Why do you like your favorite composers?

[EigenUser]

There are so many threads here that essentially ask "Who are your favorite composers?". This one is a little different. The question here is "why". It can be difficult to articulate this because certain music just 'feels right' to certain people, but I still think that it is possible to at least approximate reasons with words.

For instance, when reading posts I have often wondered why Gurn likes Haydn so much, or why Ken* likes Nyman, or why NorthStar likes Janacek, or why James likes Stockhausen. None of these are criticisms, of course, and have nothing to do with my own opinions. I'm just curious as to what draws people to specific music and it is likely that others are as well. I think that it is a good opportunity to learn something.

I don't want people to think this thread is about myself, so I am going to wait for a few responses before giving my reasons for my favorites.

*also interested in why he seems to hate the French impressionists

[Ken B]

There are so many threads here that essentially ask "Who are your favorite composers?". This one is a little different. The question here is "why". It can be difficult to articulate this because certain music just 'feels right' to certain people, but I still think that it is possible to at least approximate reasons with words.

For instance, when reading posts I have often wondered why Gurn likes Haydn so much, or why Ken* likes Nyman, or why NorthStar likes Janacek, or why James likes Stockhausen. None of these are criticisms, of course, and have nothing to do with my own opinions. I'm just curious as to what draws people to specific music and it is likely that others are as well. I think that it is a good opportunity to learn something.

I don't want people to think this thread is about myself, so I am going to wait for a few responses before giving my reasons for my favorites.

*also interested in why he seems to hate the French impressionists

Because of the music.



which answers your French question too 
But i did answer that with the Monty Python Here comes another one thing. Slim pickings gussied up with orchestration.
I don't hate them btw. I like Ravel ok, and some pieces quite well. And I like Debussy,s piano music a lot. That is where his genius shows. La Mer is fine, but not a great piece, and sometimes a bit dull.

Minimalism changed the way I listen to music.nyman is just the most gorgeous of them. And he is the most emotional composer ever I think. Not always my thing actually, but he does it without tossing structure to the wind, or getting schmalzy (there are exceptions)

[EigenUser]

Because of the music.



which answers your French question too 
But i did answer that with the Monty Python Here comes another one thing. Slim pickings gussied up with orchestration.
I don't hate them btw. I like Ravel ok, and some pieces quite well. And I like Debussy,s piano music a lot. That is where his genius shows. La Mer is fine, but not a great piece, and sometimes a bit dull.

Minimalism changed the way I listen to music.nyman is just the most gorgeous of them. And he is the most emotional composer ever I think. Not always my thing actually, but he does it without tossing structure to the wind, or getting schmalzy (there are exceptions)

From what I've heard of Nyman (Piano Concerto, MGV, part of "Facing Goya", 3rd Quartet) he seems to be a more interesting version of Glass (the latter I've never cared for).

[Ken B]

Just as a general comment, it's traditional to view art and artists as either Apollonian or Dionysian. It is obvious which end I am closest too. Of course more dichotomies are possible, but that's a good one.others might be useful here too.

I also classify along familiar novel. I will outrage many by calling 20th century "avant garde " familiar. But it is. Consider rock, jazz, movie and tv scores. HIP and early are novel. Gamelan is novel, the standard rock quartet is familiar. I will cause further outrage by pointing out minimalism is novel too.

I think it's clear where I fit on the likes novel vs likes familiar spectrum.

And the concept vs experiential spectrum. James posts videos and graphs explaining Gruppen, Nate pours over scores looking for SACHER. I swoon to a choir of faux castrati weaving five lines of Latin. So I am obvious at the opposite end.

Complex vs simple. It is less clear to me how a lot of what we discuss fits here, but I put pretty much all rock in simple, and counterpoint in complex. Again, pretty clear where I fit.

[EigenUser]

Just as a general comment, it's traditional to view art and artists as either Apollonian or Dionysian. It is obvious which end I am closest too. Of course more dichotomies are possible, but that's a good one.others might be useful here too.

I also classify along familiar novel. I will outrage many by calling 20th century "avant garde " familiar. But it is. Consider rock, jazz, movie and tv scores. HIP and early are novel. Gamelan is novel, the standard rock quartet is familiar. I will cause further outrage by pointing out minimalism is novel too.

I think it's clear where I fit on the likes novel vs likes familiar spectrum.

And the concept vs experiential spectrum. James posts videos and graphs explaining Gruppen, Nate pours over scores looking for SACHER. I swoon to a choir of faux castrati weaving five lines of Latin. So I am obvious at the opposite end.

Complex vs simple. It is less clear to me how a lot of what we discuss fits here, but I put pretty much all rock in simple, and counterpoint in complex. Again, pretty clear where I fit.

I don't think that music has to be complex to be good, though. Take two works of Ligeti's, for instance, both of which are near my favorite-ever pieces, both of which were composed around the same time, and both of which I have the score to. "Clocks and Clouds" is stunningly simple (I mean, it would be a bitch to perform, but the work as a whole is very simple). I hardly hear anything new whenever I hear it, but that's fine because it is so beautiful and profound to me. For this reason, I rarely look at the score while listening to it. In fact, it is more rewarding for me to just sit back, close my eyes, and listen. On the other hand, "Melodien" is about three strata (fore-, middle-, and back-grounds), their interplay, and their transformations (melodies turning into ostinati, ostinati turning into sustained tones, and all permutations of these). This is on the totally opposite end of the spectrum from "Clocks and Clouds" and reading the score while listening hasn't yet failed to reveal something new. Once I hear whatever the 'new' thing is, I can never 'un-hear' it from then on. This is the part of me looking for the SACHER hexachord in Boulez's "Derive I" . However, the part of me listening to "Clocks and Clouds" with my eyes closed is also satisfied. The piece just works, aesthetically. Do you know what the beginning of "Melodien" reminds me of? Club soda! Seriously. That's a far cry from looking for tone rows. For me, the analysis is just for fun!

