 20th century composers is that they aren't bad due to a lack of ability, ignorance or mediocrity (on the contrary, they might be more competitive, talented and knowledgeable than any prior era) but due to complete intention to move away from any music that has to do with sublimity, beauty, order and convention.
> *And the result is boring, pretentious and ugly "music" to many, many ordinary amateur listeners that appreciate classical music in general.*


Or, you haven't learned to like it yet...


----------



## hpowders

I obviously have my favorite composers and I have expressed many times on TC, which composers I do not care for, but with a gun held to my head, I would not call any of the latter group really bad or the worst. Simply personal preference.


----------



## hpowders

Just remember, for every composer you slight, you have most likely hurt the feelings of at least one Talk Classical member.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Even Zozart..........................


----------



## Bettina

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Even Zozart..........................


Yes, especially Zozart! Don't you dare criticize his great Zozi Zan Zutte (ZZZ). I'll be very upset if you call it a snoozer!


----------



## Autocrat

I would especially like to mention Johann Strauss II as the worst composer ever, such is the level of revulsion I feel toward his output. Unfortunately I have to recognise that his music is the pinnacle of that genre, magnificently constructed and damned near perfect for his milieu.

The fact that I despise it, and the horribly deformed way it is usually played, is irrelevant. 

I won't be nominating JSII.


----------



## Judith

I don't have any worst composers. There are some that I think their music is challenging but that's what makes Classical Music interesting


----------



## pcnog11

Best and worst are very subjective. I think the best place to ask is to ask a record company which composer's work is not selling or ask any orchestra which composer that orchestra will not perform because people will not come to the concerts. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## ArtMusic

In a way, it is the existence of "good" and "bad" pieces of music that make comparisons possible. However this is very subjective but makes good discussion.


----------



## Casebearer

Ludovico Einaudi


----------



## Katedreamer

Telemann just rubs me the wrong way, sorry. Or Vivaldi and his C-major chords, yawn.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

PDQ Bach


----------



## Simon Moon

I do not have any composers that I consider the worst. Only those I do not like.


And besides, most of my favorite composers would probably make 'the worst' lists of most people here, since all my favorites come from the the 20th century and contemporary eras.


----------



## hpowders

_Liver_ani was the _wurst._


----------



## Gordontrek

"Who Do You Consider to Be the Worst Composer?"

Me.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Wagner no contest :lol:


----------



## Botschaft

Nonsense: _I_ am the worst composer! I couldn't compose if my life depended on it!


----------



## hpowders

For me, it would be a battle between Schubert and Bruckner for worst composer among the major composers.


----------



## Heck148

This is certainly a vague and open-ended thread topic - the "worst composers" wrote music that is never performed and is long since forgotten. There must be skillions, jillions of these composer wannabes who never made it.

of well-known, "famous " composers - that is a different question - 

for me:

Rachmaninoff
Delius

I don't get much thrill out of listening or performing music of these composers...


----------



## Portamento

hpowders said:


> Just remember, for every composer you slight, you have most likely hurt the feelings of at least one Talk Classical member.


...



hpowders said:


> For me, it would be a battle between Schubert and Bruckner for last place.
> 
> Thanks to them, I don't need harmful drugs to help me fall asleep.


What happened?!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Portamento said:


> ...
> 
> What happened?!


Being on TC for 18,216 posts


----------



## Botschaft

Portamento said:


> ...
> 
> What happened?!


I guess he must have wanted to hurt someone's feelings.


----------



## Tallisman

Man, this really is a dumb thread.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

There is plenty more I you go lookin


----------



## scratchgolf

Any composer who's music transcends their human life is like every other living being. A failure, and dying. We remember their names because they failed at perfection. We tear them apart because we envy them. We don't understand them, so we fear what they were not instead of embracing what they were. Mozart only truly dies when his name dies. It will not die during my lifetime. Bach may be the "worst" composer ever, and if he is the worst, it's only because he came so close to perfection. We would rather find fault in his 1% than find beauty in his 99%. So officially, the worst composer is now me. Because I composed this post with the inspiration of Bach, but the skill level of Williams. I am a living legacy to the leader of the band.


----------



## hpowders

Portamento said:


> ...
> 
> *What happened?!*


Look at the title of the thread.

I didn't invent the topic.

I simply responded to it.

You didn't read the thread topic?

What happened?


----------



## hpowders

Of course, it's easy to criticize. Even the worst composers would run rings around my feeble efforts.


----------



## hpowders

Improbus said:


> I guess he must have wanted to hurt someone's feelings.


Not even close.

Read the thread topic.

