5 Worst Composers Ever!!

[karlhenning]

You and me, Ray.

BTW, I have nearly all 500...



----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 27 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 17 #3 4th mvmt - Allegro di molto

What is the Gurn Vivaldi count these days? I am interested!

[Tapkaara]

Well, but not Mozart.  You may not like Mozart, you may perhaps even be unable to stand Mozart.  But to say that his music is bad music, casts question on your musical judgment.

It's probably just another case of using the wrong word, but I suppose TO ME Mozart's music is bad in the sense it does nothing for me. Music I personally deem good is music I am more likely to enjoy.

I've heard people say, for example, that Mahler was a ""bad composer" and Glass is a "bad" composer, and with those statements I disagree. I don't think either is a bad composer; I enjoy them and thus they offer something of worth to me. By that virtue, they are "good."

But ultimately, it was bad choice of words. Mozart was not a hack. I cannot scientifically say he's a "bad" compoer...I just don't like him.

[Gurn Blanston]

What is the Gurn Vivaldi count these days? I am interested!

479. Included are a few operas and most of the sacred music though. Not all concerti and sonatas.



----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 29 Quartet in G for Strings Op 17 #5 3rd mvmt - Adagio

[Gurn Blanston]

It's probably just another case of using the wrong word, but I suppose TO ME Mozart's music is bad in the sense it does nothing for me. Music I personally deem good is music I am more likely to enjoy.

I've heard people say, for example, that Mahler was a ""bad composer" and Glass is a "bad" composer, and with those statements I disagree. I don't think either is a bad composer; I enjoy them and thus they offer something of worth to me. By that virtue, they are "good."

But ultimately, it was bad choice of words. Mozart was not a hack. I cannot scientifically say he's a "bad" compoer...I just don't like him.

Now you're talkin'! This is very sensible, at least to MY way of thinking. There are lots of composers whose music I don't like (you chose 2), but I in no way say they are bad. I just prefer to listen to things that suit my disposition. You mentioned early on that you had aroused some passionate outbursts on other fora with statements like that. I think it is fair to say that it was predictable that you would here. DavidW may not even like Mozart, I don't know, but he appears ready to defend him against outrageous charges anyway. Simple logic tells you why....



----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 29 Quartet in G for Strings Op 17 #5 3rd mvmt - Adagio

[Tapkaara]

Now you're talkin'! This is very sensible, at least to MY way of thinking. There are lots of composers whose music I don't like (you chose 2), but I in no way say they are bad. I just prefer to listen to things that suit my disposition. You mentioned early on that you had aroused some passionate outbursts on other fora with statements like that. I think it is fair to say that it was predictable that you would here. DavidW may not even like Mozart, I don't know, but he appears ready to defend him against outrageous charges anyway. Simple logic tells you why....



----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 29 Quartet in G for Strings Op 17 #5 3rd mvmt - Adagio

I don't think my saying I don't like Mozart is an outrageous charge. It's merely a statement of my tastes. I suppose I could have used better words to describe my thoughts, or maybe refrained from posting in this thread all together, but I did.

Yes, I have been to other forums where anything said that is not in favor of Mozart is high heresy. I know he is well-loved...worshipped even...but I was hoping that I would have had the opportunity to state my distaste for him here and not get the angry villagers with their pitchforks. I should probably always assume if I say anything to the contrary of utter admiration of Mozart I will unleash the wolves.

BUT, what gets me is that I said I did not like him and I became the target of, what I would consider to be, an over-the-top and unnecessary "smack down" by my dear friend DavidW. To call my tastes and "breadth" (that MUST be the official word of the thread) into questions because I don't like the works of musicdom's supreme leader is not cool. While I do not claim to be the arbiter of perfect taste, I'd like to think I am proof that one can still have good taste in music and not fall to my knees at the mention of Amadeus's name. I think a little more respect on DavidW's part to my, um, unconventional way of thinking would have been more in order.

I see people not only say they don;t like but put down composers I like all the time. As a fan of Glass, I see it quite often that people HATE him, call him a hack, and you name it. I may get frustrated with that, but I would never call into question their "breadth" of music. (How can you not like good music if you don't like MINIMALISM! Glass is the best Minimalist, so how can you say he's horrible? Have you heard other minimalists??) I might try to convince the opposing party to reconsider their negative thoughts, but I will not go into "smack down" mode because 1. who the hell do I think I am and 2. what does that really accomplish besides coming off as hostile to someone else's valid opinion of a composer? If you don't like it, you don't like it!

