GMG Classical Music Forum

Ah...when in doubt, start some trouble! >:D

1) Philip Glass
2) Terry Riley
3)
4) anyone influenced by Richard Strauss (Strauss waltzes incl. by default)
5) H. Gorecki (Sym No.3 and Harpsichord Cto. notwithstanding)

There...I feel better now...and you?

1. How
2. Would
3. We
4. Know their...
5. Names?

Quote from: snyprrr on August 25, 2009, 09:03:10 AM
Ah...when in doubt, start some trouble! >:D

1) Philip Glass
2) Terry Riley
3)
4) anyone influenced by Richard Strauss (Strauss waltzes incl. by default)
5) H. Gorecki (Sym No.3 and Harpsichord Cto. notwithstanding)

There...I feel better now...and you?

Squeeze Webern there in the middle and you're set.

I am not hard to please and this is not to dispute your list, but the works I have from Glass are decent; I only have one from Riley ("The Book of Abbeyozoud") which is really good, but apparently not very Riley-ish; and I like most of what I've heard from Gorecki.

They aren't favorites of mine, but I have enjoyed what I've heard...

 >:( Not a great idea for a thread.  Can't we just stick to favorites?

This one should make it to the "5 worst threads" that is around somewhere.

1. Bill Jones
2. Jack Smith
3. Sam Simpson
4. Simpy Sambini
5. Fred Freud

Fine then....here goes

1. Britney Spears
2. 50 cent
3. Bjork (any stork or bird apparel wearing pop stars incl. by default)
4. Nickelback
5. Ringo Starr

Quote from: ChamberNut on August 25, 2009, 09:15:54 AM1. Britney Spears

But does she actually write the music or lyrics?

Clearly, any such list requires mention of Harry Wayne Casey.

I would think the worst composers are the ones we never heard of. Such judgments really tell us more about the person making the judgment than they do about the composers themselves, and that is true of a list of the five best composers, as well. I agree that Glass and Gorecki are terrible, but they must mean something to someone.

And I like what little of Bjork I've heard.

Maybe I'm the only Gorecki fan?   I feel so base; so common!   :(

Glass is a great composer. I can't believe how much flak he gets!

I won't go so far as to say who the 5 worst are, but I will list 5 that I can't stand.

Schonberg
Gershwin
Copland
Mozart
Glazunov

Of course, there are many more...

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 09:25:48 AM
Glass is a great composer. I can't believe how much flak he gets!

I won't go so far as to say who the 5 worst are, but I will list 5 that I can't stand.

Schonberg
Gershwin
Copland
Mozart
Glazunov

Of course, there are many more...

I agree on two. Well, I wouldn't call them "the worst"...

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 09:25:48 AM
Glass is a great composer. I can't believe how much flak he gets!

I won't go so far as to say who the 5 worst are, but I will list 5 that I can't stand.

Schonberg
Gershwin
Copland
Mozart
Glazunov

Of course, there are many more...

Thanks for this.  I now know that I can reliably deduce the opposite of whatever opinion you post and extract some useful information.  Aside from Glazunov (no slam there, he's just not someone who regularly has a place on my program), the other four are among my most highly appreciated composers.

Time to piss some people off!

James Horner, Messiaen, Pfitzner, Satie, J Strauss I

Quote from: Lethe on August 25, 2009, 10:03:56 AM
Time to piss some people off!

James Horner, Messiaen, Pfitzner, Satie, J Strauss I

I am so unpissed right now!!!  >:(

Quote from: MN Dave on August 25, 2009, 10:05:28 AM
I am so unpissed right now!!!  >:(

Damnit, I thought the militant J Strauss fans would be sending hatemail by now :'( Perhaps this is because they all do suck - which is true as far as I am concerned 0:)

Quote from: Franco on August 25, 2009, 09:45:30 AM
Thanks for this.  I now know that I can reliably deduce the opposite of whatever opinion you post and extract some useful information.  

Indeed it works both ways.  8)

Quote from: MN Dave on August 25, 2009, 10:05:28 AM
I am so unpissed right now!!!  >:(

Yes. No.

Sara:  Although there's the occasional overlap, you've got your film scores, and you've got composition.  Cotton candy and oranges.

Quote from: monafam on August 25, 2009, 09:24:48 AM
Maybe I'm the only Gorecki fan?   I feel so base; so common!   :(

I like Gorecki! :)

He's better than a kick in the ass with a lead boot!

Quote from: MN Dave on August 25, 2009, 10:35:26 AM
He's better than a kick in the ass with a lead boot!

Visiting my parents, I was playing Gorecki's SQs when my father overheard he said that it sounded like dropping silverware. :'(

Quote from: Lethe on August 25, 2009, 10:03:56 AM
Time to piss some people off!

James Horner, Messiaen, Pfitzner, Satie, J Strauss I

Horner - Glory and Rocketeer, both great scores so I can't list him among the worst
Messiaen - Well, I do have to be in a certain mood to enjoy him...but enjoy him I do
Pfitzner - Okay, I admit he's not easy to defend  ;D
Satie - understated brilliance, one of the greats
J Strauss - conjures up feminine elegance and cleavage...what's not to like  :D

I'm not pissed, Lethe, but I will pray for you...although I'll be reserving most of my time on behalf of Tapkaara, who really does need divine intervention  ;)

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 25, 2009, 10:37:35 AM

I'm not pissed, Lethe, but I will pray for you...although I'll reserving most of my time on behalf of Tapkaara, who really does need divine intervention  ;)

Sarge

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

I must say, Glazunov does shine bright here, come to think of it.

And yes, I started this thread BEFORE I stopped by the Diner today! I must've secretly been hoping that I would have made it onto the Worst Thread list.

However, have you noticed that there IS a general consenus about what constitutes a hateful composer. You have Glazunov, Gershwin, waltzing Strausses. Perhaps, whenever a composer who SHOULD be able to write more profoundly decides to just write highly crafted "normal" music, that is considered the ultimate sin?

I'm surprised no one has come to Webern's aide here? HOW DARE YOU, SIR!!! ;D

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 09:25:48 AM
Glass is a great composer. I can't believe how much flak he gets!

aaarrghhh! ;D

Composers who suck are a good thing. It keeps the wallet happy and reminds one never to use the phrase "It's all good." I do my best to convince myself each day that another composer is unworthy of my hard earned $$$. I'm beginning to become convinced that the members here who laud everyone are simply trust fund brats who have an excess of kleenex cash.

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 10:36:49 AM
Visiting my parents, I was playing Gorecki's SQs when my father overheard he said that it sounded like dropping silverware. :'(

Your father is a great man.

One of the things I enjoy about GMG is how I get to exhibit faux offence in the manner of one of those Victorian, mutton-chopped poofterers. How uncivilized! ;D

Tapkaara...just be thankful we haven't started the Worst Japanese Composers thread...yet!!! ;D haha

I hear that if you look in a mirror and mention Spohr five times, that the spirits of Ditters, Pfitzner, and Glazunov will break through the vortex and beat you senseless with a tepid fugue!

And I am just reminded to put George Crumb on the list, only because I can never seem to successfully play his music on the stereo with having to turn the volume up and down and up and down.

That reminds me...any composer that writes vocalizations into otherwise instrumental pieces, that composer sucks.

Any composer that uses the third retrograde of a tone row WITHOUT quantizing the valence of the rhythmic analyses... that composer also sucks!

Any composer on the CRI label has a greater chance of sucking than one on NewWorld.

And, honestly, Feldman can truly suck in a theoretical way. 6hrs.??? for an SQ??? That requires an ego that has truly left the building.

My hate has blinded me. :-X

Quote from: snyprrr on August 25, 2009, 11:09:32 AM
One of the things I enjoy about GMG is how I get to exhibit faux offence in the manner of one of those Victorian, mutton-chopped poofterers. How uncivilized! ;D

Tapkaara...just be thankful we haven't started the Worst Japanese Composers thread...yet!!! ;D haha

I am VERY thankful.

Quote from: Lethe on August 25, 2009, 10:03:56 AM
Time to piss some people off!

James Horner, Messiaen, Pfitzner, Satie, J Strauss I

Messiaen and Satie are two of my favourites.

My list:
Liszt, Schumann, Roussel ( ;D I noticed you like these three, I really don't like them), Albeniz, Wagner.

But 5 is not enough. Others: Kagel, Schoenberg, Webern and all late-romantic composers.

Are you people for real? I thought all these lists were compiled in jest!  :P $:)

Bring that hammer down, Tasos!  8)

I assure you! I never je...

Oh, wait...

C'mon...you really want to make someone mad?  This is how we do it!

1. JS Bach
2. JS Bach
3. JS Bach
4. JS Bach
5. JS Bach

;D

I'm going to extract my 5 from the ArkivMusic list of most popular composers.  I don't consider these five to be the worst composers, just the 5 from the list that I least appreciate:

Vivaldi
Paganini
Delibes
Bernstein
Kreisler

Better Worst Composers, Through Science, Don.

— Yours, too, Ray  8)

Quote from: Bulldog on August 25, 2009, 11:36:17 AM
I'm going to extract my 5 from the ArkivMusic list of most popular composers.  I don't consider these five to be the worst composers, just the 5 from the list that I least appreciate:

Vivaldi
Paganini
Delibes
Bernstein
Kreisler

I concur with Berstein and Vivaldi.

Ahem.  0:)

Well, where the worst composers intersect with the worst music, of course . . . .

Quote from: Henk on August 25, 2009, 11:19:56 AM
Liszt, Schumann, Roussel ( ;D I noticed you like these three, I really don't like them)

*makes a note to bring a phial of cyanide next time I visit the Netherlands...* 0:)

  For me it would be Vivaldi, who didn't write 500 concertos but the same concerto 500 times, Gounod, whose music is as bland as white bread, Poulenc, whose music is insufferably cutesy pie most of the time, Kurt Weill, whose name should be Kurt Vile, (except for his early works which are somewhat better), and John Cage, who didn't really produce compositions, but just a collection of gimmicks.


    :P                  ::)                   >:(

Quote from: Lethe on August 25, 2009, 10:03:56 AM
Time to piss some people off!

James Horner, Messiaen, Pfitzner, Satie, J Strauss I

Hans Zimmer is much worse than Horner!

Quote from: corey on August 25, 2009, 12:58:15 PM
Hans Zimmer is much worse than Horner!

Is he the synthesized chorus guy? His name rings a bell.

Quote from: Lethe on August 25, 2009, 12:59:53 PM
Is he the synthesized chorus guy? His name rings a bell.

Gladiator, Thin Red Line, the Pirates flicks, other stuff. I think he uses those ugly synth orchestral sounds in Pirates. Blech.

Quote from: Superhorn on August 25, 2009, 12:12:24 PM
  For me it would be Vivaldi, who didn't write 500 concertos but the same concerto 500 times, Gounod, whose music is as bland as white bread, Poulenc, whose music is insufferably cutesy pie most of the time, Kurt Weill, whose name should be Kurt Vile, (except for his early works which are somewhat better), and John Cage, who didn't really produce compositions, but just a collection of gimmicks.


    :P                  ::)                   >:(

Good stuff! I agree with the Vivaldi statement and I REALLY agree with the Cage comment.

I have a feeling that most if not all of the posters here have not really listened to really bad music.

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 01:21:10 PM
I have a feeling that most if not all of the posters here have not really listened to really bad music.

I have a younger brother that listens to country music and two sisters that listen to contemporary hip hop.  :-X

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 01:21:10 PM
I have a feeling that most if not all of the posters here have not really listened to really bad music.

I, for one, have heard lots of bad music!

I don't think anyone should be insulted or feel that they have to be on the defensive if one of THEIR favorite composers is mentioned on someone else's short list of the "worst composers."

This is one thing I don't like too much about the internet forum experience. If I say I don't like Schönberg, for example, my sanity, taste and knowledge of music is called into questions and I'm a philistine, or don't "understand" his music, or this or that. (By the way, I am not saying that someone has said that to me in here...at least not yet. This is my pre-emptive strike.) Why can't I just not like this composer?

I hope that we can continue to discuss the composers we don't OPENLY without having to worry about taken to task by someone who understands music better than you

Quote from: corey on August 25, 2009, 01:22:21 PM
I have a younger brother that listens to country music and two sisters that listen to contemporary hip hop.  :-X

What's bad about that?  I do too.

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 01:21:10 PM
I have a feeling that most if not all of the posters here have not really listened to really bad music.

Hilarious, David! Exactly what I was just thinking.

By the way, Tap, you should be able certainly to dislike Schoenberg without being slammed. I think what happens, though, is that people don't just say "I dislike Cage," for example, but "Cage is one of the five worst composers," which he is of course very far from being.

To do that is to substitute your personal tastes for some sort of critical acuity. That will get you thrashed every time, and good for the thrashers, I'd say!

(You understand that some of the times I've used "you" and "your" in this post I was not talking about you, Tapkaara.)

Quote from: Lethe on August 25, 2009, 10:10:16 AM
Damnit, I thought the militant J Strauss fans would be sending hatemail by now :'( Perhaps this is because they all do suck - which is true as far as I am concerned 0:)

I'm a fan of Strauss II, but not Strauss I, your target. :)

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 01:21:10 PMI have a feeling that most if not all of the posters here have not really listened to really bad music.

      Every so often, I put a Creed album on. I do not do it to remind myself how much smarter I am now that 10 years have passed.

**Takes cover behind couch before the stoning begins**

Quote from: Dana on August 25, 2009, 03:47:25 PM
      Every so often, I put a Creed album on. I do not do it to remind myself how much smarter I am now that 10 years have passed.

**Takes cover behind couch before the stoning begins**

Sadly enough I used to listen to Creed too.  But we've recovered and moved on. ;D

I'm sure to get stoned when I revealed that I used to listen to Michelle Branch! :D

Quote from: some guy on August 25, 2009, 03:19:51 PM
Hilarious, David! Exactly what I was just thinking.

By the way, Tap, you should be able certainly to dislike Schoenberg without being slammed. I think what happens, though, is that people don't just say "I dislike Cage," for example, but "Cage is one of the five worst composers," which he is of course very far from being.

To do that is to substitute your personal tastes for some sort of critical acuity. That will get you thrashed every time, and good for the thrashers, I'd say!

(You understand that some of the times I've used "you" and "your" in this post I was not talking about you, Tapkaara.)

Well, there is no scientific way of naming the 5 best composers or the 5 worst composers. There is no be-all-and-end-all list that no one can argue against. So, i think it goes without saying (or at least it should) that when someone says "Cage is one of the worst composers" that it is ultimately his opinion and not a statement of fact.

But, I realize that not everyone thinks like I do, so I was sure to say in my first post here that my top 5 were my opinion, and not fact.

In saying that it is a matter of opinion, I cannot stand it when someone else (with an opposite opinion) tries to convince to me the contrary. If I say I don't like Schönberg, I would hope that if you do like him yourself, that you do not call my tastes into question. I have every right not to like him as the next guy has to adore him. Neither of us are right, neither of us are wrong. That's why I hate being told I'm wrong!

So far the conversation has been civil in here, which I appreciate. I have experienced elsewhere much more hostility in discussions such as this, which is a shame. This really is a good group of people.

Quote from: Brian on August 25, 2009, 03:43:30 PM
I'm a fan of Strauss II, but not Strauss I, your target. :)

Indeed! JS the 1st fails even at being the best at writing the same waltz 500 times.

I think that listing famous composers as the "worst ever" demonstrates a lack of breadth.  You might be entitled to your opinion, but it does not seem well informed.  I was actually parodying my favorite film critic, Mark Kermode, who constantly hears from people "that was the worst movie I've ever seen" he replies "no that is not the worst movie that you've ever seen.  Come to my house and I will show you the worst movie that you have ever seen." :D  And they say that due to not having ever seen a truly bad movie.

I think it's the same with you Tapkaara, you say that about Mozart, Schoenberg etc because you have not truly heard bad music.  You haven't even heard mediocre music, or even merely good music if you can listen to great music and find it to be "the worst ever".  

So come to my house Tapkaara and I will play for you the worst music that you have ever heard! :D

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 04:00:07 PMWell, there is no scientific way of naming the 5 best composers or the 5 worst composers. There is no be-all-and-end-all list that no one can argue against.

      One might argue on an absolute artistic level that music cannot be judged on a "good vs. bad" scale. Value is very much in the eye of the beholder (although not entirely).

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 04:21:20 PM
I think that listing famous composers as the "worst ever" demonstrates a lack of breadth.  You might be entitled to your opinion, but it does not seem well informed.  I was actually parodying my favorite film critic, Mark Kermode, who constantly hears from people "that was the worst movie I've ever seen" he replies "no that is not the worst movie that you've ever seen.  Come to my house and I will show you the worst movie that you have ever seen." :D  And they say that due to not having ever seen a truly bad movie.

I think it's the same with you Tapkaara, you say that about Mozart, Schoenberg etc because you have not truly heard bad music.  You haven't even heard mediocre music, or even merely good music if you can listen to great music and find it to be "the worst ever".  

So come to my house Tapkaara and I will play for you the worst music that you have ever heard! :D

I appreciate the invitation. I wish it were that easy!

I will say, though, that I my comments "don't seem well informed." Of course they are. I probably hear as much Mozart as I do any other composer because I listen to a lot of classical radio (either "real radio" or online radio) and the Mozart worshippers who are program directors at these stations sprinkel the broadcast schedule with PLENTY of Moazrt all day, every day. I have heard countless concerti, symphonies, sonatas, you name it. Despite my best efforts to say "Hey, I am into this! I really like this music!", alas, I cannot.

But you see, this is me, not Mozart. It's my OPINION that he is a bad composer, not a fact. Maybe it's better I say he is one of my least favorite. Hmmm. The fact of the matter is, TO ME, he is one of the worst. This has nothing to do with his technical skill or anything like that...he obviously know how to write music. It's just that I cannot find his sound ultimately appealing.

And the same applies to Schönberg.

So, again, in my original post is said that is will list my 5 least favorite composers, instead of definitively naming the 5 worst. To do so is impossible. I have never doubted Mozart's and Schönberg's abilities as composers. They both knew what they were doing. It's just that what they did I do not like. It's just the way it is. But it does not mean I am ill-informed. I reject the notion that you must like Schönberg, Mozart, and others to be considered "well-informed" in all things musical. ;D

Hearing alot of Mozart on the radio does not demonstrate breadth.  Classical radio is very narrow in focus, you clearly are lacking in exposure to a wide variety of music.  I don't think that you've thought out what it means for something to be the worst.

If Mozart is the worst, then you must consider the following to be better composers:

    * Lodovico Giustini (1685 - 1743)
    * Domenico Scarlatti (1685 - 1757)
    * Domenico Dalla Bella (fl. early 18th century, Venice)
    * Caterina Benedicta Grazianini (fl. early 18th century)
    * Maria Margherita Grimani (fl. early 18th century)
    * Giovanni Zamboni (fl. early 18th century)
    * Mlle Guédon de Presles (early 18th century–1754)
    * Curtis Morell (early 18th century–1754)
    * Jean-Baptiste Masse (c. 1700 - c. 1756)
    * Michel Blavet (1700 - 1768)
    * Johan Agrell (1701 - 1765)
    * Jean-Fery Rebel (the younger) (1701 - 1775)
    * Giovanni Battista Sammartini (c. 1701 - 1775)
    * Johann Ernst Eberlin (1702 - 1762)
    * Johann Gottlieb Graun (c. 1702-1771)
    * Carl Heinrich Graun (c. 1703-1759)
    * Rosanna Scalfi Marcello (fl. 1723–1742)
    * Carlos Seixas (1704-1742)
    * Giovanni Battista Pescetti (c. 1704 - c. 1766)
    * Santa Della Pietà (fl. c. 1725–1750, d. after 1774)
    * Carlo Cecere (1706 - 1761)
    * Baldassare Galuppi (1706 - 1785)
    * Georg Reutter (1708 - 1772)
    * Franz Benda (1709-1786)
    * Michel Corrette (1709 - 1795)
    * Christoph Schaffrath (1709 - 1763)
    * Princess Wilhelmine of Prussia (1709–1758)
    * Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (1710 - 1736)
    * Domenico Alberti (1710 - 1740)
    * Wilhelm Friedemann Bach (1710 – 1784)
    * Joshrup Basran (1710 - 1740)
    * Thomas Arne (1710 - 1778)
    * William Boyce (1711 - 1779)
    * Barbara of Portugal (1711–1758)
    * Frederick the Great (1712-1786)
    * John Stanley (1712 - 1786)
    * Johann Ludwig Krebs (1713 - 1780)
    * Per Brant (1714 - 1767)
    * Niccolò Jommelli (1714 - 1774)
    * Gottfried August Homilius (1714 - 1785)
    * Christoph Willibald Gluck (1714 - 1787)
    * Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (1714 - 1788)
    * Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715 - 1777)
    * Jacques Duphly (1715 - 1789)
    * Johann Friedrich Doles (1715-1797)
    * Hinrich Philip Johnsen (1716 - 1779)
    * Johann Wenzel Anton Stamitz (1717 - 1757)
    * Elisabeth de Haulteterre (fl. 1737–1768)
    * Mlle Duval (1718–after 1775)
    * Leopold Mozart (1719 - 1787)
    * William Walond (1719 - 1768)
    * Joan Baptista Pla (c. 1720-1773)
    * Maria Teresa Agnesi (1720–1795)
    * Johann Friedrich Agricola (1720-1774)
    * Johann Christoph Altnickol (1720-1759)
    * Pieter Hellendaal (1721-1799)
    * Johann Philipp Kirnberger (1721 - 1783)
    * John Garth (1721 - 1810)
    * Sebastián Ramón de Albero y Añaños (1722 - 1756)
    * Georg Benda (1722 - 1795)
    * Carl Friedrich Abel (1723 - 1787)
    * Anna Amalia Princess of Prussia (1723–1787)
    * Maria Antonia Walpurgis of Bavaria (1724–1780)
    * Claude Balbastre (1724–1799)
    * Miss Davis (c. 1726–after 1755)
    * Johann Becker (1726-1803)
    * Johann Gottlieb Goldberg (1727 – 1756)
    * Tommaso Traetta (1727 - 1779)
    * Armand-Louis Couperin (1727 - 1789)
    * Niccolò Piccinni (1728 - 1800)
    * Florian Leopold Gassmann (1729 - 1774)[1]
    * Giuseppe Sarti (1729 - 1802)[2]
    * Antonio Soler (1729 - 1783)
    * Pieter van Maldere (1729-1798)
    * Luise Adelgunda Victoria Gottsched (died 1762)
    * Christian Cannabich (1731 - 1798)
    * Elisabetta de Gambarini (1731–1765)
    * Joseph Haydn (1732 - 1809)
    * Josina Anna Petronella van Boetzelaer (1733–1787)
    * Anton Fils (1733 - 1760)
    * Benjamin Cooke (1734 - 1793)
    * François-Joseph Gossec (1734 - 1829)
    * Johann Gottfried Eckard (1735 - 1809)[3]
    * Johann Christian Bach (1735 - 1782)
    * Mme Papavoine (born c. 1735, fl. 1755-61)
    * Johann Georg Albrechtsberger (1736 - 1809)
    * Hélène-Louise Demars (b. c. 1736)
    * Michael Haydn (1737 - 1806)
    * Josef Mysliveček (1737 - 1781)
    * William Herschel (1738 - 1822)
    * Leopold Hofmann (1738 - 1793)
    * Anna Bon (born 1738/1739)
    * Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf (1739 - 1799)
    * Johann Baptist Vanhal (1739 - 1813)
    * Anna Amalia, Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1739–1807)
    * Mlle Guerin (born c. 1739, fl. 1755)
    * Isabelle de Charrière (1740–1805)
    * Luigi Gatti (1740 - 1817)
    * André Ernest Modeste Grétry (1741 - 1813)
    * Andrea Luchesi (1741 - 1801)
    * Giovanni Paisiello (1741 - 1816)
    * Václav Pichl (1741 - 1804)
    * Maria Carolina Wolf (1742–1820)
    * Luigi Boccherini (1743 - 1805)
    * Franz Nikolaus Novotny (1743 - 1773)
    * Anne Louise Boyvin d'Hardancourt Brillon de Jouy (1744–1824)
    * Marianne von Martínez (1744–1812)
    * Yekaterina Sinyavina (died 1784)
    * Carl Stamitz (1745 - 1801)
    * Maddalena Laura Sirmen (1745–1818)
    * Joseph Bologne, the Chevalier de Saint-Georges (1745 - 1799)
    * Marie Emmanuelle Bayon Louis (1746–1825)
    * Leopold Kozeluch (1747 - 1818)
    * Joseph Schuster (1748 - 1812)[4]
    * Henriette Adélaïde Villard de Beaumesnil (1748–1813)
    * Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1749-1818)
    * Domenico Cimarosa (1749-1801)
    * Jean-Frédéric Edelmann (1749-1794)
    * Maria Barthélemon (c. 1749–1799)
    * Antonín Kraft (c. 1749-1820)
    * Marianna von Auenbrugger (d. 1786)
    * Antonio Salieri (1750 - 1825)
    * Antonio Rosetti (c1750 - 1792)
    * Elizabeth Anspach (1750–1828)
    * Elizabeth Joanetta Catherine von Hagen (1750–1809/10)
    * Dmytro Bortniansky (1751 - 1825)
    * Maria Anna Mozart (1751–1829)
    * Mary Ann Pownall (1751–1796)
    * Corona Elisabeth Wilhelmine Schröter (1751–1802)
    * Mary Ann Wrighten (1751–1796)
    * Muzio Clementi (1752 - 1832)
    * Leopold Kozeluch (1752 - 1818)
    * Niccolò Antonio Zingarelli (1752 - 1837)
    * Juliane Reichardt (1752–1783)
    * Jane Savage (1752/3–1824)
    * Jean-Baptiste Bréval (1753 - 1823)
    * Vicente Martín y Soler (1754 - 1806)
    * Vincenzo Righini (1756 - 1812)
    * Giuseppe Antonio Capuzzi (1755 - 1818)
    * Countess Maria Theresia Ahlefeldt (1755–1810)
    * Mary Linwood (1755/6–1845)
    * Antoine-Frédéric Gresnick (1755 - 1799)
    * Francesca Lebrun also Franziska Danzi Lebrun (1756–1791)
    * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 - 1791)
    * Joseph Martin Kraus (1756 - 1792)
    * Paul Wranitzky (1756 - 1808)
    * Daniel Gottlob Türk (1756-1813)
    * Ignaz Pleyel (1757 - 1831)
    * Harriett Abrams (1758–1821)
    * Josepha Barbara Auernhammer (1758–1820)
    * François Devienne (1759 - 1803)[5]
    * Franz Vinzenz Krommer (1759 - 1831)
    * Maria Theresa von Paradis (1759 - 1824)
    * Maria Rosa Coccia (1759–1833)
    * Sophia Maria Westenholz (1759–1838)
    * Luigi Cherubini (1760 - 1842)
    * Johann Ladislaus Dussek (1760 - 1812)
    * Marie-Elizabeth Cléry (1761–after 1795)
    * Erik Tulindberg (1761-1814)
    * Marcos António da Fonseca Portugal (1762-1830)
    * Joseph de Momigny (1762 - 1842)
    * Adelheid Maria Eichner (1762–1787)
    * Jane Mary Guest (1762–1846)
    * Ann Valentine (1762–1842)
    * Franz Danzi (1763 - 1826)
    * Adalbert Gyrowetz (1763 - 1850)
    * Étienne Méhul (1763-1817)
    * Johann Simon Mayr (1763 - 1845)
    * Helene de Montgeroult (1764–1836)
    * Franz Xaver Süssmayr (1766 - 1803)
    * Samuel Wesley (1766 - 1837)
    * Anne-Marie Krumpholtz (1766–1813)
    * Caroline Wuiet (1766–1835)
    * Wenzel Muller (1767 - 1835)
    * Julie Candeille (1767–1834)
    * José Maurício Nunes Garcia (1767 - 1830)
    * Carlos Baguer (1768 - 1808)
    * Elizabeth Weichsell Billington (c.1768–1818)
    * Margarethe Danzi (1768–1800)
    * Francesco Gnecco (1769 - 1810)
    * Cecilia Maria Barthélemon (c. 1769–1840)
    * Maria Theresa Bland (c. 1769–1838)
    * Kateřina Veronika Anna Dusíkova (1769–1833)
    * Maria Margherita Grimani (fl. 18th century)
    * Vincenta Da Ponte (fl. second half 18th century)
    * Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827
    * Ferdinando Carulli (1770-1841)
    * Ferdinando Paer (1771-1839)
    * Johann Baptist Cramer (1771-1858)
    * Lucile Grétry (1772–1790)
    * Maria Frances Parke (1772–1822)
    * Sophie Bawr (1773–1860)
    * Maria Brizzi Giorgi (1775–1822)
    * João Domingos Bomtempo (1775-1842)
    * Sophia Corri Dussek (1775–1847)
    * Margaret Essex (1775–1807)
    * Sophie Gail (1775–1819)
    * Maria Hester Park (1775–1822)
    * Johann Nepomuk Hummel (1778-1837)
    * Fernando Sor (1778-1839)
    * Pauline Duchambge (1778–1858)
    * Joachim Nicolas Eggert (1779-1813)
    * Louise Reichardt (1779–1826)
    * Anthony Philip Heinrich (1781-1861)
    * Sophie Lebrun (1781–1863)
    * John Field (1782-1837)
    * Niccolò Paganini (1782-1840)
    * Daniel Auber (1782-1871)
    * Louis Spohr (1784-1859)
    * Teresa Belloc-Giorgi (1784–1855)
    * Bettina Brentano (1785–1859)
    * Catherina Cibbini-Kozeluch (1785–1858)
    * Isabella Colbran (1785–1845)
    * Fanny Krumpholtz Pittar (1785–1815)
    * Pietro Raimondi (1786-1853)
    * Carl Maria von Weber (1786-1826)
    * Friedrich Kuhlau (1786-1832)
    * Marie Bigot (1786–1820)
    * Le Sénéchal de Kerkado (c. 1786–after 1805)
    * Nicolas Bochsa (1789-1856)
    * Elena Asachi (1789–1877)
    * Maria Agata Szymanowska (1789–1831)
    * Harriet Browne (1790–1858)
    * Louis Joseph Ferdinand Herold (1791–1833)
    * Carl Czerny (1791-1857)
    * Giacomo Meyerbeer (1791-1864)
    * Gertrude van den Bergh (1793–1840)
    * Amalie, Princess of Saxony (1794–1870)
    * Olivia Buckley (born mid-1790s–after 1845)
    * Franz Berwald (1796-1868)
    * Carl Loewe (1796-1869)
    * Helene Liebmann (1796–1835)
    * Emilie Zumsteeg (1796–1857)
    * Gaetano Donizetti (1797-1848)
    * Franz Schubert (1797-1828)
    * Annette von Droste-Hülshoff (1797–1848)
    * Mme Delaval (fl. 1791–1802)
    * Mme Ravissa (fl. late 18th century)
    * Ekaterina Likoshin (fl. 1800–1810)
    * Katerina Maier (fl. c. 1800)
    * Agata Della Pietà (fl. c. 1800)

I doubt that you've heard the majority of the composers on that list, I doubt that even Gabriel and Gurn have heard every single one of them.  Yet you confidently claim that Mozart is worse than those composers because that is what it means to be the worst.  But the funny thing is that he is the most famous composer of that era.  You would truly have to belong to the cult of Newman to ascribe to that view even if it's only a matter of taste.  Do you see what the problem is now?

And stop posting and reposting the "let me explain what an opinion is" nobody is confused about opinions vs facts as we are not three years old, and nobody thinks that you are asserting facts. :D  It's not a shield, it's not a valid point, it's not a relevant point.  I'm asking you to defend your position, not hide behind "I can think what I want!" that's not the point of a discussion.

If you are going to assert your opinion, then defend it. :)

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 05:59:04 PM
Hearing alot of Mozart on the radio does not demonstrate breadth.  Classical radio is very narrow in focus, you clearly are lacking in exposure to a wide variety of music.  I don't think that you've thought out what it means for something to be the worst.

