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

[Florestan]

Prompted by the ongoing discussion, I had a maiden listen to this:



Atmospheric, haunting, magical music in colorful, lush orchestration --- what's not to like, I wonder? In fact, I think I might have just made a major discovery.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Touchy, aren't some of us now? 

[Mirror Image]

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.

I concur with your feelings about Bax and Havergal Brian, although I probably wouldn't have put it as harshly as you did. And, yes, I dislike Kapustin, too. If I want to listen to jazz, I'll listen to it. Ellington eats Kapustin for breakfast.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I've weighed in here with my list, but since Bax, Brian and Kapustin are out of the way thanks to the axe swung from Sforzando, I think I'll offer some picks of my own. Let's see...I absolutely would die a happy man if I never heard another note from Nørgård, Xenakis, almost any Baroque Era composer, Verdi, Pettersson, Satie, Pfitzner, Bacewicz and most British composers (w/ the exception of Vaughan Williams, Britten, Elgar, Walton and Arnold).

[(poco) Sforzando]

Atmospheric, haunting, magical music in colorful, lush orchestration.

Sounds like Wagner, whom I'd far sooner recommend to you.

[Mirror Image]

Off the top of my head:

Debussy
Ligeti

I've got to say...this stings. It really does. Ligeti I can imagine not being for everyone, but Debussy is my favorite composer above them all. Oh well, we're all different. I respect these choices.

[Florestan]

Sounds like Wagner,

Not to me. 

[SimonNZ]

The five most recorded composers by Maria Callas.

So I never again have to risk hearing Maria fucking Callas.

[The new erato]

I haven't participated here. Partly it makes me sad to see all the really great music many find uninteresting, partly because I think that most of us would live great lives without any music at all since there are so many other wonderful things to enjoy in life that we would have found other interests if music in some way or other in some period of our lives hadn't by some accident started to interest us.

So on one level the answer is I wouldn't be without any of it. The joy of discovery is great and most composers have written something without which you would lose something if you couldn't have it. And I for one have discarded lots of music that in another circumstance or phase of life suddenly became interesting. Art is about personal growth.

On another level the answer is I could probably live quite a good life without all of it if I never had known about it.

The premise of the original question is flawed. A far more interesting question is "what collection of classical music (I disregard other genres here) would you be happy with?".

For me; if I had a couple of Ockeghem masses, a couple of Handel operas, a small collection of Bach cantatas, 2 opuses of Haydn quartets, a couple of Mozart piano concertos, the late Beethoven quartets, some Brahms chamber music, some Schubertl lieder, a couple of Shostakovich concertos, one symphony each by Nielsen, Sibelius and Pettersson, a couple of discs each with select works of Debussy and Ravel, I think I would have a varied collection that would satisfy me.

Everything else would be strictly superfluous. Perhaps less interesting, but I could live happily without the rest of it. The money and time saved could buy me quite a lot of happiness in other areas of life,

[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!

How could I have been so blind? The fifth choice is obviously Shostakovich!

I've got to say...this stings. It really does. Ligeti I can imagine not being for everyone, but Debussy is my favorite composer above them all. Oh well, we're all different. I respect these choices.

It's all taste and temperament. It isn't so much that I don't enjoy Ligeti from time to time, more that I can't remember the last time I felt a need to listen to his music. I went through an obsessive period of listening to his music, but once that was over I never felt so impressed by it as I had at first, similar to what I wrote about Wagner. As for Debussy, I recognise his importance in music history and I do respect him as a composer, I just don't hear what everyone else seems to hear when I listen to it.

[vandermolen]

I love Bax, but would consider him a "stinky cheese" composer. 

Of the "important" British composers who supposedly ushered in the British musical renaissance, I could never muster any enthusiasm for the music of Parry or Stanford.

I listen to very little Stanford or Parry, but like Stanford's 'Irish Symphony', Symphony No.5 and the Irish Rhapsody No.4. I think highly of Parry's 5th Symphony and especially the Symphonic Variations.

[Florestan]

A far more interesting question is "what collection of classical music (I disregard other genres here) would you be happy with?".

For me; if I had a couple of Ockeghem masses, a couple of Handel operas, a small collection of Bach cantatas, 2 opuses of Haydn quartets, a couple of Mozart piano concertos, the late Beethoven quartets, some Brahms chamber music, some Schubertl lieder, a couple of Shostakovich concertos, one symphony each by Nielsen, Sibelius and Pettersson, a couple of discs each with select works of Debussy and Ravel, I think I would have a varied collection that would satisfy me.

