Five important pre-1980 composers that you easily could live without

[VonStupp]

I could not consider Gottschalk an important composer, FWIW I can certainly live without him, too.

In my college days, there was an opportunity to hear a visiting professional piano recital whose program was completely comprised of Gottschalk. Suffice to say, I enjoyed my time at the local Public House instead. 

VS

[Karl Henning]

In my college days, there was an opportunity to hear a visiting professional piano recital whose program was completely comprised of Gottschalk. Suffice to say, I enjoyed my time at the local Public House instead. 

VS

You chose wisely.

Separately, I love Nielsen (and couldn't live without his music) but I'd find it difficult to make the case of his importance.

[(poco) Sforzando]

While some of the names I see here sadden me (honestly, Chopin - Wagner - Schoenberg - Berg - Webern - Bruckner, every one of whom I love unreservedly?), I could easily live without Havergal Brian and Arnold Bax. Problem is, neither of these losers is in any way important, especially Arnold Bax who is easily the worst of the two. When I wrote to a friend saying, "Is Arnold Bax the worst composer ever to have lived? I loathe every measure of his I've ever heard," my friend wrote back, "I have tried, given up on, tried again, and given up for good, anything by Bax. It is, at best, mediocre film music." Which I think does a disservice to good film music. But I lie, Nikolai Kapustin is almost as bad, but again, not in the least important.

My problem is that if the composer is important, I can't live without them. Well, maybe Richard Strauss, a little of whom goes a long way. There are any number of Strauss works I could cheerfully live without, such as almost all of Capriccio except the opening string sextet and final aria. And both Stockhausen and Boulez are extremely uneven, neither having maintained in their older years the brilliant achievements of their youth.

[Karl Henning]

While some of the names I see here sadden me (honestly, Chopin - Wagner - Schoenberg - Berg - Webern - Bruckner, every one of whom I love unreservedly?), I could easily live without Havergal Brian and Arnold Bax. Problem is, neither of these losers is in any way important, especially Arnold Bax who is easily the worst of the two. When I wrote to a friend saying, "Is Arnold Bax the worst composer ever to have lived? I loathe every measure of his I've ever heard," my friend wrote back, "I have tried, given up on, tried again, and given up for good, anything by Bax. It is, at best, mediocre film music." But I lie, Nikolai Kapustin is almost as bad, but again, not in the least important.

My problem is that if the composer is important, I can't live without them. Well, maybe Richard Strauss, a little of whom goes a long way. There are any number of Strauss works I could cheerfully live without, such as almost all of Capriccio except the opening string sextet and final aria. And both Stockhausen and Boulez are extremely uneven, neither having maintained in their older years the brilliant achievements of their youth.

FWIW, Poco sfz, the only Bax piece I regularly go back to is his Elegiac Trio:
https://www.youtube.com/v/g32X2C1S8o0

[(poco) Sforzando]

You chose wisely.

Separately, I love Nielsen (and couldn't live without his music) but I'd find it difficult to make the case of his importance.

I would. I think him highly innovative in some ways (for example, the way he uses instruments as characters in works like the 4th and 5th symphonies or the two wind concertos, and not only as abstract members of the ensemble, and his often quirky but satisfying forms. Is his "unimportance" related to the fact he's Scandinavian, and not part of the standard Germanic lineage?

[(poco) Sforzando]

FWIW, Poco sfz, the only Bax piece I regularly go back to is his Elegiac Trio:
https://www.youtube.com/v/g32X2C1S8o0

Thank you, Karl. I am always willing to torture myself further.

[Karl Henning]

I would. I think him highly innovative in some ways (for example, the way he uses instruments as characters in works like the 4th and 5th symphonies or the two wind concertos, and not only as abstract members of the ensemble, and his often quirky but satisfying forms. Is his "unimportance" related to the fact he's Scandinavian, and not part of the standard Germanic lineage?

Good points, thanks, I don't think I meant to cast him into a Svandinavian ghetto; I guess I think too seldom about the matter of importance per se.

[Karl Henning]

Thank you, Karl. I am always willing to torture myself further.

I hope the pains here are not too acute!

[Brian]

There are some very interesting definitions of "important" active in this thread. I'm traveling, will try to contribute a little bit later.

I like a couple of crowd pleasing pops pieces by Bax (Tintagel and a few piano miniatures) but the symphonies and most of the tone poems leave me completely perplexed and uninterested. Will try the video Karl posted tomorrow.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I hope the pains here are not too acute!

Fortunately, only 9 minutes. But the instrumental combination does not appeal to me greatly even in Debussy.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

especially Arnold Bax who is easily the worst of the two.

I like Bax but find a little goes a long way, which I guess is another way of saying I find him an occasionally interesting minor composer.

My major deaf spot is for a lot of the standard popular romantics - Chopin, Liszt, Bizet, Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Rachmaninoff, Smetana. I don't actively dislike their music, and when it is forced on me, I usually like it well enough. It's just not something I ever want to go back to repeatedly.

