Comparing Composers

[Luke]

There was plenty of poorly written music before Chopin and Grieg too (Chopin and Grieg aren't contemporaries of each other, you know, btw). There's always plenty of poorly-written music. But I don't think you mean poorly-written; I think you mean 'stuff you don't like'.

[drogulus]

As I think about it more deeply,

     You lost me after that.

There was plenty of poorly written music before Chopin and Grieg too (Chopin and Grieg aren't contemporaries of each other, you know, btw). There's always plenty of poorly-written music. But I don't think you mean poorly-written; I think you mean 'stuff you don't like'.

     There is plenty of music that I don't like. Some of it is just music that I haven't gotten around to liking yet, and perhaps never will, time being limited. And some music seems to me of limited worth, produced for a commercial purpose or in pursuit of fashion or high dogma. Yet even in egregious cases I hesitate to say such music is worthless. The most I'd be willing to say is that persons of wide experience will not get much from it. For classical music that has survived for a century or more I wouldn't dream of putting it in a category like that, no matter how uninteresting it might be for me.

[Saul]

There was plenty of poorly written music before Chopin and Grieg too (Chopin and Grieg aren't contemporaries of each other, you know, btw). There's always plenty of poorly-written music. But I don't think you mean poorly-written; I think you mean 'stuff you don't like'.

I mean to say that whatever music was composed after these composers, just doesnt match in anyway with the Greats. And I believe that this is the case because they departed from the Traditional classical forms.

[Scarpia]

I mean to say that whatever music was composed after these composers, just doesnt match in anyway with the Greats. And I believe that this is the case because they departed from the Traditional classical forms.

The classical forms weren't traditional when Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven were using them.  They were inventing them as they went along.  Clearly you prefer music from that era, and you have confuse your own preference with the quality of the music itself.

[Saul]

The classical forms weren't traditional when Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven were using them.  They were inventing them as they went along.  Clearly you prefer music from that era, and you have confuse your own preference with the quality of the music itself.

I believe that it has to do with greatness too. No serious musician or music student will tell you that Rachmaninov was greater then Beethoven.

[Teresa]

Yes, him too. After Chopin and Grieg basically much of the music is worthless.

Worthless to you, but not to me and others who LOVE late romantic and modern classical music.  Not big on Chopin but Grieg is one of my favorite composers along with Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky and hundreds of other composers born after 1800.  I personally feel orchestral music GREATLY improved after Rimsky-Korsakov as composers started using the orchestral as a musical canvas giving us much more colorful music.  In short I love and adore what you feel is worthless.

[Saul]

Worthless to you, but not to me and others who LOVE late romantic and modern classical music.  Not big on Chopin but Grieg is one of my favorite composers along with Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky and hundreds of other composers born after 1800.  I personally feel orchestral music GREATLY improved after Rimsky-Korsakov as composers started using the orchestral as a musical canvas giving up much more colorful music.  In short I love and adore what you feel is worthless.

I have never said that it was more then an opinion.

[Teresa]

I believe that it hasto do with greatness too.No serious musician or music student will tell you that Rachmaninov was greater then Beethoven.

OK I will, I play Guitar and Piano, compose Folk and Classical music and without any doubt whatsoever will say that Rachmaninov is a FAR greater composer than Beethoven!  The greatness of Rachmaninov's Symphonies and Symphonic Poems have never been surpassed by anyone IMHO.

[drogulus]

I believe that it hasto do with greatness too.No serious musician or music student will tell you that Rachmaninov was greater then Beethoven.

     Most serious students of music waste little or no time with such comparisons. It's fun to do lists and rankings on a forum (I think so, anyway) but it has little relevance to the pleasures of listening, where you may want to hear a wide variety of music without bothering very much about rankings.

     

OK I will, I play Guitar and Piano, compose Folk and Classical music and without any doubt whatsoever will say that Rachmaninov is a FAR greater composer than Beethoven!  The greatness of Rachmaninov's Symphonies and Symphonic Poems have never been surpassed by anyone IMHO.

     So you rate composers according to how much you like them. So do I, in an informal sense. I do more than that, though, and so do many others. Many of us consider how widely composers have affected music lovers over time, and how they have influenced the course of music. Besides, if greatness is just equal to what you like there isn't much to think deeply about, is there? It's great because you like it, you like it because it's great.

     I have a question about that simple equation. How is it that you learn to love new music that you did not value before? Has the music suddenly become great? What if you cease to find it interesting? Has it acquired the objective property of worthlessness?*

     _{*(OK, that's 3 questions. So what?? )}

[Saul]

OK I will, I play Guitar and Piano, compose Folk and Classical music and without any doubt whatsoever will say that Rachmaninov is a FAR greater composer than Beethoven!  The greatness of Rachmaninov's Symphonies and Symphonic Poems have never been surpassed by anyone IMHO.

The Masters of the Baroque and Classical era are just the greatest. All others composers who came after them acknowledge that not because they were humble but because they knew it to be true, it wasn't a statement of an opinion, but it was an acknowledgment of fact. And if you pay close attention, all those Romantic composers who came after the classical era and composed their music in accordance to the classical  style and form, are far greater composers in quality then those who didn't. Mendelssohn for example was a purist and composed his music in the style of the Baroque and Classical masters, of course he had his own unique style but it was largely built upon the greats. They were his foundations when it came to composing music, this is why Mendelssohn is by far a superior composer then rachmaninov, precisely because of that, the crystal clarity and vividness and astonishing logic and pureness of his 3rd and 4th symphonies overpowers anything that Rachmaninov produced, and even Rach would have told you the same thing. Brahms, a romantic composer also  attuned his works to the examples of the greats, and therefore he is a greater composer then Rachmaninov.