I doubt that you've heard the majority of the composers on that list, I doubt that even Gabriel and Gurn have heard every single one of them.  Yet you confidently claim that Mozart is worse than those composers because that is what it means to be the worst.  But the funny thing is that he is the most famous composer of that era.  You would truly have to belong to the cult of Newman to ascribe to that view even if it's only a matter of taste.  Do you see what the problem is now?

My original post in this thread:

Glass is a great composer. I can't believe how much flak he gets!

I won't go so far as to say who the 5 worst are, but I will list 5 that I can't stand.

Schonberg
Gershwin
Copland
Mozart
Glazunov

Of course, there are many more...

I don't believe I said Mozart was one of the 5 worst. I said he was in my 5 least favorites. And you are right, I haven't heard many of the composers on that list, so I cannot compare Mozart to composers I don't know..and I didn't do that anyway.

How can you say I obviously lack exposure to a wide variety of music? Don't you think that is a rather presumptuous? I'm sure you know composers I don't, and vice versa. But I would never try to claim that you lack any breadth of knowledge.

If hearing a lot of Mozart on the radio does not count toward hearing a lot of Mozart, what does? Hearing him in concert? On disc? Memorizing his scores? Performing his scores? Conducting his scores?

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 06:04:19 PM
And stop posting and reposting the "let me explain what an opinion is" nobody is confused about opinions vs facts as we are not three years old, and nobody thinks that you are asserting facts. :D  It's not a shield, it's not a valid point, it's not a relevant point.  I'm asking you to defend your position, not hide behind "I can think what I want!" that's not the point of a discussion.

If you are going to assert your opinion, then defend it. :)

I don't think I'm talking to anyone like they are 3. I apologize if I'm coming off that way...

That I do not like Mozart is not a valid, relevant point?

How can I defend my distaste of Mozart? How can I defend the ennui I feel while listening to Mozart? I suppose I really don't know. I suppose there is no way to defend this, the same way I cannot defend my agnosticism to a hard-core Christian. To the intolerant, I will always be wrong.

But having said that, I find Mozart's music to be structurally sound and he had a facile talent for form and melody. But, for some reason, despite the man's obvious talent as a musician, I cannot take in his sound and get excited. I suppose if I were to say this about Glass, J. Strauss II, Franz von Suppe or some other "lesser" composer, my distaste would be OK. But Mozart is a sacred cow, and my honest distaste for him always seems to rile people. Again, I never claimed he was among the worst composers. I said if I could pick 5 that liked the least, Mozart would be on that list. I have never been able to understand why I must be taken to task for stating my honest opinion on this...!

I hardy think admiration for Mozart is requisite for having good taste in music or having a sound knowledge of music.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 06:11:32 PM
I don't believe I said Mozart was one of the 5 worst. I said he was in my 5 least favorites. And you are right, I haven't heard many of the composers on that list, so I cannot compare Mozart to composers I don't know..and I didn't do that anyway.

But you used such extreme language to state your utter and complete distaste and hatred for his music, that "worst" conveys what you meant "least favorite" is a retroactive gentling of your OP.

QuoteHow can you say I obviously lack exposure to a wide variety of music? Don't you think that is a rather presumptuous? I'm sure you know composers I don't, and vice versa. But I would never try to claim that you lack any breadth of knowledge.

It's not presumptuous, there are only four plausible explanations for having Mozart and Schoenberg on a worst of list, you are-- (a) newbie, (b) narrow in focus, lacking in breadth (worshiping at the shrine of canonized music), (c) crackpot, and (d) troll.  You are clearly not a newbie, not a crackpot, nor are you a troll.  That only leaves lack of breadth.

If I posted a list of worst of-- "Beethoven, Bach, Dvorak and Bartok" you would just as equally be able to label me as lacking in breadth, though in that case trolling is not so easily ruled out. ;D  You can't assume a symmetry between us because you posting your list in the first place broke that symmetry, by posting that list you have invited judgment by your fellow posters.  I have not invited judgment by being clever enough to NOT post my own list.  It works every time. ;D

QuoteIf hearing a lot of Mozart on the radio does not count toward hearing a lot of Mozart, what does? Hearing him in concert? On disc? Memorizing his scores? Performing his scores? Conducting his scores?

I did not say that, you put words in my mouth.  I said that it did not count towards breadth, because that is simply listening to THE SAME COMPOSER.  Breadth means listening to MANY COMPOSERS.

Quote from: Superhorn on August 25, 2009, 12:12:24 PM
  For me it would be Vivaldi, who didn't write 500 concertos but the same concerto 500 times

Whatever!  How clever, just because Stravinsky said so?  ::)

Fine, I will listen to the same Vivaldi concerto 500 times, or each of the 500 concertos 500 times before a half hour of Handel.  Anyday.

Quote from: ChamberNut on August 25, 2009, 06:23:19 PM
Whatever!  How clever, just because Stravinsky said so?  ::)

Fine, I will listen to the same Vivaldi concerto 500 times, or each of the 500 concertos 500 times before a half hour of Handel.  Anyday.

You and me, Ray. :D

BTW, I have nearly all 500... :)

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 27 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 17 #3 4th mvmt - Allegro di molto

I don't quite get what the qualification for a composer is here.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 06:21:36 PM
That I do not like Mozart is not a valid, relevant point?

How many times must it be explained that you are NOT defending your dislike of Mozart.  You are defending your choice to characterize him as one of the worst, you can say "least favorite"
but you still have to defend why you would like him least of all composers, it's still the same thing.  You can't expect to post on a worst of thread with famous composers and not have to defend yourself.

QuoteTo the intolerant, I will always be wrong.

You really, really have that reversed.  That's why I posted that list.  When you rank Mozart so low it means that you are ranking everyone else above him.  Do you actually enjoy Dittersdorf more than Mozart?  Do you enjoy Greg's music more than Mozart (sorry Greg)?  You have shown a huge intolerance towards Mozart, I'm trying to show how extreme your opinion really is.  To you, you think of yourself as moderate, but you are really, really, really not moderate in expressing a complete hatred of Mozart's music.  And that's just one of the composers on your list, your extreme view towards all of them I find highly disagreeable.  And you don't seem to have any rational foundation for it, nor have you really compared them to the music of others.  It's a list written with no thought behind it.  If you had put forth more effort you would have an interesting list, but this is only interesting in how extreme it is.

QuoteI have never been able to understand why I must be taken to task for stating my honest opinion on this...!

Perhaps instead of seeing yourself as the victim, consider that HUGE list of classical composers instead.  Think about it.  You have heard almost nothing in that era, you probably have no appreciation for his music relative to his contemporaries, yet you perceive your judgment as informed.  Hmmm...

QuoteI hardy think admiration for Mozart is requisite for having good taste in music or having a sound knowledge of music.

Oh I think that if you can not admire some aspect of his music, even if you don't love it, then you do NOT have good taste in music nor do you have sound knowledge in it.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2009, 06:31:25 PM
You and me, Ray. :D

BTW, I have nearly all 500... :)

8)

:D

I only have about a dozen of them.  Overall, I don't have that much Baroque in my collection.  Something I'm not in any big hurry to address.  ;D

Quote from: RexRichter on August 25, 2009, 06:31:52 PM
I don't quite get what the qualification for a composer is here.

Oh a composer is someone that writes music.  It's not distinctly classical, music kind of has to be written down if it's to be performed again regardless of genre. :D  So I will confidently start listing Journey songs I hate!! ;D

David, settle down.  :D ;)

I don't understand what the big deal is?  If Tapkaara says he dislikes Mozart's music relative to the other music he's heard, what's really so wrong about that?  ???

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 06:22:32 PM
But you used such extreme language to state your utter and complete distaste and hatred for his music, that "worst" conveys what you meant "least favorite" is a retroactive gentling of your OP.

It's not presumptuous, there are only four plausible explanations for having Mozart and Schoenberg on a worst of list, you are-- (a) newbie, (b) narrow in focus, lacking in breadth (worshiping at the shrine of canonized music), (c) crackpot, and (d) troll.  You are clearly not a newbie, not a crackpot, nor are you a troll.  That only leaves lack of breadth.

If I posted a list of worst of-- "Beethoven, Bach, Dvorak and Bartok" you would just as equally be able to label me as lacking in breadth, though in that case trolling is not so easily ruled out. ;D  You can't assume a symmetry between us because you posting your list in the first place broke that symmetry, by posting that list you have invited judgment by your fellow posters.  I have not invited judgment by being clever enough to NOT post my own list.  It works every time. ;D

I did not say that, you put words in my mouth.  I said that it did not count towards breadth, because that is simply listening to THE SAME COMPOSER.  Breadth means listening to MANY COMPOSERS.

I'd like to know if there are other people who believe that, without an appreciation for Mozart or Schönberg, one lacks breadth in classical music. Is this really true?

I'm confused about your last bit. I'm not sure why I have to listen to other composers, some of them obscure, to validate my distate for Mozart?

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 06:42:05 PM
I'd like to know if there are other people who believe that, without an appreciation for Mozart or Schönberg, one lacks breadth in classical music. Is this really true?

I'm confused about your last bit. I'm not sure why I have to listen to other composers, some of them obscure, to validate my distate for Mozart?

No, to the first question.

And no, you don't have to.

I don't really see it relevant.  If Schonberg or Mozart aren't to your liking, than that is what it is, non?

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 06:42:05 PM
I'd like to know if there are other people who believe that, without an appreciation for Mozart or Schönberg, one lacks breadth in classical music. Is this really true?

It's not simply a lack of appreciation, it is how profoundly COMPLETE your lack of appreciation is.  To put them as bottom of the barrel means that you must not listen to a wide variety of music.  It's just that simple.  If you had put lesser composers on that list, I would not question the variety of music that you've heard.  I mean if you can't find any redeeming value to their music than how can you have any kind of real perspective on either the classical era, the modern era or contemporary music?  How would that be possible?

Quote
I'm confused about your last bit. I'm not sure why I have to listen to other composers, some of them obscure, to validate my distate for Mozart?

The same reason that if you didn't listen to jazz, and then say listened to only Miles Davis and then characterized him as your least favorite, it's not really a valid opinion.  He would also be your favorite, you just happened to not like him.  Ditto Mozart.  If you don't hear music from that era to properly frame his music then you do not have perspective.  It would probably turn out that once you really got used to the language and could sort out your own personal preferences, I doubt that you would still rank Mozart that low.

Who started this thread in the first place anyway?  >:D

SNYPRRR!!!  $:)

;D

Quote from: ChamberNut on August 25, 2009, 06:41:37 PM
David, settle down.  :D ;)

I don't understand what the big deal is?  If Tapkaara says he dislikes Mozart's music relative to the other music he's heard, what's really so wrong about that?  ???

Hey now, that is very dishonest of you.  If he said "I dislike Mozart relative to the other music that I've heard" there would be no debate at all.  He didn't say that.  He said "I will list 5 that I can't stand".  Can't stand.  CAN'T STAND.  CAN'T STAND.  That is absolutely absurd and demands an attack.  He invites it.  With language like that, he clearly invites antagonism.

Well David, while I'm sure there is no malice intended towards me, it is obvious tha I will not be able to state my case to you and have you accept it. And that's OK.

Again, I never said Mozart was one of the worst composers ever. I said he was one of my least favorites. Anyway you try to slice it or analyze it, that's what I said.

It is not my personal belief that an admiration for Mozart (or Schönberg for that matter) is needed to consider yourself an individual with good musical taste. Nor do I believe hearing every obscure composer in a period of music makes one a better judge of taste than someone who has not heard as many obscure composers. I don't think I need to hear every piano concerto of the classical period before I am able to make a judgement of classical era piano concertos I like or don't like.

And finally, for you to make a judgement call on my lack of breadth and thus lack of understanding of "great music" is extremely presumptuous and, if I may say so, just a little pompous. You may know more obscure composers than I do, but that does not make you a paragon of good taste, nor does that make me someone who just doesn't get it. I've been listening to classical music for about 15 years, and I think after that amount of time, I have had a good opportunity to hear lots of music on the radio, on disc and in the hall, and as a consequence, I've been able to cultivate my tastes and figure out what I care for and what I don't. I am sorry if in my (I suppose much too short) classical career that I have not been able, as of yet, to embrace Mozart, Schönberg (and indeed many others), but it is the case and I don't think that "lack of breadth" on my part can (or should) be used against me.

I'll let you have the last word, and I hope that I have made myself at least a little more clear! Not looking to start arguments, just trying to explain myself.

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 06:41:34 PMSo I will confidently start listing Journey songs I hate!! ;D

She's just a small town girl, living in a LOOOOONely wooooooooorld!

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 06:55:04 PM
Hey now, that is very dishonest of you.  If he said "I dislike Mozart relative to the other music that I've heard" there would be no debate at all.  He didn't say that.  He said "I will list 5 that I can't stand".

Well to me David, that kind of translates to disliking relative to the other music he's heard.  Just worded differently.  Just saying.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 06:55:53 PMIt is not my personal belief that an admiration for Mozart (or Schönberg for that matter) is needed to consider yourself an individual with good musical taste...

And finally, for you to make a judgement call on my lack of breadth and thus lack of understanding of "great music" is extremely presumptuous and, if I may say so, just a little pompous...

     The definition of good taste is determined by the people who who write for Tempo Quarterly and the New York Times. Please forgive us if the pompacity (to invent a word) of the establishment rubs off on us :) If those people actually had the right to call us good and bad people, I wouldn't be allowed to associate myself with about 1/2 the people I know, and most of the people who would come to my concerts!

I am neither pompous nor am I a self-proclaimed paragon of good taste, nor am I being presumptuous, nor am I simply flaunting a knowledge of obscure composers (you must have absolutely, completely missed the point of that list if you I think I posted a wiki list to flaunt knowledge), nor am I saying that you must exhaustively listen to all music before offering an opinion.

But my judgment call is sound, you clearly don't appreciate Mozart because you don't appreciate the classical era.  I've thrown that at you several times, and you did not seem to disagree with that.  You have hope, if you take my advise and familiarize yourself with that era you might find an appreciation that you do not currently have.  I don't care if you have listened to music in every medium over 15 years, you could have spent 90% of that time listening to Sibelius symphonies on repeat just as Eric listens to one single opera on repeat.  Stop being offended, and take it to heart and expand your horizons.  You could at least be able to replace Mozart with someone of lesser talent on your hatred list.  And that would be a huge step in the right direction.

I assumed that like everyone else you came here to broaden your horizons, and not simply to stubbornly defend narrow tastes.

Quote from: ChamberNut on August 25, 2009, 07:03:25 PM
Well to me David, that kind of translates to disliking relative to the other music he's heard.  Just worded differently.  Just saying.

Tone is everything, one message is gentle and the other is harsh.  One invites a mere raise of the eyebrow, and the other invites a smackdown.  Just saying.  Wording something differently is to say something different.

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 07:16:23 PM
Tone is everything, one message is gentle and the other is harsh. 

I agree with you here.  I guess I just didn't take Tapkaara's message as harsh.  :-\

*handshake*

Has anyone actually heard anything by Richard Nanes? He may be a plausible candidate for Worst Composer Ever.

According to the information that has come my way, he is a rich dilettante who bribes orchestras to perform and record his work. The few critical comments I have read concerning the Nanes oeuvre have been uniformly negative, often viciously so.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 06:42:05 PM
I'd like to know if there are other people who believe that, without an appreciation for Mozart or Schönberg, one lacks breadth in classical music. Is this really true?

It depends on what is meant by "breadth". If it's meant to have listened to each and every composer, or most of them, that ever put pen to paper, starting with, say Hildegard von Bingen and ending with, say Karl Henning --- then anyone here, without exception, lacks it.  :)

That being said, we all know that beauty can't be forced down anyone's throat ears. Liking or not liking a certain composer is a matter of temperament, taste and even age. I personally didn't interpret Tapkaara's original post as implying Mozart is really one of the worst, but just one whose music Tapkaara likes the least. Actually, he qualified and ammended his statement several times. I don't quite understand what's the purpose of hunting him down and crucifying him, nor do I understand what difference does it make to Mozart's status if this or that person dislikes him.  ???

Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2009, 10:56:42 PM
It depends on what is meant by "breadth". If it's meant to have listened to each and every composer, or most of them, that ever put pen to paper, starting with, say Hildegard von Bingen and ending with, say Karl Henning --- then anyone here, without exception, lacks it.  :)

That being said, we all know that beauty can't be forced down anyone's throat ears. Liking or not liking a certain composer is a matter of temperament, taste and even age. I personally didn't interpret Tapkaara's original post as implying Mozart is really one of the worst, but just one whose music Tapkaara likes the least. Actually, he qualified and ammended his statement several times. I don't quite understand what's the purpose of hunting him down and crucifying him, nor do I understand what difference does it make to Mozart's status if this or that person dislikes him.  ???

I appreciate your comments!

In a potentially contentious thread such as this, we are all bound to read things we don't want to read. It's no secret I love Sibelius. If someone in this thread listed Sibelius as one of the worst (or one of the composers they liked least), I might be frustrated or confused, but I would never personally attack anyone or call into question the "breadth" of their knowledge.

I really get irked that, in forums, one is crucified, as you put it, for expressing an opinion that may not be popular. (I guess I should expect this!) I mentioned in an earlier post that Mozart is a sacred cow. I think this is very true. It seems that anything negative said about him is the same as killing your grandmother or kissing Satan's derriere. In other words, it just vile or disgusting. If I can accept and respect that many people HATE Philip Glass (a composer I like a lot), than I think others should respect the fact that I am one of the tiny few that doesn't worship Mozart. I does not make me a bad person, nor a philistine, just someone whose tastes are a little different from the norm.

That should be celebrated in a forum where exchanges of ideas are the reason that were here. The moment we discourage others to express certain opinions, even if they may be unpopular, is the moment a forum is rendered useless.

OK, I'm done with my dramatic monologue. Again, Florestan, thank you for your insight.

Quote from: Dana on August 25, 2009, 04:26:36 PM
      One might argue on an absolute artistic level that music cannot be judged on a "good vs. bad" scale. Value is very much in the eye of the beholder (although not entirely).

Partly that.

Partly, too, the fact that most every composer most all of the time does his work with the intent of writing well;  and in most cases, there is some portion of audience which thinks well of it.  I think there is certainly value in the discussion of great-vs.-good (in which there is still the component of Is the listener attuned to the composer under advisement?) . . . but "bad music" (overall) is not bad in any way equal-but-opposite to the ways in which great music is good.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 11:16:12 PM
I really get irked that, in forums, one is crucified, as you put it, for expressing an opinion that may not be popular. (I guess I should expect this!)

Right;  don't let it irk you!  In most cases, it is not personal;  and (a) a lot of people of not going to agree with any opinion/preference which I may express at any time, plus (b) this is a very active forum.

Plus (c) a lot of off-the-cuff commentary on an Internet forum is . . . worthless  >:D 8)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 03:58:29 AM
most every composer most all of the time does his work with the intent of writing well;  and in most cases, there is some portion of audience which thinks well of it. 

Word. Even Dittersdorf qualifies.  ;D

 0:)

The worst composers will all have been forgotten. With the possible exception of Nanes mentioned above none of them will have any of their works recorded. Thank goodness!
I once knew someone who declared that Mozart's music never went anywhere. He didn't like it. To me, that music has arrived from the very first note but music is always a matter of taste. Some do not like Mahler, others Wagner, etc.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 04:01:29 AMPlus (c) a lot of off-the-cuff commentary on an Internet forum is . . . worthless  >:D 8)

:o :'(

Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2009, 10:56:42 PM
It depends on what is meant by "breadth". If it's meant to have listened to each and every composer, or most of them, that ever put pen to paper, starting with, say Hildegard von Bingen and ending with, say Karl Henning --- then anyone here, without exception, lacks it.

That was never my point, I listed all of those composers to demonstrate what it really means to rank someone as bottom of the barrel.  I doubt that anyone if they listened to only 10% of that list would still rank Mozart so very low.

QuoteActually, he qualified and ammended his statement several times. I don't quite understand what's the purpose of hunting him down and crucifying him, nor do I understand what difference does it make to Mozart's status if this or that person dislikes him.  ???

I was not hunting him down, I was not crucifying him.  And this is not about Mozart's status (nor is he a sacred cow, any kind of intelligent criticism and not "I hate it" would be considered).  This is about calling to task a poster for creating a strange list.  If he has no intention of defending or even explaining his bizarre tastes, then why bother posting in the first place?

I am certainly in the right for demanding an explanation for him, and I have not crossed a border into libel.  I shouldn't have to defend myself.

Quote from: DavidW on August 26, 2009, 07:01:07 AM
That was never my point, I listed all of those composers to demonstrate what it really means to rank someone as bottom of the barrel.  I doubt that anyone if they listened to only 10% of that list would still rank Mozart so very low.

I was not hunting him down, I was not crucifying him.  And this is not about Mozart's status (nor is he a sacred cow, any kind of intelligent criticism and not "I hate it" would be considered).  This is about calling to task a poster for creating a strange list.  If he has no intention of defending or even explaining his bizarre tastes, then why bother posting in the first place?

I am certainly in the right for demanding an explanation for him, and I have not crossed a border into libel.  I shouldn't have to defend myself.

I suppose not, but then again, I can't help but wonder, why do you care so deeply about what his choices are?  For sure, I agree with you that listing Mozart on a "worst of" list is odd, and I did comment on his choices by remarking that his choices were 180 degrees opposite from my own, hence I can rely on his opinions are reliable information, in an inverse ratio to my tastes.

But to get into such a long winded analysis of what went into his choices .... a bit much, IMO.

Sometimes I think we take these threads way too seriously, and the forum loses a certain amount of charm in the process.

Quote from: DavidW on August 26, 2009, 07:01:07 AM
That was never my point, I listed all of those composers to demonstrate what it really means to rank someone as bottom of the barrel.  I doubt that anyone if they listened to only 10% of that list would still rank Mozart so very low.

The idea that Mozart is somehow one of the 5 Worst Composers Ever is bizarre in the extreme.

Someone has probably pointed that out already;  but it is such a deliberate eccentricity, repetition is justified: The idea that Mozart is somehow one of the 5 Worst Composers Ever is bizarre in the extreme.

Quote from: snyprrr on August 25, 2009, 09:03:10 AM
4) anyone influenced by Richard Strauss (Strauss waltzes incl. by default)

I don't think Richard Strauss was related to the Johans, or did I misunderstand you  ???

In choral music, I like the English composer John Rutter, but many "serious" singers think he's too commercial, akin to John Williams. So if Rutter is enjoyable, can he still be called "bad"? I agree with the person who said that the really really bad composers disappeared into oblivion; they wouldn't have even been on Karl's list.  :)

Otto Klemperer
Leif Segerstam
Lorin Maazel
Wilhelm Furtwängler
Bruno Walter

AGAIN, to clarify. I NEVER said Mozart was one of the 5 worst composers. I said he was in my 5 LEAST FAVORITE. Isn't there a difference? (Refer to my first post in this thread, PLEASE!!!)

Had I known this was going to be such a hassle to explain myself, I would never have made the post to begin with.

Again, I'll repeat that this thread was a bad idea to begin with anyways.  There is no possible way to objectively come up with 5 worst composers.

So, putting that aside, it's really all about your 5 least favorite composers, is it not?  So whether it's Mozart, Dittersdorff, Brahms, Cage, it's irrelevant anyways.

I don't think anyone should have to defend a list of 5 favorite composers or 5 worst?

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 07:19:56 AM
The idea that Mozart is somehow one of the 5 Worst Composers Ever is bizarre in the extreme.

Someone has probably pointed that out already;  but it is such a deliberate eccentricity, repetition is justified: The idea that Mozart is somehow one of the 5 Worst Composers Ever is bizarre in the extreme.

Doesn't matter Karl.  You cannot say Mozart is in the 5 worst composers, or 5 greatest composers.  You just can't.  You can however say that Mozart is one of your 5 favorite composers, of 5 least liked composers.  Period.

Or that Mozart is a composer that starts with "M".   ;D

Quote from: MN Dave on August 26, 2009, 09:43:14 AM
Or that Mozart is a composer that starts with "M".   ;D

;D  Yes, that is an objective statement.  QFT.

Quote from: ChamberNut on August 26, 2009, 09:35:48 AM
Doesn't matter Karl.  You cannot say Mozart is in the 5 worst composers, or 5 greatest composers.  You just can't.  You can however say that Mozart is one of your 5 favorite composers, of 5 least liked composers.  Period.

Is is easier to recognize bad writing: incorrect grammar; plodding prose; superficial ideas; mistakes in logic, etc.  But the point is that there is such a thing as good writing and bad writing.  Ask any high school English teacher.

I think the same holds true for music.

Mozart was clearly a master craftsman and one who expressed sublime musical thinking.  He excelled in several genres of musical style, dramatic as well as abstract instrumental writing.  I think it is safe to say that he was head and shoulders above all but a handful of his contemporaries in skill and gifts, and no doubt his musical gifts transcend his own era and tower above most composers throughout the successive periods.

I think one can say that objectively speaking Mozart was not only a good composer but one of the greatest who has ever lived.

If someone wishes to claim that Mozart's music is not to his taste - it is his right - but to propose that there are no objective standards for rating musical composition is very wrong, IMO.

Quote from: DavidW on August 26, 2009, 07:01:07 AM
That was never my point, I listed all of those composers to demonstrate what it really means to rank someone as bottom of the barrel.  I doubt that anyone if they listened to only 10% of that list would still rank Mozart so very low.

I agree. But as far as I understood his position, Tapkaara wrote something to the effect that, of all composers whose music he has heard, Mozart is among the 5 least favorite. I see nothing bizarre or idiotic in this. I'm sure we all can write down a list of composers whose music we have heard, and pick 5 most often listened to and 5 least often listened to, i.e. 5 favorites and 5 least favorites. Of course, such a classification means nothing outside the reference frame, which is highly individual and personal in each case.

In my case, of all the (famous, to narrow the focus) composers whose music I have heard, the ones that I listen the least are Bruckner, Wagner and Mahler. This doesn't imply at all they are bad composers : it's just that I don't feel the need to hear their music as often and with as much pleasure as, say, Schubert, Brahms or Chopin.

I think that's what Tapkaara wanted to say in the case of Mozart. Maybe it's  perhaps the unfortunately worded "holy cow" part that upset you, but the essence of his position as decoded above I don't find objectionable in the least.

PS: I am an ardent Mozartean!  :)

QuoteIn my case, of all the (famous, to narrow the focus) composers whose music I have heard, the ones that I listen the least are Bruckner, Wagner and Mahler. This doesn't imply at all they are bad composers : it's just that I don't feel the need to hear their music as often and with as much pleasure as, say, Schubert, Brahms or Chopin.

w00t!

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2009, 09:52:14 AM

PS: I am an ardent Mozartean!  :)

I am too.  :)

I'm glad to see that a lot of you understood the intent of my original post.

I agree with everything that has been said of Mozart's gifts as a composer. I even made mention of his gifts/abilities in an earlier post. I obviously could not think he is one of the worst composers if I made laudatory statements as I did, so again, I would appreciate it if folks do not take my statements on Mozart out of context. I never said he was one of "the worst." Period.

:P

Now shall we move on to the other bizarre inclusions on my list, such as Schönberg? Or Glazunov? Or is Glazunov not a bizarre addition?

Where is that 'beating a dead horse' emoticon?  ;D

Quote from: DavidW on August 26, 2009, 07:01:07 AM
That was never my point, I listed all of those composers to demonstrate what it really means to rank someone as bottom of the barrel.  I doubt that anyone if they listened to only 10% of that list would still rank Mozart so very low.

I was not hunting him down, I was not crucifying him. 

It sure looked like you were hunting him down and giving him a few smacks.

Quote from: Bulldog on August 26, 2009, 10:17:45 AM
It sure looked like you were hunting him down and giving him a few smacks.

That was my impression too.

In regards to Glazunov -- Again (back to that "easy to please" notion in my first reply to this thread), I tend to like Glazunov's work.  There also must be others who do because of the amount of recordings out there for his works...

That being said, I haven't read a lot of really positive things about him, so he may not be all that "controversial" in this thread. 

Quote from: monafam on August 26, 2009, 10:26:10 AM
I tend to like Glazunov's work. 

That being said, I haven't read a lot of really positive things about him

So what?  :D

I only made the point about the comments I read as a possible indication why the choice of Glazunov wasn't a bigger issue.

Then again -- maybe it was the Mozartean-tangent that shrouded "Glaz"?    ;D

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2009, 09:52:14 AM
Of course, such a classification means nothing outside the reference frame, which is highly individual and personal in each case.

I not only understand that, I explained it in an earlier post.  My contention is that his frame of reference must be a very limited one.

QuoteIn my case, of all the (famous, to narrow the focus) composers whose music I have heard, the ones that I listen the least are Bruckner, Wagner and Mahler. This doesn't imply at all they are bad composers : it's just that I don't feel the need to hear their music as often and with as much pleasure as, say, Schubert, Brahms or Chopin.

I've already said this-- I do not want to be lectured about opinion vs fact, it's condescending and beside the point.  That is not a legitimate defense of an opinion, it is A COP OUT.  "Well that's just my opinion" is not a valid rebuttal, it's a restatement of the obvious.  

QuoteI think that's what Tapkaara wanted to say in the case of Mozart. Maybe it's  perhaps the unfortunately worded "holy cow" part that upset you, but the essence of his position as decoded above I don't find objectionable in the least.

So what?  I do find it objectionable and that is what matters to me.  I don't care if you find it objectionable or not. I find it objectionable.

Quote from: ChamberNut on August 26, 2009, 09:35:48 AM
Doesn't matter Karl.  You cannot say Mozart is in the 5 worst composers, or 5 greatest composers.  You just can't.

Well, you can, really, Ray.  However, you can make a reasonable case that he is in the 5 greatest composers;  you can make a reasonable case, for a number of reasons, including (a) that his mastery of composition is (not merely as a matter of opinion) at a level markedly higher than his contemporaries, and (b) that his peers (right up to Haydn, another great composer) held him in rare esteem.  You cannot make any reasonable case that he is in the 5 worst composers.

That said:

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 26, 2009, 09:27:52 AM
AGAIN, to clarify. I NEVER said Mozart was one of the 5 worst composers. I said he was in my 5 LEAST FAVORITE. Isn't there a difference? (Refer to my first post in this thread, PLEASE!!!)

Sure there's a difference;  it's just a bit harder to nuance in a thread bearing the subject (to which Ray has amply objected) 5 Worst Composers Ever!!

Quote from: Ch NYou can however say that Mozart is one of your 5 favorite composers, of 5 least liked composers.  Period.

One can indeed.  That's one reason why (unless I am mistaken, which I might) I have not offered a list of the 5 Worst Composers Ever!! . . .

Well, and there's a difference between saying "five least favorite composers" and five composers whom you can't stand.

(Just saying.)

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 01:21:10 PM
I have a feeling that most if not all of the posters here have not really listened to really bad music.

QFT

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 10:55:10 AM

Sure there's a difference;  it's just a bit harder to nuance in a thread bearing the subject (to which Ray has amply objected) 5 Worst Composers Ever!!

Point taken! Although I tried to clarify what I was saying, it did not come across as clear and I should have probably not posted in this thread at all.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 02:44:10 PM
I, for one, have heard lots of bad music!

Well, but not Mozart.  You may not like Mozart, you may perhaps even be unable to stand Mozart.  But to say that his music is bad music, casts question on your musical judgment.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 26, 2009, 10:59:06 AM
Point taken! Although I tried to clarify what I was saying, it did not come across as clear and I should have probably not posted in this thread at all.

Spoken like a gentleman, sir.

Quote from: DavidW on August 26, 2009, 10:52:12 AM
My contention is that his frame of reference must be a very limited one.

