Composers you don't like

[Mirror Image]

Excellent, John - I was slightly amazed by your opinion on him before. He's like no-one else, but fits right in with your other favourites.

Perhaps Mahler has helped, too. (although they're completely different composers)
Coincidentally, that's the one symphony I haven't 'got' yet. Must try again soon.

Here's what Menuhin said about his visit to Ainola in 1955. (sorry about the poor translation by yours truely)

"I was in luck, as he wasn't drunk. Apparently, he drank a lot, but he was sober when we met, and very friendly and hospitable.It was a beautiful fall day and we sat on the porch. He was a relaxed old-timer, at peace with himself.
I was startled when he asked me "who is the greatest composer of the century". He himself was a candidate, and it would have been impolite to name someone else. Luckily, he got me out of trouble by saying that he thought it was Bartók. This pleased me, for I had known Bartók and value him greatly."
http://www.sibelius.fi/suomi/ainola/muistoja_muusikoita.html

I really don't know why I said those things about Sibelius which obviously weren't true, but I think I made these comments because I was starting to feel that maybe Sibelius wasn't that important to me anymore. Thankfully, I was wrong of course. He really has always been a favorite of mine. The first symphony that I heard of Sibelius' was his 2nd and when the last movement was over, I just sat back in my chair, smiled, and nodded. I just heard a sliver of genius and some of the greatest music this planet has ever produced. When I listen to Sibelius, everything makes much more sense to me.

The 6th was a symphony that gave me some problems for quite some time until I read what Sibelius wrote about it:

"The sixth symphony always reminds me of the scent of the first snow. Rage and passion...are utterly essential in it, but it is supported by undercurrents deep under the surface of the music."

[mahler10th]

"...Luckily, he got me out of trouble by saying that he thought it was Bartók. This pleased me, for I had known Bartók and value him greatly."
http://www.sibelius.fi/suomi/ainola/muistoja_muusikoita.html
http://www.amazon.es/Gustav-Mahler-Michael-Tilson-Thomas/dp/B004WSX6DO/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1348607907&sr=1-1

Wow.  How interesting!  I had no idea.     Good old Sibelius!

[Brian]

Looking back at my comments, how could I say some of the things that I did about Sibelius?!?!? I mean really WTF?!?!? Anyway, let me say that I suppose during that time I was suffering quite a Sibelius drought and then I put on Symphony No. 6 all of these sudden doubts I had completely washed away. The man was an outstanding composer.

People change and grow quite a lot as listeners. We're always happy to see it happen, and I'm always happy when it happens to me.

[Mirror Image]

People change and grow quite a lot as listeners. We're always happy to see it happen, and I'm always happy when it happens to me.

I was reading my comments again and it just surprises me that I wrote that at all. Sibelius was a personal hero of mine and he helped me get a grasp of classical music. In fact, I got into Nielsen, the same time I got into Sibelius as someone recommended both of these composers to me and said they were two of leading Nordic composers of their time.

I'm listening to Sibelius as I type and after this recording, I'm going to listen to some Nielsen. To paraphrase Rachmaninov: "So much music, so little. time."

[The new erato]

People change and grow quite a lot as listeners. We're always happy to see it happen, and I'm always happy when it happens to me.

That's why I listen. Or else I would still listen to children songs. More seriously though; that feeling of achievement when you "align" with a composer you earlier on didn' quite get along with (or understand) is a pretty good feeling.

[CriticalI]

Prompted by recent posts elsewhere - Scriabin is another composer who bores me. Is this partly Muti's fault? I probably need to hear Golovanov or Svetlanov before making a final verdict.

[Mirror Image]

Prompted by recent posts elsewhere - Scriabin is another composer who bores me. Is this partly Muti's fault? I probably need to hear Golovanov or Svetlanov before making a final verdict.

What composers do you actually like, eyeresist? List your top 10 favorite composers that you couldn't live without.

[xochitl]

that feeling of achievement when you "align" with a composer you earlier on didn' quite get along with (or understand) is a pretty good feeling.

yup 

after many years of trying i finaly got into schumann, probably because i grew up/learned more history and decided to stop blaming him for the kinds of things i hated in most romantic music

i still can't listen to him if i wanna have a good time tho.  gotta be in a darker mood 

[CriticalI]

What composers do you actually like, eyeresist? List your top 10 favorite composers that you couldn't live without.

