Great composers that are not your cup of tea

[Brahmsian]

Can't we all just, get along? 

Case in point:  Feanor despizes Bruckner's music, while he loves Carter's music.  I'm the exact opposite.  Yet, we still get along and respect one another's taste.

[AllegroVivace]

"In the late forties I found out by experiment (I went into the anechoic chamber at Harvard University) that silence is not acoustic. It is a change of mind, a turning around. I devoted my music to it. My work became an exploration of non-intention. To carry it out faithfully I have developed a complicated composing means using I Ching chance operations, making my responsibility that of asking questions instead of making choices." - John Cage

Now that Cage is speaking for himself, let's take a listen. So he says by carrying out an experiment at Harvard, he found that "silence is not acoustic. It is a change of mind, a turning around." This made him devote his music to it.

So, what are we to make of this? It sounds like Deepak Chopra talking about quantum physics and "universal energy". I took some time to read some more of his writings... Bullshit after bullshit packed densely into almost every sentence. I've had enough.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Don't be hysterical. I don't like the music of John Cage. What's so difficult for you to understand? I've known his music for a long time, studied him in college and heard dozens of works, and none ever resonated with me. The thread is asking us to list famous composers who we don't like. I don't like John Cage, and I will say it here even if it kills you.

Why all the belligerence? Most people here rack up at least 100 posts before they start insulting everyone else on the forum.

[kishnevi]

"In the late forties I found out by experiment (I went into the anechoic chamber at Harvard University) that silence is not acoustic. It is a change of mind, a turning around. I devoted my music to it. My work became an exploration of non-intention. To carry it out faithfully I have developed a complicated composing means using I Ching chance operations, making my responsibility that of asking questions instead of making choices." - John Cage

Now that Cage is speaking for himself, let's take a listen. So he says by carrying out an experiment at Harvard, he found that "silence is not acoustic. It is a change of mind, a turning around." This made him devote his music to it.

So, what are we to make of this? It sounds like Deepak Chopra talking about quantum physics and "universal energy". I took some time to read some more of his writings... Bullshit after bullshit packed densely into almost every sentence. I've had enough.

I think I understand what Cage is saying there--but he seems to be confusing two different things   "Silence is not acoustic" refers to stilling of the mind,  in Buddhist and Taoist fashion; if truly attained, the individual makes no choices of which he is aware--he simply acts in a natural fashion appropriate to the circumstances, and has no intentions as the term "intention" is normally understood.  But stilling the mind and physical silence are two different things and Cage seems to be mixing them up.  And he couldn't write unintended music--merely starting the process of composing shows he had the intention of producing music even if it was by unorthodox methods and unusual means.

[AllegroVivace]

Why all the belligerence? Most people here rack up at least 100 posts before they start insulting everyone else on the forum.

Aha! So the number of posts is the reason why I should be bullied this way!

I don't pay attention to anyone's number of posts. The things you write here is all that counts. Where did this culture of forum hierarchy based on the members' number of posts take root? Who cares how many posts you've scribbled out?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Aha! So the number of posts is the reason why I should be bullied this way!

I don't pay attention to anyone's number of posts. The things you write here is all that counts. Where did this culture of forum hierarchy based on the members' number of posts take root? Who cares how many posts you've scribbled out?

Good sense of humor, too.

[Lethevich]

[AllegroVivace]

http://www.youtube.com/v/pcHnL7aS64Y 

http://www.youtube.com/v/eaNTp5haE3o 

[Mirror Image]

Well, as I said in my first post, hate Cage if you want to. That's fine by me. I was only responding to the incorrect description of his working methods. He isn't comparable toany of the other composers you mention in that respect.

As far as interesting melodies and harmonies - well, I simply think you are wrong, seeing as I can right this second recreate dozens of examples of both in my mind. The earlier Cage - the Cage of The Seasons and the Sonatas and Interludes and the Six Melodies - is stuffed full of beautiful ides, beautiful sounds, wonderful rhythms, intriguing sonorities and haunting melodies. I know it is because, as I say, I can recreate them in my mind instantly: they've had a profound effect on me. But if that doesn't float your boat and you still think he 'couldn't write a melody to save his life' I suggest you try the Four Dances or Fads and Fancies in the Academy, two obscure little pieces which no one would ever believe were by Cage, being full of marvellous jazz/folk pastiche. Not major Cage, but proof that the guy was fluent in that stuff when he wanted to be.

I never doubted that Cage wasn't fluent in any music of the classical tradition. He understood the history of classical music and I know he could compose a more accessible piece of music when he wanted to. My objection to his music are the results to much of his music, which I would classify as noise without any rhyme or reason. It doesn't flow, it doesn't haunt me, it doesn't leave me breathless, it doesn't evoke any kind of emotion within me.