I know some Wagnerian for whom anything other than either Wagner or a big and loud orchestra is crap, Mozart included first and foremost. How's that for limitation? :)

Quote from: DavidW on August 26, 2009, 10:52:12 AM
So what?  I do find it objectionable and that is what matters to me.  I don't care if you find it objectionable or not. I find it objectionable.

That's obvious. But why do you take such seriously an opinion aired on an internet forum, in a sorry excuse of a topic?

Wait, now I'm doing the same, it's time to stop...  :D

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
Well, there is no scientific way of naming the 5 best composers or the 5 worst composers.

That's true; but then, music is culture, not science.  Scientific method is not what is wanted here.

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2009, 11:03:29 AM
. . . Wait, now I'm doing the same, it's time to stop...  :D

(* chortle *)

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 05:59:04 PM
If Mozart is the worst, then you must consider the following to be better composers:

    * Lodovico Giustini (1685 - 1743)
    * Domenico Scarlatti (1685 - 1757)
    * Domenico Dalla Bella (fl. early 18th century, Venice)
    * Caterina Benedicta Grazianini (fl. early 18th century)
    * Maria Margherita Grimani (fl. early 18th century)
    * Giovanni Zamboni (fl. early 18th century)
    * Mlle Guédon de Presles (early 18th century–1754)
    * Curtis Morell (early 18th century–1754)
    * Jean-Baptiste Masse (c. 1700 - c. 1756)
    * Michel Blavet (1700 - 1768)
    * Johan Agrell (1701 - 1765)
    * Jean-Fery Rebel (the younger) (1701 - 1775)
    * Giovanni Battista Sammartini (c. 1701 - 1775)
    * Johann Ernst Eberlin (1702 - 1762)
    * Johann Gottlieb Graun (c. 1702-1771)
    * Carl Heinrich Graun (c. 1703-1759)
    * Rosanna Scalfi Marcello (fl. 1723–1742)
    * Carlos Seixas (1704-1742)
    * Giovanni Battista Pescetti (c. 1704 - c. 1766)
    * Santa Della Pietà (fl. c. 1725–1750, d. after 1774)
    * Carlo Cecere (1706 - 1761)
    * Baldassare Galuppi (1706 - 1785)
    * Georg Reutter (1708 - 1772)
    * Franz Benda (1709-1786)
    * Michel Corrette (1709 - 1795)
    * Christoph Schaffrath (1709 - 1763)
    * Princess Wilhelmine of Prussia (1709–1758)
    * Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (1710 - 1736)
    * Domenico Alberti (1710 - 1740)
    * Wilhelm Friedemann Bach (1710 – 1784)
    * Joshrup Basran (1710 - 1740)
    * Thomas Arne (1710 - 1778)
    * William Boyce (1711 - 1779)
    * Barbara of Portugal (1711–1758)
    * Frederick the Great (1712-1786)
    * John Stanley (1712 - 1786)
    * Johann Ludwig Krebs (1713 - 1780)
    * Per Brant (1714 - 1767)
    * Niccolò Jommelli (1714 - 1774)
    * Gottfried August Homilius (1714 - 1785)
    * Christoph Willibald Gluck (1714 - 1787)
    * Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (1714 - 1788)
    * Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715 - 1777)
    * Jacques Duphly (1715 - 1789)
    * Johann Friedrich Doles (1715-1797)
    * Hinrich Philip Johnsen (1716 - 1779)
    * Johann Wenzel Anton Stamitz (1717 - 1757)
    * Elisabeth de Haulteterre (fl. 1737–1768)
    * Mlle Duval (1718–after 1775)
    * Leopold Mozart (1719 - 1787)
    * William Walond (1719 - 1768)
    * Joan Baptista Pla (c. 1720-1773)
    * Maria Teresa Agnesi (1720–1795)
    * Johann Friedrich Agricola (1720-1774)
    * Johann Christoph Altnickol (1720-1759)
    * Pieter Hellendaal (1721-1799)
    * Johann Philipp Kirnberger (1721 - 1783)
    * John Garth (1721 - 1810)
    * Sebastián Ramón de Albero y Añaños (1722 - 1756)
    * Georg Benda (1722 - 1795)
    * Carl Friedrich Abel (1723 - 1787)
    * Anna Amalia Princess of Prussia (1723–1787)
    * Maria Antonia Walpurgis of Bavaria (1724–1780)
    * Claude Balbastre (1724–1799)
    * Miss Davis (c. 1726–after 1755)
    * Johann Becker (1726-1803)
    * Johann Gottlieb Goldberg (1727 – 1756)
    * Tommaso Traetta (1727 - 1779)
    * Armand-Louis Couperin (1727 - 1789)
    * Niccolò Piccinni (1728 - 1800)
    * Florian Leopold Gassmann (1729 - 1774)[1]
    * Giuseppe Sarti (1729 - 1802)[2]
    * Antonio Soler (1729 - 1783)
    * Pieter van Maldere (1729-1798)
    * Luise Adelgunda Victoria Gottsched (died 1762)
    * Christian Cannabich (1731 - 1798)
    * Elisabetta de Gambarini (1731–1765)
    * Joseph Haydn (1732 - 1809)
    * Josina Anna Petronella van Boetzelaer (1733–1787)
    * Anton Fils (1733 - 1760)
    * Benjamin Cooke (1734 - 1793)
    * François-Joseph Gossec (1734 - 1829)
    * Johann Gottfried Eckard (1735 - 1809)[3]
    * Johann Christian Bach (1735 - 1782)
    * Mme Papavoine (born c. 1735, fl. 1755-61)
    * Johann Georg Albrechtsberger (1736 - 1809)
    * Hélène-Louise Demars (b. c. 1736)
    * Michael Haydn (1737 - 1806)
    * Josef Mysliveček (1737 - 1781)
    * William Herschel (1738 - 1822)
    * Leopold Hofmann (1738 - 1793)
    * Anna Bon (born 1738/1739)
    * Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf (1739 - 1799)
    * Johann Baptist Vanhal (1739 - 1813)
    * Anna Amalia, Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1739–1807)
    * Mlle Guerin (born c. 1739, fl. 1755)
    * Isabelle de Charrière (1740–1805)
    * Luigi Gatti (1740 - 1817)
    * André Ernest Modeste Grétry (1741 - 1813)
    * Andrea Luchesi (1741 - 1801)
    * Giovanni Paisiello (1741 - 1816)
    * Václav Pichl (1741 - 1804)
    * Maria Carolina Wolf (1742–1820)
    * Luigi Boccherini (1743 - 1805)
    * Franz Nikolaus Novotny (1743 - 1773)
    * Anne Louise Boyvin d'Hardancourt Brillon de Jouy (1744–1824)
    * Marianne von Martínez (1744–1812)
    * Yekaterina Sinyavina (died 1784)
    * Carl Stamitz (1745 - 1801)
    * Maddalena Laura Sirmen (1745–1818)
    * Joseph Bologne, the Chevalier de Saint-Georges (1745 - 1799)
    * Marie Emmanuelle Bayon Louis (1746–1825)
    * Leopold Kozeluch (1747 - 1818)
    * Joseph Schuster (1748 - 1812)[4]
    * Henriette Adélaïde Villard de Beaumesnil (1748–1813)
    * Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1749-1818)
    * Domenico Cimarosa (1749-1801)
    * Jean-Frédéric Edelmann (1749-1794)
    * Maria Barthélemon (c. 1749–1799)
    * Antonín Kraft (c. 1749-1820)
    * Marianna von Auenbrugger (d. 1786)
    * Antonio Salieri (1750 - 1825)
    * Antonio Rosetti (c1750 - 1792)
    * Elizabeth Anspach (1750–1828)
    * Elizabeth Joanetta Catherine von Hagen (1750–1809/10)
    * Dmytro Bortniansky (1751 - 1825)
    * Maria Anna Mozart (1751–1829)
    * Mary Ann Pownall (1751–1796)
    * Corona Elisabeth Wilhelmine Schröter (1751–1802)
    * Mary Ann Wrighten (1751–1796)
    * Muzio Clementi (1752 - 1832)
    * Leopold Kozeluch (1752 - 1818)
    * Niccolò Antonio Zingarelli (1752 - 1837)
    * Juliane Reichardt (1752–1783)
    * Jane Savage (1752/3–1824)
    * Jean-Baptiste Bréval (1753 - 1823)
    * Vicente Martín y Soler (1754 - 1806)
    * Vincenzo Righini (1756 - 1812)
    * Giuseppe Antonio Capuzzi (1755 - 1818)
    * Countess Maria Theresia Ahlefeldt (1755–1810)
    * Mary Linwood (1755/6–1845)
    * Antoine-Frédéric Gresnick (1755 - 1799)
    * Francesca Lebrun also Franziska Danzi Lebrun (1756–1791)
    * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 - 1791)
    * Joseph Martin Kraus (1756 - 1792)
    * Paul Wranitzky (1756 - 1808)
    * Daniel Gottlob Türk (1756-1813)
    * Ignaz Pleyel (1757 - 1831)
    * Harriett Abrams (1758–1821)
    * Josepha Barbara Auernhammer (1758–1820)
    * François Devienne (1759 - 1803)[5]
    * Franz Vinzenz Krommer (1759 - 1831)
    * Maria Theresa von Paradis (1759 - 1824)
    * Maria Rosa Coccia (1759–1833)
    * Sophia Maria Westenholz (1759–1838)
    * Luigi Cherubini (1760 - 1842)
    * Johann Ladislaus Dussek (1760 - 1812)
    * Marie-Elizabeth Cléry (1761–after 1795)
    * Erik Tulindberg (1761-1814)
    * Marcos António da Fonseca Portugal (1762-1830)
    * Joseph de Momigny (1762 - 1842)
    * Adelheid Maria Eichner (1762–1787)
    * Jane Mary Guest (1762–1846)
    * Ann Valentine (1762–1842)
    * Franz Danzi (1763 - 1826)
    * Adalbert Gyrowetz (1763 - 1850)
    * Étienne Méhul (1763-1817)
    * Johann Simon Mayr (1763 - 1845)
    * Helene de Montgeroult (1764–1836)
    * Franz Xaver Süssmayr (1766 - 1803)
    * Samuel Wesley (1766 - 1837)
    * Anne-Marie Krumpholtz (1766–1813)
    * Caroline Wuiet (1766–1835)
    * Wenzel Muller (1767 - 1835)
    * Julie Candeille (1767–1834)
    * José Maurício Nunes Garcia (1767 - 1830)
    * Carlos Baguer (1768 - 1808)
    * Elizabeth Weichsell Billington (c.1768–1818)
    * Margarethe Danzi (1768–1800)
    * Francesco Gnecco (1769 - 1810)
    * Cecilia Maria Barthélemon (c. 1769–1840)
    * Maria Theresa Bland (c. 1769–1838)
    * Kateřina Veronika Anna Dusíkova (1769–1833)
    * Maria Margherita Grimani (fl. 18th century)
    * Vincenta Da Ponte (fl. second half 18th century)
    * Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827
    * Ferdinando Carulli (1770-1841)
    * Ferdinando Paer (1771-1839)
    * Johann Baptist Cramer (1771-1858)
    * Lucile Grétry (1772–1790)
    * Maria Frances Parke (1772–1822)
    * Sophie Bawr (1773–1860)
    * Maria Brizzi Giorgi (1775–1822)
    * João Domingos Bomtempo (1775-1842)
    * Sophia Corri Dussek (1775–1847)
    * Margaret Essex (1775–1807)
    * Sophie Gail (1775–1819)
    * Maria Hester Park (1775–1822)
    * Johann Nepomuk Hummel (1778-1837)
    * Fernando Sor (1778-1839)
    * Pauline Duchambge (1778–1858)
    * Joachim Nicolas Eggert (1779-1813)
    * Louise Reichardt (1779–1826)
    * Anthony Philip Heinrich (1781-1861)
    * Sophie Lebrun (1781–1863)
    * John Field (1782-1837)
    * Niccolò Paganini (1782-1840)
    * Daniel Auber (1782-1871)
    * Louis Spohr (1784-1859)
    * Teresa Belloc-Giorgi (1784–1855)
    * Bettina Brentano (1785–1859)
    * Catherina Cibbini-Kozeluch (1785–1858)
    * Isabella Colbran (1785–1845)
    * Fanny Krumpholtz Pittar (1785–1815)
    * Pietro Raimondi (1786-1853)
    * Carl Maria von Weber (1786-1826)
    * Friedrich Kuhlau (1786-1832)
    * Marie Bigot (1786–1820)
    * Le Sénéchal de Kerkado (c. 1786–after 1805)
    * Nicolas Bochsa (1789-1856)
    * Elena Asachi (1789–1877)
    * Maria Agata Szymanowska (1789–1831)
    * Harriet Browne (1790–1858)
    * Louis Joseph Ferdinand Herold (1791–1833)
    * Carl Czerny (1791-1857)
    * Giacomo Meyerbeer (1791-1864)
    * Gertrude van den Bergh (1793–1840)
    * Amalie, Princess of Saxony (1794–1870)
    * Olivia Buckley (born mid-1790s–after 1845)
    * Franz Berwald (1796-1868)
    * Carl Loewe (1796-1869)
    * Helene Liebmann (1796–1835)
    * Emilie Zumsteeg (1796–1857)
    * Gaetano Donizetti (1797-1848)
    * Franz Schubert (1797-1828)
    * Annette von Droste-Hülshoff (1797–1848)
    * Mme Delaval (fl. 1791–1802)
    * Mme Ravissa (fl. late 18th century)
    * Ekaterina Likoshin (fl. 1800–1810)
    * Katerina Maier (fl. c. 1800)
    * Agata Della Pietà (fl. c. 1800)

You did get that list from Newman's book, didn't you?  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2009, 11:03:29 AM
I know some Wagnerian for whom anything other than either Wagner or a big and loud orchestra is crap, Mozart included first and foremost. How's that for limitation? :)

That's obvious. But why do you take such seriously an opinion aired on an internet forum, in a sorry excuse of a topic?

Wait, now I'm doing the same, it's time to stop...  :D

I take it seriously because Tapkaara's worth taking seriously.  It's not the kind of attention that he wants, but he earns it because he doesn't just write junk posts, or is deluded like Newman.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
You did get that list from Newman's book, didn't you?  ;D ;D ;D

jeje ;D

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2009, 06:31:25 PM
You and me, Ray. :D

BTW, I have nearly all 500... :)

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 27 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 17 #3 4th mvmt - Allegro di molto

What is the Gurn Vivaldi count these days? I am interested!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 11:03:05 AM
Well, but not Mozart.  You may not like Mozart, you may perhaps even be unable to stand Mozart.  But to say that his music is bad music, casts question on your musical judgment.

It's probably just another case of using the wrong word, but I suppose TO ME Mozart's music is bad in the sense it does nothing for me. Music I personally deem good is music I am more likely to enjoy.

I've heard people say, for example, that Mahler was a ""bad composer" and Glass is a "bad" composer, and with those statements I disagree. I don't think either is a bad composer; I enjoy them and thus they offer something of worth to me. By that virtue, they are "good."

But ultimately, it was bad choice of words. Mozart was not a hack. I cannot scientifically say he's a "bad" compoer...I just don't like him. :)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 11:08:40 AM
What is the Gurn Vivaldi count these days? I am interested!

479. Included are a few operas and most of the sacred music though. Not all concerti and sonatas. :)

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 29 Quartet in G for Strings Op 17 #5 3rd mvmt - Adagio

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 26, 2009, 12:21:35 PM
It's probably just another case of using the wrong word, but I suppose TO ME Mozart's music is bad in the sense it does nothing for me. Music I personally deem good is music I am more likely to enjoy.

I've heard people say, for example, that Mahler was a ""bad composer" and Glass is a "bad" composer, and with those statements I disagree. I don't think either is a bad composer; I enjoy them and thus they offer something of worth to me. By that virtue, they are "good."

But ultimately, it was bad choice of words. Mozart was not a hack. I cannot scientifically say he's a "bad" compoer...I just don't like him. :)

Now you're talkin'! This is very sensible, at least to MY way of thinking. There are lots of composers whose music I don't like (you chose 2), but I in no way say they are bad. I just prefer to listen to things that suit my disposition. You mentioned early on that you had aroused some passionate outbursts on other fora with statements like that. I think it is fair to say that it was predictable that you would here. DavidW may not even like Mozart, I don't know, but he appears ready to defend him against outrageous charges anyway. Simple logic tells you why.... :)

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 29 Quartet in G for Strings Op 17 #5 3rd mvmt - Adagio

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2009, 05:12:53 PM
Now you're talkin'! This is very sensible, at least to MY way of thinking. There are lots of composers whose music I don't like (you chose 2), but I in no way say they are bad. I just prefer to listen to things that suit my disposition. You mentioned early on that you had aroused some passionate outbursts on other fora with statements like that. I think it is fair to say that it was predictable that you would here. DavidW may not even like Mozart, I don't know, but he appears ready to defend him against outrageous charges anyway. Simple logic tells you why.... :)

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 29 Quartet in G for Strings Op 17 #5 3rd mvmt - Adagio

I don't think my saying I don't like Mozart is an outrageous charge. It's merely a statement of my tastes. I suppose I could have used better words to describe my thoughts, or maybe refrained from posting in this thread all together, but I did.

Yes, I have been to other forums where anything said that is not in favor of Mozart is high heresy. I know he is well-loved...worshipped even...but I was hoping that I would have had the opportunity to state my distaste for him here and not get the angry villagers with their pitchforks. I should probably always assume if I say anything to the contrary of utter admiration of Mozart I will unleash the wolves.

BUT, what gets me is that I said I did not like him and I became the target of, what I would consider to be, an over-the-top and unnecessary "smack down" by my dear friend DavidW. To call my tastes and "breadth" (that MUST be the official word of the thread) into questions because I don't like the works of musicdom's supreme leader is not cool. While I do not claim to be the arbiter of perfect taste, I'd like to think I am proof that one can still have good taste in music and not fall to my knees at the mention of Amadeus's name. I think a little more respect on DavidW's part to my, um, unconventional way of thinking would have been more in order.

I see people not only say they don;t like but put down composers I like all the time. As a fan of Glass, I see it quite often that people HATE him, call him a hack, and you name it. I may get frustrated with that, but I would never call into question their "breadth" of music. (How can you not like good music if you don't like MINIMALISM! Glass is the best Minimalist, so how can you say he's horrible? Have you heard other minimalists??) I might try to convince the opposing party to reconsider their negative thoughts, but I will not go into "smack down" mode because 1. who the hell do I think I am and 2. what does that really accomplish besides coming off as hostile to someone else's valid opinion of a composer? If you don't like it, you don't like it!

So, Gurn, you do not like Mahler and you do not like Glass. This is hard for me to understand as I find much worth in their music. Both were/are capable musicians. But I will respect your distaste of both composers. Glass I can understand more, but Mahler is widely considered one of the greatest symphonists of all time. How odd that you don't hear the greatness that so many others (myself included) hear. But, if he does not float your boat, I cannot and will not hold that against you. I think it's the way it should be. You certainly do not deserve a "smack down."

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 26, 2009, 05:31:48 PM
I don't think my saying I don't like Mozart is an outrageous charge. It's merely a statement of my tastes. I suppose I could have used better words to describe my thoughts, or maybe refrained from posting in this thread all together, but I did.

Yes, I have been to other forums where anything said that is not in favor of Mozart is high heresy. I know he is well-loved...worshipped even...but I was hoping that I would have had the opportunity to state my distaste for him here and not get the angry villagers with their pitchforks. I should probably always assume if I say anything to the contrary of utter admiration of Mozart I will unleash the wolves.

BUT, what gets me is that I said I did not like him and I became the target of, what I would consider to be, an over-the-top and unnecessary "smack down" by my dear friend DavidW. To call my tastes and "breadth" (that MUST be the official word of the thread) into questions because I don't like the works of musicdom's supreme leader is not cool. While I do not claim to be the arbiter of perfect taste, I'd like to think I am proof that one can still have good taste in music and not fall to my knees at the mention of Amadeus's name. I think a little more respect on DavidW's part to my, um, unconventional way of thinking would have been more in order.

Well, it was an ill-considered thread to start with, as is generally agreed by all, and as you have discerned already, posting in it may well have been ill-considered too. I call into question my own 'breadth', since I only listen to maybe 250 composers, and nearly all of those are from a relatively narrow period from 1700 to 1900. Which is not to say that I have never heard other composers outside those bounds, I just don't care for a lot that is much earlier, and only a little more that is much later. We all have a focus for our listening, we just need to have some peripheral vision too. :)

QuoteI see people not only say they don;t like but put down composers I like all the time. As a fan of Glass, I see it quite often that people HATE him, call him a hack, and you name it. I may get frustrated with that, but I would never call into question their "breadth" of music. (How can you not like good music if you don't like MINIMALISM! Glass is the best Minimalist, so how can you say he's horrible? Have you heard other minimalists??) I might try to convince the opposing party to reconsider their negative thoughts, but I will not go into "smack down" mode because 1. who the hell do I think I am and 2. what does that really accomplish besides coming off as hostile to someone else's valid opinion of a composer? If you don't like it, you don't like it!

So, Gurn, you do not like Mahler and you do not like Glass. This is hard for me to understand as I find much worth in their music. Both were/are capable musicians. But I will respect your distaste of both composers. Glass I can understand more, but Mahler is widely considered one of the greatest symphonists of all time. How odd that you don't hear the greatness that so many others (myself included) hear. But, if he does not float your boat, I cannot and will not hold that against you. I think it's the way it should be. You certainly do not deserve a "smack down."

True, I don't like them (and many others). But I don't deny their greatness, even though it is in a region that doesn't hold much interest for me. I can see why others like them. This is the opposite of the inference that I took from your posts on Mozart, where it seemed that you were saying that you couldn't see what people saw in him. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's the tenor of it. And so, that's the difference between us then. I was listening to Glass way back in the 1970's. It appealed to me more back then, enough that I invested a considerable sum in all his recordings. Being young and poor at the time, that was devotion. And now I don't, so much. Tastes change, taste doesn't. :)

8)



----------------
Listening to:
Quattuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 31 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 20 #1 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2009, 05:47:56 PM


True, I don't like them (and many others). But I don't deny their greatness, even though it is in a region that doesn't hold much interest for me. I can see why others like them. This is the opposite of the inference that I took from your posts on Mozart, where it seemed that you were saying that you couldn't see what people saw in him. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's the tenor of it. And so, that's the difference between us then. I was listening to Glass way back in the 1970's. It appealed to me more back then, enough that I invested a considerable sum in all his recordings. Being young and poor at the time, that was devotion. And now I don't, so much. Tastes change, taste doesn't. :)

8)



----------------
Listening to:
Quattuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 31 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 20 #1 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

I actually did make reference to Mozart's skills as a composer earlier in the thread. By virtue of his skills, I can indeed see why people like him. I at no point made the statement "I don't see what others see in him," and I did not set out to infer that. Of course I can see why other like him!

I, too, have areas of focus in music, as we all do. My favorite period if from about 1850 to 1950. The Classical period is my least favorite period, but I do enjoy some Haydn, Paisiello, Cherubini and, of course, Beethoven (if we should consider him classical.) So, I agree, being flexible in one's tastes is a good thing. But we should all be afforded the luxury of being able to openly say who we don't like, even if who we don't like is generally considered to be one of the greatest artists of all time.

And I find it interesting that I was singled out. Comments were made about Gorecki sounding like falling silverware. Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 500 times. But all I said was I can't Mozart. Mozart is a sacred cow, Vivaldi and Gorecki are not.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 26, 2009, 05:55:02 PM
I actually did make reference to Mozart's skills as a composer earlier in the thread. By virtue of his skills, I can indeed see why people like him. I at no point made the statement "I don't see what others see in him," and I did not set out to infer that. Of course I can see why other like him!

Well, all I can say about that is that it came across as insincere. Perhaps it's a communication thing. :)

QuoteI, too, have areas of focus in music, as we all do. My favorite period if from about 1850 to 1950. The Classical period is my least favorite period, but I do enjoy some Haydn, Paisiello, Cherubini and, of course, Beethoven (if we should consider him classical.) So, I agree, being flexible in one's tastes is a good thing. But we should all be afforded the luxury of being able to openly say who we don't like, even if who we don't like is generally considered to be one of the greatest artists of all time.

Only a dunderhead wouldn't appreciate Beethoven, so we'll leave him out of this. :D  The others are all good, one is another sacred cow. But in any case, what is the advantage to stating one's dislike for a composer? I'm not sure I see the value of it. When people are discussing a composer I like, I stop and chat about it. When they are discussing one I don't like, I move on elsewhere. Why slip in and leave a turd in the punchbowl? Not only is it a guaranteed way to start an argument, but it doesn't say anything about the composer while saying everything about the writer. Since you already know this from earlier experiences, one can only assume that you would like to intentionally make an opportunity to start an argument. :-\

QuoteAnd I find it interesting that I was singled out. Comments were made about Gorecki sounding like falling silverware. Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 500 times. But all I said was I can't Mozart. Mozart is a sacred cow, Vivaldi and Gorecki are not.

Well, don't feel particularly singled out. There are plenty of examples around here of people jumping in and doing just what you did. I have personally bitch-slapped people for crapping on Vivaldi. It just wasn't worth the effort this time. You need to pick your fights. Some cows are more sacred than others. But every cow is sacred to someone. Something to bear in mind when thinking about breaking Gurn's Rule #1. :)

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 31 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 20 #1 3rd mvmt - Affettuoso e sostenuto

While there is obvious danger in expressing distaste for composers, I think one should be allowed to and respected if they do, as long as one is not being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. (Mozart is a stupid hack!, for example).

For example, in a discussion on Minimalism, you are without doubt going to get detractors. I think expressing one's opinion either way in such a discussion should be encouraged. As long as statements don't become personal attacks, that is. Differing opinions are healthy to all discussions.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 26, 2009, 06:30:43 PM
While there is obvious danger in expressing distaste for composers, I think one should be allowed to and respected if they do, as long as one is not being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. (Mozart is a stupid hack!, for example).

For example, in a discussion on Minimalism, you are without doubt going to get detractors. I think expressing one's opinion either way in such a discussion should be encouraged. As long as statements don't become personal attacks, that is. Differing opinions are healthy to all discussions.

Well, you are allowed to, but don't expect to be respected for it. You don't appear to see the difference between saying;

"I don't like the Jupiter Symphony, I think Mozart wrote better stuff than that. It may be highly organized in the fugue section, but it doesn't come across to me that way. I prefer the G minor..."

OR

"you guys may like Mozart, but he is a sacred cow that none but me have the balls to kick. I find everything he wrote to be dull and lifeless and with no appeal at all. Sure, he is technically proficient, but so what?". 

One of those two statements is a basis for discussion. The other one is an invitation to an ass-kicking. And that is the difference between what you called "Differing opinions are healthy to all discussions" and a methodical beatdown.

8)


----------------
Listening to:
Quattuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 32 Quartet in C for Strings Op 20 #2 1st mvmt - Moderato

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2009, 06:44:06 PM
Well, you are allowed to, but don't expect to be respected for it. You don't appear to see the difference between saying;

"I don't like the Jupiter Symphony, I think Mozart wrote better stuff than that. It may be highly organized in the fugue section, but it doesn't come across to me that way. I prefer the G minor..."

OR

"you guys may like Mozart, but he is a sacred cow that none but me have the balls to kick. I find everything he wrote to be dull and lifeless and with no appeal at all. Sure, he is technically proficient, but so what?". 

One of those two statements is a basis for discussion. The other one is an invitation to an ass-kicking. And that is the difference between what you called "Differing opinions are healthy to all discussions" and a methodical beatdown.

8)


----------------
Listening to:
Quattuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 32 Quartet in C for Strings Op 20 #2 1st mvmt - Moderato

I certainly see your point. I suppose I should watch what I type about Mozart in the future, and that's that!

To my ears, listening to Mozart is like listening to maths. It is perfect in every way, but has no....heart? No soul? I don't know. Doesn't make it bad by any means, in fact quite the opposite as it is, as I say above, perfect in just the same way as a mathematical equation is perfect.

James Horner is probably a very good arranger (mostly of Prokofiev music - his score to 'The Land Before Time' is pure Prokofiev) but that does not make him a good composer.

QuoteMaybe I'm the only Gorecki fan?   I feel so base; so common!

I know the feeling - and I also like Khachaturian so imagine how base and common that makes me!

In terms of really bad composers, have a listen to Zolotukhin's Symphony No.2 to experience what bad means.

The question of this thread has no answer. It is probably someone one has never heard of, usually for a reason. And as could be expected, it evolves into a discussion of which fanmous composer one likes the least. At quite different propostioin.

The threadstarter could just as well have asked: Who is the tallest midget in the world.   

I think Bruckner/Mahler/Wagner fans just have a lot of spare time.   >:D

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 05:59:04 PM
If Mozart is the worst, then you must consider the following to be better composers:

Actually, that's the list of composers who wrote Mozart's music.  ;D

I would say Florence Foster Jenkins' ... rearrangements?  ;D ... of the Queen of the Night aria qualify her for the "worst composer" award, by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/v/6h4f77T-LoM

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2009, 06:13:08 PM
. . . I have personally bitch-slapped people for crapping on Vivaldi.

And I have personally munched on popcorn whilst enjoying the show  8)

Quote from: techniquest on August 27, 2009, 01:56:52 AM

I know the feeling - and I also like Khachaturian so imagine how base and common that makes me!

I'm a big Khachaturian fan, too. This is a composer who is often dismissed as tacky and out-of-touch with modern trends in music (during his time.) But I love him.

Quote from: techniquest on August 27, 2009, 01:56:52 AMTo my ears, listening to Mozart is like listening to maths. It is perfect in every way, but has no....heart? No soul? I don't know. Doesn't make it bad by any means, in fact quite the opposite as it is, as I say above, perfect in just the same way as a mathematical equation is perfect.

      I get that. Sometimes it's tough to hear the greatness in Mozart when you compare him with Brahms, Wagner, and Mahler. I have found Mozart to be an exceptionally beautiful composer, but the fact of the matter is that he just didn't have the tools that the great romantics have to work with (the lower brass, the bigger wind section, expanded chromatic vocabulary, etc). To the ears of many people, he's the poster-child of the classical era - a smooth, polished, uninteresting sound. To get around that, you have to hear the humanity in Mozart, the way he relates or transforms his ideas. If you ever get the inkling, check out the operas, and the string quartets/quintets. They'll give you a good idea about what Mozart's really about.

Quote from: Dana on August 27, 2009, 02:14:57 PM
To get around that, you have to hear the humanity in Mozart, the way he relates or transforms his ideas. If you ever get the inkling, check out the operas, and the string quartets/quintets. They'll give you a good idea about what Mozart's really about.

Those are good examples Dana, to which I would add that Mozart's heart & soul are in his Piano Concerti.  For some reason, in these works, Mozart's humanity comes out more than in his other works.  IMHO.  0:)

I'd like to know how Mozart's humanity manifests itself in his music, and, why is this even more pronounced in his piano concerti?

I think the other thread makes a good case that the soul of Mozart can be found in any genre. :)

Well I also think that those that find classical era music uninteresting are caught in the 19th century fetish of worshiping the lyrical melody above all else.  You would be lost in classical era music, and completely unengaged in baroque era music if you approach the music with that mind set.

Quote from: DavidW on August 27, 2009, 02:29:29 PM
I think the other thread makes a good case that the soul of Mozart can be found in any genre. :)

Well I also think that those that find classical era music uninteresting are caught in the 19th century fetish of worshiping the lyrical melody above all else.  You would be lost in classical era music, and completely unengaged in baroque era music if you approach the music with that mind set.

I don't mean to start an argument with you David, but why is it you can make a statement like "19th century fetish of worshipping the lyrical melody" yet if one says that the music of the classical era is boring and emotionless, they are dead wrong? You are obviously someone who appreciates 18th century music quite a bit, perhaps more than any other period in music. I am not about to attack you for claiming that those who enjoy the sweeping grandeur of 19th century music are "fetishists," if you will. But if you can make a blanket statement about Romanticism, why is it that I am to be hunted down like a rabid dog for not being the biggest fan of 18th century music, Mozart included?

