Great composers that are not your cup of tea

[karlhenning]

I believe it was Catison who said, on the old forum, that he tried to like every composer. Me too. I didn't start that way. Forty years ago I definitely had composers I disliked: Mozart, Bruckner, Debussy. But I persisted, reading about and listening to the composers others said were among the greats. I figured I was the problem, not the music. The persistance paid off. Sometimes the revelation came in a blinding flash (Bruckner); sometimes it took serious study (reading Charles Rosen's The Classical Style tuned my ears and finally convinced me Mozart was among the elect); sometimes it took decades listening over and over again to music I really didn't care for until finally I caved in and admitted it wasn't so bad afterall (Debussy).

I'm now in a position to honestly say there isn't a composer, genre, or style of music I can't enjoy.

Thank you, Sarge, for writing my post for me 

(I mean, my list of former dislikes would differ, but call that a detail.)

[Sergeant Rock]

Rachmaninoff.

I've tried. The 2nd Piano Concerto evokes images of middle-aged, middle-class couples not having sex at a railway station as the steam trains pull in and out.

No, Rach's PC2 evokes images of Tom Ewell desperately trying to get into Marilyn Monroe's panties in the Seven Year Itch.

Huh...wait a minute. Come to think of it, he didn't succeed, so I guess you're right, Hector 

Sarge

[lukeottevanger]

I did like Sibelius long ago before I had really found classical music. When I found Elgar, Nielsen, Saint-Saëns to mention few I noticed that Sibelius' music isn't that remarkable after all. On the contrary, I had learned to expect much more from classical music and Sibelius just didn't meet my expectations anymore.

People who know the first few symphonies, the Swan of Tuonela and so forth often dismiss Sibelius in this way. But truth be told, Sibelius offers something quite new in symphonic music, a new approach, above all to structure and texture, that simply hadn't been dreamt of before. For you to dismiss that as with a simple 'I noticed that Sibelius' music isn't that remarkable after all' ought to be astonishing. But somehow it isn't.

I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music. Same with popular music. Easy to understand and popular but does that make it remerkable music? Of course, Sibelius is 100 more advanced than popular music but still I have always found it easy. How can we say any composer is great when objective measures do not exist?

No, Sibelius is far from redundant. He has his own style but I can't help myself suffering from his structural simplicity and clumsyness compared to many other composers. Nielsen uses naive structures too but in order to have humour. He is brilliant in that!

Again with the misrepresentation of Sibelius! Perhaps you don't know his last 4 symphonies or Tapiola, but these, just for a start, offer both great sophistication and entirely new structural thinking (sorry to repeat myself!). Another aspect of Sibelius's writing which doesn't exist in, say, Elgar to the same extent, is his fascinating motivic methods. Easy music this ain't!

Of course many of Elgar's notes can be questioned but the same goes to other composers too. Elgar's Sevillana op. 7 isn't that great but so aren't Beethoven's first 2 symphonies. The critic should be fair.

So the Sevillana is the only failure you can think of? And Beethoven's first two symphs are comparable in this respect?

Funny, I find Elgar's music 10-20 times more complex and sophisticated.

Well, complexity and sophistication aren't the be-all-and-end-all but trust me, a little study of Sibelius and Elgar reveals their levels of 'complexity and sophistication' to be different, but probably about equal, I'd say. Structurally, Sibelius certainly offers things Elgar never did; harmonically, too, and in terms of melodic variety, he is probably more innovative, inventive and interesting; Sibelius's new approach to orchestral strata is also more developed than Elgar's basically traditional orchestral conception; OTOH Elgar has more events-per-square-cm and a more fragmented, mosaic-like orchestral texture which may sometimes make his music sound more complex on the surface.

[BachQ]

I agree with Sarge and Karl, except that Johann Strauss (et familia) remains elusive . . . . . . .

[Sergeant Rock]

Thank you, Sarge, for writing my post for me 

My pleasure, Karl. And let me remind you I pray every day that you will eventually come to appreciate Wagner, Mahler, and Bruckner as much as I do

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I agree with Sarge and Karl, except that Johann Strauss (et familia) remains elusive . . . . . . .

D, just take a few ballroom dancing courses and all that will change! 