I realise that there are a number of prominent composers who I am not ashamed to say I don't care for (can't the same be said for you?).
Some of the composers who clog up my playlists (special faves are bolded):
Amirov
Barber
Bax
Bruckner
Chausson
Copland
Dvorak
Elgar
Godar
Hanson
Haydn
Herrmann
Hindemith
Holst
Honegger
Kalinnikov
Khachaturian
Liszt
Mahler
Mozart
Penderecki
Prokofiev
Rachmaninov
Saint Saens
Schnittke
Schubert
Schuman
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Terterian
Vaughan Williams
Vivaldi
Wagner

Is that enough? Is that enough for you to accept that I care about music, even though I don't like some of the things you like?

[Mirror Image]

Is that enough? Is that enough for you to accept that I care about music, even though I don't like some of the things you like?

The reason I asked you is to get to know you better and know your tastes. That's all. A simple question which evidently caused you to react irrationally. Anyway, nice list. And remember I just asked you to list your top 10.

My top 10 would look something like this:

1. Shostakovich
2. Ravel
3. Bartok
4. Vaughan Williams
5. Villa-Lobos
6. Stravinsky
7. Prokofiev
8. Debussy
9. Sibelius
10. Tippett

The names in bold are the ones that never change order.

[CriticalI]

Oh, okay. Anyway, I couldn't list a top 10 because as you see there are only 6 ultra-top favourites - and even then there are certain works by other "minor" composers which I love vehemently, perhaps as much as the entire opuses of my bolded faves, e.g. Kalinnikov 1, Khachaturian 2, Terterian 3 & 4, Liszt's Heroide Funebre, which makes weighing everything to determine a set order-of-liking impossible.

Looking at what I've listed, I'd say I like stuff that is thematically striking (we're not allowed to say "good tunes" ), rich and full in sound (but with variety, of course), and with a strong overall structure.

[Mirror Image]

Oh, okay. Anyway, I couldn't list a top 10 because as you see there are only 6 ultra-top favourites - and even then there are certain works by other "minor" composers which I love vehemently, perhaps as much as the entire opuses of my bolded faves, e.g. Kalinnikov 1, Khachaturian 2, Terterian 3 & 4, Liszt's Heroide Funebre, which makes weighing everything to determine a set order-of-liking impossible.

Looking at what I've listed, I'd say I like stuff that is thematically striking (we're not allowed to say "good tunes" ), rich and full in sound (but with variety, of course), and with a strong overall structure.

I see. Well it's good to see what you enjoy and it gives me a better idea of where you stand in terms of musical taste. I like all kinds of moods and I don't consider structure in music to be a make or break thing as I like a lot of music that just kind of floats by and is atmospheric. The reason I enjoy composers like Debussy, Ravel, and Delius so much because of the fact that structure wasn't everything to them. Not that they couldn't compose a work that was concise and direct. Ravel wrote many works where there's not a note out-of-place and that relies on structure. But with Debussy and Delius, I don't worry so much with their music, because for me it's an aural experience. Not everything has to be so cut and dry with me. I like a variety of styles, which is one reason why I take to the 20th Century more than any other period of music. It's simply the most musically diverse century of any period in classical music. All, of course, IMHO.

[The new erato]

We need a new thread "What are you NOT listening to" in the General Classical Music Discussion section.

I can fill that with a zillion posts in a zilch.

[CriticalI]

I like all kinds of moods and I don't consider structure in music to be a make or break thing as I like a lot of music that just kind of floats by and is atmospheric. The reason I enjoy composers like Debussy, Ravel, and Delius so much because of the fact that structure wasn't everything to them. Not that they couldn't compose a work that was concise and direct. Ravel wrote many works where there's not a note out-of-place and that relies on structure. But with Debussy and Delius, I don't worry so much with their music, because for me it's an aural experience. Not everything has to be so cut and dry with me.