      In my experience, people who say that they don't like classical music have two things in common: they're only familiar with symphonic works, and they never heard it live. THe problem with the latter is obvious, but the symphonic one is a bit more difficult. Classical symphonic textures tend to be one of three options - strings, woodwinds, and tutti. This makes the work more boring for non-classical audiences - it all sounds the same (we'll get to how that relates to rap/hip-hop later :P).
     The three genres mentioned above - chamber music, opera, and piano concerto - are different because there is a solo voice, and interaction. Not simply a solo line, or melody, but a single, continuing voice which guides us through the events that are happening - think of the way that Berlioz used the viola in Harold en Italie, for example. Many people have spoken (especially when dealing with a great performer) of how the solo line seems to speak directly to them, telling them that everything is going to be all right, or that it's time for action now, or even I love you.
     The same is true of chamber music, but on a different plane - here we can have conversations! All you need to hear is a good performance of a Haydn quartet (again, live) to figure this out. By the same token, though, that conversational energy is lost when transported to the orchestral setting (the only exception I've heard being Verklarte Nacht, but that's not a transcription so much as an orchestration) The point being, that generally speaking, chamber music, and mediums with solo voices, speak much more directly to people than natural orchestral music does.

Quote from: Dana on August 27, 2009, 02:14:57 PM
I have found Mozart to be an exceptionally beautiful composer, but the fact of the matter is that he just didn't have the tools that the great romantics have to work with (the lower brass, the bigger wind section, expanded chromatic vocabulary, etc).

His tools weren't inferior, but different.

Quote from: Dana on August 27, 2009, 02:14:57 PM
To the ears of many people, he's the poster-child of the classical era - a smooth, polished, uninteresting sound.

Unfortunately the power of stereotypes is very strong and can deform the appreciation of reality in a considerable way. When listening to many works written by C.P.E. Bach, Gluck, Méhul or Cherubini I feel transported very far away from a "smooth, polished, uninteresting sound". The Classical language is often much more complex than that.

Quote from: Dana on August 27, 2009, 02:44:42 PM
     In my experience, people who say that they don't like classical music have two things in common: they're only familiar with symphonic works, and they never heard it live. THe problem with the latter is obvious, but the symphonic one is a bit more difficult. Classical symphonic textures tend to be one of three options - strings, woodwinds, and tutti. This makes the work more boring for non-classical audiences - it all sounds the same (we'll get to how that relates to rap/hip-hop later :P).
     The three genres mentioned above - chamber music, opera, and piano concerto - are different because there is a solo voice, and interaction. Not simply a solo line, or melody, but a single, continuing voice which guides us through the events that are happening - think of the way that Berlioz used the viola in Harold en Italie, for example. Many people have spoken (especially when dealing with a great performer) of how the solo line seems to speak directly to them, telling them that everything is going to be all right, or that it's time for action now, or even I love you.
     The same is true of chamber music, but on a different plane - here we can have conversations! All you need to hear is a good performance of a Haydn quartet (again, live) to figure this out. By the same token, though, that conversational energy is lost when transported to the orchestral setting (the only exception I've heard being Verklarte Nacht, but that's not a transcription so much as an orchestration) The point being, that generally speaking, chamber music, and mediums with solo voices, speak much more directly to people than natural orchestral music does.

I think a lot of that makes sense. And I agree with the strings, woodwind, tutti statment. To my humble ears, the limited textures of the classical period become very monochrome after a while. That is why I like Baroque music: there is simply more texture and more interesting things going on in just about every bar.

I've heard myriad Mozart piano concerti and, while they may hold more excitement than a symphony (at least for me), I again find them hard to get into. They are witty and cheeky and raucously ribald and all that, but I still find myself returning to other piano concerti like like Khachaturian's or Prokofiev's when I want something I can really get into.

While I am no huge fan of Haydn per se, I will admit I find his musical thinking to be more profound, and I like his melodies better. Just my opinion

I don't think I understand what you mean by the voice in this context Dana.  The piano in a piano concerto is not continuously playing nor is any single person in an opera, not one instrument in a chamber work continuously plays either.  You must not be talking about a single instrument or singer, it must be something else.  Not a melody or a bass line either since you explicitly ruled them out.  Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by a continuous voice?

      Well maybe the soloist doesn't doesn't play all the time, but he does get his hands on all of the material and works it over, doesn't he? When the development takes place in sonata-form, isn't the piano usually right in the middle of things? And opera singers also have two huge advantages over instrumentalists  - they have a tangible motive (love, hate, revenge), and a face to express it with (which, incidentally, one cannot see while listening to a CD). A lead character in an opera (depending upon the opera) has the opportunity to create a complete, and complex character with as many whims or passions as you or I, and they're often given recits or arias to express them. How could an 8-bar solo-line in a symphony possibly compete with that?

Okay I didn't misread you then.

The contest between well voiced parts and colorful texturing (i.e. small vs large ensembles) is not unique to classical era music.  It sounds more like a distaste for chamber orchestra sized pieces.  Not an intimate dialog as compared to chamber pieces, not as colorful and as textured as large symphony orchestra pieces.  I would think that anyone with that problem, would also suffer it on other eras as well.  But the point is seen.

Quote from: DavidW on August 27, 2009, 03:09:41 PMIt sounds more like a distaste for chamber orchestra sized pieces.  Not an intimate dialog as compared to chamber pieces, not as colorful and as textured as large symphony orchestra pieces.  I would think that anyone with that problem, would also suffer it on other eras as well.  But the point is seen.

      I once read a study that found that some people hear music more in terms of orchestration than in harmony or melody. Meaning that if you have a trumpet and a flute playing playing a major and a minor scale, some people won't notice the difference in tonality so much as the fact that first it's a trumpet playing, and then there's a flute playing. Now compare that orchestrational difference with that between a classical orchestra with a modern rock band and see how ignorant so many people are of the great subtleties capable in Mozart's music. That could further explain many people's general distaste for orchestral music.

And combine that with people not used to listening for long melodies, and being so used to common time, we have a sad conclusion that much of the subtlety of any form of classical music is lost on the average person.  If they are not used to listening to classical music, they probably only "hear" or notice short melodies, and the effectiveness of these fragments for being beautiful is the only thing they have to judge the quality of the music by.

I am talking about the average joe, and not the romantically inclined listener (since I was previously discussing the latter, I wanted to make clear the switch).

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 27, 2009, 02:26:57 PM
I'd like to know how Mozart's humanity manifests itself in his music, and, why is this even more pronounced in his piano concerti?

That's just what I feel and hear when I listen to Mozart Piano Concerti, and particularly in the slow movements.  Especially in the slow movements!  There is nothing mathematical or mechanical in that music whatsoever.  I was nearly moved to tears by the PC# 9 K.271 Andantino movement last night.

Have another listen to a random Piano Concerto slow movement.

It's most probably just me, but I feel Mozart put just a tad more extra into his Piano Concertos, than into anything else.  From what I have read on Mozart, I think he felt particular pride in his PCs.

Quote from: snyprrr on August 25, 2009, 09:03:10 AM
Ah...when in doubt, start some trouble! >:D

1) Philip Glass
2) Terry Riley
3)
4) anyone influenced by Richard Strauss (Strauss waltzes incl. by default)
5) H. Gorecki (Sym No.3 and Harpsichord Cto. notwithstanding)

There...I feel better now...and you?

I'd go along with Richard Strauss (although I respect the fact that others here rate him highly)

I can't really appreciate Nicholas Maw's music

York Bowen has been a big disappointment after reading enthusiastic reviews

Stockhausen/Boulez/Berio

Gottschalk

These are really composers whose music I don't like - not necessarily 'worst composers ever'

Quote from: vandermolen on August 28, 2009, 06:57:58 AM
I'd go along with Richard Strauss (although I respect the fact that others here rate him highly)

I can't really appreciate Nicholas Maw's music

York Bowen has been a big disappointment after reading enthusiastic reviews

Stockhausen/Boulez/Berio

Gottschalk

These are really composers whose music I don't like - not necessarily 'worst composers ever'

Sorry to read that you don't like Gottschalk's music - it best reflects the early American experience.

Luciano Berio has a pretty varied catalog of work.  Some is atonal, but some is not like that at all.  I suggest you to check the Folk Songs (on this CD (http://www.amazon.com/Berio-Recital-Cathy-Songs-Weill/dp/B000003FOS)) before you write Berio off all together.

Quote from: vandermolen on August 28, 2009, 06:57:58 AM
I'd go along with Richard Strauss (although I respect the fact that others here rate him highly)

I can't really appreciate Nicholas Maw's music

York Bowen has been a big disappointment after reading enthusiastic reviews

Stockhausen/Boulez/Berio

Gottschalk

These are really composers whose music I don't like - not necessarily 'worst composers ever'

How DARE you soil the name of Strauss with your vile post! I will ignore that you said he is one of your least favorites (as opposed to one of the worst) and I will consider your opinion bizarre and outrageous!!!!  >:D

Actually, I, until recently, thought kind of the same thing but I've been getting closer to his music.

Haven't heard of Bowen though...

It's not like he said he couldn't stand Richard Strauss  ;D

Are you kidding me? i GO AWAY FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS, AND WE'RE UP TO 7 pages (sorry caps)???

And I was going to apologize for my last post, but now it appears you all are well beyond that! ;D

Looking forward to catching up.

btw- I was listening to Spohr and Ditters, and I will NOT put them on the list!!! >:( ;D

All pHILIP gLASS, ALL THE TIME!

)what is UP with these caps???)

Quote from: snyprrr on August 28, 2009, 11:45:36 AM
)what is UP with these caps???)

Maybe you need the tablet form instead of the CAPSule form for your meds......  ;D ;)

Quote from: Dana on August 27, 2009, 03:18:42 PM
     I once read a study that found that some people hear music more in terms of orchestration than in harmony or melody. Meaning that if you have a trumpet and a flute playing playing a major and a minor scale, some people won't notice the difference in tonality so much as the fact that first it's a trumpet playing, and then there's a flute playing. Now compare that orchestrational difference with that between a classical orchestra with a modern rock band and see how ignorant so many people are of the great subtleties capable in Mozart's music. That could further explain many people's general distaste for orchestral music.

This rings true for me, and I'd like to extend discussion of the whole idea; it wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that many of our musical responses are dictated to a large degree by physiological and/or psychological factors largely beyond our control; I think the playing field isn't level. I know, for example, that my poor musical memory is unlikely to improve no matter what I do; it's no better now than it was 30 years ago, and I think it explains why I find it intensely difficult, even impossible, to unravel what's going on with a composer like Mahler. I just drown helplessly in it. By contrast I find listening to Handel, say, incredibly easy. That's not to say I appreciate all the complexities therein; I don't, by any means. But there's some type of musical pattern there that happens to suit the way my brain works particularly well and gets me off to a good start every time.

I think what I'm suggesting is that criticising someone who has tried, but who simply cannot enjoy Mozart, may not be appropriate. It may be the equivalent of deriding a one-legged person for being unable to run.

There is one characteristic of bad composers that has been neglected - their music is anonymous, they  have no recognizable idiosyncrasies. Therefore it is unlikely that you know whose music you are listening to. 

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 29, 2009, 03:59:20 AM
There is one characteristic of bad composers that has been neglected - their music is anonymous, they  have no recognizable idiosyncrasies. Therefore it is unlikely that you know whose music you are listening to. 

I'm sure Gurn can tell Gaetano Brunetti from Giovanni Battista Sammartini and Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf from Johan Georg Albrechtsberger. But I can't. So according to your criterion, they are bad composers for me and good composers for Gurn. Is this what you imply?

Quote from: Todd on August 25, 2009, 09:19:39 AM


But does she actually write the music or lyrics?

Clearly, any such list requires mention of Harry Wayne Casey.

Ah Britey! The mental (musical) giant au fin du siecle.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 29, 2009, 03:59:20 AM
There is one characteristic of bad composers that has been neglected - their music is anonymous, they  have no recognizable idiosyncrasies. Therefore it is unlikely that you know whose music you are listening to.

Well, if you hear Beethoven's music 100 times and Krumpholtz's one time, which ones recognizable idiosyncrasies are you likely to learn to understand better?

Quote from: Florestan on August 29, 2009, 04:21:07 AM
I'm sure Gurn can tell Gaetano Brunetti from Giovanni Battista Sammartini and Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf from Johan Georg Albrechtsberger. But I can't. S

Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf is a mighty composer. Telling him from other composers isn't that hard if you know his music/style better.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 29, 2009, 04:34:03 AM
Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf is a mighty composer. Telling him from other composers isn't that hard if you know his music/style better.

Yes, because his music is mighty weak.

Zing!

Dittersdorf is a funny name. Anyone with a name that outrageous CANNOT be any good. Just ask E. Humperdinck or Carl Maria von Weber. I mean come on...Maria is a GIRL'S name!!!

Curtis Curtis-Smith

Quote from: vandermolen on August 28, 2009, 06:57:58 AM
I'd go along with Richard Strauss (although I respect the fact that others here rate him highly)

I can't really appreciate Nicholas Maw's music

York Bowen has been a big disappointment after reading enthusiastic reviews

Stockhausen/Boulez/Berio

Gottschalk

These are really composers whose music I don't like - not necessarily 'worst composers ever'

What a thoughtful bunch!... Vandermolen's taste reigns supreme!!! ;Dhaha

"Composers I Can't Really Appreciate" would maybe have been a better thread!



Still, I haven't heard anyone defend Glazunov!

And lump me in with those who fall asleep to pre-Ives American Romantic music...Foote, et al. Add the Brits, too (Parry, Stanford, etc...)



My prediction is is the the worst composer EVER will appear on the next Kronos Quartet disc! And I have no idea who that will be.

Quote from: snyprrr on August 29, 2009, 05:03:00 PM


My prediction is is the the worst composer EVER will appear on the next Kronos Quartet disc! And I have no idea who that will be.

You can't mean GLASS, can you???  >:(

Quote from: Sforzando on August 29, 2009, 12:48:00 PM
Yes, because his music is mighty weak.

How much of his music have you actually heard? I know plenty of his symphonies, string quartets/quintets and the awesome oratorio Giob that Mozart admired. Dittersdorf was THE rival of Haydn and almost as great. If you call such a composer weak you don't keep Haydn in that high esteem either.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 29, 2009, 04:28:03 PM
Dittersdorf is a funny name. Anyone with a name that outrageous CANNOT be any good. Just ask E. Humperdinck or Carl Maria von Weber. I mean come on...Maria is a GIRL'S name!!!

This is the most idiotic argument you can make about a composer. What if J. S. Bach's surname was Sucksdorff? Would you call Mass in B minor weak? Dittersdorf's original name is less funny; Carl Ditters but since he was one of the greatest composers of his time he was elevated to noble rank, receiving the additional surname "von Dittersdorf". Keep in mind that what we find funny today wasn't necessorily funny to the people of 17th century.

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 29, 2009, 04:28:03 PM
Dittersdorf is a funny name. Anyone with a name that outrageous CANNOT be any good. Just ask E. Humperdinck or Carl Maria von Weber. I mean come on...Maria is a GIRL'S name!!!

Maria is considered a girl's name, but it is normal in Christian countries to find it still nowadays as a name of men. In Spanish, for example, in a compound form, José María. (For another example, now in Italian, Cherubini's complete name was Maria Luigi Carlo Zenobio Salvatore Cherubini, if I remember correctly). And it is also the other way: in Spanish, a traditional compound name for girls is María José.

And if Dittersdorf is certainly not at the front line among classical composers, he was nonetheless a very competent one. 71 dB has recalled Giob, which has moments of really inspired music, worthy of being included in an anthology of his time. His 6 string quartets are not the non plus ultra of chamber music, but they have very enjoyable music in their nature of divertimenti.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 30, 2009, 02:22:41 AMWhat if J. S. Bach's surname was Sucksdorff?

I, for one, would point and laugh mightily.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 30, 2009, 02:22:41 AM
Dittersdorf was THE rival of Haydn and almost as great. If you call such a composer weak you don't keep Haydn in that high esteem either.

Oh, a couple of errors in there.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 30, 2009, 02:22:41 AM
What if J. S. Bach's surname was Sucksdorff?

I waited on someone the other day whose name was Pornsuk.  I didn't think to ask her if she intended to go in for music.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 30, 2009, 02:22:41 AM
This is the most idiotic argument you can make about a composer. What if J. S. Bach's surname was Sucksdorff? Would you call Mass in B minor weak? Dittersdorf's original name is less funny; Carl Ditters but since he was one of the greatest composers of his time he was elevated to noble rank, receiving the additional surname "von Dittersdorf". Keep in mind that what we find funny today wasn't necessorily funny to the people of 17th century.

Uh that's tongue-in-cheek, he's not being serious. :D

Quote from: 71 dB on August 30, 2009, 02:22:41 AM
Dittersdorf was THE rival of Haydn and almost as great.

And I thought they were friends. :'(

Quote from: 71 dB on August 30, 2009, 02:22:41 AM
How much of his music have you actually heard? I know plenty of his symphonies, string quartets/quintets and the awesome oratorio Giob that Mozart admired. Dittersdorf was THE rival of Haydn and almost as great. If you call such a composer weak you don't keep Haydn in that high esteem either.

Actually, they weren't rivals, they were friends. :) 

QuoteThis is the most idiotic argument you can make about a composer. What if J. S. Bach's surname was Sucksdorff? Would you call Mass in B minor weak? Dittersdorf's original name is less funny; Carl Ditters but since he was one of the greatest composers of his time he was elevated to noble rank, receiving the additional surname "von Dittersdorf". Keep in mind that what we find funny today wasn't necessorily funny to the people of 17th century.

Yes, all true. His patron elevated him to the nobility and they actually looked at a map of the area he came from and found a town called Dittersdorf and decided that was cool. So Ditters von Dittersdorf it became. If you notice, I always call him Ditters when I speak of him so that the little chuckle doesn't get planted in peoples' minds. You don't have to do that, just sayin'... ;)


I can tell you the secret, 71dB, about why people don't care for music by Ditters and Vanhal and any number of other very good composers of the Viennese Classical Period. And why they prefer Haydn and Mozart for that matter. I really believe that in a good many cases, they don't know themselves why this is so. It actually does go beyond names, tradition and screwing with you. All of those things are great fun, of course, and people do like their fun, but the reason (IMO, of course) is that when Classical Style developed, is was based on forms that had a very regular rhythm and meter. It became almost a rule of composition that we would have 4 bar phrases, regular as clockwork. And so there were a goodly number of composers that stuck to that rule. Well, the downside of that rule is that before too long the music (by its regularity) begins to become a bit monotonous. And composers like Haydn and Mozart broke that rule with monotonous regularity, using like 9 and 7 instead of 8 and 8 for example. The result was an irregularity in rhythm and phrasing that keep the music more novel. Now, I know that the mere fact that there is some sort of explanation for this phenomenon, and that Ditters is punished by modern audiences for being too rigidly formal probably pisses you off, but I can't help it. Neither can he, and neither can the people who dislike his music after a while, even if they don't know why. But that's life. You and I can still listen and enjoy. :)

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Goodman, The Hanover Band - Hob 01 071 Symphony in Bb 2nd mvmt - Adagio

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 30, 2009, 12:42:29 PM
I can tell you the secret, 71dB, about why people don't care for music by Ditters and Vanhal and any number of other very good composers of the Viennese Classical Period. And why they prefer Haydn and Mozart for that matter. I really believe that in a good many cases, they don't know themselves why this is so. It actually does go beyond names, tradition and screwing with you. All of those things are great fun, of course, and people do like their fun, but the reason (IMO, of course) is that when Classical Style developed, is was based on forms that had a very regular rhythm and meter. It became almost a rule of composition that we would have 4 bar phrases, regular as clockwork. And so there were a goodly number of composers that stuck to that rule. Well, the downside of that rule is that before too long the music (by its regularity) begins to become a bit monotonous. And composers like Haydn and Mozart broke that rule with monotonous regularity, using like 9 and 7 instead of 8 and 8 for example. The result was an irregularity in rhythm and phrasing that keep the music more novel. Now, I know that the mere fact that there is some sort of explanation for this phenomenon, and that Ditters is punished by modern audiences for being too rigidly formal probably pisses you off, but I can't help it. Neither can he, and neither can the people who dislike his music after a while, even if they don't know why. But that's life. You and I can still listen and enjoy. :)

The case against Dittersdorf is made briefly but very well by Edward Lowinsky in his valuable article "On Mozart's Rhythm," where he argues that Dittersdorf tends towards highly regular and reptitious phrase structures; and implicitly by Charles Rosen in "The Classical Style," where he argues that only Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven fully grasped the potential of the classical language. Mr. Gurn seems to argue that Mozart and Haydn were trying to be more "novel," where I would rather say they exploit the classical language with far greater imagination, sensitivity, and skill. In other words, they were more talented.

I see nothing wrong with dipping into Dittersdorf once in a while, and I spent some time today with his 5th quartet in Eb, supposedly one of his most popular works. Dittersdorf actually starts off with a very promising 2-bar idea, which he repeats in sequence. But then his next 4 bars get stalled, especially in bars 7-8 with the weak held whole notes and the cello arpeggiation. And then all he can think to do is literal repetition!

Again, promising ideas surface, such as the dip into G minor for the transitional passage to Bb. But then once he gets there, he gets bogged down in clumsy repeated sequences. It's a case of someone who has some good ideas, but lacks the imagination to see what to do with them. Worse yet is the return of the main material following the development. Dittersdorf here adopts a trick that some lazier and less inventive composers made use of - that is, starting his recapitulation in the subdominant (Ab) so that all he has to do is transpose all the material for it to resolve in the tonic. And this is what he does! Mozart on the other hand almost always (K. 545 is the only exception I know) recapitulates in the tonic, and this forces him to vary and develop the original material as it is being reprised. (Tovey said of an attempt to finish a Mozart fragment - I paraphrase: "the composer writes a very convincing Mozartean development, but he has no idea whatever how to compose a Mozartean recapitulation.")

Dittersdorf's coda for the first movement is quite decent, his middle movement is adequate, and his finale a disaster despite a striking "Gypsy-like" passage that emerges twice if the marked repeat is taken. Part of the problem especially in the finale is contrapuntal: the first violin does almost all the work and there is no interplay among the instruments as distinguishes the quartets of the three greatest masters. Just turn to a masterly movement like the 3rd from LvB's op. 130 to see the difference - an enchanted andante where all four players are absolutely equal and contribute equally to the discussion.

That said, the quartets I've looked at strike me as superior to wretched stuff like the Symphonies on Ovid's Metamorphoses.

http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/f/f1/IMSLP05906-Dittersdorf_String_Quartet_No.5_in_E_Flat.pdf

Poco,
Very interesting analysis. Thanks for that. :)

I wasn't saying that they were trying to be novel, I was saying that their methods present their musical ideas in a more novel way for the listener so that he doesn't get bored so easily with the regularity of rhythm and phrasing. A subtle difference, perhaps, but important to me. :)  Just a thought along those lines however. Maybe they got bored with regularity too and wanted to add drama and excitement to their music. That, in fact, would be novelty. ;)

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Philharmonia Hungarica \ Dorati - Hob 09 16 #21 Minuet in Eb for Orchestra

Quote from: Sforzando on August 30, 2009, 03:49:46 PM
The case against Dittersdorf is made briefly but very well by Edward Lowinsky in his valuable article "On Mozart's Rhythm," where he argues that Dittersdorf tends towards highly regular and reptitious phrase structures; and implicitly by Charles Rosen in "The Classical Style," where he argues that only Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven fully grasped the potential of the classical language. Mr. Gurn seems to argue that Mozart and Haydn were trying to be more "novel," where I would rather say they exploit the classical language with far greater imagination, sensitivity, and skill. In other words, they were more talented.

I see nothing wrong with dipping into Dittersdorf once in a while, and I spent some time today with his 5th quartet in Eb, supposedly one of his most popular works. Dittersdorf actually starts off with a very promising 2-bar idea, which he repeats in sequence. But then his next 4 bars get stalled, especially in bars 7-8 with the weak held whole notes and the cello arpeggiation. And then all he can think to do is literal repetition!

Again, promising ideas surface, such as the dip into G minor for the transitional passage to Bb. But then once he gets there, he gets bogged down in clumsy repeated sequences. It's a case of someone who has some good ideas, but lacks the imagination to see what to do with them. Worse yet is the return of the main material following the development. Dittersdorf here adopts a trick that some lazier and less inventive composers made use of - that is, starting his recapitulation in the subdominant (Ab) so that all he has to do is transpose all the material for it to resolve in the tonic. And this is what he does! Mozart on the other hand almost always (K. 545 is the only exception I know) recapitulates in the tonic, and this forces him to vary and develop the original material as it is being reprised. (Tovey said of an attempt to finish a Mozart fragment - I paraphrase: "the composer writes a very convincing Mozartean development, but he has no idea whatever how to compose a Mozartean recapitulation.")

Dittersdorf's coda for the first movement is quite decent, his middle movement is adequate, and his finale a disaster despite a striking "Gypsy-like" passage that emerges twice if the marked repeat is taken. Part of the problem especially in the finale is contrapuntal: the first violin does almost all the work and there is no interplay among the instruments as distinguishes the quartets of the three greatest masters. Just turn to a masterly movement like the 3rd from LvB's op. 130 to see the difference - an enchanted andante where all four players are absolutely equal and contribute equally to the discussion.

That said, the quartets I've looked at strike me as superior to wretched stuff like the Symphonies on Ovid's Metamorphoses.

http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/f/f1/IMSLP05906-Dittersdorf_String_Quartet_No.5_in_E_Flat.pdf

Molto bene.

Quote from: James on August 31, 2009, 07:30:45 AM
lol  omg too funny

Indeed, especially as Dittersdorf lived entirely within the eighteenth century.

I just happened across this on Wiki...thought it was interesting and applied to some of the earlier discussion (especially on the not liking Góreck, which he is apparently cool with.   8) ) --

Discussing his audience in a 1994 interview, Górecki said,

I do not choose my listeners. What I mean is, I never write for my listeners. I think about my audience, but I am not writing for them. I have something to tell them, but the audience must also put a certain effort into it. But I never wrote for an audience and never will write for because you have to give the listener something and he has to make an effort in order to understand certain things. If I were thinking of my audience and one likes this, one likes that, one likes another thing, I would never know what to write. Let every listener choose that which interests him. I have nothing against one person liking Mozart or Shostakovich or Leonard Bernstein, but doesn't like Górecki. That's fine with me. I, too, like certain things

Quote from: Sforzando on August 30, 2009, 03:49:46 PM
The case against Dittersdorf is made briefly but very well by Edward Lowinsky in his valuable article "On Mozart's Rhythm," where he argues that Dittersdorf tends towards highly regular and reptitious phrase structures; and implicitly by Charles Rosen in "The Classical Style," where he argues that only Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven fully grasped the potential of the classical language. Mr. Gurn seems to argue that Mozart and Haydn were trying to be more "novel," where I would rather say they exploit the classical language with far greater imagination, sensitivity, and skill. In other words, they were more talented.

I see nothing wrong with dipping into Dittersdorf once in a while, and I spent some time today with his 5th quartet in Eb, supposedly one of his most popular works. Dittersdorf actually starts off with a very promising 2-bar idea, which he repeats in sequence. But then his next 4 bars get stalled, especially in bars 7-8 with the weak held whole notes and the cello arpeggiation. And then all he can think to do is literal repetition!

Again, promising ideas surface, such as the dip into G minor for the transitional passage to Bb. But then once he gets there, he gets bogged down in clumsy repeated sequences. It's a case of someone who has some good ideas, but lacks the imagination to see what to do with them. Worse yet is the return of the main material following the development. Dittersdorf here adopts a trick that some lazier and less inventive composers made use of - that is, starting his recapitulation in the subdominant (Ab) so that all he has to do is transpose all the material for it to resolve in the tonic. And this is what he does! Mozart on the other hand almost always (K. 545 is the only exception I know) recapitulates in the tonic, and this forces him to vary and develop the original material as it is being reprised. (Tovey said of an attempt to finish a Mozart fragment - I paraphrase: "the composer writes a very convincing Mozartean development, but he has no idea whatever how to compose a Mozartean recapitulation.")

Dittersdorf's coda for the first movement is quite decent, his middle movement is adequate, and his finale a disaster despite a striking "Gypsy-like" passage that emerges twice if the marked repeat is taken. Part of the problem especially in the finale is contrapuntal: the first violin does almost all the work and there is no interplay among the instruments as distinguishes the quartets of the three greatest masters. Just turn to a masterly movement like the 3rd from LvB's op. 130 to see the difference - an enchanted andante where all four players are absolutely equal and contribute equally to the discussion.

That said, the quartets I've looked at strike me as superior to wretched stuff like the Symphonies on Ovid's Metamorphoses.

http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/f/f1/IMSLP05906-Dittersdorf_String_Quartet_No.5_in_E_Flat.pdf

I am not musically educated so I don't really understand what you are lecturing here. For me music is not subdominant/tonic recapitulations, it is just sounds. I have read some music theory and I remember reading that notes are dominant, subdominant or tonic but I never understood the meaning of these definitions. Books of music theory never show good examples that even I can understand!

As far as I know, NOBODY has ever said Dittersdorf is better than (or even equal to) Mozart, Beethoven or Haydn. Those composers where geniuses. Dittersdorf was behind but not much. This makes him a GOOD composer, not a bad one. This is my message. Dittersdorf was a good composer. He doesn't belong to a thread about the worst composers ever. If Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn were runners that could run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds then Dittersdorf's time is 10.1 seconds. that doesn't make him the worst runner ever.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 31, 2009, 08:16:30 AM
I am not musically educated so I don't really understand what you are lecturing here. For me music is not subdominant/tonic recapitulations, it is just sounds. I have read some music theory and I remember reading that notes are dominant, subdominant or tonic but I never understood the meaning of these definitions. Books of music theory never show good examples that even I can understand!

That you are not musically educated does not invalidate my discussion.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 31, 2009, 08:16:30 AM
As far as I know, NOBODY has ever said Dittersdorf is better than (or even equal to) Mozart, Beethoven or Haydn. Those composers where geniuses. Dittersdorf was behind but not much. This makes him a GOOD composer, not a bad one. This is my message. Dittersdorf was a good composer. He doesn't belong to a thread about the worst composers ever. If Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn were runners that could run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds then Dittersdorf's time is 10.1 seconds. that doesn't make him the worst runner ever.

Well, you called him a Mighty Composer. He's probably not the worst composer, but he's more like someone running hurdles who manages to knock down 3-4 of them getting to the finish line.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 31, 2009, 08:16:30 AMI am not musically educated so I don't really understand what you are lecturing here. For me music is not subdominant/tonic recapitulations, it is just sounds.

Why hasn't Cage come up in these discussions yet? :P

Quote from: Sforzando on August 31, 2009, 08:40:34 AM
That you are not musically educated does not invalidate my discussion.

Well, you called him a Mighty Composer. He's probably not the worst composer, but he's more like someone running hurdles who manages to knock down 3-4 of them getting to the finish line.

Joseph-Guy Ropartz is a poor composer in my opinion.  ::)

As far as bad names...this looks pretty bad --

Snót Leifs   (not a composer, but the daughter of one)

Quote from: 71 dB on August 31, 2009, 10:22:18 AM
Joseph-Guy Ropartz is a poor composer in my opinion.  ::)

You just haven't heard enough of his music.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 31, 2009, 10:33:31 AM
You just haven't heard enough of his music.

The one disc I bought is quite enough for me.  ;D

Alright Tapkaara I apologize for heckling you.  No hard feelings man. :)

Mozart bites.

(j/k)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 31, 2009, 05:37:58 PMMozart bites.

:-X

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 31, 2009, 05:37:58 PM
Mozart Luchesi bites.