Sarge

[greg]

Chopin
Mozart
Beethoven
Rossini
Wagner (usually)
Stockhausen

[Robert]

I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music. Same with popular music. Easy to understand and popular but does that make it remerkable music? Of course, Sibelius is 100 more advanced than popular music but still I have always found it easy. How can we say any composer is great when objective measures do not exist?

No, Sibelius is far from redundant. He has his own style but I can't help myself suffering from his structural simplicity and clumsyness compared to many other composers. Nielsen uses naive structures too but in order to have humour. He is brilliant in that!

This is too over-the-top for me....Ill just sit this one out......

[mikkeljs]

I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music. Same with popular music. Easy to understand and popular but does that make it remerkable music? Of course, Sibelius is 100 more advanced than popular music but still I have always found it easy. How can we say any composer is great when objective measures do not exist?

No, Sibelius is far from redundant. He has his own style but I can't help myself suffering from his structural simplicity and clumsyness compared to many other composers. Nielsen uses naive structures too but in order to have humour. He is brilliant in that!

Strange.  I thought most people found Sibelius pretty hard to understand. Some weeks ago I was in the concert hall of Odense when they performed Sibelius´s 6th. After the break there were missing people in the audience, because they had walked away in the break. I came to the concert again the next day, where I heard people talking about how borring and hard it was yesterday.

[karlhenning]

Mikkel, welcome!

[mikkeljs]

Thank you Karl!  Haven´t been here for a while. It looks like much has changed...

[Sergeant Rock]

I think that Sibelius is very much liked because it's easy music.

Sibelius isn't very much liked actually, not outside the US, UK and Scandinavia anyway, and not beyond the Violin Concerto. The symphonies are rarely played in Germany, for example. And it's nonsense that Sibelius is "easy" music. I second Karl: just say you prefer Elgar to Sibelius because...because you like Elgar more. No one will argue with that and we'll all walk away happy.

By the way, my first classical record was Barbirolli's recording of the RVW 8th and the Enigma Variations. I bought it for Vaughan Williams; I didn't know Elgar at all then. I was immediately won over, though, playing Enigma far more than the 8th. Elgar is still one of my favorite composers. But...so is Sibelius and, honestly, I can't understand your arguments against this great music.

Sarge

[Florestan]

Sibelius isn't very much liked actually, not outside the US, UK and Scandinavia anyway, and not beyond the Violin Concerto.

Honestly, I think this Concerto is the weakest part of his output. This is not a value judgment, just a personal matter of taste.

But his symphonies are pure gold, starting with the very first one. The clarinet solo  at the very beginning, and especially the clarinet licks in the second part never fail to impress me in a very special way.

[BachQ]

Honestly, I think this Concerto is the weakest part of his output. This is not a value judgment, just a personal matter of taste.

But his symphonies are pure gold, starting with the very first one. The clarinet solo  at the very beginning, and especially the clarinet licks in the second part never fail to impress me in a very special way.

The Sibelius VC is pure gold, too . . . . . .

[Florestan]

The Sibelius VC is pure gold, too . . . . . .

I don't deny it. It's just that for the time being I don't see it shininng.

[karlhenning]

Anyway, even if the Violin Concerto were only a mediocre early work showing a composer struggling to find his own voice, it would still serve to demonstrate Sibelius's versatility 

[71 dB]

(a) Funny, how selectively you compare the two composers.

(b) Please spell out for us how you arrived at the mathematical figure "10-20 times" in comparing the "complexity" of the two composers' work.  This is just balderdash which you are offering, to seem more "complex and sophisticated" — a pet hang-up of yours — than the frank, manly statement "I like Elgar's music better than I do Sibelius's."

(a) I compared their complexity only here, not the composers.

(b) If I give you a set of letters E & S like this: {EEEEEEEESEEEEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} one can without any math come to an conclusion that there are 10-20 times more E letters compared to S. Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.

[Florestan]

(b) If I give you a set of letters E & S like this: {EEEEEEEESEEEEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} one can without any math come to an conclusion that there are 10-20 times more E letters compared to S. Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.

71 dB, I mean no offense in any way, but this tells something about your brains and nothing about Elgar or Sibelius.

[Varg]

Ah! the good old "supremacy" topic; this one is immortal!  

[karlhenning]

Similarly I can tell my brains have to work 10-20 more in order to "decode" Elgar's music.

Maybe that means that Elgar's music is worse than Sibelius's.

Composers don't earn awards just for making their music more turgid, do they?