Why do you like your favorite composers?

[EigenUser]

I like bombast, so I like Springsteen, and I like Mahler. I like music some consider emotionally overwrought, so I like Linda Ronstadt, the Ronettes, and Mahler. I like melody, so I like the Beatles and the Beach Boys, and I like Mahler. I like the occasional good march, so I like Mahler.

+1 for not talking about 'bombast' in a negative light (something that I am sometimes guilty of too, by the way...). It's a perfectly legitimate quality in music. Take Ravel's "La Valse", or Messiaen's "Turangalila-Symphonie", or Stravinsky's "Rite", or Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra", or even something as short as Adams' "Short Ride in a Fast Machine". All pieces that I love because they are so over-the-top with excitement. Nothing wrong with bombast!

Lots of really good responses; all very interesting reads!

[Ken B]

+1 for not talking about 'bombast' in a negative light (something that I am sometimes guilty of too, by the way...). It's a perfectly legitimate quality in music. Take Ravel's "La Valse", or Messiaen's "Turangalila-Symphonie", or Stravinsky's "Rite", or Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra", or even something as short as Adams' "Short Ride in a Fast Machine". All pieces that I love because they are so over-the-top with excitement. Nothing wrong with bombast!

Lots of really good responses; all very interesting reads!

Yes, only the Ravel thefe is bad bombast.

[Mirror Image]

I like a lot of music; but the composers who stay with me are the challenging ones.  Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Varèse, even such as Haydn and Debussy and Hovhaness--they all challenge me to look at music and life a little differently

This is certainly true, especially in my case. Some of my favorite composers have continuously challenged me but that extra bit of effort makes all worth it. A good composer, in my case, would be Schnittke. I knew there was greatness there, I just had to find it and when I finally did that's when I heard his music completely anew.

[Marc]

I knew I had answered this question on this board before, and after a search I found it.

This is what I wrote about my favourite on September 19th, 2007, and not much has changed since then:

JS Bach is my favourite composer, and although I'm really only an enthousiastic layman, from the first time I heard his music I felt that something very special was happening. I was about twelve/thirteen years old then, and started to listen to other baroque composers, too, on the radio. But Bach remained my favourite: it seemed like there was much more happening. One had to listen to it again and again, and still one could discover something new. Every 'voice' or 'part' was as important as the other one, or so it seemed.

Of course, I learned to appreciate much more composers and music, but the baroque era remained my favourite period and Bach my first choice composer.

[marvinbrown]

I like bombast, so I like Springsteen, and I like Mahler. I like music some consider emotionally overwrought, so I like Linda Ronstadt, the Ronettes, and Mahler. I like melody, so I like the Beatles and the Beach Boys, and I like Mahler. I like the occasional good march, so I like Mahler.

  I too like bombast so I like Wagner. I too like music that some consider emotionally overwrought so I like Wagner. I like melody as well so I like Wagner, I too like a good march so I like Wagner.

  Now I'll take it one step further.... I love the theatre so I love Wagner, I love ultra romantic music with hypnotic power so I love Wagner, I love variety so I love Wagner, I love daring music, music that draws me in and never let's me go until the very end so I love Wagner.

  Now I'll take it till the end....sometimes I want to escape from this world so I worship Wagner, sometimes I need for my emotions to be taken to the braking point, expunged so I worship Wagner, sometimes I need an antidote to all the pains and sorrows of my daily existence so I worship Wagner..........I think I have gone too far, said too much but now you can all see why I worship Wagner.

  marvin

[petrarch]

No actually I don't think it is anyone's "fault". If you ask me why I prefer plain coffee to caramel macchiato and I say I do not like really sweet things I have answered your question not ascribed blame. If James answers "I like unusual sonorities and an escape from conventional harmony" would you say he is blaming Beethoven?

It's actually my fault to not have bolded the specific bit I was referring to. I wasn't blaming you for your tastes and preferences, just the assertion that the serialist and "let's play with this sonority" kinds of music lack forward motion--perhaps you just haven't heard any yet (or I misunderstood what you meant by "forward motion").

[Gurn Blanston]

It's an answer which requires self-analysis as much or more than analysis of the music. I like Classic style music because there is very little long-windiness about it. My attention span is not infinite thus I can't deal with Bruckner, for example, as great as he is. My ideal composer says what he wants to say and then moves on to something else. And what he wants to say appeals to me.

I don't like bombast beyond what Beethoven produced at his worst. And I really do prefer a melody and tonality, I can follow this easily and no problem if it gets complicated. I like rhythmic and tonal surprises too, always catches me up short when I've been trying to get ahead of the band.

This shortens up my list quite a bit when we're talking about favorites. Haydn and Mozart are in the center because they both fulfill these requirements. Leading in to there, I prefer Vivaldi and CPE Bach for the same reasons. And heading out, Beethoven and Schubert. Of course there are lots of others, there would be. But as far as my personal requirements for listening pleasure, these six pretty well are the closest.

It is hard to give a 'why' to questions like this. I agree with New Erato, but wanted to expand on it in the interest of taking your question seriously.