(j/k)

Fixed that for you. ;D

Quote from: DavidW on August 31, 2009, 05:25:25 PM
Alright Tapkaara I apologize for heckling you.  No hard feelings man. :)

No hard feelings at all!

Cool beans. :)

Quote from: DavidW on August 31, 2009, 05:54:10 PM
Fixed that for you. ;D

And quite tidily, too!  8)

I would like to revive this little thread with a funny passage I found yesterday. Anyone dissing Schoenberg, Webern et. al. should take note.

X's Piano Concerto is broken, incoherent, and in at least a dozen instances the entry of the piano is an impertinent intrusion permitted by the composer because the pianist had to be given something to do. Here is X, a most 'advanced' musician, caring nothing for the rules and forms that served his musical forebears; and he wrote a concerto in his earlier days, and instead of withdrawing altogether in later life, he revised it! The themes are without exception orchestral themes; not one has been thought in the piano idiom. They are simply faked, by means of scales and arpeggios, to suit the piano.

Who is X? Tchaikovsky.

Quote from: corey on September 29, 2009, 06:52:43 AM
Tchaikovsky.

He's okay, I guess.

I don't care for his music. My point was, something that is now seen as cloying and simplistic by many was once wild and incoherent. Truth is relative. 

Quote from: corey on September 29, 2009, 07:00:35 AM
I don't care for his music. My point was, something that is now seen as cloying and simplistic by many was once wild and incoherent. Truth is relative. 

Yeah, I get it.  :)

Quote from: corey on September 29, 2009, 07:00:35 AM
I don't care for his music. My point was, something that is now seen as cloying and simplistic by many was once wild and incoherent. Truth is relative. 

Artistic truth, anyway  0:)

(I dig Tchaikovsky's wild side!)

Quote from: corey on September 29, 2009, 06:52:43 AMX's Piano Concerto is broken, incoherent, and in at least a dozen instances the entry of the piano is an impertinent intrusion permitted by the composer because the pianist had to be given something to do. Here is X, a most 'advanced' musician, caring nothing for the rules and forms that served his musical forebears; and he wrote a concerto in his earlier days, and instead of withdrawing altogether in later life, he revised it! The themes are without exception orchestral themes; not one has been thought in the piano idiom. They are simply faked, by means of scales and arpeggios, to suit the piano.

I concur. **Ducks!**

Quote from: corey on September 29, 2009, 06:52:43 AM
I would like to revive this little thread with a funny passage I found yesterday. Anyone dissing Schoenberg, Webern et. al. should take note.

X's Piano Concerto is broken, incoherent, and in at least a dozen instances the entry of the piano is an impertinent intrusion permitted by the composer because the pianist had to be given something to do. Here is X, a most 'advanced' musician, caring nothing for the rules and forms that served his musical forebears; and he wrote a concerto in his earlier days, and instead of withdrawing altogether in later life, he revised it! The themes are without exception orchestral themes; not one has been thought in the piano idiom. They are simply faked, by means of scales and arpeggios, to suit the piano.

Who is X? Tchaikovsky.

I know there was at least one "concur" to this point.  Is this something that people can hear when they listen to the concerto in question?   The analysis part is where I struggle with the most, and I don't know I'd be able to hear soemthing and think "ah..that's an orchestral them that composer is trying to fake on the piano."   Unless someone wrote it for a different piece of music and arranged it later, I don't know that I would ever be able to hear those differences....

Possible exception -- there is a Hovhaness work for guitar where it felt to me like he had never heard what a guitar is capable of....he did better on a guitar concerto so I cut him some slack.

      I suspect that it's probably more obvious to the performer than to the audience - the people who've been playing their instruments for 20+ years, and instinctively tell how quick and easy something is to learn - how it "lays" under their fingers, so to speak. Tchaikovsky parts are always tough to play, because he establishes his sound world within his mind, and then tries to squeeze it into the forces he has arrayed before him, which results in awkward leaps and fingerings on the viola. The same is true of Brahms chamber music - as much as I enjoy listening to him, his viola parts are absolutely terrible to play - no composer wrote more awkward double-stops and string crossings than Brahms did. By contrast, Dvorak's chamber music is pretty easy to work out. But then he was a violist, whereas Brahms conceived most of his music at the piano and, like Tchaikovsky, had to work out how to fit it into whatever ensemble he had before him - hence the confusion regarding the inception of the 1st piano concerto.

      Corey didn't say who that quote was from, but I think it might be Rubinstein, or one of the other Five - that sounds like the kind of criticism that I've read from them concerning Tchaikovsky.

Thanks Dana!  That was a really helpful explanation.  I may not be able to just listen and point it out, but a deeper understanding of the capabilities of the instruments or the scores themselves, might make a little easier to grasp.

I am not sure if it was on this forum, but I recall a discussion once on a composer's primary instrument(s) background and how he wrote for other instruments that he might have been less familiar with.  All interesting stuff to me.

One doesn't like what one doesn't like, so I shan't beat anyone up over lack of enthusiasm for the Tch. First Cto . . . just for the record, I compose and analyze music all the time, and I have no quarrel with the piece  0:)  ;D   8)

Tchaikovsky rules! For me anyways.  :)

Mahler said that Tchaikovsky was too Italian. ;D

And Stavinsky said that Tchaikovsky was the most Russian of them all!  :)

Quote from: ChamberNut on September 29, 2009, 09:22:04 AM
And Stavinsky said that Tchaikovsky was the most Russian of them all!  :)

Considering all the travel he did abroad I can't help but wonder if it's a good thing or a bad thing? ;D

QuoteOne doesn't like what one doesn't like, so I shan't beat anyone up over lack of enthusiasm for the Tch. First Cto . . . just for the record, I compose and analyze music all the time, and I have no quarrel with the piece  0:)  ;D   8)

Also — although, as stated, the Tch. First Cto is irreproachably oojah-cum-spiff — I respect an artistic questioning even of established repertory.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2009, 10:04:40 AM
Also — although, as stated, the Tch. First Cto is irreproachably oojah-cum-spiff — I respect an artistic questioning even of established repertory.

I really dislike the work, as it happens, though I suspect this is at least in part due to enduring too many mediocre run-throughs of it with the RSNO and whichever terminally bored soloist was sleepwalking his/her way through it for a concert fee.

The Second, on the other hand--I've heard all the arguments about the inferior melodic material and the longeurs of the (as far as I'm concerned) beautiful second movement, and I'm not buying it. Great piece, as far as I'm concerned, and one that should show up far more often in the concert repertoire.

And I entirely sympathize with the Clockwork Orange effect  0:)

Quote from: Dana on September 29, 2009, 07:43:04 AM
      The same is true of Brahms chamber music - as much as I enjoy listening to him, his viola parts are absolutely terrible to play - no composer wrote more awkward double-stops and string crossings than Brahms did.

I've heard of this and seen examples that look impossibly awkward enough to make me wonder how they're even possible to play.
Then there's Schoenberg, whose piano pieces are supposedly awkward (though i can't think of a specific example), and there's supposed to be a couple of places where he's written harp parts with chords that are technically impossible to play.

But, hey, that's not a bad thing. If you write music for an instrument that's a bit awkward, you can remember Schoenberg and Brahms and feel less bad about yourself.  ;D

Quote from: edward on September 29, 2009, 11:36:14 AM
The Second, on the other hand--I've heard all the arguments about the inferior melodic material and the longeurs of the (as far as I'm concerned) beautiful second movement, and I'm not buying it. Great piece, as far as I'm concerned, and one that should show up far more often in the concert repertoire.

I need to make the better acquaintance of that one; very much enjoyed an initial listen!

Worst ever? I love to explore classical music off the beaten path, and I've been very pleasantly surprised at what a great percentage of it has been rewarding and enjoyable (reading reviews and getting input from GMGer's has certainly helped stack the odds), but I've stumbled across a few duds. Jon Leifs is one. Despite repeated tries, I still haven't been able to finish his Saga Symphony, for example, with its utterly banal and monotonous noise :(

Quote from: corey on September 29, 2009, 06:52:43 AM

X's Piano Concerto is broken, incoherent, and in at least a dozen instances the entry of the piano is an impertinent intrusion permitted by the composer because the pianist had to be given something to do. Here is X, a most 'advanced' musician, caring nothing for the rules and forms that served his musical forebears; and he wrote a concerto in his earlier days, and instead of withdrawing altogether in later life, he revised it! The themes are without exception orchestral themes; not one has been thought in the piano idiom. They are simply faked, by means of scales and arpeggios, to suit the piano.

This is an absolutely false description of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto ......................... Number Two.

Oh, I'm feeling the love . . . .

I just want to register my distaste for this thread, as well as, any "worst of" threads.

Quote from: Franco on September 30, 2009, 06:27:02 AM
I just want to register my distaste for this thread, as well as, any "worst of" threads.

(* pounds the table *)

Cato, having perused, in a very bemused fashion  8) , the last 12 pages of this topic, is extremely, exodontically, and exophthalmically
shocked   :o    schocked  :o   :o  SCHOCKED   :o    :o    :o

that the name Ferde Grofe has not yet appeared!!!   $:)

But I digress from the topic, which is to name the 5 Worst Composers Ever!   0:)

Cato knows who they are: they are the Music Professors who between 1950 and 1980 composed serial/multi-media works and used the indentured servitude of their graduate students to be both the performers and audience for their inky exertions, for which said professors should have been publicly bull-whipped and sent to a monastery in Peru to meditate on their musical sins and listen to Chico's Andean Flute Choir 37 hours a day.

Quote from: Franco on September 30, 2009, 06:27:02 AM
I just want to register my distaste for this thread, as well as, any "worst of" threads.

Yep. But I'd say this is probably the worst of them. Should we have a poll?

Ladies and gentlemen,

The five worst composers ever!









(http://www.incrediblebirths.com/Quintuplets/Kienast-Quintuplets.jpg)

Quote from: Franco on September 30, 2009, 06:27:02 AM
I just want to register my distaste for this thread, as well as, any "worst of" threads.

;D

Quote from: Cato on September 30, 2009, 08:36:48 AM
Cato, having perused, in a very bemused fashion  8) , the last 12 pages of this topic, is extremely, exodontically, and exophthalmically
shocked   :o    schocked  :o   :o  SCHOCKED   :o    :o    :o

that the name Ferde Grofe has not yet appeared!!!   $:)

But I digress from the topic, which is to name the 5 Worst Composers Ever!   0:)

Cato knows who they are: they are the Music Professors who between 1950 and 1980 composed serial/multi-media works and used the indentured servitude of their graduate students to be both the performers and audience for their inky exertions, for which said professors should have been publicly bull-whipped and sent to a monastery in Peru to meditate on their musical sins and listen to Chico's Andean Flute Choir 37 hours a day.

You're a GENIUS!!! ;D

Yes,...how dare they!!! Where are they now?... with all yer Pulitzer Prizes???...

Ferdy Grofe,...astutissimo!!!



I'll be honest. I've been listening to ClassicalEra music since May now, collecting one SQ album after another, by different composers, just waiting for that "Classical fatigue" to set, and for one of these composers to really really SUCK,... and it just hasn't happened yet. They all seem to have at least the same ability, and they ALL have nice little turns of phrase that keep you going. Oh, sure, they will ALL make you fall asleep, if you are so inclined, but, if one listens, one will hear... SOMETHING! Even the universally maligned Ditters gets it as well as anyone else.

I mean, HOW do you make an SQ in "g minor" SUCK??? Can't be done, as far as I can see. Please correct me.



I did notice, Cato, how you were want to NAME anyone of these offenders, haha? How politically correct, haha! But, then again, we all KNOW of whom thou speakest... could Donald Martino be on that list? ::) I, personally, kind of like that arid stuff now and then to cleanse the palate... Mel Powell, Helps, Shifrin, Berger, Sims, Adler, Shapey, oh, sorry, but just about any jewish name will do, haha... ahhh, Goldstein, Levy, Zukerman, Feldtsman, Fleischman,... the great pantheon of... oy, haha... Kupferman, Meyerson, Sonnerson,...

yea, they CAN suck, can't they?!!?!!



And why, Franco, are you offended? LET the sucksters suck. Give a man the freedom to bore, and exasperate, and suck. There is no one who sucks who can hide in the shadows, and not have their life draining toil exposed for the hi-jinx it is. Can we have just a shred, a touch, of objectivity, or MUST we by dictate of the State accept EVERYONE.... must we give everyone a gold star just for trying?

I have baby feelings, too, and I get hurt, too. But, if I suck, don't let me get away with it.



Is there a difference between opinions and convictions?

Mozart sucks!

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2009, 07:03:12 AM
Artistic truth, anyway  0:)

I actually thought of saying that after I left. L'espirit du escalier!

Quote from: snyprrr on August 25, 2009, 09:03:10 AM
Ah...when in doubt, start some trouble! >:D

1) Philip Glass
2) Terry Riley
3)
4) anyone influenced by Richard Strauss (Strauss waltzes incl. by default)
5) H. Gorecki (Sym No.3 and Harpsichord Cto. notwithstanding)

There...I feel better now...and you?

Snyprrr, why did you leave the 3rd choice blank? Is it just one of those 'snipperisms' that is best not to bring up?  :D

QuoteAnd why, Franco, are you offended? LET the sucksters suck. Give a man the freedom to bore, and exasperate, and suck. There is no one who sucks who can hide in the shadows, and not have their life draining toil exposed for the hi-jinx it is. Can we have just a shred, a touch, of objectivity, or MUST we by dictate of the State accept EVERYONE.... must we give everyone a gold star just for trying?

I did not say I was "offended"; I registered my distaste for this thread.   And while I don't suggest giving out gold stars for effort, no composer sets out to bore, exasperate and suck.

Don't you have something better to do than lampoon composers whose music you don't like?

Quote from: Franco on September 30, 2009, 09:46:13 AM

Don't you have something better to do than lampoon composers whose music you don't like?

Did not Mozart lampoon the Ed Wood composer wannabes of his day with his Ein Musikalischer Spaß?  (K. 522)

Quote from: Cato on September 30, 2009, 09:54:54 AM
Did not Mozart Lucchesi lampoon the Ed Wood composer wannabes of his day with his Ein Musikalischer Spaß?  (K. 522)

[Emended.]

Quote from: Cato on September 30, 2009, 09:54:54 AM
Did not Mozart lampoon the Ed Wood composer wannabes of his day with his Ein Musikalischer Spaß?  (K. 522)

Excuse me, I did not know you were on a par with Mozart.

Quote from: Franco on September 30, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Excuse me, I did not know you were on a par with Mozart.

Number One:  I did not found the topic!

Number Two: Now you know!   0:)

Right: not knowing is no disgrace.

The disgrace, is being ineducable (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,14739.msg359496.html#msg359496).

But I digress from the topic, which is to name the 5 Worst Composers Ever!   angel

Cato knows who they are: they are the Music Professors who between 1950 and 1980 composed serial/multi-media works and used the indentured servitude of their graduate students to be both the performers and audience for their inky exertions, for which said professors should have been publicly bull-whipped and sent to a monastery in Peru to meditate on their musical sins and listen to Chico's Andean Flute Choir 37 hours a day.

Indeed! ;D

Say it aint so ' !

Fair enough, I'll just consign my Sibelius Cds to the flame tomorrow, but not before the Wagner and Orff ones.

It must be so!  Because really: How can you argue with an apostrophe?

Hmmm!  Wait a minute!  The answer is so obvious!


'   "  " "  """"""""""""""""""" '' '

So there!    '    8)     '

Rachmaninov makes good coffee mug coasters.

Now hang on, if M were here wouldn't he be on about the v=ff issue?

That's right, Guido, it's covee, not coffee, you fool.....

Quote from: ChamberNut on September 30, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
Snyprrr, why did you leave the 3rd choice blank? Is it just one of those 'snipperisms' that is best not to bring up?  :D

The blank choice means John Cage ;D

Quote from: Brian on October 01, 2009, 05:31:03 AM
The blank choice means John Cage ;D

;D ;D Coffee squirts through nose!

As a rule of thumb, I never try to make blanket statements about a given composer being good or bad, since it's a subjective assessment, and music history has been filled with scathing reviews for people we now put on pedestals.  So, I'll need to qualify my response-- I'll just list some of the composers I simply "don't get", where my reaction doesn't seem to meet the hype, or cases where I just have a personal grudge.

Brahams.  Leaves me cold.  I'd rank him high on craftsmanship, but never on inspiration.

Mozart-- There are a couple of scraps I like, but I don't get it when people say Mozart is their religion.  Bach I could understand

Tchaikovsky-- Okay, a great orchestrator, and I really love a few of his works.  But I can't forgive some of the bad things he said about Mussorgsky.

Saint-Saens- I like Danse Macabre, but I can't forgive him for being so critical of Debussy.

Wagner-- Some brilliant moments, but you need to wade through a lot to get to the good parts. And the whole anti-semetism was a turnoff-- although sadly he was not alone.  If I like the music enough, I can divorce the composer form the musician in my mind (Case in point-- Miles Davis)


Gluck-- what little I heard in no way inspired me to dig any further.

I also harbor the deep conviction that John Phillips Souza is the Antichrist-- if we were to consider him fair game. 

Anyway-- some of these composers I may warm up to later.  I know that everyone I've listed is a better composer than I'll ever be....

Quote from: jowcol on October 01, 2009, 06:01:46 AM
Brahams.  Leaves me cold.  I'd rank him high on craftsmanship, but never on inspiration.

I agree 100 %. Brahms, on the other hand...  ;D

Quote from: Luke on October 01, 2009, 05:28:47 AM
Now hang on, if M were here wouldn't he be on about the v=ff issue?

That's right, Guido, it's covee, not coffee, you fool.....

Hmm . . . I have an idea that in Turkish, it's kahve . . . .

Quote from: jowcol on October 01, 2009, 06:01:46 AMBrahms.  Leaves me cold.  I'd rank him high on craftsmanship, but never on inspiration.

Mozart-- There are a couple of scraps I like, but I don't get it when people say Mozart is their religion.

      Have you heard either of these composers live? I don't think people should be allowed to say things like that if they haven't heard it live. It's like watching a football game on TV and then saying it's a stupid sport - you're really only getting half of the picture. There's absolutely nothing in the world like a good Mozart string quartet - but you'll rarely get that from a recording.

Quote from: jowcol on October 01, 2009, 06:01:46 AMI also harbor the deep conviction that John Phillips Souza is the Antichrist-- if we were to consider him fair game.

Amen! >:D

Quote from: Dana on October 01, 2009, 09:36:57 AM
      Have you heard either of these composers live? I don't think people should be allowed to say things like that if they haven't heard it live. It's like watching a football game on TV and then saying it's a stupid sport - you're really only getting half of the picture. There's absolutely nothing in the world like a good Mozart string quartet - but you'll rarely get that from a recording.

Amen! >:D

Unfortunately both of them have died before I was born. I always wished I caught Mozart at the Fillmore!    ;) 


Seriously, yes I have heard live performances of both.   I certainly agree that something gets lost in a recording, and a bad live performance can also  turn one off.    I've tried in each case to frame this as a personal opinion and not an pretense of an objective judgment, because frankly, I don't think that is possible.  There is no apples to apples, and as the noted classical composer Jerry Garcia said "music isn't a contest".

But if I hadn't heard any of their works live, would I be "allowed" to voice an opinion if framed as such?  I understand your frustration when people make hasty judgments, but let's face it.  Some people are going to take an immediate dislike to the music we love without giving it a fair shot. To use your example, if I took my wife to a football game, she'd hate the sport even more, and I'd be in the doghouse for a week.  It's already a source of discord in our happy home....


I'm a big fan of Hindustani classical music, and think that is one of the most intense live experiences one can have with music.  It was so hypnotic that I noticed the crowd around me (most Indian) were breathing in unison, and riveted to a single scale for two hours.  Yet, most people I know would hate me for dragging them to a performance.


I've even found it difficult to recommend music to people based on other composers they like because how people react to music is so subjective.  For me, it's been much easier for me not to worry about people liking or respecting the music I do, and to support others in pursuing the music that moves them.  So if it's Mozart, Braham, Easy Listening, Rap, or.. gulp, Souza, I want them to listen as passionately as they can, and use the music to grow and explore.  In my book, the one thing that should "not be allowed" is for someone not to really love any kind of music, and not to know what it can do for their lives.

I didn't mean to seem overly critical about your post-- as I said, I can understand the frustration, and it's clear to me you found music you love that transcends day-to-day life. Which is something that I love to see!  Stravinsky had a great quote about the problem with music appreciation is that people are taught to respect music, but they should be taught to love it instead.

  I make it a point to go back and listen to things that don't "click" with me after a few years to see if I missed something.  I'll keep you in mind next time I dip into Mozart.


wjp

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2009, 09:13:08 AM
Hmm . . . I have an idea that in Turkish, it's kahve . . . .

Evet. :)  (http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahve)

I must say I'm very surprised at the aversion and dislike to Tchaikovsky's music (several people).  To each their own, of course.  Nevertheless, I'm still surprised.

For what it's worth, there was a time that I could not stand his music either.  I found the beginning of the 4th symphony incredibly annoying, and it completely put me off on beginning exploring his symphonies for a few years.  Also, I could not stand The Nutcracker (COULD NOT STAND IT!).  Now, I absolutely love it!  :)

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 01, 2009, 05:34:13 AM
;D ;D Coffee squirts through nose!

Can you sue McDonalds for that, Ray?

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 02, 2009, 06:31:05 AM
I must say I'm very surprised at the aversion and dislike to Tchaikovsky's music (several people).  To each their own, of course.  Nevertheless, I'm still surprised.

For what it's worth, there was a time that I could not stand his music either.  I found the beginning of the 4th symphony incredibly annoying, and it completely put me off on beginning exploring his symphonies for a few years.  Also, I could not stand The Nutcracker (COULD NOT STAND IT!).  Now, I absolutely love it!  :)

I went through an anti-Tchaikovsky phase too. My specific bane was the Fifth Symphony; the Fifth Symphony seemed so shallow to me, so strung-together. It wasn't a symphony; it was one thing after another, and it was loud and the silly-grin happy ending really bothered me. Spent several weeks trying to find something to like about it, but to no avail. So I set it aside for a while; specifically, I set it aside for two years. At the end of those two years, during which I grew as a (teenage) person and evolved as a listener, it just so happened one day that, looking at my music collection, I thought, "I should find the CD that I have listened to least," and by golly, Tchaikovsky's Fifth (Ormandy, Philadelphia) was the one that had gone unplayed for the longest time.

And, for whatever reason, that day it all changed. It's been only a few years, four at most, since I rediscovered that symphony. Now I'd count Tchaikovsky's Fifth in my top dozen personal favorite symphonies, and I own no less than 12 separate recordings of the piece. It's still the same music. But the listener changed. :)

Quote from: jowcol on October 02, 2009, 05:31:09 AMUnfortunately both of them have died before I was born. I always wished I caught Mozart at the Fillmore!    ;)

He was at Pine Knob in '96. And that was before he became a sell out!

Quote from: jowcol on October 02, 2009, 05:31:09 AMBut if I hadn't heard any of their works live, would I be "allowed" to voice an opinion if framed as such?  I understand your frustration when people make hasty judgments, but let's face it.  Some people are going to take an immediate dislike to the music we love without giving it a fair shot. To use your example, if I took my wife to a football game, she'd hate the sport even more, and I'd be in the doghouse for a week.  It's already a source of discord in our happy home....

      For sure, not everything can be for everyone, (I say that having done my undergraduate work at the University of Michigan, where I lived in a house of anti-football people :o - I feel your pain!). I wasn't voicing displeasure so much at people making snap judgments so much as people who take the canned goods as being as good as the fresh stuff - if people want to hear a piece of music, they so often say "oh, I'll go get a good recording of it!" and in doing so, fail to realize that if music is about anything, it's about communication - between the musicians, and between the performers and the audience. Even most performers will admit that having someone worthwhile to play for plays a big part in eliciting a good performance from them, and not just because we tend to play off in rehearsals. Music exists within time and space as much as it exists within the audio plane, and losing that critical element is damning in a lot more ways than just losing the sonority effect. A good live performance is worth 10 recordings, lest those recordings be of historical value :)

QuoteA good live performance is worth 10 recordings

I would venture to say, any live performance is worth ten recordings.  But, that still will not be enough to sway a listener who does not get the music.

I believe that the discussion on live performances vs recordings is probably more about making snap judgements, but I did want to mention something from my standpoint.

The cost associated with live performances, the ease to get to, and other logistics (I have children which may not be able to attend all functions) are somewhat a deterrant.  While I certainly may be missing out, the convenience and cost associated with primarily listening to recordings only makes this an excellent choice in my circumstances.  

This is not intended as a pro-recording/anti-live performance message, but rather a situation I certainly find myself in.  

Now the odds of me making a snap judgement and then publically declaring something as if I am now an expert are pretty low, so I know this wasn't directed specifically at me.

Quote from: Dana on October 02, 2009, 06:57:39 AM
A good live performance is worth 10 recordings

Boy, that can be so true.  And it was for me regarding Sibelius' Violin Concerto.  Did not care for the piece, until I heard it performed live last week.

It can make a huge difference in gaining an appreciation.

One issue one runs into when comparing live vs recorded performances is the current repertoire, and the degree to which it is dominated by the standards.  I don't have a chance to see performances of works by the composers that have been exciting me the most recently, and it's often hard to find all of their works in print.


PS:  I have a boot of the Pine Knob '96 show.....

Quote from: Cato on September 30, 2009, 09:54:54 AM
Did not Mozart lampoon the Ed Wood composer wannabes of his day with his Ein Musikalischer Spaß?  (K. 522)

Not fair bringing Ed Wood into it! ;) THAT... is genius!... because, remember "The Future, for that is where you and I will spend the rest of our lives."



And, to the critics I say, I love laughing at vainglory, which is pretty much what composing music is (except for Bach 0:)). Only because the best music is so worthy of seriousness is the rest of music doomed to heckling.

"Requiem for Neitschtzke", hahahahahaha



Oh, and may I remind everyone that Charles Wuorinen is planning an opera based on "Brokeback Mountain".

Suckety, suck suck.

I'm listening to Saint-Saens SQs as I'm writing this, and I feel like a hypocrite!

Quote from: snyprrr on October 02, 2009, 11:01:35 AM



Oh, and may I remind everyone that Charles Wuorinen is planning an opera based on "Brokeback Mountain".

Suckety, suck suck.

Given the context, I find that really really obscene!   0:)

Quote from: Dana on October 01, 2009, 09:36:57 AM
Have you heard either of these composers live? I don't think people should be allowed to say things like that if they haven't heard it live.

That's a rigid point of view I don't share and one that doesn't take into account personal preferences except for Dana's.

      OK, you've proved me wrong. What are your personal preferences? And what experiences would you draw upon to justify your preferences?

Hearing something live is awesome BUT it's not so revelatory that recordings are a poor copy in comparison.  There are some concerts that just completely blew my mind, but it's mostly the excitement of the evening.

Here is what I think is missing on a recording that you get in a live concert: it's very possible to hear the timbre of the individual instruments in a chamber orchestra, and depending on acoustics, even symphony orchestras sound less mushy live.  You also don't really have a sense of how much a symphony orchestra can project in a cd, but you can live.  And by project I mean VOLUME, and the quick changes in dynamics with that ability to produce very loud are quiet volumes are pretty impressive.  In a large hall the sound really fills the room and sounds spacious in a way you can't get in your living room.  Also the biggest thing for me, is that all instruments sound warm with a very smooth treble roll off.  Even harpsichords sound pleasant and not abrasive, something you don't get on a cd.

However it's still the same music, and cds (well recorded, engineered cds that is) do capture the nuances of a performance.  If you don't like it recorded, chances are you won't like it live (as I've seen myself) and I don't consider hearing the music live to be essential to judging the music. :)

When you get the chance ' would you mind cross posting on my new live vs recordings thread? :)

 Another composer whose music I find trying to listen to is Delius, even though I love Elgar, Vaughn Williams, Britten,  Tippett , Walton and other British music .
  Yes, it's very pretty, but it's monotonously languorous in mood and cloyingly sweet harmonically. It's rather like being forced to consume a large bowl of treacle. And every work of his sounds the same. The same old cloying harmonies and monotonous mood. It sounds like the sentimental music for some 1930s English film.

Quote from: Dana on October 02, 2009, 09:20:23 PM
OK, you've proved me wrong. What are your personal preferences? And what experiences would you draw upon to justify your preferences?

My preference is recorded music.  I've been to dozens of live performances over the years, and I always tend to lose focus and feel distant from the soul of the music.  The same thing happens with live sports events as well.  My wife and I still attend about 2 live concerts each year.  However, being 61 years old, I'm skeptical the situation will change.

Three years ago, we vacationed in Europe and attended operas in Poland and Budapest as well as a solo Mozart piano recital in Salzburg.  The change in location didn't make any difference.

How unusual! Why do you think that is?

Quote from: Dana on October 03, 2009, 09:40:02 AM
How unusual! Why do you think that is?

I don't concentrate well in group settings.

Quote from: ' on October 03, 2009, 06:08:12 AM
Tugging on the thread of live vs. Memorex.

It's not hard to think of advantages and disadvantages of both. I'd've never gotten to hear most of the music I like most without recordings, but live there are some subtle things that to me seem to account for a lot. Being able to see the musicians interact, esp. in chamber music offers something to the music that you can't get from the record (a little related to the McGurk Effect, maybe, which is an extreme case of how we tend to trust vision over hearing).

Another issue with recordings (and I think of this esp with listening to the heavily spliced Stravinsky-Craft_John McClure recordings) is that a recordings are like hamburger -- how many different cows (and god knows what sort of processing) make up one burger. Rests are a convenient place to edit is at a rest between passages, but rests are musically important.  In a live performance, how a musician breaks that silence (the millisecond timing, the dynamics, the tempo after the pause) offers a lot of thrills (re: Wee Bits thread), but if an editor is cutting  and pasting different takes, that overall sense of flow is too often lost. It makes me think of trying to make smooth lines in a graphics program by pasting together arc fragments. Hard to make a picture as convincing as drawing freehand.

And so often (taking the McCraftinsky recordings as an example) you will find all sort of onerous touch-ups, dubbings, mismatches, repeats provided by using the same piece of tape twice, and in some cases. transplants of other recordings (how did passages from Klemperer's Pulcinella Suite recording end up in the "Stravinsky" recording?) or substitutions using other performers (e.g., The Flood,  Mass, Jeu de Cartes -- just to make a record.

The end product may have the fewest bobbles, but you are left with a collage that is missing something about a sense of timing and sweep and overall shape, an absence I think is felt but difficult to identify, but may be that counterpart to that equally hard-to-put-your-finger-on attraction of a concert recording.
'

Apropos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MWHO_y2Fu4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MWHO_y2Fu4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWQKyek3IGo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWQKyek3IGo&feature=related)

Quote from: Superhorn on October 03, 2009, 07:58:32 AM
Another composer whose music I find trying to listen to is Delius, even though I love Elgar, Vaughn Williams, Britten,  Tippett , Walton and other British music .
  Yes, it's very pretty, but it's monotonously languorous in mood and cloyingly sweet harmonically. It's rather like being forced to consume a large bowl of treacle. And every work of his sounds the same. The same old cloying harmonies and monotonous mood. It sounds like the sentimental music for some 1930s English film.

Hi Superhorn - Re Delius im a great fan of his although i can see yr argument has valid points - i suppose listening to something like 'The first cookoo in spring' it does tend to meander without purpose with sentimentality. But cant agree about all his music sounding the same - some works like North Country Sketches, Song of the High Hills Appalachia have great feel for nature and would not say was cloying in any way - Sorry to say i like some of his cloying works too - however maybe he is just one of those composers you love or hate  ::)

ok, I've got it.

THE WORST... WORST COMPOSER EVER... IS...






All I remember is that this guy had a spot in the classical section, and I don't know what he sounds like, but I can guess. Yes, no,... or indifferent???

Haha, once again, embarassed to find my last comment, haha.

  For me it would be in no particular order:  John Cage,  Antonio Vivaldi,

   Fredrick Delius, Francis Poulenc, Charles Gounod.