I'm simply a man responding to the topic of the thread.


----------



## Botschaft

hpowders said:


> Not even close.
> 
> Read the thread topic.
> 
> I'm simply a man responding to the topic of the thread.


But you did wittingly hurt someone's feelings, didn't you?


----------



## Tallisman

scratchgolf said:


> Any composer who's music transcends their human life is like every other living being. A failure, and dying. We remember their names because they failed at perfection. We tear them apart because we envy them. We don't understand them, so we fear what they were not instead of embracing what they were. Mozart only truly dies when his name dies. It will not die during my lifetime. Bach may be the "worst" composer ever, and if he is the worst, it's only because he came so close to perfection. We would rather find fault in his 1% than find beauty in his 99%. So officially, the worst composer is now me. Because I composed this post with the inspiration of Bach, but the skill level of Williams. I am a living legacy to the leader of the band.











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


----------



## hpowders

Improbus said:


> But you did wittingly hurt someone's feelings, didn't you?


I answered the thread question, wittingly.

Anybody who answers the thread question honestly will most likely offend someone who likes the hated composer or composers chosen.

I love Copland. Someone already chose Copland as a hated composer. So what? I didn't throw a hissy fit about it or attempt to embarrass that poster about his choice, the way a poster attempted to do on this thread to me, which in my opinion, is a very low class thing to do.

Perhaps the thread question should not have been permitted to be posted, because it is an emotionally loaded question.


----------



## Botschaft

hpowders said:


> I answered the thread question, wittingly.
> 
> Anybody who answers the thread question honestly will most likely offend someone who likes the hated composer or composers chosen.
> 
> I love Copland. Someone already chose Copland as a hated composer. So what? I didn't throw a hissy fit about it or attempt to embarrass that poster about his choice, the way a poster attempted to do on this thread to me, which to me is a very low class thing to do.
> 
> Perhaps the thread question should not have been permitted to be posted, because it is an emotionally loaded question.


I'm just messing with you, you see; still your posts seemed quite incongruent.


----------



## chill782002

There's no such thing as a "worst" composer. There may be composers whose work I don't personally like but that's something entirely different.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Thats good to hear I'm much relieved by that


----------



## eugeneonagain

Ah. I see that even 13 years ago there were these sorts of threads. I might do a trawl through the archives to see if I can find any to match my special interests. I'm particularly hoping to find:

- Worst wig of the baroque era.
- Tallest composer.
- Composer with the most shoes.
- Fastest composer.
- Best moustache on a composer (male _or_ female, for reasons of equality).
- Hungriest composer (by country - excluding Hungary).
- Composer with the nicest back yard.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

The is a good one about Aliens kidnapping Beethoven with a time machine.........


----------



## eugeneonagain

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> The is a good one about Aliens kidnapping Beethoven with a time machine.........


I knew he couldn't have written all that music single-handedly anyway.


----------



## chill782002

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Thats good to hear I'm much relieved by that


No love for Varese huh?


----------



## Guest

Who still is in need for a composer,the computers will produce whatever you want or did'nt know you want.They can produce new Rembrands ,why not a new Beethoven symphony?


----------



## hpowders

I would add Paganini to my list of worst composers.

He is the "Liszt" of the violin. Empty, superflous, virtuosic fluff.

What I need is the "SCHUMANN" of the violin!!

Virtuosity with emotion and passion!!! (Brahms).


----------



## Bulldog

eugeneonagain said:


> Ah. I see that even 13 years ago there were these sorts of threads. I might do a trawl through the archives to see if I can find any to match my special interests. I'm particularly hoping to find:
> 
> - Worst wig of the baroque era.
> - Tallest composer.
> - Composer with the most shoes.
> - Fastest composer.
> - Best moustache on a composer (male _or_ female, for reasons of equality).
> - Hungriest composer (by country - excluding Hungary).
> - Composer with the nicest back yard.


Those are good ones. Actually, I think there was a thread concerning the tallest composer - he must have been the best.

The fastest composer brings up many scenarios. I'll take it as fastest love-making composer, not a trait that would be appreciated by one's partner.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

chill782002 said:


> No love for Varese huh?


No Varese is the Man. I was referring to my own compositional efforts - check out my blog page on here if youre game


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> Virtuosity with emotion and passion!!! (Brahms).


And yet still incredibly dull.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Bulldog said:


> Those are good ones. Actually, I think there was a thread concerning the tallest composer - he must have been the best.


Probably just stood out more from the crowd.



Bulldog said:


> The fastest composer brings up many scenarios. I'll take it as fastest love-making composer, not a trait that would be appreciated by one's partner.