[Ken B]

It's an answer which requires self-analysis as much or more than analysis of the music. I like Classic style music because there is very little long-windiness about it. My attention span is not infinite thus I can't deal with Bruckner, for example, as great as he is. My ideal composer says what he wants to say and then moves on to something else. And what he wants to say appeals to me.

I don't like bombast beyond what Beethoven produced at his worst. And I really do prefer a melody and tonality, I can follow this easily and no problem if it gets complicated. I like rhythmic and tonal surprises too, always catches me up short when I've been trying to get ahead of the band.

This shortens up my list quite a bit when we're talking about favorites. Haydn and Mozart are in the center because they both fulfill these requirements. Leading in to there, I prefer Vivaldi and CPE Bach for the same reasons. And heading out, Beethoven and Schubert. Of course there are lots of others, there would be. But as far as my personal requirements for listening pleasure, these six pretty well are the closest.

It is hard to give a 'why' to questions like this. I agree with New Erato, but wanted to expand on it in the interest of taking your question seriously.

You are right about self analysis but what piques me here is CPE. In the past few years I have come to see him as a wildly underrated composer. Backlash from when he was rated above his papa. I see him as easily the best between JS and Haydn, and worthy to be compared to Haydn.

We'll pass over the Vivaldi stuff in silence 

[not edward]

I see him [CPE] as easily the best between JS and Haydn

Maybe I'm just less familiar with the extent of the rep from that period, but this seems a completely uncontroversial statement to me.

[Ken B]

Maybe I'm just less familiar with the extent of the rep from that period, but this seems a completely uncontroversial statement to me.

It was not, circa 1980. He was seen as "gallant" and vapid. But I meant to emphasize he's not the best of a bad lot, he's quite an outstanding composer.

[Gurn Blanston]

You are right about self analysis but what piques me here is CPE. In the past few years I have come to see him as a wildly underrated composer. Backlash from when he was rated above his papa. I see him as easily the best between JS and Haydn, and worthy to be compared to Haydn.

We'll pass over the Vivaldi stuff in silence 

Well, Haydn thought he was, so I guess he is. His music appeals to me, he is one of the few Empfindsang composers (and the only one who wasn't a follower of CPE Bach ) who appeals to me.

No need to pass over Vivaldi. While he may not have the weightiness of the Germans, he was (possibly surprisingly to you?) one of the most influential composers. I like his succinctness. His concerti are melodic, tonal, semi-complicated and short. For my profile as drawn, he is a natural. 

[Karl Henning]

[...] It's almost embarrassing to admit on a forum that's occasionally way too self-serious, but I'm increasingly drawn to music that shows wit, compactness, and clarity of thought.

No, that should never be a source of any embarrassment, until you are embarrassed to keep company with me

[Cato]

"German music is introspective, and I am in the mood to introspect."

But so also can Russian, French, Italian, American, etc. etc. etc. music be introspective!   

[Moonfish]

I agree with Gurn in terms of that music appreciation is very much a form of self-analysis at the same time as the work itself provides a connection to the the music, the composer and his/her times.   I view music as a landscape through time and culture and very much anchored in the psychology of the composer as well as the motives behind the composition.  To me it seems to be several major categories of music (in terms of its creation) - devotional music (inspired by God or other beliefs), beauty, entertainment, love,  the urge to shape "newness" (being different including technique/sound/patterns), work (composed simply to make some money) and the individual (bring forward the complexity of self - psyche).  Obviously, these seem perhaps somewhat naive categories as there will always be overlap between them.

Listening to music reminds me of walking though a complex psychological landscape filled with the ripples of time, culture, and personalities enclosed by techniques and available instruments. Some areas are easy to cross while others are obstacles (literally walls). Some seems hard to penetrate, but returning to them over and over one finds that what appeared to be impossible to enter in its auditory ugliness and compactness takes on a different light. Music that suddenly is approachable.   Cannot one argue that one's appreciation of composers and pieces drastically change depending on listening experience as well as one's own life experience and psyche?  There must be a reason why some music is so approachable while other pieces seemingly never can be digested. Familiarity also shapes attachment while simultaneously could create an aversion.  Perhaps we also are urged to explore the new and over time move to other composers in the enterprise of discovering the answers to the questions of existence that dwell in all of us?

Personally the inspired complexity of JS Bach is what makes him one of my favorite composers. Although I am not religious I sense the urge of his fervor in shaping compositions that appeal to devotion. A fountain of bubbling inspiration weaving his fugues in seemingly everlasting patterns reflecting life and light in all its beauty and sorrow. To dwell on his many compositions is both intriguing and rewarding as one sense his creativity and inspiration. His music is at times a mystery which is one of the aspects of music I am drawn to.

Of course, Bach is not the only composer I am drawn to. Beethoven and Schubert's quartets and piano sonatas, Mahler's symphonies and songs, Sibelius' symphonies, Haydn's works and Wagner's operas.   Like most of you I find it hard to really focus in on why these composers appeal so much.  I think I have to settle with the mystery of it all - the search for meaning as revealed by the complexity and beauty of the musical creations of the minds of these amazing individuals that somehow create ripples though time and resonate with my own existence in a harmony hard to explain.