    Dishonorable mention: Darius Milhaud.  Virgil Thomson. Philip Glass.

   

Quote from: snyprrr on August 25, 2009, 09:03:10 AM
Ah...when in doubt, start some trouble! >:D

1) Philip Glass
2) Terry Riley
3)
4) anyone influenced by Richard Strauss (Strauss waltzes incl. by default)
5) H. Gorecki (Sym No.3 and Harpsichord Cto. notwithstanding)

There...I feel better now...and you?

Oddly enough, although I generally dislike the music of Richard Strauss , I often like the music of composers who are described as having been influenced by him (Vitezslav Novak for example). So my list of my least favourite composers (not the worst - just my own choice) might be as follows:

Richard Strauss

Gottschalk

Nicholas Maw

Gilbert and Sullivan

Country and Western music

A few more for the list:

José Serebrier
Virgil Thomson

Thomson I keep trying to enjoy, but keep finding the music outdated, not neccesseraly in compositional technique (although that is also the case) but in style. The whole "too cool for school" thing consistently being compromised by his urges to produce more engaging music kind of makes his whole aesthetic wishy-washy. He must've been progressive for a while but then became boring. Serebrier produces consistently faceless and drab music (he's better as a conductor, but even in that field it has been talent squandered, given how initially he was viewed as some kind of wunderkind).

Quote from: Lethe on April 29, 2010, 03:28:16 AM
A few more for the list:

José Serebrier
Virgil Thomson

Thomson I keep trying to enjoy, but keep finding the music outdated, not neccesseraly in compositional technique (although that is also the case) but in style. The whole "too cool for school" thing consistently being compromised by his urges to produce more engaging music kind of makes his whole aesthetic wishy-washy. He must've been progressive for a while but then became boring. Serebrier produces consistently faceless and drab music (he's better as a conductor, but even in that field it has been talent squandered, given how initially he was viewed as some kind of wunderkind).

You're the second person to mention Virgil Thomson!  Have you heard "The Plow That Broke The Plains" or "The River"?  Two of my favorite classical works of all time and Virgil Thomson is one of my very favorite composers.   :)

Also I thought the HDCD of José Serebrier conducting his own orchestral works on Reference Recordings to be quite exciting.  But that is the only Serebrier recording I have ever heard, perhaps some of his other works are drab, I would be curious to know what works so I can avoid them. 

I also do not understand the mention of Ferde Grofé  :o as he writes the most colorful suites I have ever heard.  His sonic pictures are so REAL, he is an amazing orchestrator, one of the finest ever IMHO.  On the Trail and Cloudburst from The Grand Canyon Suite are such realistic musical pictures that they are true genius!  And he has a dozen more suites that are every bit as grand!

Here is my vote for the 5 worst composers ever:

• Arnold Schoenberg
• Alban Berg
• Anton Webern
• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
• Georg Philipp Telemann
  

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 06:36:35 PM

When you rank Mozart so low it means that you are ranking everyone else above him.  Do you actually enjoy Dittersdorf more than Mozart?  Do you enjoy Greg's music more than Mozart (sorry Greg)?    .

I'm not Tapkaara but yes even though I find Dittersdorf a bore I enjoy him much more than Mozart and I enjoy Edvard Grieg's music easily 10,000 times more than Mozart!  Grieg writes very enjoyable, beautiful and exciting music.  I find Mozart to be boring and syrupy-sickly-sweet in the extreme, I have not heard much music as bad as Mozart's!  And I have heard music from over 1,000 composers.  Mozart is way, way overrated, he must have a good publicist.

uh... worst? I change it little and reply the composers that i feel that are little alien to me
- R. Schumann, there is just something overtly sentimental and pretty  that I really don't swallow
- Hans Pfitzner I can't swallow though i.d tried; too thick and dead
- Erkki Melartin; eclectic if there ever was one; can't get hold of him
- Maybe Mahler, some inner hollowness or even violence or something

It is funny that all of those composers have some works that i love;
- Scumann, piano quintet, especially it's slow movement
- Pfitzner,  violin sonata
- Mahler, the ninth

so go figure

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 07:19:56 AM
The idea that Mozart is somehow one of the 5 Worst Composers Ever is bizarre in the extreme.

I do not believe so, out of thousands of composers I've heard, I have not heard a single composer that is worst than Mozart.  Telemann comes close, but IMHO Mozart is the very bottom of the barrel.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2009, 11:03:05 AM
Well, but not Mozart.  You may not like Mozart, you may perhaps even be unable to stand Mozart.  But to say that his music is bad music, casts question on your musical judgment.

I disagree!  I firmly believe that it is GOOD musical judgement to be honest about the talent of composers (especially those of us who have studied musical composition) and to tell the truth about overrated composers.  Mozart is one such composer who has illegitimate undeserved status!  Mozart is a bad composer and his influence after his death held music down for over a century.  Classical music would have been much better if he was never born IMHO.  I know of no composer whose music I hate as much as Mozart's.

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 05:10:35 AM
I know of no composer whose music I hate as much as Mozart's.

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 05:10:35 AM
Music is Love,
Teresa

;D :D ;D

Sarge

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 04:57:22 AM
I do not believe so, out of thousands of composers I've heard, I have not heard a single composer that is worst than Mozart.

.....except for Schoenberg, Berg and Webern, that is.  ::)

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 05:10:35 AM
Mozart is a bad composer and his influence after his death held music down for over a century.  Classical music would have been much better if he was never born IMHO.  I know of no composer whose music I hate as much as Mozart's.

(http://editorial.jpress.co.uk/web/Upload/TS//TH1_49200845mozart-kiss.jpg)

Separated at Birth?

I'm not a Mozart fan particulary, but I can't work up much anger for a composer I don't care for, even if I feel  they are overrated. (Unless we are talking about John Tesh, and then all bets are off!)

Quote from: jhar26 on May 02, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
.....except for Schoenberg, Berg and Webern, that is.  ::)

If your going to be a completist, you forgot Telemann.  It pained me to have to leave off Haydn and Vivaldi but I was only allowed to choose five. 

I do hate Mozart most of all though so I guess I should have listed him first?   ;)

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 05:57:42 AM
If your going to be a completist, you forgot Telemann.

No, I didn't. You ranked him below Mozart on your worst top five.

   Actually, the Wuorinen comission for an opera based on Brokeback Mountain was
cancelled due to the New York City opera' financial woes.
   Fortunately, the company is on its feet now and alive and kicking, and the acoustics of what is now called the David H. Koch theater have been markdely imporved according to reports.

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 05:10:35 AM
I firmly believe that it is GOOD musical judgement to be honest about the talent of composers.

But the implication of this (if your opinion of Mozart is correct) seems to be that those who love the music of Mozart either have poor musical judgement, or are being dishonest. Seems a bit hard, as well as being not credible.

QuoteI know of no composer whose music I hate as much as Mozart's.

I can't help wondering why it troubles you so much.

     Hating a composer is way too much investment. What purpose could it serve? Mild dislike is enough for me, and even better yet is indifference. Hate sounds too much like getting ready to really like it.*

      _{* Oh, no....is there an '80s hair band in my future? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/sad.gif)}

Quote from: Elgarian on May 02, 2010, 07:33:53 AM
I can't help wondering why it troubles you so much.

It's a question of being progressive, I guess. Having one composer's work worth the whole output of hundreds of others is a gross social injustice.

Quote from: jowcol on May 02, 2010, 05:55:19 AM
(http://editorial.jpress.co.uk/web/Upload/TS//TH1_49200845mozart-kiss.jpg)

Separated at Birth?

I'm not a Mozart fan particulary, but I can't work up much anger for a composer I don't care for, even if I feel  they are overrated. (Unless we are talking about John Tesh, and then all bets are off!)

Has it not been definitively proven that Mozart was a fraud, stealing his works from assorted Bohemian, Italian, and even Rosicrucian composers?!   :D


So if he is so awful, that MUST be why!   0:)

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 05:10:35 AM
I disagree!  I firmly believe that it is GOOD musical judgement to be honest about the talent of composers (especially those of us who have studied musical composition) and to tell the truth about overrated composers.  Mozart is one such composer who has illegitimate undeserved status!  Mozart is a bad composer and his influence after his death held music down for over a century.  Classical music would have been much better if he was never born IMHO.  I know of no composer whose music I hate as much as Mozart's.

The error lies in imagining the deficiency lies in Mozart's music, rather than in your capacity to appreciate it. 

I feel there are several ways of appreciating a composer. Occasionally I have the impression that I somehow "get" why people consider someone a great composer, but I still cannot stand his music. I for one cannot get myself to liking Shostakovich; I really cannot stand him, however impressive his music.
And for a long time I also could not really appreciate Tchaikovsky. I could see that people find this music beautiful, but still I could not really enjoy it. Things are different today.
My hypothesis is that sometimes people hate a composer for the simple reason that a certain person - who may be the real target of their hatred - likes that very composer. This may be the case with children who want to distance themselves from their e.g., Chopin-loving parents. 
As far as Wagner is concerned, it may also be a matter of the composer's personality. I just cannot forget his personality (antisemitisim) when I listen to his music. I do think that this influences one's perception of the music, at least to some extent.

Quote from: Cato on May 03, 2010, 09:20:21 AM

Has it not been definitively proven that Mozart was a fraud, stealing his works from assorted Bohemian, Italian, and even Rosicrucian composers?!   :D


So if he is so awful, that MUST be why!   0:)

Worse than the Rosicrucians (is that possible?), it seems to be an unholy alliance between the Jesuits and the Illuminati, according to Robert Newman--

"The name of Mozart has long been synonymous with the term 'musical genius'. Mozart is the archetypal composer of the well known film, 'Amadeus'. (Whose trailer leads with the statement that, 'Everything you've heard is true'). And yet, there is growing but little known evidence from detailed study of manuscripts and other lines of evidence that Mozart's entire career was almost entirely manufactured. With the full assistance of the Jesuit Order and, later, from members of  fraternities after the Jesuit  ban in 1773, including individuals associated with the Freemasons and, still later, the Illuminati.  This manufacture of Mozart's status during his short lifetime and later, within western civilization generally by way of sympathetic biographies and music publishing is a classic case of systematic and deliberate misinformation in the area of culture which involved and still involves suppression of historical/musical fact. To create Mozart's huge and dominating status in western culture required steady supply to him throughout virtually all his life of works he never wrote, this on an extraordinary, even wholesale scale. A process still continuing even after his untimely death in December 1791. "

I'm afraid even to post this-- you don't want to mess with the Eye in the Pyramid.  All Hail Discordia!
(http://www.masterfulebooks.com/images/Illuminati_create_BIG.jpg)


(http://nimbintelevision.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/300px-not_illuminati.jpg)


if you check out the Illuminati news, you will find out that:
" Mesmer happened to be, believe it or not, the godfather of Amadeus Mozart. In fact he raised Mozart, and of course Mozart was this incredible genius musician and his biography will show you more than one obvious example of someone who behaves as if he were suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder. You can conclude that maybe Mesmer played around to enhance the musical abilities of Mozart at the cost of other parts of his personality. -


(* Note to self-- for a bizarre set of web pages, do a Google search on Illuminati Mind Control.  I've just learned very disturbing things about The Wizard of Oz, Elvis Presley and Lady Gaga*)


Another theory, that smacks of insidious PC relativism, states his early works were the products of his sister;   

http://naxosofamerica.blogspot.com/2010/04/wa-mozart-proven-fraud.html

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 04:57:22 AM
I do not believe so, out of thousands of composers I've heard, I have not heard a single composer that is worst than Mozart.  Telemann comes close, but IMHO Mozart is the very bottom of the barrel.

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 05:10:35 AM
I disagree!  I firmly believe that it is GOOD musical judgement to be honest about the talent of composers (especially those of us who have studied musical composition) and to tell the truth about overrated composers.  Mozart is one such composer who has illegitimate undeserved status!  Mozart is a bad composer and his influence after his death held music down for over a century.  Classical music would have been much better if he was never born IMHO.  I know of no composer whose music I hate as much as Mozart's.

It's amusing how trolls still get the better of us, when they spout their utter nonsense and taunt us with their (presumably faked) ignorance. But by even acknowledging such obvious ploys to be risible for being risible's sake, we debase ourselves to the level of the juvenile--nay: infantile--pseudo-argument of whoever "Teresa" is or purports to be. This isn't about reason or aesthetics, it's about having too much time and not knowing what to do with it on his/her part. Some cognitively challenged or merely muckraking sad little person's dumbing down and rehashing of old Glenn Gould arguments really isn't worth half a thread's of space and time worth.

Quote from: Superhorn on May 02, 2010, 07:06:45 AM
   Actually, the Wuorinen comission for an opera based on Brokeback Mountain was
cancelled due to the New York City opera' financial woes.

There is still a god out there it seems.

Quote from: jowcol on May 03, 2010, 11:13:52 AM
if you check out the Illuminati news, you will find out that:
" Mesmer happened to be, believe it or not, the godfather of Amadeus Mozart. In fact he raised Mozart, and of course Mozart was this incredible genius musician and his biography will show you more than one obvious example of someone who behaves as if he were suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder. You can conclude that maybe Mesmer played around to enhance the musical abilities of Mozart at the cost of other parts of his personality. -


(* Note to self-- for a bizarre set of web pages, do a Google search on Illuminati Mind Control.  I've just learned very disturbing things about The Wizard of Oz, Elvis Presley and Lady Gaga*)

I know you were just funning us, but just to clear things up, Mesmer was NOT Mozart's godfather. His godfather was Johann Theophil Pergmayr of Salzburg. He had also been godfather to him who would have been Mozart's older brother 4 years earlier. In any case, the name "Theophilus" came to Wolfgang through Pergmayr, since it was tradition that at least one of a boy child's names came from the godfather... :) I know, not as much fun for the conspiracy theorists as Mesmer. It's just that incorporating him fails to account for the fact that he and Leopold din't meet until a Vienna trip in the early 1770's... ;)

8)

I listened to Mozart's Horn concertos today.  What sublime works, I can't believe that some listen to them and become enraged. :)

Quote from: Verena on May 03, 2010, 10:16:14 AM
I feel there are several ways of appreciating a composer. Occasionally I have the impression that I somehow "get" why people consider someone a great composer, but I still cannot stand his music. I for one cannot get myself to liking Shostakovich; I really cannot stand him, however impressive his music.
And for a long time I also could not really appreciate Tchaikovsky. I could see that people find this music beautiful, but still I could not really enjoy it. Things are different today.
My hypothesis is that sometimes people hate a composer for the simple reason that a certain person - who may be the real target of their hatred - likes that very composer. This may be the case with children who want to distance themselves from their e.g., Chopin-loving parents. 
As far as Wagner is concerned, it may also be a matter of the composer's personality. I just cannot forget his personality (antisemitisim) when I listen to his music. I do think that this influences one's perception of the music, at least to some extent.

Yeah, you're right!I also think that disliking a composer can be a matter of contrasting personalities- like when you just don't get along with someone.

Funny that you should mention Shostakovic; I really don't like he's music and don't feel any real interest in him, though I realise that he is a major composer. Shostakovich remind's me  of Mahler, there is something very similar in them I think; all this "extramusical" unpure "behind the notes" stuff... ugh...! >:(

About Wagner, I don't think that he's antisemitism is so evident in he's music. Apart from some minor touches like the BECKMESSER caricature. I think that it is the "fault" of National socialistic Germany and Hitler's admiration for Wagner which has ruined him in many minds and connected him with the horrors of WW2.

But to be fair, Wagner wasn't the only one who articulated antisemitistic feelings. Chopin- whom you mentioned- wrote also some nasty things about Jews. If you were a chopinist, I hope I didn't ruine it for you now ;D

Quote from: DavidW on May 03, 2010, 12:21:39 PM
I listened to Mozart's Horn concertos today.  What sublime works, I can't believe that some listen to them and become enraged. :)

They are as sublime, and in many cases, more sublime than any other of his works.  :)

Quote from: Teresa on May 02, 2010, 05:10:35 AM
I disagree!  I firmly believe that it is GOOD musical judgement to be honest about the talent of composers (especially those of us who have studied musical composition)

Hehehe, this the the best part of it, she has studied musical composition, and therefore has the basis for pronouncing Mozart an incompetent composer!

Quote from: Scarpia on May 03, 2010, 01:18:08 PM
Hehehe, this the the best part of it, she has studied musical composition, and therefore has the basis for pronouncing Mozart an incompetent composer!

Stunning revelation, wasn't it?  ::)

And let's not make it sound better than it was: not just an incompetent composer, but the worst composer of all time. I admire her consistency.   ;)

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 03, 2010, 01:22:05 PM

Quote from: ScarpiaHehehe, this the the best part of it, she has studied musical composition, and therefore has the basis for pronouncing Mozart an incompetent composer!

Stunning revelation, wasn't it?  ::)

Well, I studied composition, but now it seems I studied at the wrong place(s), and with incompetent composers . . . because I learnt no such thing about Mozart . . . .

QuoteBut to be fair, Wagner wasn't the only one who articulated antisemitistic feelings. Chopin- whom you mentioned- wrote also some nasty things about Jews. If you were a chopinist, I hope I didn't ruine it for you now

Yes, I am a chopinist of sort. Well, no longer, actually..  ::)

I had no idea that Chopin was a pamphleteer on the order of Wagner! The things I learn on this thread . . . .

Quote from: Verena on May 03, 2010, 01:35:38 PM
Yes, I am a chopinist of sort. Well, no longer, actually..  ::)

Chopin, as I understand it, wrote unkind things about Jews in numerous private letters.  No Pamphlets.  Now Henry Ford, there was an enthusiastic pamphleteer.  He wrote a series of anti-Semitic pamphlets, which were cited as an inspiration by Hitler himself.  He gave it up, I take it, when it became apparent they were bad for business.

There's always the chance some of them were justified...

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 03, 2010, 01:56:03 PM
There's always the chance some of them were justified...

Hey Adolf,

You would have received excellent performance appraisals as an employee in a Nazi death camp. 

Quote from: Bulldog on May 03, 2010, 03:15:58 PM
Hey Adolf,

You would have received excellent performance appraisals as an employee in a Nazi death camp.

Nah, he would have been the slacker off in the beer hall arguing over whether Hitler or Goebels was the real genius.

Quote from: Bulldog on May 03, 2010, 03:15:58 PM
Hey Adolf,

You would have received excellent performance appraisals as an employee in a Nazi death camp.

What makes you think i'm a Nazi? I'm just asking a pertinent question. We don't know what made Chopin or Dostoevsky run afoul with the Jews. We know why Mozart hated Italians, and i'm actually inclined to agree with his reasoning, at least to a degree, all though i'm Italian myself. Do we know why Chopin didn't like Jews? What about Dostoevsky? I'm sure they didn't simply target the Jews out of the blue, just for the fun of it. There must be a reason. Those men weren't Nazis after all.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 03, 2010, 04:03:00 PM
What makes you think i'm a Nazi? I'm just asking a pertinent question. We don't know what made Chopin or Dostoevsky run afoul with the Jews. We know why Mozart hated Italians, and i'm actually inclined to agree with his reasoning, at least to a degree, all though i'm Italian myself. Do we know why Chopin didn't like Jews? What about Dostoevsky? I'm sure they didn't simply target the Jews out of the blue, just for the fun of it. There must be a reason. Those men weren't Nazis after all.

You just don't get it.  If you consistently judge an individual based on his/her group identity, you are a racist and bigot. 

I'd like to help you out, because I do believe that you possess some fine traits.  However, unless you honestly admit to your unsavory views, the cause is hopeless.

Concerning Chopin and any other person, there is no acceptable reason for disliking an entire group of people.  That kind of illogical and dysfunctional thinking leads to discrimination, violence and genocide.

Quote from: Bulldog on May 03, 2010, 06:12:12 PM
You just don't get it.  If you consistently judge an individual based on his/her group identity, you are a racist and bigot. 

I'd like to help you out, because I do believe that you possess some fine traits.  However, unless you honestly admit to your unsavory views, the cause is hopeless.

Concerning Chopin and any other person, there is no acceptable reason for disliking an entire group of people.  That kind of illogical and dysfunctional thinking leads to discrimination, violence and genocide.

Granted, but not everybody who falls into the habit of disliking certain groups has genocidal tendencies (as we all understand in the case of the antipathy Mozart felt for the Italians), which is pretty much the first thing that comes to mind when the faintest shadow of criticism is directed at Jews as a group. Dostoevsky in particular saw himself and the Russians in general as a victim. He actually saw the Jews as a potential oppressor. He is a tough case for those who would like to dismiss him as a mere anti-Semite considering he was one of the greatest moralists who ever lived, and perhaps the greatest novelist of all times. Most people have long since rationalized that the greatest artists can also be great scoundrels, and that there is nothing incompatible between the two. I propose that great artists cannot be scoundrels, and thus my job is to exonerate their sins. That's how my little venture started in the first place, btw.

QuoteI propose that great artists cannot be scoundrels, and thus my job is to exonerate their sins.

So Gesualdo who killed his wife and her lover is not a "scoundrel" by your definition? Actually, he is, or was, much worse, namely a murderer. Or perhaps he was not a great artist? (Because great artists cannot be scoundrels? That would be circular reasoning). And certainly, Gesualdo is not the only example that springs to mind.
There is no reason why great artists cannot be scoundrels, other than an idealistic pre-judgment of the issue, which is either self-refuting (see the example) or circular (simply define an artist as someone who cannot be a scoundrel, then every possible example will simply be discarded in virtue of your idiosyncratic re-definition of artist - but redefining a term is not an argument but undermines the very possibility of arguing for or against a point)

Quote from: Verena on May 03, 2010, 08:01:46 PM
So Gesualdo who killed his wife and her lover is not a "scoundrel" by your definition? Actually, he is, or was, much worse, namely a murderer. Or perhaps he was not a great artist? (Because great artists cannot be scoundrels? That would be circular reasoning). And certainly, Gesualdo is not the only example that springs to mind.

I see you have conveniently ignored the years he spent in guilt and harsh penitence for his crime. I never said a great artist cannot act in the manner of a scoundrel. We are all human after all, and some are more human then others. But there is a difference between acting like a scoundrel, and being genuinely evil.

Quote from: Verena on May 03, 2010, 08:01:46 PM
There is no reason why great artists cannot be scoundrels

If they were truly rotten on the inside they would never be able to produce works of genius. Anyone who believes eitherwise understands nothing of great art.

BTW, since we're on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ1u9Fno3jU

;D

QuoteIf they were truly rotten on the inside they would never be able to produce works of genius. Anyone who believes eitherwise understands nothing of great art.

That is indeed an intriguing distinction: being a scoundrel and acting like one. What are your criteria for drawing that distinction? If one repents, one isn't a scoundrel any more, or has never been one? Perhaps, but then the characterisation of someone as a "scoundrel" is very much preliminary - who knows, the person in question might genuinely repent at some stage - or does he have to repent at once, or shortly after  the crime (what does shortly mean, here?). Or, had that imaginary person lived a little longer, (s)he might have repented, but as it so happens, (s)he died before (s)he had the opportunity to repent .. I guess by that criterion, no one deserves the tag "scoundrel" any more. Mitigating circumstances can always be found, if one is a little creative. Which of course in a way confirms your initial claim - no artist can be a scoundrel - but then that claim becomes senseless, because the term "scoundrel" becomes inapplicable: there are no true scoundrels.

However, the main point does not relate to this particular example, but to the sweeping and entirely general claim you made about the incompatibility of great artistry and being a scoundrel.
If you say that "Anyone who believes otherwise understands nothing of great art." you again re-define a concept: persons who are knowledgeable about art are those persons who grant your point about great artists not being scoundrels. That's exactly the same line of reasoning as before - undercutting the very possibility of argument by re-defining concepts. If we do not share the same concepts, we cannot argue any more. Case closed.

Quite apart from this, your assertion, which implies that I do not understand anything about great art, is blatantly offensive, another reason for me to simply ignore your posts from now on.

Quote from: Verena on May 03, 2010, 08:30:37 PM
That is indeed an intriguing distinction: being a scoundrel and acting like one. What are your criteria for drawing that distinction? If one repents, one isn't a scoundrel any more, or has never been one? Perhaps, but then the characterisation of someone as a "scoundrel" is very much preliminary - who knows, the person in question might genuinely repent at some stage - or does he have to repent at once, or shortly after  the crime (what does shortly mean, here?). Or, had that imaginary person lived a little longer, (s)he might have repented, but as it so happens, (s)he died before (s)he had the opportunity to repent .. I guess by that criterion, no one deserves the tag "scoundrel" any more. Mitigating circumstances can always be found, if one is a little creative. Which of course in a way confirms your initial claim - no artist can be a scoundrel - but then that claim becomes senseless, because the term "scoundrel" becomes inapplicable: there are no true scoundrels.

However, the main point does not relate to this particular example, but to the sweeping and entirely general claim you made about the incompatibility of great artistry and being a scoundrel.
If you say that "Anyone who believes otherwise understands nothing of great art." you again re-define a concept: persons who are knowledgeable about art are those persons who grant your point about great artists not being scoundrels. That's exactly the same line of reasoning as before - undercutting the very possibility of argument by re-defining concepts. If we do not share the same concepts, we cannot argue any more. Case closed.

Quite apart from this, your assertion, which implies that I do not understand anything about great art, is blatantly offensive, another reason for me to simply ignore your posts from now on.

Verena,

Welcome to CMG.  It appears that you have not been around here long enough to appreciate the fruitlessness of getting into these arguments with JdP.   He alone has been vouchsafed the ability to distinguish true genius, and that is all there is to it.   ::)

QuoteVerena, Welcome to CMG.  It appears that you have not been around here long enough to appreciate the fruitlessness of getting into these arguments with JdP.   He alone has been vouchsafed the ability to distinguish true genius, and that is all there is to it. 

Thanks. Yes, indeed, I have not been around here for a long time. But my learning curve right now is rather steep..

Quote from: Scarpia on May 03, 2010, 08:36:33 PM
Verena,

Welcome to CMG.  It appears that you have not been around here long enough to appreciate the fruitlessness of getting into these arguments with JdP.   He alone has been vouchsafed the ability to distinguish true genius, and that is all there is to it.   ::)

Not totally.  This is the first time he's broadcasted to us from the Twilight Zone.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 03, 2010, 07:40:48 PM
Dostoevsky in particular saw himself and the Russians in general as a victim. He actually saw the Jews as a potential oppressor. He is a tough case for those who would like to dismiss him as a mere anti-Semite considering he was one of the greatest moralists who ever lived, and perhaps the greatest novelist of all times. Most people have long since rationalized that the greatest artists can also be great scoundrels, and that there is nothing incompatible between the two. I propose that great artists cannot be scoundrels, and thus my job is to exonerate their sins.

Dostoevsky is not a good example to cite of a non-scoundrel artist. He wasn't just an anti-Semite; he also basically hated everyone who wasn't an Orthodox Slav. His personal conduct was often revolting, and there is strong evidence that he spent much of his life teetering on the edge of insanity, without quite going over it.

Face it: the guy is proof that one can be a genius while being totally screwed up at the same time.

Quote from: Velimir on May 03, 2010, 09:42:27 PM
Dostoevsky is not a good example to cite of a non-scoundrel artist. He wasn't just an anti-Semite; he also basically hated everyone who wasn't an Orthodox Slav.

Yet from all the venom and hate he, according to you, was filled with, sprang forth some of the most compassionate, humane and philantropic literary monuments the world has ever known.

Quote from: Velimir on May 03, 2010, 09:42:27 PM
His personal conduct was often revolting,

As is often the conduct of human beings, be they Dostoievsky, Velimir or Florestan.

Quote from: Velimir on May 03, 2010, 09:42:27 PM
and there is strong evidence that he spent much of his life teetering on the edge of insanity, without quite going over it.

You undermine your own argument with that: insanity exonerates anyone from any responsibility.

Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2010, 12:29:52 AM
Yet from all the venom and hate [etc]

I don't disagree with you. I'm objecting to the point of view expressed by "Josquin," who posits a simple-minded view that geniuses cannot be bad people by definition.

Quote from: Verena on May 03, 2010, 01:35:38 PM
Yes, I am a chopinist of sort. Well, no longer, actually..  ::)

Well, but how is it evident in he's music? I don't think it is... ;)

Quote from: abidoful on May 03, 2010, 01:16:18 PM
Chopin- whom you mentioned- wrote also some nasty things about Jews.

Quote from: Scarpia on May 03, 2010, 01:53:14 PM
Chopin, as I understand it, wrote unkind things about Jews in numerous private letters. 

Any meaningful discussion of Chopin's alleged anti-semitism should begin with what he wrote about Jews and why he wrote it. So, could you please let us know what he actually wrote in those private letters and enlighten us as to the reasons that prompted him to do so? TIA.

Quote from: Bulldog on May 03, 2010, 06:12:12 PM
there is no acceptable reason for disliking an entire group of people.

Am I not allowed to dislike the entire group of Communist gang which took over my country and enslaved it for almost 50 years?

Oh, Bravo. First Mozart is incompetent. Then it's the fucking Jews ("well, if they had been completely innocent, why did the Holocaust happen?"), and now we stand aghast before the 'discovery' of the complexity of the human character?

Is our time really well spent drudging through the transparent antisemitism of "Josquin des Prez", the feigned ignorance of the "Anna?" [whatever her/his pseudonym is], or now with this inane discussion of how "greatness in art" (which we're not even able to define) can or cannot coincide with "rottenness in character (which we're not even able to define)?  Verena's cogent effort to actually engage one of these trolls on the substance is laudable only in principle, but a frustrating venture in futility.

Please everyone who does not want to be tainted by this thread and its distasteful overtones, heed this advice (via Robert Reich):

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."

I propose that, whatever may motivate his personal need to pontificate on the matter, that 'Joosquin' knows very little about great art or genius. And that the very little he does knw, he's managed to muddle irreparably.

Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2010, 01:21:17 AM
Any meaningful discussion of Chopin's alleged anti-semitism should begin with what he wrote about Jews and why he wrote it. So, could you please let us know what he actually wrote in those private letters and enlighten us as to the reasons that prompted him to do so? TIA.

Well, I was making a point that is there any reason "banning" someones music though that person may have made for example racist remarks. Little similar as the question of "is Tchaikovskys homosexuality significant in connection with he's works". With Wagner the matter is slightly different for he may have caricatured  a Jew in the character of Becmesser. But even in Wagner I can't find any deeper themes about the subject.
Whatever the reasons were, Chopin DID write nastily about Jews- I know it for I have read those letters-but I don't find it meaningful going in to those letters.. I don't have those in hand now anyway. But an antisemitist remark IS an antisemitist remark whatever the resons  may have been that provoced it.

Thread duty: we're never actually going to know the "5 worst composers — and that's a mercy

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:52:29 AM
... But an antisemitistc remark IS an antisemitistc remark whatever the reasons there may have been that provocked it.

You're intuitive response to antisemitic remarks of any kind is certainly much appreciated in light of the insensitivity displayed elsewhere. But it is also a little too simplistic. For one: The term "antisemitism" is younger than Chopin, who was already well dead by the time that concept was expounded on (H.v.Treitschke et al.) in the second half of the 19th Century. ("Anti-Judaism", prior to that.) And while injustices of deed or thought don't have a 'reverse expiration date' (bigotry is truly timeless), you can't lose sight of the historical context, either. (Just like it would be churlish to really lay into the 'bigoted Athenians' for not allowing women or the landless the vote in their polis some 2500 years ago.) Especially the anti-semitic / anti-judaic variant of bigotry is, even when it occurred well before the 20th Century, seen through the prism of the Holocaust. While it is the very least we must expect of our sensibility that the Holocaust does inform and further sensitize us to that topic, we can't or shouldn't read Chopin's or Luther's or even Wagner's remarks in that light, only. That'd be like treating every opera, no matter how trivial or old, with the hushed reverence like we do Parsifal. (Sadly, that's actually the case, but that's not to say that it is ideal.)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 04, 2010, 02:53:08 AM
Thread duty: we're never actually going to know the "5 worst composers — and that's a mercy

Or perhaps not. I have a volume of poetry entitled Very Bad Poetry and it's given me hours of comical pleasure. The deadly serious but wholly incompetent William McGonagall (1830-1902) surely qualifies as one of the 5 Worst Poets of all time  ;D  Hearing the music of one of the worst composers might be even better than listening to P.D.Q. Bach. Oh, I can already do that!!! Invite Teresa over, put on K.550, and we could roll around on the floor, laughing our asses off.