Everything else would be strictly superfluous. Perhaps less interesting, but I could live happily without the rest of it. The money and time saved could buy me quite a lot of happiness in other areas of life,

All that is of course very theoretical. You are not going to keep only a couple of Ockeghem masses, a couple of Handel operas, a small collection of Bach cantatas, 2 opuses of Haydn quartets, a couple of Mozart piano concertos, the late Beethoven quartets, some Brahms chamber music, some Schubertl lieder, a couple of Shostakovich concertos, one symphony each by Nielsen, Sibelius and Pettersson, a couple of discs each with select works of Debussy and Ravel, sell or donate all the rest of your library and live happily ever after. Or are you? 

[The new erato]

All that is of course very theoretical. You are not going to keep only a couple of Ockeghem masses, a couple of Handel operas, a small collection of Bach cantatas, 2 opuses of Haydn quartets, a couple of Mozart piano concertos, the late Beethoven quartets, some Brahms chamber music, some Schubertl lieder, a couple of Shostakovich concertos, one symphony each by Nielsen, Sibelius and Pettersson, a couple of discs each with select works of Debussy and Ravel, sell or donate all the rest of your library and live happily ever after. Or are you? 

Not now. Particularly since nobody would want it, or it would collect insignificant amounts of money I don't need.

But I could live happily with it, if that was what I had. I feel your question was very hypothetical as well. Discovering that you don't like Sibelius to me has value. It's all about personal growth. Discovering dislikes as well as likes are both very valuable. It widens your horizon and perspective on life. That is what art is about, and that is why I feel the premise was deeply flawed. How could I know what I like, if I didn't know what I didn'tlike?

[Florestan]

Not now. Paricularly since nobody woud want it, or it would collect insignificant amounts of money I don't need.

But I could live happily with it, if that was what I had. I feel your question wa very hypothetical as well.

More like tongue-in-cheek. 

Disconering that you don't like Sibelius to me has value.

You mistake me for someone else. I like Sibelius. 

It's all about personal growth. Discovering dislikes as well as likes are both very valuable. It widens your horizon and perspective on life. That is what art is about.

Yes.

[The new erato]

It wasn't about you, but a random example. I could just as well have written Beethoven. And I got the tongue in cheek, I just thought I would share my feelings about why I didn't participate. And why I think the original question starts with the wrong angle towards why we listen to music at all.

Why do we listen to the stuff? Isn't dislikes an important part of the jouney? And are they hewn in rock?

It doesn't mean I have problems with your poll. I just find it poses questions of more interest to me that I would like to raise, and that I therefore cannot answer it. Another instance of the value of a "dislike".

[Florestan]

It wasn't about you, but a random example.

Got it.

Why do we lsiten to the stuff?

Because we are addicted? 

[Florestan]

Isn't dislikes an important part of the jouney? And are they hewn in rock?

Yes. No.

[The new erato]

Addictions and habits are one aspect of it for sure. Not the worst thing to be addicted to for sure, but as most addictions it perhaps limits your enjoyment of other stuff, which was kind of the point of some parts of my original post.

But perhaps we should leave this discussion in this thread. I find it interesting to read dislikes even if I find it impossible to contribute, partly because I agree with your post no 75.

[Florestan]

Addictions and habits are one aspect of it for sure. Not the worst thing to be addicted to for sure, but as most addictions it perhaps limits your enjoyment of other stuff, which was kind of the point of some parts of my original post.

True, and it can interfere not only with enjoying other stuff but also with simply fulfilling one's life's duties... But I agree that it's a discussion which has no place in this thread.

[Jo498]

Same here, but the only British composer of the pre-Elgar era I would call important is Sullivan.

If one means "just before" with "pre-". Otherwise there are lots of important British composers (many of them maybe more important than any since and including Elgar) from Dunstable through Purcell.

[MusicTurner]

I haven't participated here. Partly it makes me sad to see all the really great music many find uninteresting, partly because I think that most of us would live great lives without any music at all since there are so many other wonderful things to enjoy in life that we would have found other interests if music in some way or other in some period of our lives hadn't by some accident started to interest us.

So on one level the answer is I wouldn't be without any of it. The joy of discovery is great and most composers have written something without which you would lose something if you couldn't have it. And I for one have discarded lots of music that in another circumstance or phase of life suddenly became interesting. Art is about personal growth.

On another level the answer is I could probably live quite a good life without all of it if I never had known about it.

The premise of the original question is flawed. A far more interesting question is "what collection of classical music (I disregard other genres here) would you be happy with?".

For me; if I had a couple of (... ....).

Everything else would be strictly superfluous. Perhaps less interesting, but I could live happily without the rest of it. The money and time saved could buy me quite a lot of happiness in other areas of life,

I agree with the points put forward.