So, Gurn, you do not like Mahler and you do not like Glass. This is hard for me to understand as I find much worth in their music. Both were/are capable musicians. But I will respect your distaste of both composers. Glass I can understand more, but Mahler is widely considered one of the greatest symphonists of all time. How odd that you don't hear the greatness that so many others (myself included) hear. But, if he does not float your boat, I cannot and will not hold that against you. I think it's the way it should be. You certainly do not deserve a "smack down."

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't think my saying I don't like Mozart is an outrageous charge. It's merely a statement of my tastes. I suppose I could have used better words to describe my thoughts, or maybe refrained from posting in this thread all together, but I did.

Yes, I have been to other forums where anything said that is not in favor of Mozart is high heresy. I know he is well-loved...worshipped even...but I was hoping that I would have had the opportunity to state my distaste for him here and not get the angry villagers with their pitchforks. I should probably always assume if I say anything to the contrary of utter admiration of Mozart I will unleash the wolves.

BUT, what gets me is that I said I did not like him and I became the target of, what I would consider to be, an over-the-top and unnecessary "smack down" by my dear friend DavidW. To call my tastes and "breadth" (that MUST be the official word of the thread) into questions because I don't like the works of musicdom's supreme leader is not cool. While I do not claim to be the arbiter of perfect taste, I'd like to think I am proof that one can still have good taste in music and not fall to my knees at the mention of Amadeus's name. I think a little more respect on DavidW's part to my, um, unconventional way of thinking would have been more in order.

Well, it was an ill-considered thread to start with, as is generally agreed by all, and as you have discerned already, posting in it may well have been ill-considered too. I call into question my own 'breadth', since I only listen to maybe 250 composers, and nearly all of those are from a relatively narrow period from 1700 to 1900. Which is not to say that I have never heard other composers outside those bounds, I just don't care for a lot that is much earlier, and only a little more that is much later. We all have a focus for our listening, we just need to have some peripheral vision too.

I see people not only say they don;t like but put down composers I like all the time. As a fan of Glass, I see it quite often that people HATE him, call him a hack, and you name it. I may get frustrated with that, but I would never call into question their "breadth" of music. (How can you not like good music if you don't like MINIMALISM! Glass is the best Minimalist, so how can you say he's horrible? Have you heard other minimalists??) I might try to convince the opposing party to reconsider their negative thoughts, but I will not go into "smack down" mode because 1. who the hell do I think I am and 2. what does that really accomplish besides coming off as hostile to someone else's valid opinion of a composer? If you don't like it, you don't like it!

So, Gurn, you do not like Mahler and you do not like Glass. This is hard for me to understand as I find much worth in their music. Both were/are capable musicians. But I will respect your distaste of both composers. Glass I can understand more, but Mahler is widely considered one of the greatest symphonists of all time. How odd that you don't hear the greatness that so many others (myself included) hear. But, if he does not float your boat, I cannot and will not hold that against you. I think it's the way it should be. You certainly do not deserve a "smack down."

True, I don't like them (and many others). But I don't deny their greatness, even though it is in a region that doesn't hold much interest for me. I can see why others like them. This is the opposite of the inference that I took from your posts on Mozart, where it seemed that you were saying that you couldn't see what people saw in him. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's the tenor of it. And so, that's the difference between us then. I was listening to Glass way back in the 1970's. It appealed to me more back then, enough that I invested a considerable sum in all his recordings. Being young and poor at the time, that was devotion. And now I don't, so much. Tastes change, taste doesn't.





----------------
Listening to:
Quattuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 31 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 20 #1 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[Tapkaara]

True, I don't like them (and many others). But I don't deny their greatness, even though it is in a region that doesn't hold much interest for me. I can see why others like them. This is the opposite of the inference that I took from your posts on Mozart, where it seemed that you were saying that you couldn't see what people saw in him. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's the tenor of it. And so, that's the difference between us then. I was listening to Glass way back in the 1970's. It appealed to me more back then, enough that I invested a considerable sum in all his recordings. Being young and poor at the time, that was devotion. And now I don't, so much. Tastes change, taste doesn't.