Maybe one reason I need structure is that I have a short attention span

I note that neither of us cares much for opera. For me I think the main reason is that they are (usually) structured to fit the libretto, rather than to stand on their own as music.

But, oddly in contrast to that, I have a problem with atonal music that tries to use old structural methods - new wine in old skins and all that. I don't know if sonata form and variation technique can really be effective if you've ruled out "common practice" tonality as a basic reference point. I think atonal music is a case in which dramatic or program work is preferable, in order to be coherent over large structures.

[Madiel]

I don't know if sonata form and variation technique can really be effective if you've ruled out "common practice" tonality as a basic reference point.

I can certainly see it being a problem with sonata form, given the number of references I've seen recently to its basic rationale involving heading from a 'home' to a 'far out point' somewhere in the development and back again.  It's fairly hard to have a 'home' to head out from if you don't have tonality and the sense of heirarchy within the scale that comes with it.

[Superhorn]

   According to stories Saint-Saens  actually was a pederast, and when he visited  Algeria and other North African countires, he took advantage of  the availability of  young boys who were being prostituted . Yuck !  But I still like his music  . 

[Mirror Image]

Maybe one reason I need structure is that I have a short attention span

I note that neither of us cares much for opera. For me I think the main reason is that they are (usually) structured to fit the libretto, rather than to stand on their own as music.

But, oddly in contrast to that, I have a problem with atonal music that tries to use old structural methods - new wine in old skins and all that. I don't know if sonata form and variation technique can really be effective if you've ruled out "common practice" tonality as a basic reference point. I think atonal music is a case in which dramatic or program work is preferable, in order to be coherent over large structures.

Different composers require different kinds of listening. You can't listen to Debussy the same way you listen to say Villa-Lobos. That just wouldn't work, but if you listen to each composer differently and put away your personal biases, then the end result could be quite satisfactory. I don't mind atonal music, but I'm not going to seek it out, because, like any music, there's some junk out there that needs to be filtered out. I can stand The Second Viennese School of Music, but I can't stand composers like Stockhausen or Boulez who just took this stuff too far out.

Opera is a medium I could live without and have lived without for quite some time. I do like some operas, but it's not a favorite genre and I doubt it ever will be. But there are some operas that exceded my expectations like those of Wagner, Janacek, Shostakovich, Mussorgsky, Delius, Bartok's only opera, Tippett's The Midsummer Marriage, and a few of Martinu's.

[Sammy]

The reason I asked you is to get to know you better and know your tastes. That's all. A simple question which evidently caused you to react irrationally. Anyway, nice list. And remember I just asked you to list your top 10.

My top 10 would look something like this:

1. Shostakovich
2. Ravel
3. Bartok
4. Vaughan Williams
5. Villa-Lobos
6. Stravinsky
7. Prokofiev
8. Debussy
9. Sibelius
10. Tippett

The names in bold are the ones that never change order.

That's a funny list but not as amusing as my current one:

1.   Bach
2.   Shostakovich
3.   Schumann
4.   Scriabin
5.   Weinberg
6.   Mahler
7.   Dvorak
8.   Beethoven
9.   Mozart
10. Myaskovsky

The only name that never changes position is Bach.  If I ever do change it, you'll know it's time to put me down.

[Mirror Image]

That's a funny list but not as amusing as my current one:

1.   Bach
2.   Shostakovich
3.   Schumann
4.   Scriabin
5.   Weinberg
6.   Mahler
7.   Dvorak
8.   Beethoven
9.   Mozart
10. Myaskovsky

The only name that never changes position is Bach.  If I ever do change it, you'll know it's time to put me down.

Didn't know you ranked Mysakovsky so highly. He's a great composer. Thank goodness for Svetlanov and his dedication to this composer. Also nice to see Shostakovich, Scriabin, and Weinberg on your list. I'm still getting into Weinberg.

[xochitl]

Opera is a medium I could live without and have lived without for quite some time. I do like some operas, but it's not a favorite genre and I doubt it ever will be. But there are some operas that exceded my expectations like those of Wagner, Janacek, Shostakovich, Mussorgsky, Delius, Bartok's only opera, Tippett's The Midsummer Marriage, and a few of Martinu's.

i dont generally like opera unless it's by Britten