Right, better off sticking to the solo organ.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> And yet still incredibly dull.


Surely you aren't calling Brahms dull now, are you? If so the joke is on no one but you, I'm afraid, considering that Brahms is just about anything but dull.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

The wurst composer? Richard Strauss, who composed _Salami_.


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> Right, better off sticking to the solo organ.


Now now sir, you better take yourself in hand.


----------



## Woodduck

SimonTemplar said:


> The wurst composer? Richard Strauss, who composed _Salami_.


Baloney. ...........


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> Now now sir, you better take yourself in hand.


There's a law against that in this state.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> Surely you aren't calling Brahms dull now, are you? If so the joke is on no one but you, I'm afraid, considering that Brahms is just about anything but dull.


How did I fall into that pit of iniquity?


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> How did I fall into that pit of iniquity?


I have no idea, but you'd better do something about it!


----------



## jdec

What's wrong with you guys! ... Schubert, R. Strauss the worst composers??? Liszt "empty and superfluous"??? Brahms "incredibly dull"??? 

Geez, I'm starting to loose faith in humanity!


----------



## Dan Ante

Perhaps Mozart was the worst that is why he had to employ all those ghost writers.


----------



## scratchgolf

jdec said:


> What's wrong with you guys! ... Schubert, R. Strauss the worst composers??? Liszt "empty and superfluous"??? Brahms "incredibly dull"???
> 
> Geez, I'm starting to loose faith in humanity!


Please don't lose faith


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

jdec said:


> What's wrong with you guys! ... Schubert, R. Strauss the worst composers??? Liszt "empty and superfluous"??? Brahms "incredibly dull"???
> 
> Geez, I'm starting to loose faith in humanity!


Read the Strauss post again, old sausage.


----------



## jdec

SimonTemplar said:


> Read the Strauss post again, old sausage.


Now I'm starting to lose faith in me for not getting those jokes at first reading.


----------



## scratchgolf

jdec said:


> Now I'm starting to lose faith in me for not getting those jokes at first reading.


You must lose faith in yourself before you can take faith in anything else. You already understand this. Just not in these words.


----------



## Zhdanov

i would say Cage or Glass, but they are poseurs, not composers.


----------



## Botschaft

Zhdanov said:


> i would say Cage or Glass, but they are poseurs, not composers.


Composeurs, perhaps?


----------



## Sloe

Iannis Xenakis and Richard Nanes I just can´t listen to their music nothing likeable for me.


----------



## scratchgolf

Zhdanov said:


> i would say Cage or Glass, but they are poseurs, not composers.


And I will take everything they composed, and you think you own, for free. If you feel the need to laugh, use a mirror.


----------



## scratchgolf

Glass Cage. GLASS CAGE. Think about this before defending yourself falsely


----------



## hpowders

I would have to add D. Scarlatti to my worst composer list.

The dude writes a sonata in AB form by writing a catchy theme, it gets repeated and then he blows it all with uninspiring development sections. Too bad. He coulda been a contendah!

To make matters worse, he repeats the formula over 500 times!

Someone should compile a CD of just his opening sonata themes!!


----------



## scratchgolf

hpowders said:


> I would have to add D. Scarlatti to my worst composer list.
> 
> The dude takes a catchy theme, it gets repeated and then he blows it all with uninspiring development sections. Too bad. He coulda been a contendah!
> 
> To make matters worse, he repeats the formula over 500 times!
> 
> SCANDALOUS!!! :lol::lol:


Yet you claim to love Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony. A nod to nature, and it's sounds and purpose. But how do you listen to his ode to nature? In a car? A BMW? In comfort? Nature is NOT comfortable. Or do you listen to what inspired Beethoven? Nature? Music. Life. FAILURE.


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> I would have to add D. Scarlatti to my worst composer list.
> 
> The dude writes a sonata in AB form by writing a catchy theme, it gets repeated and then he blows it all with uninspiring development sections. Too bad. He coulda been a contendah!
> 
> To make matters worse, he repeats the formula over 500 times!
> 
> Someone should compile a CD of just his opening sonata themes!!


I would never add Domenico Scarlatti to such a list. Quite a few composers can't even manage a decent melody, but he managed that at least 500 times. 
His 'sonatas' can't be compared to developed sonata form of the later 18th century. These 'exercises' actually contain a lot of inspired development, unusual modulations and harmonic interest.


----------



## David C Coleman

I nominate William Boyce as my worst composer. To me he just writes reams of this mid 18 th century equivalent to musak! Ideal for court entertainment of the time.
Plus how can you present a 6 minute ditty as a symphony!?

