Unpopular Opinions

[SimonNZ]

Robert Frost's long poems are better than his short poems.

[Symphonic Addict]

Berlioz's Les nuits d'été is one of the most boring, turgid, lifeless pieces of music I've ever heard. It came on the radio recently while I was driving and I almost fell asleep at the wheel!

When soft music can get dangerous. 

[Symphonic Addict]

Chopin is the most original, interesting and influential composer of his generation.

Except S1 and S4, Bruckner's symphonies are the epitome of boredom and turgidity.

You're doing it well! 

As for the Bruckner statement, I can understand it because you seem more drawn to small-scale pieces than large musical structures.

[Florestan]

Sorry, this was a simple typo. Predecessor [of the ones who come after him] = Beethoven, not plural. Everybody after Beethoven has to be very innovative because Beethoven exhausted the contemporary art of music. I think that this is to some extent corroborated by several composers of the 1830s and 40s. Chopin basically ignored Beethoven. Berlioz, Liszt, Schumann and Mendelssohn could not entirely ignore him but at least the first three have important works that are also "evading" Beethoven. Berlioz took Beethoven's symphonies as point of departure but with lots of opera, choral music and a much stronger programmatic content in his symphonic works, he is also very different. Liszt stuck to piano pieces (mostly not sonatas) for the first part of his career, Schumann also began with "free" piano pieces but then took up the burden of following up Beethovenian symphonies and quartets. Mendelssohn was classicist throughout and wrote some (early) pieces rather close to Beethoven (early string quartets and piano sonatas) but did also some evasion, with e.g. the violin concerto or the Italian symphony being very different from Beethoven and a lot of his stlye is informed more by Bach, Handel, Mozart than Beethoven.

Mendelssohn is arguably the only contemporary composer who actually understood and absorbed Beethoven's late works (as displayed in his own early string quartets & sonatas) and thus is the most direct line of influence deriving from Beethoven. He understood Beethoven's late work as neoclassical or "neo-baroque" in a sense, looking back to Mozart/Bach/Handel, as well as the experimentation with cyclical form, and made these the focus of virtually all of his work. After his death, the only subsequent "Beethovenian" in the same sense, in the nineteenth century, was probably Cesar Franck. Everyone else (even Brahms to a great extent) followed the Mozart-Schubert or Mozart-Chopin paths of influence that sidelined Beethoven and his work. Schumann's quartets are not "Beethovenian" for example, although op. 41 no. 3 is "Mendelssohnian" in its first movement and therefore Beethoven-derived. Otherwise they are mostly Schubertian, and the same with his symphonies. Brahms's First makes a conscious attempt to emulate Beethoven without being compositionally anything like Beethoven; it's a Mendelssohn-Schubert hybrid created in an attempt to give the symphonic genre the weight and gravitas Brahms thought it had in Beethoven's day. (Which it did not. It was a festive orchestral showpiece for the public. Even Beethoven's 9th was an essentially popular, "middle-period" work, without most of the musical and technical difficulties of his late quartets etc. The Symphony™ as an elite intellectual genre therefore is essentially Brahms's own invention.)

In the twentieth century the closest we get to a "Beethovenian" would be Béla Bartók, but the materials of music had changed significantly by that point.

Otherwise Beethoven actually had almost no influence on music history, and if he were removed from it, the works of most subsequent composers would be largely unaffected. (The same is true of, e.g., JS Bach, Handel, Scarlatti.) Mozart and CPE Bach on the other hand are keystones, without whom music history post 1800 would make almost no sense, and the same is true of, e.g., Rossini, Chopin, Schubert. And the reception of music would be very different—but probably better—without Beethoven.

That's exactly why Chopin is the most original, interesting and influential composer of his generation, which included Schumann and Mendelssohn. Unlike the latter two, he never succumbed to Beethovenism. And paradoxically for someone who so deeply hated "the Muscovites", his legacy in terms of musical esthetics was cherished and carried on mainly by Russians.

TD: the culmination point of Viennese Classicism is Brahms.

[Florestan]

You're doing it well! 

As for the Bruckner statement, I can understand it because you seem more drawn to small-scale pieces than large musical structures.

While it's true that I prefer solo piano or chamber music to orchestral music, I have no problem with Mahler. Actually, my favorite Mahler symphony is the Third, that is almost two hours of music. But while M3 has very few, if any, dull moments, Bruckner's entire output has very few, if any, interesting moments.

[Karl Henning]

Ah well, if this is unpopular, I don't want to conform.

Overall, I think it a poorly thought post (for this thread)

[Madiel]

Shostakovich string quartet no.12 is better than Beethoven string quartet no.12.