[ibanezmonster]

I could explain, but really, only explanations involving mostly music theory would even be good explanations. You could say that you like a composer because his/her music is "so mysterious" or "so light-hearted," yet dislike many works that could be described the same way.

This is probably the most important question you can ask oneself in order to know how to write music that you like. It's all technical stuff, though no one seems to comment on anything I write that is technical. (Which is to be expected, though- not everyone is a musician).

[71 dB]

Elgar's music takes me to mystic places. Not in other time or dimension but here and now. Elgar's music is like a magic spotlight. it illuminates my awareness so that everything feels different. Mystic, timeless, humane and of course musical. Elgar's music is full of great melodies. Elgar's harmony makes sense to me. Elgar "modulates" tension with harmony just the right way in my opinion. Elgar is a great orchestrator too. He uses many soft subtle sounds to have a rich complex web of sound. This gives depth to the music. Elgar is in a class of his own when it comes to multidimensionity. Every note and sound in music has musical dimensions (melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, contrast, loudness, etc.) I don't know a composer other than Elgar who can create integral multidimension musical structures using notes (sounds) and their multidimensional properties. Sergei Taneyev, Nikolaus Bruhns ("baroque Elgar" imo) and J.S.Bach are the closest composers to Elgar in this sense, thanks to their mastery over counterpoint. Elgar's multidimensional counterpoint operates on higher level. It's not just harmonic (one musical dimension) but uses all musical dimensions so that the harmonic relation is less obvious.

In short Elgar's music augments my intellectual, humane and artistic consciousness brilliantly.

[The new erato]

They take me to places I want to be, or find interesting. Simple as that really.

[Brian]

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.

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. But Respighi has all those traits too, and he's not nearly one of my favorite composers. Why? No clue. So basically... I agree with erato's first sentence, but not with him saying it's simple.

[petrarch]

They take me to places I want to be, or find interesting. Simple as that really.

This.

The technical/theoretical/conceptual side is just that: Another side that might provide additional perspective and interest.

[Ken B]

I gave some thought to what I look for in music some years ago. Of course there is no answer but the one observation I made --observation not principle --is that I seem to like forward motion. That can mean melody, or rhythm, or development, or minimalist "process" or whatever. But serialism or "let's play with that sonority a bit" both lack it.

[Todd]

They take me to places I want to be, or find interesting. Simple as that really.

This.

+1

[petrarch]

I seem to like forward motion. That can mean melody, or rhythm, or development, or minimalist "process" or whatever. But serialism or "let's play with that sonority a bit" both lack it.

You do realize that is probably the fault of the listener and not intrinsically that of the music. Stockhausen's Klavierstück I is a good example of a serialist work that bursts with forward motion (even if it does have moments of stasis, but that's all part of the "drama")--just to indicate one counter-example.

[NJ Joe]

They take me to places I want to be, or find interesting. Simple as that really.

Yes. 

I've been thinking about this and in doing so changed the question to ask myself, "Why do I like my favorite classical music?"

Besides the reply above, I think it has to do with exercising my brain.  It gets my mind into a healthier state. The rush from the mental exercise, similar to the rush and subsequent good feeling of doing physical exercise.  Being able to hear and appreciate an intense, cohesive, intelligent, argument presented in musical terms that I find appealing and the ensuing satisfaction attained from doing so.

[Ken B]

You do realize that is probably the fault of the listener and not intrinsically that of the music. Stockhausen's Klavierstück I is a good example of a serialist work that bursts with forward motion (even if it does have moments of stasis, but that's all part of the "drama")--just to indicate one counter-example.

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?

[Ken B]

They take me to places I want to be, or find interesting. Simple as that really.

Petrarch gave this +1

What if I now ask, You know this is the fault of the listener not the music don't you? mutatis mutandis, how does your response to me not apply in full measure here? A fortiori I think, considering this answer is even vaguer than mine.

[jochanaan]

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...

...I will outrage many by calling 20th century "avant garde " familiar. But it is....

One generation's "avant-garde" is the next one's "familiar."  Consider Beethoven: "ripe for the madhouse" in his lifetime, but The Great Master to the next generation...

...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 reason to be embarrassed.  It's not easy to do Sturm und Drang well, but it can be downright difficult to do a witty piece!  That's why Haydn is such a great master.

[Ken B]

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...One generation's "avant-garde" is the next one's "familiar."  Consider Beethoven: "ripe for the madhouse" in his lifetime, but The Great Master to the next generation...No reason to be embarrassed.  It's not easy to do Sturm und Drang well, but it can be downright difficult to do a witty piece!  That's why Haydn is such a great master.

About one generation's avant garde. Yes, exactly my point! We grow up in a milieu with certain kinds of music ubiquitous. That,s the familiar. What's familiar growing up in the late 20th is very different from what it was in 1910 or will be in 2300. Calling it avant garde or progressive doesn't change things!

[Jay F]

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.

[DavidW]

For instance, when reading posts I have often wondered why Gurn likes Haydn so much, or why Ken* likes Nyman, or why NorthStar likes Janacek, or why James likes Stockhausen.

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