Top10 compositions that you don't like but everyone else does

[ibanezmonster]

I took to Mahler the way I did the Beatles, immediately and with full fervor. He was the first composer I had a full shelf of when I started listening to classical music. I will never forget one foppish friend who asked me one day, "But you haven't yet listened to Brahms. You need to know Brahms before you can begin to appreciate Mahler."

To which I said, channeling Edna Krabappel, "Hah!"

That's funny, because Brahms was my top composer right before I got into Mahler. Just coincidence, though.

[Sergeant Rock]

I guess those don't quite fit the title. It seems like most Ligeti fans love his CC, so I guess I was going by that. Also, I read in a concert review awhile ago something like "...and anyone who isn't a classical music dinosaur appreciated the fun of Gruppen." They didn't use these words, but that was the gist of what they were saying. Of course, that's just one writer's opinion.

In fact Gruppen might just be Stockhausen's most popular work. Even I have a recording 


Sarge

[Karl Henning]

That's funny, because Brahms was my top composer right before I got into Mahler. Just coincidence, though.

Nay, there are certainly ways in which Brahms can illumine Mahler.  But making B. a pre-req for listening to M. is de trop.

[North Star]

In fact Gruppen might just be Stockhausen's most popular work. Even I have a recording 


Sarge

I'm pretty sure it is, but even the most popular Stocky isn't necessarily very popular.

[North Star]

Nay, there are certainly ways in which Brahms can illumine Mahler.  But making B. a pre-req for listening to M. is de trop.

And this would be true with quite a few alternative composers in place of M & B.

[gutstrings]

There is some objective truth in music... and the arts in general. If given a chance, the patterns and complexity can be enjoyable with Ligeti...I believe universally accepted over time. Same with Sorabji, Szollosy, Bartok and many other contemporary (dissonant) composers. Just as certain violinists are better than others (not just "different"), the same holds true for composers. We will probably find a greater following and appreciation of these masters as opposed to others who have greater difficulty communicating these patterns and complexity (Berg, for example).  Regarding the original post, an individual's dislike for a composition may stem from not perceiving the artistic pattern (lack of familiarity with dissonance), or maybe just a weak composition in general (no meaningful pattern to support any artistic message). 

[Karl Henning]

There is some objective truth in music... and the arts in general. If given a chance, the patterns and complexity can be enjoyable with Ligeti...I believe universally accepted over time. Same with Sorabji, Szollosy, Bartok and many other contemporary (dissonant) composers. Just as certain violinists are better than others (not just "different"), the same holds true for composers. We will probably find a greater following and appreciation of these masters as opposed to others who have greater difficulty communicating these patterns and complexity (Berg, for example).  Regarding the original post, an individual's dislike for a composition may stem from not perceiving the artistic pattern (lack of familiarity with dissonance), or maybe just a weak composition in general (no meaningful pattern to support any artistic message). 

Most interesting post, thank you.

[EigenUser]

There is some objective truth in music... and the arts in general. If given a chance, the patterns and complexity can be enjoyable with Ligeti...I believe universally accepted over time. Same with Sorabji, Szollosy, Bartok and many other contemporary (dissonant) composers. Just as certain violinists are better than others (not just "different"), the same holds true for composers. We will probably find a greater following and appreciation of these masters as opposed to others who have greater difficulty communicating these patterns and complexity (Berg, for example).  Regarding the original post, an individual's dislike for a composition may stem from not perceiving the artistic pattern (lack of familiarity with dissonance), or maybe just a weak composition in general (no meaningful pattern to support any artistic message).

Interesting indeed. I'm not sure if it is that I want to agree with you but I don't, or if I don't want to agree with you but I do. Subjectivity versus objectivity in music is something that is so personal and seems to have caused many arguments on here in the past. I think that part of the problem likely lies in the idea of comparisons. For instance, you can't compare Haydn to Ligeti -- you'd almost be better off comparing Haydn to oranges! They had entirely different goals in composition and lived in entirely different eras where entirely different things were acceptable. Both succeeded immensely, but I don't think it is possible to fairly state (and justify) that one was better than the other.

[gutstrings]

But we can state that Mozart was better than Salieri... even Brahms spoke of his own limitations compared to Beethoven. Bruckner bowed down to Mahler, etc...   Ligeti, as with Bartok will retain his fans, while many (most?) others may not.  Interestingly, both Haydn and Ligeti were largely appreciated in their own time, and at least on GMG are major (no pun intended) figures.

[North Star]

even Brahms spoke of his own limitations compared to Beethoven. Bruckner bowed down to Mahler, etc...   Ligeti, as with Bartok will retain his fans, while many (most?) others may not.  Interestingly, both Haydn and Ligeti were largely appreciated in their own time, and at least on GMG are major (no pun intended) figures.