----------------
Listening to:
Quattuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 31 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 20 #1 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

I actually did make reference to Mozart's skills as a composer earlier in the thread. By virtue of his skills, I can indeed see why people like him. I at no point made the statement "I don't see what others see in him," and I did not set out to infer that. Of course I can see why other like him!

I, too, have areas of focus in music, as we all do. My favorite period if from about 1850 to 1950. The Classical period is my least favorite period, but I do enjoy some Haydn, Paisiello, Cherubini and, of course, Beethoven (if we should consider him classical.) So, I agree, being flexible in one's tastes is a good thing. But we should all be afforded the luxury of being able to openly say who we don't like, even if who we don't like is generally considered to be one of the greatest artists of all time.

And I find it interesting that I was singled out. Comments were made about Gorecki sounding like falling silverware. Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 500 times. But all I said was I can't Mozart. Mozart is a sacred cow, Vivaldi and Gorecki are not.

[Gurn Blanston]

I actually did make reference to Mozart's skills as a composer earlier in the thread. By virtue of his skills, I can indeed see why people like him. I at no point made the statement "I don't see what others see in him," and I did not set out to infer that. Of course I can see why other like him!

Well, all I can say about that is that it came across as insincere. Perhaps it's a communication thing.

I, too, have areas of focus in music, as we all do. My favorite period if from about 1850 to 1950. The Classical period is my least favorite period, but I do enjoy some Haydn, Paisiello, Cherubini and, of course, Beethoven (if we should consider him classical.) So, I agree, being flexible in one's tastes is a good thing. But we should all be afforded the luxury of being able to openly say who we don't like, even if who we don't like is generally considered to be one of the greatest artists of all time.

Only a dunderhead wouldn't appreciate Beethoven, so we'll leave him out of this.  The others are all good, one is another sacred cow. But in any case, what is the advantage to stating one's dislike for a composer? I'm not sure I see the value of it. When people are discussing a composer I like, I stop and chat about it. When they are discussing one I don't like, I move on elsewhere. Why slip in and leave a turd in the punchbowl? Not only is it a guaranteed way to start an argument, but it doesn't say anything about the composer while saying everything about the writer. Since you already know this from earlier experiences, one can only assume that you would like to intentionally make an opportunity to start an argument.

And I find it interesting that I was singled out. Comments were made about Gorecki sounding like falling silverware. Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 500 times. But all I said was I can't Mozart. Mozart is a sacred cow, Vivaldi and Gorecki are not.

Well, don't feel particularly singled out. There are plenty of examples around here of people jumping in and doing just what you did. I have personally bitch-slapped people for crapping on Vivaldi. It just wasn't worth the effort this time. You need to pick your fights. Some cows are more sacred than others. But every cow is sacred to someone. Something to bear in mind when thinking about breaking Gurn's Rule #1.



----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 31 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 20 #1 3rd mvmt - Affettuoso e sostenuto

[Tapkaara]

While there is obvious danger in expressing distaste for composers, I think one should be allowed to and respected if they do, as long as one is not being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. (Mozart is a stupid hack!, for example).

For example, in a discussion on Minimalism, you are without doubt going to get detractors. I think expressing one's opinion either way in such a discussion should be encouraged. As long as statements don't become personal attacks, that is. Differing opinions are healthy to all discussions.

[Gurn Blanston]

While there is obvious danger in expressing distaste for composers, I think one should be allowed to and respected if they do, as long as one is not being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. (Mozart is a stupid hack!, for example).

For example, in a discussion on Minimalism, you are without doubt going to get detractors. I think expressing one's opinion either way in such a discussion should be encouraged. As long as statements don't become personal attacks, that is. Differing opinions are healthy to all discussions.

Well, you are allowed to, but don't expect to be respected for it. You don't appear to see the difference between saying;

"I don't like the Jupiter Symphony, I think Mozart wrote better stuff than that. It may be highly organized in the fugue section, but it doesn't come across to me that way. I prefer the G minor..."

OR

"you guys may like Mozart, but he is a sacred cow that none but me have the balls to kick. I find everything he wrote to be dull and lifeless and with no appeal at all. Sure, he is technically proficient, but so what?". 