[Symphonic Addict]

Tchaikovsky was a better tunesmith than Rachmaninov.

[Florestan]

Tchaikovsky was a better tunesmith than Rachmaninov.

Well, he composed  much more than Raxhmaninoff so he has much more tunes. This might indeed give the impression that he was a better tunesmith but I'd say that the pupil was more than worth of his teacher.

[Madiel]

Well, I mean, if tunes are what you're into...

[Florestan]

Well, I mean, if tunes are what you're into...

Melody is the essence of music. The guy who claimed this had no idea about this thread but his statement fits quite well here. 

[Madiel]

Melody is the essence of music. The guy who claimed this had no idea about this thread but his statement fits quite well here. 

What is melody, is it synonymous with "tune", etc. etc.

Instrumental music that you can actually sing along to is a bit... limited. Give me things a voice couldn't do.

[Florestan]

What is melody, is it synonymous with "tune", etc. etc.

Instrumental music that you can actually sing along to is a bit... limited. Give me things a voice couldn't do.

There is this other guy who claimed that

11- It is not only necessary that you should be able to play your pieces on the instrument, but you should also be able to hum the air without the piano. Strengthen your imagination so, that you may not only retain the melody of a composition, but even the harmony which belongs to it.

12- Endeavour, even with a poor voice, to sing at first sight without the aid of the instrument; by these means your ear for music will constantly improve.

[Madiel]

There is this other guy who claimed that

11- It is not only necessary that you should be able to play your pieces on the instrument, but you should also be able to hum the air without the piano. Strengthen your imagination so, that you may not only retain the melody of a composition, but even the harmony which belongs to it.

12- Endeavour, even with a poor voice, to sing at first sight without the aid of the instrument; by these means your ear for music will constantly improve.

Given that my piano has a range that is a hell of a lot wider than my voice, this other guy needs to work on his theory. Neither Rachmaninov nor Chopin would have been constrained to writing piano music that a voice could hum.

[Florestan]

Given that my piano has a range that is a hell of a lot wider than my voice, this other guy needs to work on his theory.

Well, he said "even with a poor voice". But perhaps you're right, he was never good at theory, though he had some idea about piano playing and singing. His name was Robert Schumann.

Neither Rachmaninov nor Chopin would have been constrained to writing piano music that a voice could hum.

True,  but the funny thing is that many of the former's and most of the latter's piano pieces can be hummed.  Given the former's love for Orthodox chant and the latter's love for belcanto, it's nothing surprising actually.

[Jo498]

Tchaikovsky was a better tunesmith than Rachmaninov.

Hardly unpopular, although I admittedly know far more Tchaikovsky than Rachmaninov. Spontaneously I can think of 2-3 famous tunes by the latter and about 100 by the former. Although PIT is not immune against repeating some folksong to death with trivial variations (finale of the 2nd symphony, IIRC).
And Rachmaninov overused the Dies irae which is a great motive but if he had had too many tunes of his own, he would hardly have used the Dies irae in every other piece.

[amw]

I agree, that opinion is much too popular. I'll throw in a somewhat more unpopular one: Shostakovich was a better tunesmith than Tchaikovsky. (At least when he actually wrote tunes instead of just 4 note motifs)

[Madiel]

Well, he said "even with a poor voice". But perhaps you're right, he was never good at theory, though he had some idea about piano playing and singing. His name was Robert Schumann.

Oh, what a surprise. Here's an opinion: either Schumann was wrong or you've taken him out of context.

Chopin didn't think much of Schumann's music of course...

EDIT: This is not singable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT_q5d84cVY

[Madiel]

This unpopular opinion was in fact already a subject of discussion on this thread some years ago, but what the heck:

The Grosse Fugue should be kept out of Beethoven's op.130 quartet.

[Florestan]

Oh, what a surprise. Here's an opinion: either Schumann was wrong or you've taken him out of context.

You can read the whole thing here, for context:

http://waltercosand.com/CosandScores/Composers%20Q-Z/Schumann,%20Robert/Books/Advice%20to%20Young%20Musicians(Eng).pdf

I'm not saying he's right or wrong. I just registered his opinion because it seemed to me to fit in this thread.

Chopin didn't think much of Schumann's music of course...

Yes, that's true. He was in love with Bach, Mozart* and belcanto instead.

*the guy who claimed that "melody is the essence of music".

EDIT: This is not singable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT_q5d84cVY

Funny and interesting how different people can hear the same music so differently. To my ears, Vogel als Prophet is one of the most songlike and cantabile piano works ever penned, and of all the performances out there you chose one of the most songlike and cantabile to illustrate the point that it's actually not singable. 

For me, this is not singable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMM6h9Yf348