Of the more established composers, I nominate Edward Elgar. Apart from the Cello Concerto it's just that plain, over-patriotic boredom!!


----------



## Sloe

David C Coleman said:


> Plus how can you present a 6 minute ditty as a symphony!?


Symphonies by most other composers from the same time are really not much longer.


----------



## Roger Knox

jdec said:


> Now I'm starting to lose faith in me for not getting those jokes at first reading.


That would be the wurst-case scenario.


----------



## Woodduck

David C Coleman said:


> Of the more established composers, I nominate Edward Elgar. Apart from the Cello Concerto it's just that plain, over-patriotic boredom!!


What's patriotic about Elgar's 3 symphonies, violin concerto, violin sonata, Enigma Variations, string quartet, piano quintet, Sea Pictures, Sospiri, Introduction and Allegro, Dream of Gerontius, In the South, Dream Children, etc. etc. ?


----------



## ST4

Verdi, Puccini, Mozart opera, Rossini, pretty much anything that sounds like a kid throwing a tantrum :tiphat:


----------



## Tallisman

Zhdanov said:


> i would say Cage or Glass, but they are poseurs, not composers.


Love this guy :lol: gives no ****s


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sloe said:


> Symphonies by most other composers from the same time are really not much longer.


Joseph Haydn helped to change the Symphony into what it became.


----------



## Tallisman

David C Coleman said:


> Of the more established composers, I nominate Edward Elgar. Apart from the Cello Concerto it's just that plain, over-patriotic boredom!!


He's only considered patriotic because we treasured him as an English genius in a European-dominated sea. The only works of his that could be considered mildly chauvinistic are the Pomp and Circumstance marches. He actually viewed 'absolute music' (i.e non-programmatic, non-representational and thus without patriotic intentions) as the finest form of music.


----------



## distantprommer

Listening to Prom 50 today.

Now playing a work by Gerald Barry, named Canada. A world premiere performance with the CBSO.

Is this the worst composition ever? Worst composer? Will I ever listen to it again?


----------



## Sloe

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Joseph Haydn helped to change the Symphony into what it became.


Not everyone can be a pioneer.


----------



## hpowders

eugeneonagain said:


> *I would never add Domenico Scarlatti to such a list.* Quite a few composers can't even manage a decent melody, but he managed that at least 500 times.
> His 'sonatas' can't be compared to developed sonata form of the later 18th century. These 'exercises' actually contain a lot of inspired development, unusual modulations and harmonic interest.


I didn't ask you to add Domenico Scarlatti to such a list. Nor would I ever do so.

Just respect my right to do so for my own list.


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> I didn't ask you to add Domenico Scarlatti to such a list. Nor would I ever do so.
> 
> Just respect my right to do so for my own list.


I do respect your right to do so. I was merely using your post as a contrast to my admiration of Scarlatti.


----------



## Dan Ante

distantprommer said:


> Listening to Prom 50 today.
> 
> Now playing a work by Gerald Barry, named Canada. A world premiere performance with the CBSO.
> 
> Is this the worst composition ever? Worst composer? Will I ever listen to it again?


Not heard that one yet, will make a note, on second thoughts I will give it a miss I realise these works have to be performed but there is an abundance of 3rd rate.... no! I must not say that.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## Larkenfield

hpowders said:


> I would have to add D. Scarlatti to my worst composer list.
> 
> The dude writes a sonata in AB form by writing a catchy theme, it gets repeated and then he blows it all with uninspiring development sections. Too bad. He coulda been a contendah!
> 
> To make matters worse, he repeats the formula over 500 times!
> 
> Someone should compile a CD of just his opening sonata themes!!


Sheer inventive genius. Gems of delight. Great variety of theme and mood. Harmonically gifted. Alive and alert. Never rested on his laurels. Sparkling works. Horowitz loved him and so many other great keyboard players. There's a great number of sonatas to choose from and they hardly sound the same. He is not easy to play and he can be performed badly-too nervous and rushed or superficial. He needs space, pacing and air. Overall, great contributions to the keyboard literature. He was an Italian who captured the spirit of Spain and Portugal, often very guitar like in sound. Pogorelich and Dubravka Tomsic were other proponents of these vivid and sparkling works. Similarly, nor did Vivaldi write the same concerto 400 times just because Stravinsky said he did. No one has to like DS, but in the history of music of those who confined themselves almost exclusively to the keyboard, it's doubtful that he belongs on a list of the worst.