One of those two statements is a basis for discussion. The other one is an invitation to an ass-kicking. And that is the difference between what you called "Differing opinions are healthy to all discussions" and a methodical beatdown.




----------------
Listening to:
Quattuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 32 Quartet in C for Strings Op 20 #2 1st mvmt - Moderato

[Tapkaara]

Well, you are allowed to, but don't expect to be respected for it. You don't appear to see the difference between saying;

"I don't like the Jupiter Symphony, I think Mozart wrote better stuff than that. It may be highly organized in the fugue section, but it doesn't come across to me that way. I prefer the G minor..."

OR

"you guys may like Mozart, but he is a sacred cow that none but me have the balls to kick. I find everything he wrote to be dull and lifeless and with no appeal at all. Sure, he is technically proficient, but so what?". 

One of those two statements is a basis for discussion. The other one is an invitation to an ass-kicking. And that is the difference between what you called "Differing opinions are healthy to all discussions" and a methodical beatdown.




----------------
Listening to:
Quattuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 32 Quartet in C for Strings Op 20 #2 1st mvmt - Moderato

I certainly see your point. I suppose I should watch what I type about Mozart in the future, and that's that!

[techniquest]

To my ears, listening to Mozart is like listening to maths. It is perfect in every way, but has no....heart? No soul? I don't know. Doesn't make it bad by any means, in fact quite the opposite as it is, as I say above, perfect in just the same way as a mathematical equation is perfect.

James Horner is probably a very good arranger (mostly of Prokofiev music - his score to 'The Land Before Time' is pure Prokofiev) but that does not make him a good composer.

Maybe I'm the only Gorecki fan?   I feel so base; so common!

I know the feeling - and I also like Khachaturian so imagine how base and common that makes me!

In terms of really bad composers, have a listen to Zolotukhin's Symphony No.2 to experience what bad means.

[The new erato]

The question of this thread has no answer. It is probably someone one has never heard of, usually for a reason. And as could be expected, it evolves into a discussion of which fanmous composer one likes the least. At quite different propostioin.

The threadstarter could just as well have asked: Who is the tallest midget in the world.   

[Dr. Dread]

I think Bruckner/Mahler/Wagner fans just have a lot of spare time.   

[Brian]

If Mozart is the worst, then you must consider the following to be better composers:

Actually, that's the list of composers who wrote Mozart's music.  

I would say Florence Foster Jenkins' ... rearrangements?   ... of the Queen of the Night aria qualify her for the "worst composer" award, by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/v/6h4f77T-LoM

[karlhenning]

. . . I have personally bitch-slapped people for crapping on Vivaldi.

And I have personally munched on popcorn whilst enjoying the show 

[Tapkaara]

I know the feeling - and I also like Khachaturian so imagine how base and common that makes me!

I'm a big Khachaturian fan, too. This is a composer who is often dismissed as tacky and out-of-touch with modern trends in music (during his time.) But I love him.

[Dana]

To my ears, listening to Mozart is like listening to maths. It is perfect in every way, but has no....heart? No soul? I don't know. Doesn't make it bad by any means, in fact quite the opposite as it is, as I say above, perfect in just the same way as a mathematical equation is perfect.

      I get that. Sometimes it's tough to hear the greatness in Mozart when you compare him with Brahms, Wagner, and Mahler. I have found Mozart to be an exceptionally beautiful composer, but the fact of the matter is that he just didn't have the tools that the great romantics have to work with (the lower brass, the bigger wind section, expanded chromatic vocabulary, etc). To the ears of many people, he's the poster-child of the classical era - a smooth, polished, uninteresting sound. To get around that, you have to hear the humanity in Mozart, the way he relates or transforms his ideas. If you ever get the inkling, check out the operas, and the string quartets/quintets. They'll give you a good idea about what Mozart's really about.

[ChamberNut]

To get around that, you have to hear the humanity in Mozart, the way he relates or transforms his ideas. If you ever get the inkling, check out the operas, and the string quartets/quintets. They'll give you a good idea about what Mozart's really about.

Those are good examples Dana, to which I would add that Mozart's heart & soul are in his Piano Concerti.  For some reason, in these works, Mozart's humanity comes out more than in his other works.  IMHO.  0:)

[Tapkaara]

I'd like to know how Mozart's humanity manifests itself in his music, and, why is this even more pronounced in his piano concerti?