Sarge

QuoteWell, but how is it evident in he's music? I don't think it is... ;)

True, fortunately..

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:52:29 AM
Well, I was making a point that is there any reason "banning" someones music though that person may have made for example racist remarks.

Of course there's no reason.

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:52:29 AM
Little similar as the question of "is Tchaikovskys homosexuality significant in connection with he's works".

Of course it isn't.

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:52:29 AM
With Wagner the matter is slightly different for he may have caricatured  a Jew in the character of Becmesser.

This is highly debatable. Is Beckmesser a caricature of Hanslick as a Jew or of Hanslick as a perceived musical reactionary?

Besides, if caricaturing a Jew in a work of art is in itself a sign of anti-semitism, then Mussorgsky, Dickens, Jaroslav Hasek and a host of others were also anti-semitic.

Wagner's anti-semitism had much more to do with the fact that his music never made it outside a circle of initiated and devotees while the "Jewish" music of Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer received worldwide popular appraisal (interestingly enough, the situation is unchanged today) than with his racism and bigotry. Incidentally, his anti-semitism never concerned women and some of the most enthusiastic promoters of his music were Jews.

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:52:29 AM
But even in Wagner I can't find any deeper themes about the subject.

Unless one takes seriously his illegible and megalomaniac literary output.

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:52:29 AM
Whatever the reasons were, Chopin DID write nastily about Jews- I know it for I have read those letters-but I don't find it meaningful going in to those letters.

I beg to differ. I find it meaningful in the highest degree. Chopin was no ideologue, no politician, nor did he envy the musical successes of Jewish composers. On the contrary, he was a delicate, sensitive and sincere man --- quite unlike Wagner. For whatever he wrote about Jews --- and absent his own words, we can only speculate; was he critical of Jews as a whole group, or did he grumble about this or that Jew? --- he must have had a motif that resonated within his heart.

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:52:29 AM
an antisemitist remark IS an antisemitist remark whatever the resons  may have been that provoced it.

Granted, but an anti-semitic remark now and then in private letters or conversations do not an anti-semite make, otherwise most people on Earth were, are and will be anrti-semites.

Florestan's remark that we need to know the documents and the context, is a point which stands.  Especially since, if abidoful do not see any difference between personal correspondence and pamphleteering, he cannot be considered reliable as a 'sole witness' of the documents under advisement.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 03, 2010, 11:37:49 AM
I know you were just funning us, but just to clear things up, Mesmer was NOT Mozart's godfather.
8)

That's exactly what the Illuminati would WANT you to say.

Quote from: jowcol on May 04, 2010, 04:26:43 AM
That's exactly what the Illuminati would WANT you to say.

>:( No one uses Gurn Blanston as a meat puppet!  *hey, get your frickin' arm outta there! :o *

8)

(* chortle *)

Quote from: jowcol on May 04, 2010, 04:26:43 AM
That's exactly what the Illuminati would WANT you to say.

Ingenious! The proof is the very lack of any evidence whatsoever.

(Although the true coup of the Illuminati is that they have pulled off the feat of giving sentient feelings to a piece of turd without it ever being aware of being just a little piece of turd. The fact that it is fully convinced to be a functional human being only goes to show their power--and serves as proof he's just a shit.)

It is nice to visit Planet Newman from time to time!

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 03, 2010, 07:40:48 PM
I propose that great artists cannot be scoundrels, and thus my job is to exonerate their sins. That's how my little venture started in the first place, btw.

This is the crux of the biscuit.   I understand the proposition, but isn't it easy enough to come up with counter-examples?    Some have been cited already.

The whole idea behind Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment was that no one was above the law, even if they thought they could better society.  If Dostoevsky was a "genius", why was he show this thesis was wrong in the course of the novel?

History is replete with great artists that had major character flaws-- this is often part and parcel of what they draw from in the act of creation, but also can drastically limit their lives in other ways.  How much good did alcoholism do for Mussorgsky or Poe?  How much good did Berlioz do for Harriet Smithson when he wrote the Symphony Fantastique, and then quickly lose interest in her after getting her to stop her career and get married?

There are some artists where I have to draw a line between the works and the person.  (Miles Davis is one of the biggest cases for me, but YMMV).

One can certainly defend that proposition, but, in order to fit real data points, it  becomes necessary to redefine each term in such a specialized way it has little meaning-- or in the words of William Jefferson Clinton:

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

Quote from: jlaurson on May 04, 2010, 04:36:59 AM
Ingenious! The proof is the very lack of any evidence whatsoever.

Indeed.  This  is  the kind of sophistry needed to maintain conspiracy theories.

QuoteI propose that great artists cannot be scoundrels

Well, that's rubbish right off.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 04, 2010, 03:43:55 AM
if abidoful do not see any difference between personal correspondence and pamphleteering, he cannot be considered reliable as a 'sole witness' of the documents under advisement.

Hey, wait a minute; what gave you that idea??? I do see the diffence. It is to what extent a person acts on those vibs. I did'nt go to that..  actually I did'nt go much to anything on the subject of anti-semitism! :D  (Only that also Chopin wrote "some nasty" things of Jews and to some extent succumbed to those feelings.) My point was to  make  a favor to R.W. whose anti- semitism may have kept some people away from he's amazing art which is arguably the greatist and emotionally profound legacy of the 19th century.

Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2010, 03:18:14 AMif caricaturing a Jew in a work of art is in itself a sign of anti-semitism, then Mussorgsky, Dickens, Jaroslav Hasek and a host of others were also anti-semitic.

Indeed, at least they produced works that articulated anti- semitism.

Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2010, 03:18:14 AM
Unless one takes seriously his illegible and megalomaniac literary output.

One may, but I was referring solely to his musical works ;)

Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2010, 03:18:14 AMChopin was a delicate, sensitive and sincere man ---

Or highly jealuos and posessive, withdrawn and irritative- sort of passive/agressive- if we believe the portraid by George Sand in LUCREZIA FLORIANI.

Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2010, 03:18:14 AM
an anti-semitic remark now and then in private letters or conversations do not an anti-semite make, otherwise most people on Earth were, are and will be anrti-semites.

I don't think so... I would never succumb to racist feelings personally- so that makes at least one :D Maybe this comes now too complicated, but I have heard that racism is a spirit. I kind of believe that...

Quote from: jowcol on May 04, 2010, 05:06:30 AM
I understand the proposition, but isn't it easy enough to come up with counter-examples?

Is it?

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:22:43 PM
Indeed, at least they produced works that articulated anti- semitism.One may, but I was referring solely to his musical works ;)

Yes, which is why it is impossible for me to believe anybody with so much beauty within himself could possibly be a real villain. As human beings, we are all in danger of falling to our passions. We all make mistakes, but our actions do not always represent who we are as individuals.

Of course, i'm not surprised that most people here would reject my proposition. After all, the fact you cannot prove the existence of God is a clear sign that he does not exist. Its obvious.   

Quote from: Verena on May 03, 2010, 08:30:37 PM
Quite apart from this, your assertion, which implies that I do not understand anything about great art, is blatantly offensive, another reason for me to simply ignore your posts from now on.

I didn't actually say that you did or did not understand art, i was merely making a point. Of course, what i said does ring true in a way. To really understand art one must first be able to understand people. It is the individuality of the artist that makes the difference between a masterpiece by Michelangelo, one of the few true Christian artists in existence, and a well crafted counterfeit of said individuality by, say, a Raphael. To give you an example, here's a not so good painting by Michelangelo:

(http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/9/5/14059-the-deluge-michelangelo-buonarroti.jpg)

against one of Raphael's most outstanding ones:

(http://www.sh2hk.com/wallpaper/vatican/sh2hk_vatican_raphael.jpg)

It really doesn't take a genius to understand why the latter is such a failure, compared to the first.

Quote from: Verena on May 03, 2010, 08:30:37 PMQuite apart from this, your assertion, which implies that I do not understand anything about great art, is blatantly offensive, another reason for me to simply ignore your posts from now on.

You catch on fast, Verena!  Thee are numerous posters here I feel it necessary to ignore.  How many feel it necessary to ignore me, is impossible to determine.   8)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 04, 2010, 04:14:53 PM
Yes, which is why it is impossible for me to believe anybody with so much beauty within himself could possibly be a real villain. As human beings, we are all in danger of falling to our passions. We all make mistakes, but our actions do not always represent who we are as individuals.

I fully agree withe the second two sentences-- but they tend to contradict the first, unless you have the interpretation that one could commit unspeakable acts, but as long as one  had beauty within themselves, they wouldn't be a  "real" villain.   Once again, this goes against the central thesis Dostoevsky had in Crime and Punishment.  Raskolnikov did not experience redemption until he realized that he was bound by the same moral code as everyone else.


Fortunately, it's easy to spot a "real villain" -- they typically look like this, are accompanied by spooky music, and are often seen tying up damsels in distress at the local sawmill:

(http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-braves-blog/files/2009/07/snidely_whiplash2.png)

Quote from: jowcol on May 04, 2010, 04:54:08 PM

I fully agree withe the second two sentences-- but they tend to contradict the first, unless you have the interpretation that one could commit unspeakable acts, but as long as one  had beauty within themselves, they wouldn't be a  "real" villain.   Once again, this goes against the central thesis Dostoevsky had in Crime and Punishment.  Raskolnikov did not experience redemption until he realized that he was bound by the same moral code as everyone else.

It also contradicts the philosophy of the artist that was put forward by Thomas Mann, particularly in his story "Tonio Kruger."  Mann contradicts the canard that art comes form noble feelings or a noble soul and portrays the artist as a person who, although not necessarily evil, is detached from human feelings.  Art from mediocre people makes us cringe because the amateur artist is too sincere and lacks the perspective necessary to create something beautiful.  The detached artist creates something beautiful which appeals to the emotions of the audience, although the artist does not partake of those feelings himself.

Do we need any more evidence that artists are not noble people than the newspaper.  Is there a finer filmmaker working than Roman Polanski, a premeditated child rapist who thinks he did nothing wrong? 

Quote from: Scarpia on May 04, 2010, 05:06:01 PM
Is there a finer filmmaker working than Roman Polanski, a premeditated child rapist who thinks he did nothing wrong?

Polanski is over-rated (i just watched Death and the Maiden a few weeks ago and i'm still cringing). Your argument is invalid.

EDIT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGkn-gbAxDE&feature=related

^ Not exactly a beautiful man is him.

Quote from: Scarpia on May 04, 2010, 05:06:01 PM
The detached artist creates something beautiful which appeals to the emotions of the audience.

What audience? Great artists are never truly understood by the masses.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 04, 2010, 04:14:53 PM
Is it?

Yes, which is why it is impossible for me to believe anybody with so much beauty within himself could possibly be a real villain. As human beings, we are all in danger of falling to our passions. We all make mistakes, but our actions do not always represent who we are as individuals.

Of course, i'm not surprised that most people here would reject my proposition. After all, the fact you cannot prove the existence of God is a clear sign that he does not exist. Its obvious.

Egad, but Josquin remains a near-perfect reverse barometer of truth. Our actions ALWAYS represent who we are as individuals.  We aren't what we think we are, we aren't what we say we are, but we are what we show ourselves to be by our actions.

And God's existence, of course, like that of rainbows, bicycles, and pistachio ice cream, is independent of whatever Josquin thinks he or anyone else can or cannot "prove."

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 04, 2010, 04:14:53 PM
We all make mistakes, but our actions do not always represent who we are as individuals.

Of course they do.  A person might be kind and altruistic one day, rather mean and nasty the next day; the person is a mix of both types of actions and mindsets.  Your mistake is in thinking that an individual is just one or the other.
There's a spectrum at play here in all humans.

Quote from: Scarpia on May 04, 2010, 04:28:15 PM
You catch on fast, Verena!  Thee are numerous posters here I feel it necessary to ignore.  How many feel it necessary to ignore me, is impossible to determine.   8)

None, I should hope.

Quote from: Bulldog on May 04, 2010, 05:57:41 PM
Of course they do.  A person might be kind and altruistic one day, rather mean and nasty the next day; the person is a mix of both types of actions and mindsets.

Too facile. You may argue that you can know something of a person by his actions, but that isn't the same as saying he is that person. A kind person would feel guilt for being mean. A mean person may not have kindness in his heart when he extends his hand to help others. Actions can only define a person from the perspective of an outside observer. The nature of that person remains altogether undisclosed. After all, you don't really know somebody just by observing his actions, right? You have to remain in close contact with that person for an extended period of time before you can say you truly understand his motivations, or you can truly evaluate his character. Actions in a way merely reflect an individual's feelings in that particular moment in time, which may give us a clue as to the nature of the person in question, but cannot tell the whole story, unless the action is extreme enough that the nature behind it is unequivocal (murdering somebody and then feasting on his or her body might be considered a pretty solid give away). Personally though, aside for Gesualdo, i don't recall many artists who's actions sat squarely within that extreme. Aside for the usual faults that go along with human nature, artists usually aren't really an extreme bunch, at least on average.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 04, 2010, 05:43:02 PM
What audience? Great artists are never truly understood by the masses.

Hence Shakespeare and Dickens were not understood by the masses, or else they were not great.


Of course, if we overload the word "truly" to be "what I say it means for this context" it's much easier to reconcile.

Quote from: DavidRoss on May 04, 2010, 05:50:59 PM

And God's existence, of course, like that of rainbows, bicycles, and pistachio ice cream, is independent of whatever ...anyone else can or cannot "prove."

In Pistachio we trust.

Quote from: jowcol on May 04, 2010, 07:17:37 PM
Hence Shakespeare and Dickens were not understood by the masses, or else they were not great.

Nor Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Mahler, Wagner, Verdi.  These arguments are much easier to make when you allow yourself to make any absurd claim required by your these, regardless of the factual basis. 

This is fun, but it may be time to stop feeding the troll.

QuoteYou catch on fast, Verena!  Thee are numerous posters here I feel it necessary to ignore.  How many feel it necessary to ignore me, is impossible to determine.   8)

:)

When someone decides per definitionem that great artists cannot also have been scoundrels, then a proven scoundrel-artist will either be considered 'not great' or an artist considered great simply cannot be, whatever his actions, have been a scoundrel. Trying to use reason or facts against such an "argument" is as fruitful an exercise as nailing Jell-O to the wall.

Quote from: jlaurson on May 04, 2010, 11:49:40 PM
When someone decides per definitionem that great artists cannot also have been scoundrels, then a proven scoundrel-artist will either be considered 'not great' or an artist considered great simply cannot be, whatever his actions, have been a scoundrel. Trying to use reason or facts against such an "argument" is as fruitful an exercise as nailing Jell-O to the wall.

But since you believe there is no real criteria to determine what makes an artist great, any attempt at making such an evaluation to be considered purely subjective in nature, you can as easily afford to make such an accusation, as you just did, without having to actually test my mettle in the process, so to speak. If i stated that Fellini was a greater genius then Polanski (which he was), you can simply deny that such an evaluation is possible, and then state that i cherry picked my evidence to fit the theory. Very convenient for you.

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:22:43 PM
Indeed, at least they produced works that articulated anti- semitism.

You're kidding, right? Mussorgsky, Dickens and Hasek articulated anti-semitism? :o

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:22:43 PM
Or highly jealuos and posessive, withdrawn and irritative- sort of passive/agressive- if we believe the portraid by George Sand in LUCREZIA FLORIANI.

George Sand is just as credible a source of information about Chopin as is Chopin about George Sand.  :D

Quote from: Scarpia on May 04, 2010, 05:06:01 PM
Mann contradicts the canard that art comes form noble feelings or a noble soul and portrays the artist as a person who, although not necessarily evil, is detached from human feelings.  [...] The detached artist creates something beautiful which appeals to the emotions of the audience, although the artist does not partake of those feelings himself.

Ah, the always good ol' appeal to authority. Absent Mr. Mann himself, could you please explain how an artist can express the widest range of human feelings in his work yet not experience them himself? Could you give us an example of a great artist detached from human feelings?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 05, 2010, 12:38:58 AM
But since you believe there is no real criteria to determine what makes an artist great, any attempt at making such an evaluation to be considered purely subjective in nature, you can as easily afford to make such an accusation, as you just did, without having to actually test my mettle in the process, so to speak. If i stated that Fellini was a greater genius then Polanski (which he was), you can simply deny that such an evaluation is possible, and then state that i cherry picked my evidence to fit the theory. Very convenient for you.

In your very example you yourself eschew any standard of absolute greatness in favor of relative greatness. The issue at hand is hardly a matter of ranking achievement (which can never not be subjective to some degree). In order for your little theory to pass the test of Popperian falsifiability, you need to at the least: 1.)  name a list of artists you deem unequivocally "great"  2.)  and give absolute standards of what constitutes irredeemably immoral behavior.

QuoteOf course they do.  A person might be kind and altruistic one day, rather mean and nasty the next day; the person is a mix of both types of actions and mindsets.  Your mistake is in thinking that an individual is just one or the other.
There's a spectrum at play here in all humans.

Exactly

Quote from: abidoful on May 04, 2010, 02:22:43 PM


Indeed, at least they produced works that articulated anti- semitism.One may, but I was referring solely to his musical works ;)

As far as Dickens goes-- I'd suggest that one read Our Mutual Friend, written later in Dickens' career, to see if he was articulating antisemitism-- he deliberately created a character that was the antithesis of Fagan from Oliver Twist, and in his correspondence had voiced regret about his earlier characterization of Fagan.

Mussorgsky's characterization of the two Jews in Pictures at an Exhibition was based on a drawing by Victor Hartmann (to whom the work was dedicated.)  In his letters, he seemed fascinated by Jewish culture-- given the culture he lived in, this affectation may have been  for the "exotic", or somewhat condescending, but I've never seen anything in his written record to indicate antisemitism.

Quote from: jowcol on May 05, 2010, 02:55:32 AM

As far as Dickens goes-- I'd suggest that one read Our Mutual Friend, written later in Dickens' career, to see if he was articulating antisemitism-- he deliberately created a character that was the antithesis of Fagan from Oliver Twist, and in his correspondence had voiced regret about his earlier characterization of Fagan.

Mussorgsky's characterization of the two Jews in Pictures at an Exhibition was based on a drawing by Victor Hartmann (to whom the work was dedicated.)  In his letters, he seemed fascinated by Jewish culture-- given the culture he lived in, this affectation may have been  for the "exotic", or somewhat condescending, but I've never seen anything in his written record to indicate antisemitism.

As for Hasek, the few Jewish petty characters appearing in "Soldier Svejk's Adventures" are not even real caricatures, since the old Austrian Empire had plenty of them in stock, especially in Galitsia.

Now, if about these three artists can be said that "they articulated anti-semitism",  if expressing negative opinions about Jews in private letters or conversations, or poking fun at Jews, or even caricaturing or stereotyping them is labelled the same as actively campaigning and working for their discrimination, deportation and extermination, namely "anti-semitism" --- then this term has lost any meaning.

Quote from: Florestan on May 05, 2010, 12:57:22 AM
Ah, the always good ol' appeal to authority. Absent Mr. Mann himself, could you please explain how an artist can express the widest range of human feelings in his work yet not experience them himself? Could you give us an example of a great artist detached from human feelings?

Florestan is right to be cautious about Thomas Mann, whose use of irony may lead to unusual assumptions, i.e. that a composer must - metaphorically at least - sell his soul to demonic forces to create something that does not sound like Rimsky-Korsakov (rf. Doctor Faustus).

Arnold Schoenberg begged to differ about that!

The most emotionally detached people in evidence in a human population would be either sociopaths or autistics.

:o  Gesualdo executed his wife's lover, and his wife, and possibly others, but he was hardly detached from human feelings: he seemed to feel too much!  And in his later years he certainly felt immense guilt!

The true sociopath does not feel anything, and his crimes come from a desire to evoke feelings.

Quote from: Florestan on May 05, 2010, 03:08:55 AM
As for Hasek, the few Jewish petty characters appearing in "Soldier Svejk's Adventures" are not even real caricatures, since the old Austrian Empire had plenty of them in stock, especially in Galitsia.

Now, if about these three artists can be said that "they articulated anti-semitism",  if expressing negative opinions about Jews in private letters or conversations, or poking fun at Jews, or even caricaturing or stereotyping them is labelled the same as actively campaigning and working for their discrimination, deportation and extermination, namely "anti-semitism" --- then this term has lost any meaning.

QFT.

Besides, I don't understand why anti-semitism is linked with racism. Most Jews in Europe and US are indistinguishable from Indo-Europeans.

Quote from: Florestan on May 05, 2010, 03:08:55 AM
As for Hasek, the few Jewish petty characters appearing in "Soldier Svejk's Adventures" are not even real caricatures, since the old Austrian Empire had plenty of them in stock, especially in Galitsia.

I would go on to point out that every character in Svejk, or at least every character but one or two, is incompetent, silly, or insane, and that in a novel where generals are obsessed with getting their troops to go to the toilet simultaneously, priests are in the church for the money, the secret police gets devoured by hounds, and Lt. Dub generally storms around getting angry over matters of form, the Jews are hardly worse off or singled out for criticism in any meaningful way.

Quote from: Brian on May 05, 2010, 06:02:13 AM
I would go on to point out that every character in Svejk, or at least every character but one or two, is incompetent, silly, or insane, and that in a novel where generals are obsessed with getting their troops to go to the toilet simultaneously, priests are in the church for the money, the secret police gets devoured by hounds, and Lt. Dub generally storms around getting angry over matters of form, the Jews are hardly worse off or singled out for criticism in any meaningful way.

Well said.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 04, 2010, 04:14:53 PM
it is impossible for me to believe anybody with so much beauty within himself could possibly be a real villain.

The scriptures;
Psalm 14:3 (my own translation)
ALL (!) HAVE ABANDODED HIM-
THEY ARE ALL INVALID/ GOOD-FOR NOTHING!
THERE'S NO ONE, WHO DOES GOOD,
NOT SINGLE ONE

So in essence we all are villains- and our only way out is Lord Jesus Christ ! ! ! ! ! !

LOL!   ;D

I remember this thread, and some heated discussions with DavidW.  An example of when I've been confrontational, but DavidW and I are friends.  :) 8)

Messiaen's orchestral music is still terrible ;)

For some reason (don't ask me why I thought so), I thought Karl had started this thread in jest!!   :D 8)

I now see, and remember, that it was good 'ole Snyppps!  ;D

Aye, snypsss can be quite the pot-stirrer ; )

Quote from: ChamberNut on December 22, 2012, 06:33:45 AM
LOL!   ;D

I remember this thread, and some heated discussions with DavidW.  An example of when I've been confrontational, but DavidW and I are friends.  :) 8)

Yes, coffee on computer screen funny!! :P ;D

Quote from: Lethevich on December 22, 2012, 07:03:39 AM
Messiaen's orchestral music is still terrible ;)

NOOOOOOO!!!! :o :'( :o ;D

Quote from: karlhenning on December 22, 2012, 07:57:28 AM
Aye, snypsss can be quite the pot-stirrer ; )

Oh, you love it! :P

"Spohr, Glazunov, & Hummel walk into a bar..."

i don't have a "5 worst composers". when i don't like something, i stop listening to it. it would be kind of silly to keep on listening to the music of composers that don't appeal to you.

that said, Richard Wagner has possibly the lowest quality-to-reputation ratio of any composer ever ; )

Quote from: dyn on December 22, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
i don't have a "5 worst composers". when i don't like something, i stop listening to it. it would be kind of silly to keep on listening to the music of composers that don't appeal to you.

that said, Richard Wagner has possibly the lowest quality-to-reputation ratio of any composer ever ; )

I will say that there are many who would hold this very same opinion.   :)

However, I would not be one of them.  :D

Quote from: Cato on May 05, 2010, 03:38:08 AM
Florestan is right to be cautious about Thomas Mann, whose use of irony may lead to unusual assumptions, i.e. that a composer must - metaphorically at least - sell his soul to demonic forces to create something that does not sound like Rimsky-Korsakov (rf. Doctor Faustus).

Arnold Schoenberg begged to differ about that!

The most emotionally detached people in evidence in a human population would be either sociopaths or autistics.

:o  Gesualdo executed his wife's lover, and his wife, and possibly others, but he was hardly detached from human feelings: he seemed to feel too much!  And in his later years he certainly felt immense guilt!

The true sociopath does not feel anything, and his crimes come from a desire to evoke feelings.

Disagree with the autistic statement, many suffering from autism have the opposite problem, emotions overwhelm them and have to learn how to manage that interaction.  Not the same as detachment.

for me the stuff I find inpenetrable:
schoenberg
bartok
and just plan dull
bach
(of course I know he is a great composer, but if the intent is to stir emotion I find it tedious and twee).

Quote from: dyn on December 22, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
t said, Richard Wagner has possibly the lowest quality-to-reputation ratio of any composer ever ; )

He prepared the narcotic of the greatest quality in the history of music and may be in the history of culture.

Quote from: jut1972 on December 23, 2012, 02:35:46 AM
for me the stuff I find inpenetrable:
schoenberg
bartok
and just plan dull
bach
(of course I know he is a great composer, but if the intent is to stir emotion I find it tedious and twee).

Quote from: dyn on December 22, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
Richard Wagner has possibly the lowest quality-to-reputation ratio of any composer ever ; )

Wrong thread, guys. These posts belong in the Unpopular Opinion thread  ;)

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 23, 2012, 05:35:46 AM
Wrong thread, guys, These posts belong in the Unpopular Opinion thread  ;)

Sarge

Such a fine line between being cheeky and plain ignorant, isn't it. :-)

Well, if one takes the thread title literally, we can be pretty sure that whoever the "Five worst composers ever" are, they long ago disappeared into well deserved obscurity.

Except perhaps Stockhausen  >:D

Quote from: jlaurson on December 23, 2012, 08:17:21 AM
Such a fine line between being cheeky and plain ignorant, isn't it. :-)

Oh I know I'm ignorant.  But doesn't mean I'm wrong this time.  :P

(* chortle *)

Quote from: Henk on August 25, 2009, 11:19:56 AM

My list:
Schumann, Wagner.

Others: Schoenberg, Webern and all late-romantic composers.

:o  I've in the ICU unit.  Severely wounded!!  :( 8) ;D

1. Brahms, Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Mozart
4. Schubert, Schumann, Shostakovich
5. Bruckner, Mahler

;D ;)

Quote from: ChamberNut on December 23, 2012, 11:52:51 AM
1. Brahms, Beethoven
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Mozart
4. Schubert, Schumann, Shostakovich
5. Bruckner, Mahler

;D ;)

(http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/22267139/The+Count+countvoncount.jpg)

I see a problem with your list!

Quote from: Brian on December 23, 2012, 12:21:36 PM
(http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/22267139/The+Count+countvoncount.jpg)

I see a problem with your list!

Ahh!  Ahh! Ahhhh!!!  ;D

Quote from: Henk on August 25, 2009, 11:19:56 AM

My list:
Liszt, Schumann, Wagner.

But 5 is not enough. Others: Kagel, Schoenberg, Webern and all late-romantic composers.

:o

Quote from: Lisztianwagner on December 23, 2012, 12:54:47 PM
:o

It's not like he got Beethoven right, too  ;D  ::)

Wow, it's a bloodbath here! :o Yikes! Every man for themselves!! :o

Karl Jenkins!! (and they tore him apart)

you guys have it all wrong, Mozart is clearly the worst composer ever

(at least in terms of business sense)

John Tavener is pretty horrible.

has anyone mentioned Max Richter?

the only one that makes me actively angry

Quote from: xochitl on December 23, 2012, 07:04:16 PM
has anyone mentioned Max Richter?

the only one that makes me actively angry

Yeah, I never understood the attraction to this composer. There's just some music you never mess with and that's Vivaldi's The Four Seasons.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 23, 2012, 07:06:11 PM
Yeah, I never understood the attraction to this composer. There's just some music you never mess with and that's Vivaldi's The Four Seasons.

He's done more than messing with Vivaldi's Seasons. Richter makes for a good film score composer, or most of is music sounds that way, he has some pieces that I enjoy and others that seem to float aimlessly in space going nowhere.

And I'm one that did enjoy his Recomposed of the Seasons.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 23, 2012, 06:27:21 PM
John Tavener is pretty horrible.

He has great hair though.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 23, 2012, 06:27:21 PM
John Tavener is pretty horrible.

I'm not enthused about much of what I've heard of Tavener, which is why I don't have that much of his work, but I would rate The Protecting Veil one of the greatest works of the 20th century.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 23, 2012, 07:21:45 PM
I'm not enthused about much of what I've heard of Tavener, which is why I don't have that much of his work, but I would rate The Protecting Veil one of the greatest works of the 20th century.

It's been awhile since I've heard this work. I don't recall enjoying/hating it or really having any opinion of it.

Quote from: xochitl on December 23, 2012, 07:04:16 PM
has anyone mentioned Max Richter?

the only one that makes me actively angry

How angry on Richter scale? Maximally I guess?

Quote from: sanantonio on December 23, 2012, 03:50:13 AM
This thread is mis-titled, imo.  It should be called "5 composers you do not have the wherewithal to appreciate".

;)

An angle with undeniable merit!

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 23, 2012, 10:05:58 AM
Well, if one takes the thread title literally, we can be pretty sure that whoever the "Five worst composers ever" are, they long ago disappeared into well deserved obscurity.

Except perhaps Stockhausen  >:D

Certainly the five genuinely worst composers ever would never have emerged out of obscurity.

To play along with the thread anew, though . . . my nominees:

. . . well, since it's a while since I've sung in a choir whose director chose liberaly from the worst of what the thriving church music publication industry has to offer, I can only think of two off the top of my head (and honestly, shrink from the very thought of researching, and reliving the musical horror):

Pepper Choplin & John Rutter

Quote from: karlhenning on December 24, 2012, 05:20:19 AM
An angle with undeniable merit!

Pepper Choplin & John Rutter[/font]

brrrr.... sit around kiddies, and let me tell you the 'orrible tale of... "When Rutter met Tav'ner"...

The former member SAUL whom some may recall from a couple of years ago.

Quote from: listener on December 24, 2012, 05:33:03 PM
The former member SAUL whom some may recall from a couple of years ago.

impossible.  Everyone on his youtube channel says he's great.

That composer with that mustache, you know the one. Can't stand his music, or his mustache.

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on December 25, 2012, 01:49:08 PM
That composer with that mustache, you know the one. Can't stand his music, or his mustache.

Yes, Nietzsche *was* a terrible composer ;)

Quote from: Lethevich on December 25, 2012, 02:48:11 PM
Yes, Nietzsche *was* a terrible composer ;)

There's a good 'bad' one!

Most plumbers make terrible composers.

Quote from: snyprrr on December 23, 2012, 02:22:25 PM
Wow, it's a bloodbath here! :o Yikes! Every man for themselves!! :o

Karl Jenkins!! (and they tore him apart)

Just applause for this nominee to be heard from this side.  ;D

In terms of the greats, I really don't care for Mozart, Wagner, or any composer named Strauss, but I consider these personal failings rather than failings on the part of the composers.  Sure, I could argue that Wagner was a jerk who gave Hitler most of his ideology, but what does that say about his music?

There are plenty of less respected composers I can't stand.  In the film department, James Horner comes to mind - I absolutely despise his work, and unfortunately it appears in some decent films so it's hard to just not listen to.

Quote from: froghawk on December 27, 2012, 07:43:50 AM
In terms of the greats, I really don't care for Mozart, Wagner, or any composer named Strauss, but I consider these personal failings rather than failings on the part of the composers.  Sure, I could argue that Wagner was a jerk who gave Hitler most of his ideology, but what does that say about his music?