----------



## Casebearer

Why bother who's the worst, we wouldn't know his or her name anyway. Nevertheless Einaudi comes to my mind...


----------



## Lionheart

Some of the people on this thread seem to think that the fact that it's "their opinion" is an excuse to say the most mind-numbing things. 

Here are the most mind-numbing things I've read here so far:

1- Baroque music all sounds the same - Congratulations whoever you are, your knowledge of music is on par with a 12 year old.
Saying that all Baroque music sounds the same is like saying all food tastes the same; it doesn't, you're just going to the wrong chefs. 

2- Telemann is the worst composer of all time - Well, Bach disagrees with you. He borrowed a lot from Telemann and even named him godfather to his son (C.P.E.Bach) who he also named after Telemann. And so does Handel, who was great friends with Telemann. He was also one of the most prolific composers in all of history. 

3- Handel was the worst composer of all time - Wow, does it get more ignorant!? Let me guess, your entire knowledge of Handel's music comes from listening to the same tracks over and over again on the radio? Beethoven and Mozart considered him to be the greatest composer of all time, I hope you'll forgive me if I hold their opinion in higher regard than yours.

4- Bach was the worst composer of all time - DING DING DING WE HAVE AN EDGELORD ON THE THREAD!!! 

5- Haydn was unoriginal and wrote "cookie-cutter symphonies"- I'll give you the same advice as the guy who said all baroque sounds the same: Go to a different chef!

6- Wagner was the worst composer of all time- People who say this can usually be divided into two camps: The PC brigade who think they have to hate him because his politics don't align with their 21st century millennial safe-space snowflake mindset. The dunces who don't understand the gargantuan vision and incredibly depth of his work. Did you know that psychologists actually study Wagner's operas because they are laden with incredibly deep and complex messages about the human consciousness and human emotion. As much as I love Verdi and couldn't imagine a world without his work, nobody is studying his operas on that level. 

Now let me address some common remarks: 
1- Philip Glass is a bad composer - While I disagree strongly, I do sympathize with this statement. In my opinion Philip Glass is the most worthwhile and accomplished purveyor of avant-garde (though that isn't saying much). Take Akhenaten, Koyaanisqatsi and Einstein on the beach, those are all masterpieces. 
His distinct style of repetitive structures was groundbreaking and very potent but has become......wel....repetitive. He has milked his own formula to death, to the extent that it has become a meme. 
2- Schoenberg is a bad composer - Once again, while I disagree I do sympathize with this statement. Schoenberg has written some incredible music such as verklarte nacht and the gurrelieder, revolutionary masterpieces in my opinion. But he has written some genuinely horrid drivel. 
3- Stravinsky is a bad composer - Same here as for Schoenberg. A lot of great stuff: L'oiseux de feu, Le sacre du printemps and some genuinely horrid drivel. But I agree with the other poster who said that Stravinsky should have just shut his big mouth, maybe history would have been kinder to him if he hadn't badmouthed so many of his colleagues. 
4- Mahler is a bad composer - This is one I struggle to understand. Yes, his works are gloomy and melancholic. But so is most romantic music. For me the romantic era is characterized by the emergence of slobbery overly emotional composers. This is why I much prefer medieval, baroque and classical music to most romantic music. I'll take Sweelinck's chromatic fantasia and Bach's brandenburger concertos over whiny songs about loneliness and depressing string quartets any day. But it's no surprise to me that generation snowflake gravitates towards this kind of music. That said, I find Mahler to be the most tasteful in his melancholy and the finale of the 8th symphony "alles vergangliche" is one of the greatest pieces of choral music written since Beethoven's ode to joy. 

Now on to my opinions about who the worst composer is: 
Sadly very unoriginal, I have to agree that the distinct dishonor must go to John Cage. 
Let me preface this by saying that I'm one of very few of his critics who will admit that he has written some good music such as "in a landscape".

That said, John Cage represents everything I despise in modern music and art in general. He arrogantly went against the advice of his mentor Schoenberg who warned him not to disregard the importance of harmony by promoting relativistic ideas. He is the epitome of modern art: Everything goes, no matter how ugly, simplistic and distasteful it is, as long as you surround it with pseudo-intellectual pseudo-Buddhist new-age drivel. And if anyone calls you out for your nonsensical ideas, you call them ignorant close minded bigots who just "don't get it" and usually they go away with their tail tucked in between their legs. 

But more interestingly, here are my thoughts on who the greatest composers are.
To me the greatest composers are the ones who have contributed the most to music: 

1- Jean Philippe Rameau - nicknamed "the Newton of music". His treatise on harmony earned him a reputation as a well respected music theorist, only at the age of 50 did he start his career as an opera composer. 