Brahms' worries of not measuring up to Beethoven tells us only about his character, not about the quality of his music. Bruckner and Mahler are pretty much polar opposites.

[EigenUser]

But we can state that Mozart was better than Salieri... even Brahms spoke of his own limitations compared to Beethoven. Bruckner bowed down to Mahler, etc...   Ligeti, as with Bartok will retain his fans, while many (most?) others may not.  Interestingly, both Haydn and Ligeti were largely appreciated in their own time, and at least on GMG are major (no pun intended) figures.

That's why I am so ambivalent about this. I think that a good example might be the case of Schumann and Mendelssohn. I love both, yet I like Mendelssohn more. That being said, most agree that Schumann was "superior". At least, this is what I've seen many times. There are definitely cases where people seem to agree that one composer was better than another -- Wagner vs. Meyerbeer, Bartok vs. Kodaly, Mozart vs. Salieri, etc. Some may even argue about Debussy vs. Ravel, though I think that they had two different goals (to me, Ravel's music is a modern view of romanticism/classicism whereas that of Debussy is generally a romantic view on modernism, but I digress...).

[gutstrings]

Yet, no one would step forward to praise Mussourgsky as their favorite. In context of the OP, I have no feelings of insecurity that I should like "Pictures".  Quite simply, there are better works,  more meaningful and inspirational compositions to attend to.  Schumann vs. Mendelssohn-- I never feel either one is lacking. Both are classical giants, genius is evident on all levels throughout all their works.

[North Star]

Yet, no one would step forward to praise Mussourgsky as their favorite. In context of the OP, I have no feelings of insecurity that I should like "Pictures".  Quite simply, there are better works,  more meaningful and inspirational compositions to attend to.

Like Khovanschina, Boris Godunov, or St. John's Night on Bare Mountain (for bass baritone, children's choir, choir & orchestra). 

[EigenUser]

Yet, no one would step forward to praise Mussourgsky as their favorite. In context of the OP, I have no feelings of insecurity that I should like "Pictures".  Quite simply, there are better works,  more meaningful and inspirational compositions to attend to.  Schumann vs. Mendelssohn-- I never feel either one is lacking. Both are classical giants, genius is evident on all levels throughout all their works.

I like the Mussorgsky-Ravel "Pictures at an Exhibition" (performed it in college). I mean, it isn't a favorite of mine, but I do like it. For me it was more fun to play than it is to listen to -- and the 1st violin part of "Limoges" is a b****.

[not edward]

Yet, no one would step forward to praise Mussourgsky as their favorite. In context of the OP, I have no feelings of insecurity that I should like "Pictures".  Quite simply, there are better works,  more meaningful and inspirational compositions to attend to.  Schumann vs. Mendelssohn-- I never feel either one is lacking. Both are classical giants, genius is evident on all levels throughout all their works.

Yes, but at the same time as he was writing Pictures, he was also immersed in Sunless and Songs and Dances of Death, two extraordinary song cycles. I think Mussorgsky would be better regarded if people thought of him as an opera and song composer.

(As an aside, I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that DSCH would have been a very different composer without the example of Mussorgsky.)

[Henk]

Anything by Wagner, Brahms, Liszt, Berlioz and some others.

[Brahmsian]

Anything by Wagner, Brahms, Liszt, Berlioz and some others.

Agreed! 

[Klaze]

Highly acclaimed works not (yet/anymore) appreciated by me, by composers which I generally like a lot:

Ravel - Daphnis & Chloe
Mahler - Symphony 7, Das Lied von der Erde
Beethoven - All the concerti, Piano Trios
Debussy - Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune
Shostakovich - Symphony 7
Schubert - String Quintet

Aside from that, I have a lot of problems getting into R. Strauss and a certain Mozart.

[71 dB]

Highly acclaimed works not (yet/anymore) appreciated by me, by composers which I generally like a lot:

Ravel - Daphnis & Chloe

The first time I heard this work (Orchestre National de France/Eliahu Inbal), I found it annoying. For the most part it's a very quiet work, but there's sudden aggressive very loud and short bursts of music. It's very difficult to find a proper listening level with loudspeakers. However, I listened to the recording today with headphones using strongest (-1 dB) crossfeeding and it worked. Anyway, it's a problematic work due to it's dynamic structure.

[Pat B]

even Brahms spoke of his own limitations compared to Beethoven. Bruckner bowed down to Mahler, etc...

I basically agree with your larger point, but composers (or people in general) don't necessarily grasp where they stand. From what I have read (admittedly not much), Bruckner seems to have badly underestimated his own work.