Now, let's talk about a composer you dislike.

[mikkeljs]

My opinion of Cage is he was composer with nothing to say musically. He thought he was being clever, but he ended up being a sad joke. The guy couldn't write an interesting harmony or melody to save his life. The same applies to Xenakis, Boulez, Babbitt, and Stockhausen.

What is nothing?

Sad joke? More joke than what? Someone special?

Concerning harmony and melody I disagree. Cage had the harmonically and melodically penetrating quality of being able to write random sound. Not many people can do that.

I think I understand what Cage is saying there--but he seems to be confusing two different things   "Silence is not acoustic" refers to stilling of the mind,  in Buddhist and Taoist fashion; if truly attained, the individual makes no choices of which he is aware--he simply acts in a natural fashion appropriate to the circumstances, and has no intentions as the term "intention" is normally understood.  But stilling the mind and physical silence are two different things and Cage seems to be mixing them up.  And he couldn't write unintended music--merely starting the process of composing shows he had the intention of producing music even if it was by unorthodox methods and unusual means.

Whats the difference between heart and mind? Making no conscious choise is a choise too, and ultimately there is no way to still the mind, the sentence doesnt make sence. The mind can be still or not, but that has nothing to do with the mind, so what one consider awakening is in fact about the dream state. One have to think very irrational with this, start acting irrationally.

I get your point though, that Cage has a sence of underlying humor, which annoys me quite a lot. 

[Godhead33]

Elgar, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mozart.

[Superhorn]

   Actually, I  sort of like the Chopin Mazurkas, which are not quite as salonish.  There's no denying the originality of his harmonies, which were often quite daring for his time.  But there
's just too much darned sentimentality in his music for me.

[Mirror Image]

I'm still waiting for Luke to discuss a composer he doesn't like.

[springrite]

I'm still waiting for Luke to discuss a composer he doesn't like.

I guess we have agreed not to discuss Saul.

Bruckner. I am beginning to like some movements, and most of #2. But overall, I still hear nothing more than overblown sounds repeated for no apparent reason.

OK, my loss of course.

[Brahmsian]

Bruckner. I am beginning to like some movements, and most of #2. But overall, I still hear nothing more than overblown sounds repeated for no apparent reason.

OK, my loss of course.

Paul, that is OK.  Bruckner is definitely not many people's cup of tea, so you are definitely not alone, and never will be alone. 

He just happens to be my tea of choice, primo uno as for as symphonic composers are concerned.  That didn't happen overnight, I assure you.  Took a long time for him to dethrone Beethoven for me in this category.   

[Mirror Image]

I guess we have agreed not to discuss Saul.

Bruckner. I am beginning to like some movements, and most of #2. But overall, I still hear nothing more than overblown sounds repeated for no apparent reason.

OK, my loss of course.

Saul what a joke. I guess he's off somewhere attending to his "legions of fans" on YouTube.

Anyway, Bruckner was a difficult composer for me to get into, because much of the same reasons: overblown and obnoxious outbursts from the brass section and so much repetition that it just pissed me off after awhile. But then I realized later that his music is about spiritual transcendence not making grand statements which I had previously thought. Everything he composed was for God. I also around this time started to read more about his life and background. His appearance and demeanor was that of a simple man, but what's amazing is what was happening in his mind. The repetition in his music for me now is simply a compositional device and the results to my ears now is mesmerizing. I also think the man composed some of the most gorgeous slow movements in all of classical music.

[mc ukrneal]

Bruckner.... But overall, I still hear nothing more than overblown sounds repeated for no apparent reason.

But that is the Beauty of Bruckner right there. His harmonies can give me chills. I would say that with Bruckner, more important is the 'how' you get there than the 'why'. Incidentally, the architecture is there, it's just on a scale unlike most.

[Mirror Image]

But that is the Beauty of Bruckner right there. His harmonies can give me chills. I would say that with Bruckner, more important is the 'how' you get there than the 'why'. Incidentally, the architecture is there, it's just on a scale unlike most.

That's so true. Many people have described his music as building cathedrals with sound. The structure of his music is some of the most organized and well-thought out in all of classical music.

[Luke]

I'm still waiting for Luke to discuss a composer he doesn't like.

Really? I'm not that strongly aggrieved by any composer to say 'I don't like them.' Even amongst composers I don't listen to often or who have written works I don't really get, there are always works which I do admire, at the very least. Weber (for instance) does little for me - except in one or two works, which are enough for me to know quite how fantastic a composer he was. So how can I say I dislike him?

[karlhenning]

Really? I'm not that strongly aggrieved by any composer to say 'I don't like them.' Even amongst composers I don't listen to often or who have written works I don't really get, there are always works which I do admire, at the very least.

I can sign on here, too.