2- Jean Baptiste Lully - nicknamed "the father of French opera" practically single-handedly made France a major player in the Baroque music scene. 

3- Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck - being Europe's first great keyboard virtuoso and the inventor of the fugue, it's hard to imagine the world of music without his influence. 

4- Johann Sebastian Bach - while the compositional techniques he employed were mostly adopted from other composers, in his hands they became a piece of precision engineering. To me Bach is a Jesus figure in music. He sets a standard, a standard which may be unobtainable for most but one which every musician must nevertheless aspire to meet. 

5- Claudio Monteverdi - Undoubtedly the most important figure in the creation of opera, his works marked the transition between the renaissance and the baroque era. 

6- Georg Frederick Handel - Since Goupy's infamous cartoon "The charming brute" Handel has been unfairly portrayed as a corporate ill-mannered glutton. But while he may have chosen a different business model, musical style and led an all together different life to Bach's, I assure you he is no less of a composer. He is an obelisk in the musical world, especially in opera. Beethoven said that Handel was the greatest composer who had ever lived and that he would uncover his head and kneel before his tomb. Don't judge Handel for the cliche sound fragments played over and over again on the radio. If you take the time to listen to some critically acclaimed historically informed performances of his oratorios and operas and you will uncover a new musical dimension. 

7- Richard Wagner - Almost everything I just said about Handel can also be said about Wagner. Jealous cannibalistic colleagues, a dishonest media and a hysterical extremely politically correct post world war two generation have all tried to tarnish the reputation of this musical behemoth. But his music is a testament to the man. Both his music and his librettos are of unparalleled depth and power so much so, that they even influenced the world of psychoanalysis. And unlike most composers who deferred the literary task to a librettist, Richard Wagner was responsible for both. He was a powerful visionary whose tremendous influence on music can't be overemphasized. 

Though not all, these are certainly some of the greatest composers in history. At least in my esteem of course.


----------



## Casebearer

I don't agree with all you say but enjoyed your post nevertheless. 

I think you do John Cage no justice. Keep an open mind, even if you don't like him. (Like I don't like Handel and have tried again and again). Maybe listen to some (long) interviews with him first. I listened to a long radio interview a year ago or so. Forgot exactly where and when (maybe Australian radio?) but it was quite interesting.


----------



## jenspen

Lionheart said:


> Beethoven said that Handel was the greatest composer who had ever lived and that he would uncover his head and kneel before his tomb.


1685 was a such a good year. Handel's coevals thought well of him too. Domenico Scarlatti (whose sonatas I like very much) would cross himself at the mention of Handel's name. Bach is recorded as saying he was "the only person I would wish to see before I die, and the only person I would wish to be, were I not Bach." I gather that those two great men didn't meet only because Handel refused Bach's invitation.

Who do I consider the worst composer? I've developed a strong distaste over time for the music of one of the great Late Romantics but I'm not musician enough to justify it on technical grounds (well, that doesn't stop me, but not on a forum like this).


----------



## tdc

^ That above Bach quote seems a little suspect to me, since it seems clear Bach highly valued the work of some other composers aside from Handel (ie- the distance he travelled to see Buxtehude). It also just sounds different than any of the other quotes I've come across attributed to Bach. I'm curious as to the source on that one.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Beethoven...............................


----------



## Lisztian

Lionheart said:


> Schoenberg has written some incredible music such as verklarte nacht and the gurrelieder, revolutionary masterpieces in my opinion. But he has written some genuinely horrid drivel.
> 3- Stravinsky is a bad composer - Same here as for Schoenberg. A lot of great stuff: L'oiseux de feu, Le sacre du printemps and some genuinely horrid drivel. But I agree with the other poster who said that Stravinsky should have just shut his big mouth, maybe history would have been kinder to him if he hadn't badmouthed so many of his colleagues.


I find this (and the rant regarding Cage) to be as mind-numbing as you found many other opinions to be.

And this: "While I disagree strongly, I do sympathize with this statement. In my opinion Philip Glass is the most worthwhile and accomplished purveyor of avant-garde (though that isn't saying much)."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Some of the people on this thread seem to think that the fact that it's "their opinion" is an excuse to say the most mind-numbing things."

Indeed.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Worst? probably Paderewski, for his sheer lack of knowledge in orchestration, good harmonies and melodies, and Romantic musical ideals in general. But then again, composing was only his hobby!!! He was a politician and spokesperson who played a role in Poland's independence. It's impressive that he wrote music at at all.