Rachmaninov is all about passion, lots of notes and little content,  almost a banal in a sense, this is why Arthur Rubinstein said famously that Rachmaninov's music lacks Nobility. And I totally agree with it.

Also its not only about liking one type of music over the other, but understanding the quality of music and how it was composed. Classical music written by the greats was thought out way more then any modern music beginning with Rachmaninov. His third piano concerto for example, is a total banal, while his second concerto is totally un interesting and boring. I didn't have the urge to listen to these concertos for a long time... I mean who wants to go through his autobiographical sketches that lack, unity, form and exhibit an unrestrained passion,  even Liszt knew how to dress those un controlled musical ballistic urges with a solid classical framework. And I don't even want to go and talk about Prokofiev and Poulenc, I mean the music that they have written would have made the Greats roll in laughter at best, or in disgust at worst.

[Bulldog]

I have never said that it was more then an opinion.

And an opinion based on nothing but personal preference.  You, Teresa, and a few other members keep singing the same song - If I love it, it's great; If I don't like it, it's not worthy.  That's a child-like attitude where each of you is the center of the universe.

[Teresa]

And an opinion based on nothing but personal preference.  You, Teresa, and a few other members keep singing the same song - If I love it, it's great; If I don't like it, it's not worthy.  That's a child-like attitude where each of you is the center of the universe.

Happy news for you (I hope) EVERYONE is the center of their own universe.  And everyone loves what they love.  If that is child-like, let us all remain children until the end of our days!

Finally what I love is great to me, what I do not love is not worthy.  By the same token what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy.  This is the way the world is.

[drogulus]

Rachmaninov is all about passion, lots of notes and little content,  almost a banal in a sense, this is why Arthur Rubinstein said famously that Rachmaninov's music lacks Nobility. And I totally agree with it.

     It didn't lack notes, though. Rubenstein played them well, too. I seriously doubt that he thought the music was worthless. And if, against all reason, he did think that, I would think his own contributions would render that judgment plainly false.

     



     

[Scarpia]

Happy news for you (I hope) EVERYONE is the center of their own universe.  And everyone loves what they love.  If that is child-like, let us all remain children until the end of our days!

Finally what I love is great to me, what I do not love is not worthy.  By the same token what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy.  This is the way the world is.

You are confusing child-like with childish.

[Saul]

     It didn't lack notes, though. Rubenstein played them well, too. I seriously doubt that he thought the music was worthless. And if, against all reason, he did think that, I would think his own contributions would render that judgment plainly false.

     
   

Yes this is a fact, that pianists sometimes perform music that they are not really excited about because performing them is important for them as pianists.

[drogulus]

Happy news for you (I hope) EVERYONE is the center of their own universe.  And everyone loves what they love.  If that is child-like, let us all remain children until the end of our days!

Finally what I love is great to me, what I do not love is not worthy.  By the same token what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy.  This is the way the world is.

     You're partly right, but the part you're wrong about is too important to ignore since it's central to claims about the value of art, which is both personally and socially derived. So I'd say that this is the way the world seems, and it's a discovery that everyone must make that there is a world outside of ones seemings, and aesthetic values exist in that world in addition to the seemingly private one.

[Saul]

Here's an example of banality:

http://www.youtube.com/v/cC4kJiTHTtQ

[Teresa]

     So you rate composers according to how much you like them. So do I, in an informal sense. I do more than that, though, and so do many others. Many of us consider how widely composers have affected music lovers over time, and how they have influenced the course of music. Besides, if greatness is just equal to what you like there isn't much to think deeply about, is there? It's great because you like it, you like it because it's great.

     I have a question about that simple equation. How is it that you learn to love new music that you did not value before? Has the music suddenly become great? What if you cease to find it interesting? Has it acquired the objective property of worthlessness?*

     _{*(OK, that's 3 questions. So what?? )}

I either like or dislike music on first hearing it.  Sometimes I even love music on first exposure and sometimes it takes many playings to fall in-love with a composition.  Also sometimes if I only slightly like a composition on first hearing, after repeated hearings I turn out I do not like it after all.  Generally I know for sure within five playings.  And for some works such as Prokofiev's Scythian Suite or Nielsen's Aladdin Suite that love continues to grow stronger over many decades.

That music that is not worth listening to is what I consider unworthy to me, it will be different for other listeners depending on how they FEEL about the music under consideration.  Each listener will choose the music they like.

[Bulldog]

Finally what I love is great to me, what I do not love is not worthy.  By the same token what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy.  This is the way the world is.

Please don't take your personal views and assign them to me.  I don't think like you do; consider it a fact. 

[Teresa]

Please don't take your personal views and assign them to me.  I don't think like you do; consider it a fact.

Are you trying to tell me what you love is NOT great to you, what you do not love is SOMEHOW worthy to you?  That makes no sense whatsoever to me! 

My logical statement applies to the majority of human race, people like what they like and do not like what they do not like.  The only exception would he masochists.