[Jay F]

  I too like bombast so I like Wagner. I too like music that some consider emotionally overwrought so I like Wagner. I love melody as well so I like Wagner, I too like a good march so I like Wagner.

  Now I'll take it one step further.... I love the theatre so I love Wagner, I love ultra romantic music with hypnotic power so I love Wagner, I love variety so I love Wagner, I love daring music, music that draws me in and never let's me go until the very end so I love Wagner.

  Now I'll take it till the end....sometimes I want to escape from this world so I worship Wagner, sometimes I need for my emotions to be taken to the braking point, expunged so I worship Wagner, sometimes I need an antidote to all the pains and sorrows of my daily existence so I worship Wagner..........I think I have gone too far, said too much but now you can all see why I worship Wagner.

  marvin

Very interesting post, Marvin. I feel the same way if you replace "Wagner" with "Mahler."

[North Star]

Oh those guys are looney tunes, that's why!

OK, I won't mention Bach, Beethoven, Haydn or Mozart.  

I seem not to be keen on composers who are all about melodrama, hyper-emotionality, neurosis, or inner demons. My favorite Mahler symphony is still the jovial First. Over the last few years, the biggest drops in my listening log belong to Shostakovich and Sibelius, and the biggest gains belong to Haydn and Ravel. (In fact, the French in general: Roussel, Ibert, Poulenc, Faure...)

It's almost embarrassing to admit on a forum that's occasionally way too self-serious, but I'm increasingly drawn to music that shows wit, compactness, and clarity of thought. Luckily that's a pretty diverse category: everyone from Haydn and Beethoven (sonatas especially) to Roussel and his student Martinu.

Hey! Shosty & Sibelius are not 'all about melodrama, hyper-emotional or neurosis'! That sounds more like La Valse than Tapiola or DSCH Op. 87
+1 to wit, compactness & clarity of thought - Chopin, Sibelius, Janacek, and Ravel certainly fit here, and perhaps Shostakovich, too..

Of course, it's much more complicated than that. I still love Shostakovich and Sibelius, and their music still pops into my head regularly. I don't only listen to witty or short pieces of music. To some degree, why we like the composers we like is a mystery, unknowable. We can pinpoint some attributes, but others might remain an unspoken matter of attraction. For example, I love Janacek's wild, fantastical writing for orchestra, the physical thrills of his music, and the jubilation he always brings me. ...

And let's not forget the influence of Moravian speech rhythms and folk music. And what about the wonderful On an overgrown path? The piano music is slightly reminiscent of Chopin - the influences of singers, speech, folk music. On the other hand, the work reminds me of Années de pèlerinage - my favourite Liszt. Physical thrills are definitely something I, too find in Janacek (not to mention Ravel) - all those folk dances, jolly songs, and games in works like Rikadla, Vixen or the 'Intimate Letters' Quartet. But, as in Chopin (and Ravel, Schubert), in much of my favourite music has happiness/nostalgia and sadness/melancholia coexist. Cool mixtures of sonorities like the trio for flutes & harp in Berlioz's L'enfance du Christ are a big attraction, too.

No, that should never be a source of any embarrassment, until you are embarrassed to keep company with me

+1

[marvinbrown]

Very interesting post, Marvin. I feel the same way if you replace "Wagner" with "Mahler."

  Yes these late romantic/ early modern progressive composers (you can throw Bruckner, Liszt and Richard Strauss into the mix) have really given the music world something to talk about. The effect that this genre of music has on the psyche....this "Schopenhauer" effect is what makes me come back to Wagner again and again and again.

marvin

[North Star]

  Yes these late romantic/ early modern progressive composers (you can throw Bruckner, Liszt and Richard Strauss into the mix) have really given the music world something to talk about. The effect that this genre of music has on the psyche....this "Schopenhauer" effect is what makes me come back to Wagner again and again and again.

marvin

Hmm. Bruckner's music is rather different compared to the others you mention, Marvin -  to me, anyway. There are the proto-minimalism and chorales that influenced Sibelius, another composer who didn't exactly fit together with Mahler or Strauss, after Kullervo anyway.

[Karl Henning]

  Yes these late romantic/ early modern progressive composers (you can throw Bruckner, Liszt and Richard Strauss into the mix) have really given the music world something to talk about. The effect that this genre of music has on the psyche....

Italics above, mine.

Different types/styles/&c. of music have subtly different effects, which is (I think) why the Art of Music is ever expanding.  (And, of course, as we have had occasion to observe here at GMG, the same music may not exert quite the same effect on two different listeners.)

[Florestan]

If I were in the mood for rhetoric, I could say because they affect my intellect, emotions and feelings in a way that others doesn't. But I am not in that mood so I will just say: honestly, I don't know --- thus answering the question begged by the rhetoric, too.