Another contender would be Webern. I love Schoenberg and Berg, but Webern doesn't seem to understand how to use atonality. Some of his attempts are nice, but he didn't compose at the quality of his other atonal friends. 

Arensky as well. Seems to me a mediocre Tchaikovsky.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

and the winner is ........................


----------



## Larkenfield

"Who Do You Consider To Be the Worst Composer?"

That great person of the worst hasn't been born yet... and I'm tired of waiting.:scold:


----------



## Dan Ante

Larkenfield said:


> "Who Do You Consider To Be the Worst Composer?"
> 
> That great person of the worst hasn't been born yet... and I'm tired of waiting.:scold:


My problem with this thread is that I very seldom or hardly ever if I'm honest listen to music that I don't like, so I can't remember the composers names but there must be quite a few.


----------



## John O

Why do you post speculations about Stravinsky that are clearly wrong?
Stravinsky is sufficiently famous that everything he wrote ( unless it is lost) has been performed and recorded


----------



## Dan Ante

John O said:


> Why do you post speculations about Stravinsky that are clearly wrong?
> Stravinsky is sufficiently famous that everything he wrote ( unless it is lost) has been performed and recorded


Is this addressed to me?


----------



## SanAntone

"Who Do You Consider To Be the Worst Composer?"

I don't.


----------



## Dan Ante

SanAntone said:


> "Who Do You Consider To Be the Worst Composer?"
> 
> I don't.


Well perhaps* Beethoven!* :devil: Dan will now run for cover...


----------



## Open Book

Salieri. "Amadeus" was right.


----------



## HerbertNorman

My neighbour , he really is [email protected]


----------



## haziz

Shoenberg and Bruckner.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

This thread is less interesting for the content of the answers than for the progression of users who have left TC.


----------



## vtpoet

Franz Danzi. Doesn't matter what piece I listen to by him, I always hear the accompaniment of farting Bavarian Umpa-pa players.


----------



## Highwayman

And Now for Something Completely Different:

Philip Glass
Philip Glass
Philip Glass
Philip Glass
Philip Glass
Glass Philip
Glass Philip
Glass Philip
Philip Glass
Philip Glass
Philip Glass
Philip Glass


----------



## Bulldog

I never reach for a cd of Raff, Paganini, Vivaldi, or Hanson.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

When you're dealing with established composers or anyone you've ever heard of, you can't really say any composer is 'bad'. You can explain why you don't like their music, but almost every composer discussed on this site with any frequency are all masters of their craft. 

That being said, I think Rebecca Saunders actually is a bad composer. But then again, people with much more listening experience and knowledge than me appreciate her music, like SanAntone for instance, so who am I to judge?


----------



## Dorsetmike

Toss up between Einaudi and Gorecki


----------



## Strange Magic

Isn't there, objectively, a worst composer? Or is it yet another matter of opinion? Whose?


----------



## Dan Ante

I am probably among the worst, you may never have heard any of my works or even know that I exist, my son is also shocking but not as bad as me.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Of composers I've explored,* Delius* is the weakest.


----------



## Ethereality

Of the Big 3, I'm the best and Schubert is the worst.


----------



## Xisten267

Someone whose name didn't survive the test of time, and that therefore I couldn't know of. All the big names being cited here aren't of bad composers.


----------



## ORigel

I looked at the first two pages of this thread, with comments from 2004 and 2006. I was amused to find commentors listing composers like Mahler, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and even Handel!


----------



## Dan Ante

To even concider Handel is treasannablelyious and should be xterminated


----------



## Jacck

the first ones that came to my mind were Satie and Glass. I am not a fan of minimalism, so that could be the reason.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

ORigel said:


> I looked at the first two pages of this thread, with comments from 2004 and 2006. I was amused to find commentors listing composers like Mahler, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and even Handel!


I've actually seen the common opinion that Richard Strauss was a great 2nd tier composer, absolutely respectable but never quite achieving the level of greatness of other composers. I think he held the same opinion of himself too if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Ariasexta

Myself, if I do not take myself for the worst I could not have become a fanatic of good music. So forth I am not qualified to name any composer as the best in my dictionary as well, as for the other composers, there are only categories: the ones I listen to and the ones I do not have the time for.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

* Tony Banks* is one of my all-time favorite rock musicians, and one of the worst classical composers I've ever heard.


----------



## janxharris

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> * Tony Banks* is one of my all-time favorite rock musicians, and one of the worst classical composers I've ever heard.


I know where you are coming from.