[amw]

I try to listen to every composer at least once, so I'm not sure there's anyone specific I could "live without".

Can't say Bax has ever struck me as particularly offensive, although I've never been extremely interested in him either. Based on the words of sfz's friend, I'm tempted to reevaluate all the music of his that I have (symphonies, a few tone poems, a big piece for piano and orchestra, piano sonatas, piano quintet, string quartets, some other chamber music odds and ends) and see if he really is the worst composer ever to have lived.

[Jo498]

It seems pretty safe to say that outside of Britain and some anglophile bubbles, Bax is not considered important. Maybe nice to have, but this is not the same.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I like Bax but find a little goes a long way, which I guess is another way of saying I find him an occasionally interesting minor composer.

My major deaf spot is for a lot of the standard popular romantics - Chopin, Liszt, Bizet, Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Rachmaninoff, Smetana. I don't actively dislike their music, and when it is forced on me, I usually like it well enough. It's just not something I ever want to go back to repeatedly.

I wouldn't defend all those names equally. But I treasure Chopin and Berlioz above almost all 19th-century composers, even though Berlioz is highly uneven too. Works like the Chopin Ballades and Etudes, and much else besides, and the Love Scene and Queen Mab Scherzo from Berlioz's Romeo or the 4th Act from Les Troyens, are in my opinon among the wonders of the musical world.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I try to listen to every composer at least once, so I'm not sure there's anyone specific I could "live without".

Can't say Bax has ever struck me as particularly offensive, although I've never been extremely interested in him either. Based on the words of sfz's friend, I'm tempted to reevaluate all the music of his that I have (symphonies, a few tone poems, a big piece for piano and orchestra, piano sonatas, piano quintet, string quartets, some other chamber music odds and ends) and see if he really is the worst composer ever to have lived.

I listened to some of the "big piece for piano and orchestra" based on the recommendation from a certain interesting but not always reliable critic, and I could get through only a third of it. I have only two CDs of Bax's music, and I greatly prefer my Bach in the singular rather then Bax in the plural.

[vandermolen]

While some of the names I see here sadden me (honestly, Chopin - Wagner - Schoenberg - Berg - Webern - Bruckner, every one of whom I love unreservedly?), I could easily live without Havergal Brian and Arnold Bax. Problem is, neither of these losers is in any way important, especially Arnold Bax who is easily the worst of the two. When I wrote to a friend saying, "Is Arnold Bax the worst composer ever to have lived? I loathe every measure of his I've ever heard," my friend wrote back, "I have tried, given up on, tried again, and given up for good, anything by Bax. It is, at best, mediocre film music." Which I think does a disservice to good film music. But I lie, Nikolai Kapustin is almost as bad, but again, not in the least important.

My problem is that if the composer is important, I can't live without them. Well, maybe Richard Strauss, a little of whom goes a long way. There are any number of Strauss works I could cheerfully live without, such as almost all of Capriccio except the opening string sextet and final aria. And both Stockhausen and Boulez are extremely uneven, neither having maintained in their older years the brilliant achievements of their youth.

Personally I couldn't live without Bax's music 

[vandermolen]

I could not consider Gottschalk an important composer, FWIW I can certainly live without him, too.

Yes, you're right Karl, I should have paid more attention to the thread title - I'll substitute Liszt.

[Karl Henning]

y
Yes, you're right Karl, I should have paid more attention to the thread title - I'll substitute Liszt.

Who is important, but it pains me slightly that you could do without him

https://www.youtube.com/v/R7jB5S3FZWI

[Crudblud]

Off the top of my head:

Debussy
Handel
Reich
Ligeti

At the point of arriving at the fifth it became a difficult question. I didn't want to supplement Reich with Glass and have done with it, it seemed too lazy. I had considered putting Wagner there, but Wagner, even if it's quite true that I can live and indeed have been living quite successfully without recourse to his music for many years, was important to me personally for a time, so it seems a disingenuous choice. But by that logic, Ligeti shouldn't be on the list. My tendency to overthink has foiled me once again!

[Karl Henning]

Off the top of my head:

Debussy
Handel
Reich
Ligeti

At the point of arriving at the fifth it became a difficult question. I didn't want to supplement Reich with Glass and have done with it, it seemed too lazy. I had considered putting Wagner there, but Wagner, even if it's quite true that I can live and indeed have been living quite successfully without recourse to his music for many years, was important to me personally for a time, so it seems a disingenuous choice. But by that logic, Ligeti shouldn't be on the list. My tendency to overthink has foiled me once again!

(* chortle *)

I've got to include Handel in my list, because his name didn't even arise in my mind until reading your list:

With the understanding that we might in some cases drop the adverb easily, my five are:

Handel
Schubert
Mendelssohn
Wagner
Wolf