----------



## anonymousboi

I made an account just now to to disagree with everything you just said. Listen to Stravinsky more especially, just because his music is blatantly complicated doesn't mean it doesn't deserve some admiration. Give these composers a chance!

Suggestion: On YouTube search up sheet music Petrushka (is that it?) and listen from start to finish. Imagine each melody/subject as a different character. You will hopefully like Stravinsky now.


----------



## ArtMusic

The worst composers, which I can easily and objectively show, are: Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Baroque and Classical music, and subsequent periods were defaced by their weak compositions. Nothing can be further from the truth.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

ArtMusic said:


> The worst composers, which I can easily and objectively show, are: Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Baroque and Classical music, and subsequent periods were defaced by their weak compositions. Nothing can be further from the truth.


In a way the most influential composers are also the worst, albeit through no fault of their own.


----------



## ArtMusic

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> In a way the most influential composers are also the worst, albeit through no fault of their own.


Yes, the aforementioned my me in my post above are the worst in [______]. You may fill in the blank with anything you wish. Those composers should have not even have existed.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I would like to mention Satie, but maybe I won't...


----------



## Roger Knox

distantprommer said:


> Listening to Prom 50 today.
> 
> Now playing a work by Gerald Barry, named Canada. A world premiere performance with the CBSO.
> 
> Is this the worst composition ever? Worst composer? Will I ever listen to it again?


Never heard of him, in spite of my location.


----------



## Portamento

Roger Knox said:


> Never heard of him, in spite of my location.


Well, Barry is Irish. AFAIK he is fairly well-known in the contemporary music world. His most "famous" work is probably an opera, _The Importance of Being Earnest_ -- I haven't heard it but have read good things. Don't expect an easy listen, though...


----------



## christomacin

I don't know about "worst", but there are some composers I find quite boring. Palestrina is one, Koechlin is another. Mompou can be quite good when he is awake, but he seemed to spend most of his musical time in a semi-catatonic state.


----------



## SanAntone

What is the point of this thread?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Air said:


> Leopold Mozart.









hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 150717
> 
> "Leopold Mozart was a talented musician who well understood his craft as a composer....many of his church pieces, of which we find masses, litanies, offertories and many others in considerable number are among the best that he wrote."
> -Ernst Fritz Schmid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "his liturgical works are of greater worth than his chamber pieces."
> -German musicologist Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As a church composer, Leopold stands at the height of his time."
> -Wolfgang Plath
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Of the manuscript compositions by Herr Mozart which have become known, numerous contrapuntal and other church pieces are especially noteworthy."
> http://conquest.imslp.info/files/im...MLP169311-Litaniæ_de_Venerabili_C.pdf#page=42


----------



## DaveM

Roger Knox said:


> Never heard of him, in spite of my location.


Cause he's not very good.


----------



## LesCyclopes

Bartok. Two hands playing totally unrelated, bizarroid melodies. It's like someone singing off key next to you in a choir, throughout the entire piece. 

Torturous. 

P.S.: There are probably composers who are a lot worse in the history of music, but as a harpsichord player, Bartok is the worst I've personally ever had to play.


----------



## hammeredklavier

LesCyclopes said:


> Bartok. Two hands playing totally unrelated, bizarroid melodies. It's like someone singing off key next to you in a choir, throughout the entire piece.


Try:




Someone wrote -"As is the case of all music, but especially post-Romantic, 20th Century music, describing this one is almost impossible. The entire piece, in four movements, is written without key signature, but, while it is strictly atonal, the strictness of its adherence to the Baroque traditions of a fugue make it intensely arresting, and not difficult to follow. If you were to describe an impression the music gives you, *you might say it sounds like some hideous monster sneaking up on you slowly, ever patiently, until about two-thirds of the way through, you, the audience, turn and see the monster, and have to decide what to do next.* In the end, you cautiously back away from it. Of course, that's only this lister's impression. Its almost unbearable intensity, however, cannot be ignored."


----------



## Animal the Drummer

christomacin said:


> I don't know about "worst", but there are some composers I find quite boring. Palestrina is one, Koechlin is another. Mompou can be quite good when he is awake, but he seemed to spend most of his musical time in a semi-catatonic state.


I'd have agreed with all these once, but have warmed to Palestrina since joining a church choir which, despite being Anglican, sings a number of his Masses.

My addition to this list: Medtner. Can't see the attraction at all there, I'm afraid.


----------



## Bulldog

Animal the Drummer said:


> My addition to this list: Medtner. Can't see the attraction at all there, I'm afraid.


If you haven't tried them, check out Medtner's 3 violin sonatas. That's where I feel he's at his best.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Thanks, I will.


----------