Indeed. Nothing. It would also be an incredibly silly thing to say, since only the (subjective) "jerk" part would arguably be correct, and the rest a load of... well, silliness.

If you want to talk proto-Nazis... a little J.G. Fichte or Bruno Bauer and most of all Houston Stewart Chamberlain* go a long way. Wagner -- unlike his Hitler-bunking daughter-in-law -- had nothing to do with Hitler and his ideology... except of course for the lengthy treatise in Mein Kampf on subversive Jewish influences in the depiction of Sélika's island from act 4 of L'Africaine. That's said to be pretty much taken out of Wagner's playbook.

*Admittedly Wagner's son-in-law, but you can't blame R.W. for attracting right-wing weirdos.

Quote from: froghawk on December 27, 2012, 07:43:50 AM
In terms of the greats, I really don't care for Mozart, Wagner, or any composer named Strauss, but I consider these personal failings rather than failings on the part of the composers.  Sure, I could argue that Wagner was a jerk who gave Hitler most of his ideology, but what does that say about his music?

There are plenty of less respected composers I can't stand.  In the film department, James Horner comes to mind - I absolutely despise his work, and unfortunately it appears in some decent films so it's hard to just not listen to.

You had me at Mozart, Wagner, and any composer named Strauss, but then you had to talk about film music. Don't get me started on this! >:( >:D ;D

Currently, there are only two composers that are on my bottom list (least appreciated - I don't go for that "worst ever" nonsense.)

Vivaldi - his stuff bounces off me immediately.

Howard Hanson - An irritating musical personality.

Quote from: jlaurson on December 27, 2012, 11:55:11 AM
Indeed. Nothing. It would also be an incredibly silly thing to say, since only the (subjective) "jerk" part would arguably be correct, and the rest a load of... well, silliness.

If you want to talk proto-Nazis... a little J.G. Fichte or Bruno Bauer and most of all Houston Stewart Chamberlain* go a long way. Wagner -- unlike his Hitler-bunking daughter-in-law -- had nothing to do with Hitler and his ideology... except of course for the lengthy treatise in Mein Kampf on subversive Jewish influences in the depiction of Sélika's island from act 4 of L'Africaine. That's said to be pretty much taken out of Wagner's playbook.

*Admittedly Wagner's son-in-law, but you can't blame R.W. for attracting right-wing weirdos.

What?  Wagner was a notorious anti-semite despite the fact that most of their benefactors were Jewish and he would sleep with their wives.  I've even held Hitler's personal collection of Wagner records.

Quote from: Lethevich on December 25, 2012, 02:48:11 PM
Yes, Nietzsche *was* a terrible composer ;)

I have commented some years ago that Nietsche, as a composer, was an interesting philosopher.

A candidate worthy of the topic:


Richard Proulx, who apparently received a music degree from Larry's School of Fine Composition, is the name at the top of a card with "music" for the Mass which Catholics in my diocese are supposed to try to sing. 

Boring, boring, boring: I have seen more interesting harmonization exercises, and to make it worse, he manages to misplace accents, to place long syllables on the wrong beat, to put the word "God" on an 8th-note as part of a series of 8th notes going down the scale, etc. etc.  It is so awful that the congregation has unconsciously altered the notes to make them more sensible, e.g. changing the notes for a long accented syllable from an 8th to a quarter or longer, which forces our organist to make some adjustment.  She tried to follow the music and force the issue, but the result was a mess.

Our diocese is notorious for such feeble-minded and incompetent decisions.   :o

Quote from: froghawk on December 27, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
What?  Wagner was a notorious anti-semite despite the fact that most of their benefactors were Jewish and he would sleep with their wives.  I've even held Hitler's personal collection of Wagner records.

wagner's anti-semitism doesn't mean much, (a) it was quite common in europe at the time and (b) it was kind of a calculated ideology on his part to discredit Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn, two composers of the same generation who found great success while Wagner was still mediocre and unknown, of which he was (at the time) quite envious ;P

actually wagner's political beliefs such as they are were pretty internationalist/left-anarchist, with a lot of inspiration from Bakunin, Proudhon etc. a lot of "universal brotherhood of mankind" sort of stuff. if i'm not mistaken there's a whole book about wagner's politics floating around somewhere, don't remember details. sure he became a lot more of a nationalist after the emperor started to support his work, but before that he got kicked out of plenty of places for being a subversive. or maybe that was the wife-stealing, you never know with Tricky Dick >.>

Leonard Bernstein supposedly said "I hate Wagner on bended knee."

And from "Edmund Crispin" (Bruce Montgomery)'s detective novel Swan Song (featuring Gervase Fen),  comes this observation from one of the characters (the setting is a production of Meistersinger at Oxford not long after WWII)

Quote
though as the whole cycle of operas is devoted to showing that even the gods can't break an agreement without bringing the whole universe crashing about their ears,  I've never been able to see what possible encouragement Hitler got out of it....

I despise most of these new Contemporary composers who think what they're doing is so hip and cool. Sorry guys/girls I would rather listen to my obnoxious nephew spout off about Spongebob than listen to that freaking rubbish.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 27, 2012, 07:19:24 PM
I despise most of these new Contemporary composers who think what they're doing is so hip and cool. Sorry guys/girls I would rather listen to my obnoxious nephew spout off about Spongebob than listen to that freaking rubbish.

I'm not a huge fan of any contemporary composer, but truth to tell I prefer most of the current crop to almost anything of what was then considered "modern" or "avant garde"  in the 1960s/70s.   Much of that was to my ears pure rubbish.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 27, 2012, 07:29:49 PM
I'm not a huge fan of any contemporary composer, but truth to tell I prefer most of the current crop to almost anything of what was then considered "modern" or "avant garde"  in the 1960s/70s.   Much of that was to my ears pure rubbish.

Yeah, what a horrible time for classical music. I mean sure you had composers pushing the envelope and experimenting with electronic instruments, but where's the heartfelt lyricism and beauty in this junk?

Quote from: dyn on December 27, 2012, 05:13:32 PM
wagner's anti-semitism doesn't mean much, (a) it was quite common in europe at the time and (b) it was kind of a calculated ideology on his part to discredit Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn, two composers of the same generation who found great success while Wagner was still mediocre and unknown, of which he was (at the time) quite envious ;P

actually wagner's political beliefs such as they are were pretty internationalist/left-anarchist, with a lot of inspiration from Bakunin, Proudhon etc. a lot of "universal brotherhood of mankind" sort of stuff. if i'm not mistaken there's a whole book about wagner's politics floating around somewhere, don't remember details. sure he became a lot more of a nationalist after the emperor started to support his work, but before that he got kicked out of plenty of places for being a subversive. or maybe that was the wife-stealing, you never know with Tricky Dick >.>

Yes, he supported whatever was in his own best interest and made the modern Tricky Dick a beacon of moral standards in comparison.

Quote from: froghawk on December 27, 2012, 07:43:50 AM
I could argue that Wagner was a jerk who gave Hitler most of his ideology

You'd be wrong. The true forerunner of Hitler, extermination of the Jews included, is none other than Martin Luther. Check if in doubt.

Quote from: Florestan on December 28, 2012, 12:13:19 AM
You'd be wrong. The true forerunner of Hitler, extermination of the Jews included, is none other than Martin Luther. Check if in doubt.

Thomas Mann makes that connection in his novel Doctor Faustus.

Quote from: Cato on December 27, 2012, 12:54:16 PM

A candidate worthy of the topic:


Richard Proulx, who apparently received a music degree from Larry's School of Fine Composition, is the name at the top of a card with "music" for the Mass which Catholics in my diocese are supposed to try to sing. 

It seems he died a few years ago, and was a choral conductor and "prolific composer" of church music.

"Prolific" might explain the ptomaine turkey he cranked out which I mentioned earlier.

Quote from: Cato on December 28, 2012, 03:47:43 AM

... the ptomaine turkey....

Delightfully incisive!

Quote from: Cato on December 28, 2012, 03:47:43 AM
Thomas Mann makes that connection in his novel Doctor Faustus.

And Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn amply documents it in Liberty or Equality with abundant and relevant quotes from Luther.

Quote from: Florestan on December 28, 2012, 03:53:14 AM
And Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn amply documents it in Liberty or Equality with abundant and relevant quotes from Luther.

I'd place the burden of Hitler-just-being-Hitler on no man's shoulders, not even in small part... except for all his contemporaries who colluded, voted, executed (literally and metaphorically).

But certainly Luther, in his late years -- undoubtedly annoyed that now that he had fixed everything that was wrong with Christianity, the remaining holdouts (=Jews) STILL wouldn't convert -- wrote anti judaic tracts that put Wagner's narcissistic anti-Mayerbeerian ramblings into perspective.

So if this is the picture you've got (Photoshop be thanks), it's the wrong one:

(http://www.seenandheard-international.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/RichardWagnerinRetrospect.jpg)

Good post Jens!

Quote from: The new erato on December 28, 2012, 05:28:56 AM
Good post Jens!

+ 1

Quote from: sanantonio on December 28, 2012, 06:00:19 AM
Yes, but I don't need a Hitler connection to dislike Wagner's music.

Just sayin' ...

Nor to think him, morally speaking, an entire boil on the backside of humanity.

Never a word about the anti-goy Composers. ::)

In my view, what Wagner did in his personal life and what he believed should never deter or alter someone's judgement of his music. I think there's definitely a problem with someone who doesn't listen to a composer's based solely on what they thought or how they lived. I don't listen to Wagner everyday, but what he did or didn't do makes no difference to me. I'll always listen to the music.

Quote from: snyprrr on December 28, 2012, 07:20:11 AM
Never a word about the anti-goy Composers. ::)

You are a funny one.

I listen to Wagner's music very seldom. Pappano's Tristan und Isolde and Steinberg's Der Fliegende Holländer are the only Wagner operas I have.

I respect Wagner's music for it's bold chromatism. I know Wagner is the most influential composer in history. To me Wagner was a visionary opera composer. I'm just not so much into opera. Parsifal on Blu-ray would be cool...

Quote from: 71 dB on December 28, 2012, 09:20:47 AM
I know Wagner is the most influential composer in history.

Oh yes, Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven are heavily indebted to him...  ;D

Quote from: 71 dB on December 28, 2012, 09:20:47 AM
I know Wagner is the most influential composer in history.

::)

Okay, worst:

Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Ives
Stockhausen

Or something like that.  ;D

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 09:29:16 AM
::)

The propagandists have won, it would seem.

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 09:32:22 AM
Okay, worst:

Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Ives
Stockhausen

Or something like that.  ;D

That *is* a joke, meant to rile us. Right? If you really are the former MN Dave whom I vaguely remember as someone who spread reason and common sense in this forum.

Doesn't the headline "Worst" imply at least the pretense of making it objective, rather than just hanging one's own self-satisfied lack of understanding out to dry, for all to see?

There have GOT to be horrible composers (apart from the above mentioned Jenkins, Rutter, Webber et al., which are serious contenders certainly in my book) where the justification isn't just a petulant: "Because I don't get it, that's why they're terrrrrible." Four of the above five are composers that should be acknowledged as "great", even by those who don't like their music.

Quote from: jlaurson on December 28, 2012, 09:45:48 AM
That *is* a joke, meant to rile us. Right?

Did it work?

Silly thread, silly answer. But no, I don't listen to any of those guys. And if that's due to my lack of understanding, oh well. I'm just a happy idiot.  ;D

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 10:12:54 AM
Did it work?

Silly thread, silly answer. But no, I don't listen to any of those guys. And if that's due to my lack of understanding, oh well. I'm just a happy idiot.  ;D

Do you like Mahler?

Quote from: jlaurson on December 28, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
Do you like Mahler?

I don't hate him but I don't find myself listening to him much. Brahms is where I get off on the classical music timeline,  though I do enjoy composers like Ravel, Prokofiev, Sibelius and Shostakovich.

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 11:01:30 AM
I don't hate him but I don't find myself listening to him much. Brahms is where I get off on the classical music timeline...

You'd get on well with my mother-in-law  ;D

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 28, 2012, 11:04:31 AM
You'd get on well with my mother-in-law  ;D

I did like his first symphony for a minute.

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 11:05:21 AM
I did like his first symphony for a minute.

Yeah, that first minute is the best part.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 28, 2012, 11:06:54 AM
Yeah, that first minute is the best part.

Sarge

;D

Also...

"If you really are the former MN Dave whom I vaguely remember as someone who spread reason and common sense in this forum."

0:)

;D

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 11:10:22 AM
Also...

"If you really are the former MN Dave whom I vaguely remember as someone who spread reason and common sense in this forum."

0:)

;D

I was so, so tempted to make a comment about that. But I was a good little boy!

Quote from: Brian on December 28, 2012, 11:14:29 AM
I was so, so tempted to make a comment about that. But I was a good little boy!

Yes, it would just have shown your lack of understanding.  0:)

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 11:10:22 AM
Also...

"If you really are the former MN Dave whom I vaguely remember as someone who spread reason and common sense in this forum."

0:)

;D

Maybe I'm just confused and wrong about that.   ???  With all the name and avatar-switching and my general misantrophy and fading mental powers n'all...

Quote from: jlaurson on December 28, 2012, 11:38:10 AM
Maybe I'm just confused and wrong about that.   ???  With all the name and avatar-switching and my general misantrophy and fading mental powers n'all...

No, no. You were spot on.  :D

Am I the only one here who is far more interested in 20th century music than anything that proceeded it?

Quote from: froghawk on December 28, 2012, 12:12:28 PM
Am I the only one here who is far more interested in 20th century music than anything that proceeded it?

No.

Quote from: froghawk on December 28, 2012, 12:12:28 PM
Am I the only one here who is far more interested in 20th century music than anything that proceeded it?

No.

Quote from: Florestan on December 28, 2012, 03:53:14 AM
And Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn amply documents it in Liberty or Equality with abundant and relevant quotes from Luther.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is one of my favorite writers and critics of 20th-Century lunacies such as Fascism and Communism and any other "-isms" taking away Liberty in the name of whatever.

I've not come across a composer yet who wasn't at least enjoyable. Unless you're including his like Richard Nanes but even he isn't wretched (plus his videos are hilarious).

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 09:32:22 AM
Okay, worst:

Schoenberg

<----- Chuckles wants a word with you...

Quote from: froghawk on December 28, 2012, 12:12:28 PM
Am I the only one here who is far more interested in 20th century music than anything that proceeded it?

Nope.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on December 28, 2012, 04:39:03 PM
&lt;----- Chuckles wants a word with you...

:)

5 worst composers of all-time:

ChamberNut
MN Dave
Lake Swan
George
Sargent Rock

;D

Quote from: ChamberNut on December 28, 2012, 05:16:56 PM
5 worst composers of all-time:

ChamberNut
MN Dave
Lake Swan
George
Sargent Rock

;D

You ain't heard nothin' yet.  ;)

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 28, 2012, 09:32:22 AM
Okay, worst:

Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Ives
Stockhausen

Or something like that.  ;D

We need an exorcist!!   David has been possessed by Teresa!

No, we need The Exorcist!!

(http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/WanadooFilms/Thriller/ExorcistMerin.jpg)

Quote from: ChamberNut on December 28, 2012, 05:58:42 PM
We need an exorcist!!   David has been possessed by Teresa!

No, we need The Exorcist!!

(http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/WanadooFilms/Thriller/ExorcistMerin.jpg)

It's too late for me. Save yourselves!

My three year old son is the worst, he was banging on the piano the other day, it was awful, I have never heard such rubbish in my life. I said to him, "Mozart had just written his 17th symphony at the age of three, and what have you contributed? Besides drool."

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on December 28, 2012, 07:36:10 PM
My three year old son is the worst, he was banging on the piano the other day, it was awful, I have never heard such rubbish in my life. I said to him, "Mozart had just written his 17th symphony at the age of three, and what have you contributed? Besides drool."

;D :D

Any votes for Leopold Mozart?  That Toy Symphony and Alphorn Symphony are pretty bloody awful!  :-\

Quote from: ChamberNut on December 28, 2012, 07:38:50 PM
Any votes for Leopold Mozart?  That Toy Symphony and Alphorn Symphony are pretty bloody awful!  :-\

Yes, I will vote for that!  And for some reason, my local classical station plays the thing on a regular basis!

To paraphrase an infamous statement: "Whenever I hear the Toy Symphony, I reach for my revolver."   :o ;)

Quote from: ChamberNut on December 28, 2012, 05:16:56 PM
5 worst composers of all-time:

ChamberNut
MN Dave
Lake Swan
George
Sargent Rock

;D

I wrote a prelude for piano when I was 18, dedicated to my girlfriend, her name in the title. She broke up with me shortly after hearing it the first time   :D

Sarge

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on December 28, 2012, 07:36:10 PM
My three year old son is the worst, he was banging on the piano the other day, it was awful, I have never heard such rubbish in my life.

Is he a Stockhausen disciple? That would explain it  8)

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 29, 2012, 03:47:06 AM
I wrote a prelude for piano when I was 18, dedicated to my girlfriend, her name in the title. She broke up with me shortly after hearing it the first time   :D

Sarge

Oops Sarge.  I didn't realize you had actually composed music.  I apologize.  :-[

I've written a few songs as well. If I had more time and space, I'd write some more.

I vote Wagner as the worst composer ever, apart from some of his orchestral works.
Stockhausen is on equal level.
Nono is another one
Boulez is a good example too
Reich is also one that makes me feel unwell.

So did I offend enough people?  ;D

Quote from: Lake Swan on December 29, 2012, 05:00:45 AM
I've written a few songs as well. If I had more time and space, I'd write some more.

Then I apologize to you as well.  ??? George?

OK, only ChamberNut and Leopold Mozart!  :D

Quote from: Harry on December 29, 2012, 05:22:06 AM
Reich is also one that pisses me off.

This is one that deserves a pic. Do you become physically pissed and take it out on furniture? Or other household items you can throw? 
"Damn you, Steve!" ;D

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on December 29, 2012, 05:27:18 AM
This is one that deserves a pic. Do you become physically pissed and take it out on furniture? Or other household items you can throw? 
"Damn you, Steve!" ;D

Definitely should make the next GMG quarterly magazine!  ;D

Not sure if it'd qualify me at the top 5 worst, but did I ever mention my first (but not only) work? The title says it all:

Fantasy of an Incompetent Composer in B flat for Unaccomplished Pianists

Quote from: springrite on December 29, 2012, 05:40:45 AM
Not sure if it'd qualify me at the top 5 worst, but did I ever mention my first (but not only) work? The title says it all:

Fantasy of an Incompetent Composer in B flat for Unaccomplished Pianists

This is my inspiration for my own piece:

Variations on a Springrite theme in H sharp flat minor, for wooden spoons and gut strings (sorry cats).

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 29, 2012, 03:47:06 AM
I wrote a prelude for piano when I was 18, dedicated to my girlfriend, her name in the title. She broke up with me shortly after hearing it the first time   :D

Sarge

You won this poll.

Quote from: ChamberNut on December 29, 2012, 04:49:00 AM
Oops Sarge.  I didn't realize you had actually composed music.  I apologize.  :-[

No need to apologize...I'm definitely am a candidate for the title.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 29, 2012, 06:04:53 AM
No need to apologize...I'm definitely am a candidate for the title.

Sarge

Not just a candidate. Odds on favorite, I'd say. The title is yours to lose.

I can see the work getting a popular subtitle in the future, Prelude to a ...

Quote from: froghawk on December 28, 2012, 12:12:28 PM
Am I the only one here who is far more interested in 20th century music than anything that proceeded it?

Hell no. I think that the 20th Century was the greatest period in western classical music.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 03, 2010, 08:09:41 PM
I see you have conveniently ignored the years he spent in guilt and harsh penitence for his crime. I never said a great artist cannot act in the manner of a scoundrel. We are all human after all, and some are more human then others. But there is a difference between acting like a scoundrel, and being genuinely evil.

Like the Marquis de Sade?

If they were truly rotten on the inside they would never be able to produce works of genius. Anyone who believes eitherwise understands nothing of great art.

Quote from: RJR on December 30, 2012, 11:11:02 AM
Hell no. I think that the 20th Century was the greatest period in western classical music.

Same here or at least the first 50 years anyway. Don't think much of the direction classical music went after it veered off into abyss of academia. There have been a few composers to breakthrough in the '60s, '70s, and '80s that I enjoy, but I think they are few and far between.

Richard Nanes?

Quote from: snyprrr on January 02, 2013, 07:42:52 AM
Richard Nanes?

Recently I found out that Mr. Nanes is no longer with us, having passed on to the great self-subsidized Concert Hall in the Sky. Since then his Wikipedia page, which I recall as having been rather neutral, is no longer subject to the rules concerning living persons, and is now more lively and opinionated in style. An excerpt:

Nanes is known as a controversial figure in the classical music world. Reviews of his recordings at amazon.com are extravagantly laudatory or equally extravagantly denunciatory, with little in the middle. The critical picture is clearer in Internet discussion groups, where the consensus appears to be that the quality of his music is inversely proportional to the vigor with which he promoted it, and where he is frequently called "Richard Inanes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nanes

BTW, does anyone know anything about the "seven consecutive International Angel Awards" he received from the "Excellence in Media Foundation"?

Quote from: Velimir on January 03, 2013, 12:39:25 PM
Recently I found out that Mr. Nanes is no longer with us, having passed on to the great self-subsidized Concert Hall in the Sky. Since then his Wikipedia page, which I recall as having been rather neutral, is no longer subject to the rules concerning living persons, and is now more lively and opinionated in style. An excerpt:

Nanes is known as a controversial figure in the classical music world. Reviews of his recordings at amazon.com are extravagantly laudatory or equally extravagantly denunciatory, with little in the middle. The critical picture is clearer in Internet discussion groups, where the consensus appears to be that the quality of his music is inversely proportional to the vigor with which he promoted it, and where he is frequently called "Richard Inanes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nanes

BTW, does anyone know anything about the "seven consecutive International Angel Awards" he received from the "Excellence in Media Foundation"?

You didn't mention the dry humor at the bottom of the page:

See also: Florence Foster Jenkins

My top (bottom?) 5 are:

Michael Torke
Elizabeth Maconchy
John Rutter
Will Todd
John Cage

Quote from: ElliotViola on January 23, 2013, 03:51:41 PM
My top (bottom?) 5 are:

Michael Torke
Elizabeth Maconchy
John Rutter
Will Todd
John Cage

Don't know Will Tod - for good reasons, apparently - but Elizabeth Maconchy is terrific, try her music again, she deserves it.

Rutter is a better option, even if he's surpassed in all respects by Karl Jenkins, perhaps my nominee No. 1. Another nominee is Richard Nanes. And of course Richard Strauss (talking about Nanes) :-)

Quote from: Cato on December 27, 2012, 12:54:16 PM


Richard Proulx, who apparently received a music degree from Larry's School of Fine Composition, is the name at the top of a card with "music" for the Mass which Catholics in my diocese are supposed to try to sing. 

Boring, boring, boring: I have seen more interesting harmonization exercises, and to make it worse, he manages to misplace accents, to place long syllables on the wrong beat, to put the word "God" on an 8th-note as part of a series of 8th notes going down the scale, etc. etc.  It is so awful that the congregation has unconsciously altered the notes to make them more sensible, e.g. changing the notes for a long accented syllable from an 8th to a quarter or longer, which forces our organist to make some adjustment.  She tried to follow the music and force the issue, but the result was a mess.

Our diocese is notorious for such feeble-minded and incompetent decisions.   :o

A follow-up: recently our organist unveiled that she had tried to improve the terrible Gloria dribbled by Proulx's pen by trying an antiphonal approach and by punching up the harmony with arpeggiated chords of more interest.  It helped, but she still did not address the core clumsiness in the very awry union of text and music.

Quote from: Christo on January 24, 2013, 02:51:28 PM
Don't know Will Tod - for good reasons, apparently - but Elizabeth Maconchy is terrific, try her music again, she deserves it.

Rutter is a better option, even if he's surpassed in all respects by Karl Jenkins, perhaps my nominee No. 1. Another nominee is Richard Nanes. And of course Richard Strauss (talking about Nanes) :-)

HOW COULD I FORGET ABOUT KARL JENKINS? Palladio is possibly the most irritating piece ever composed in the history of Music. Strauss isn't great either.

We definitely agree on Rutter, Christo. Will Todd writes music that is possibly yet more cheesy than Rutter does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R53ucTjPihA

I will give Maconchy another try soon, I have looked at some of her solo Viola Music, and was not particularly keen at all. Any recommendations?

Quote from: ElliotViola on January 25, 2013, 12:45:50 AMStrauss isn't great either.

So the man who wrote such masterpieces as Eine Alpensinfonie, Elektra, Salome, Der Rosenkavalier, and Four Last Songs isn't great? ??? You should definitely listen to these works again.

Strauss has isolated moments of greatness mixed in with heaps and heaps of mediocrity. That's my carefully calculated opinion as a mature adult ;)

Quote from: jlaurson on January 25, 2013, 07:09:09 AM
Don't worry. It's just a youthfully brash thing to say... a way to postulate for positioning oneself in a certain way. Think of Gould and the moronic things he said, if you gave him enough time and a microphone. Gould, admittedly, never grew out of that juvenile phase, but most will. Even Simon Rattle has said stupid things about Richard Strauss... and then, everyone who loves Richard Strauss and knows his music well also knows about all the aspects that make Strauss' music open to such broad-brushed criticism, even if we ultimately think that that criticism is 99% rubbish.  ;)

Well said.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 25, 2013, 07:31:44 AM
Well said.

+1

Quote from: jlaurson on January 25, 2013, 07:09:09 AM
Don't worry. It's just a youthfully brash thing to say... a way to postulate for positioning oneself in a certain way. Think of Gould and the moronic things he said, if you gave him enough time and a microphone. Gould, admittedly, never grew out of that juvenile phase, but most will. Even Simon Rattle has said stupid things about Richard Strauss... and then, everyone who loves Richard Strauss and knows his music well also knows about all the aspects that make Strauss' music open to such broad-brushed criticism, even if we ultimately think that that criticism is 99% rubbish.  ;)

My personal experience (this is not a knock on anyone here on this thread) is having to explain to people that Strauss wrote more than just the 6 or 7 tone poems that are frequently recorded or performed. Some wonderful music can be found in Metamorphosen, Oboe Concerto in D major,
Duett-Concertino, for clarinet and bassoon with string orchestra and the lovely Lied later in his life.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 25, 2013, 07:31:44 AM
Well said.

+2

Nobody here seem to mention Strauss' greatest work; the Metamorphosen, a work that in my mind alone elevates him to a great composer, though there admittedly is lots in his oeuvree I don't listen to much. But some of his best music have been mentioned by others here, and very fine some of it is.

Quote from: The new erato on January 26, 2013, 12:42:13 AM
Nobody here seem to mention Strauss' greatest work; the Metamorphosen, a work that in my mind alone elevates him to a great composer, though there admittedly is lots in his oeuvree I don't listen to much. But some of his best music have been mentioned by others here, and very fine some of it is.

Hey, Erato,

I did mention it a few posts ago because I completely agree with you. I remember hearing Metamorphosen for the first time being coupled with Ein Heldenleben on a Blomstedt recording. And it did just that, elevated my already highly regarded view of Strauss. Its a mesmerizing piece.

And we could go on and on about his operas, including the single most impressive, and challenging role, for a soprano.  ;D

Gould also always sat on the same chair when performing/recording. Clearly being a musical genius he knew something we didn't about that chair, and all pianists should follow his practice.

Quote from: dyn on January 26, 2013, 06:35:04 AM
Gould also always sat on the same chair when performing/recording. Clearly being a musical genius he knew something we didn't about that chair, and all pianists should follow his practice.

Did it fold? ???

Gould and his chair...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlAg-yL-FfY

Quote from: jlaurson on January 26, 2013, 08:04:08 AM
Hey, if argumentum ad verecundiam is good enough for you, who am I to argue. No offense and all.

Trouble is that some authorities are conveniently more equal than others...

Gould was in many ways a contrarian and meant to be provocative--and that attitude may be widespread among juveniles, but some mature adults share it in spades.

And being a contrarian often means that in challenging the consensus,  one overemphasizes one's differences from the consensus.  Gould thought that Mozart's best work was done in Salzburg--but he still cared enough about Mozart's music to record the full complement of sonatas.

Quote from: James on January 26, 2013, 09:13:02 AM
who Gould actually was

Who cares who Gould was in the context of this discussion? That's the point. Do you measure your blood pressure 10 times a day just because he did?

Did I mention Richard Nanes?


I'm really not all that fond of many of the 'Late Phase' Modernist Composers.ugh, nevermind, I'm not up for it :-X

I was gonna say I wasn't all that happy with the direction George Crumb has taken in the last decade-plus. All these endeless Song Cycles with kind of empty instrumentation, all in his general style, eh,...

Then thar's Brokeback to look forward to. Thar she blows, haha!!

Rigm?, Lachenmann?, Sciarrino?,... I'm still preferring the late '80s-'90s of most ALL of the Masters of High Modernism to what is or is not happening today.

ALL Composers are on The List as of 2013!! >:D

Composers getting $$$Tax$$$Dollars$$$ should probably be on The List.

I'll concede that Metamorphosen, Salome, and Elektra are actually pretty great, but I can't get into anything else Strauss has written.... Capriccio is one of the worst operas I have EVER heard.  I can't stand anything about it - text or music.  And his early tone poems and Der Rosenkavalier are pure schmaltz.  Perhaps hearing bad film scores ripping off Strauss and Wagner for my entire life has ruined the source material for me, but that kind of harmonic language just strikes me as... icky and insincere.

Quote from: froghawk on February 01, 2013, 06:04:14 AM
And his early tone poems and Der Rosenkavalier are pure schmaltz. 

To compose pure schmaltz of the same quality is neither easy, nor small achievement.  ;D

My GMG review of Sigismund Ritter von Neukomm's chamber music:

Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2013, 04:36:32 PM
I swear, if I wasn't such a conscientious reviewer, I'd have turned this stupid thing off. There's one more track of this harmlessly cheery, utterly soulless, three-decades-behind-its-time drivel, and the thought of subjecting myself to it makes me want to put on freaking Pettersson because misery's a whole hell of a lot more fun than this 1820s call-center Muzak garbage.

Has the name of Wunderjunge Jay Greenberg been mentioned under this topic?  Should it be mentioned?

A recent CD with a Greenberg work:

[asin]B007QMMORW[/asin]

From Amazon:

Quote
JAY GREENBERG'S SONATA. The cello was the first instrument in which I displayed any particular interest. I began taking lessons at four on a cello taller than myself. Through those lessons I learned to read music, and through reading I taught myself to write and eventually to have the written notes reflect what I actually wanted to say. For that reason, I always intended my first work involving a cello soloist to be a particularly remarkable one, and discarded several unfruitful attempts over the years before finally being satisfied with the Sonata. The Sonata is in four movements. As one of the first of my pieces to go beyond the style of Mozart and Beethoven in content, the work reveals a large number of influences, not all of which are fully integrated.

Wasn't Jay Greenberg supposed to be like the next greatest thing in classical music? What the hell happened to this kid?

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 09, 2013, 05:56:57 PM
Wasn't Jay Greenberg supposed to be like the next greatest thing in classical music? What the hell happened to this kid?

Maybe he grew up?

I have not seen updates in some years, but a distressing amount of research on Wunderkinder in any field showed that they very rarely lived up to the promise they seemed to have.  In short, Mozart was the exception rather than the rule about child prodigies/geniuses.

Quote from: Cato on April 09, 2013, 06:15:09 PM
Maybe he grew up?

Well my comments were more rhetorical than anything else. Sometimes life has a way of grinding away at you.

The cello is still the taller of the two.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2013, 05:05:34 AM
The cello is still the taller of the two.

Length and girth have their place, but I am sure you agree that black stick has the ability to be right expressive.

Quote from: Johnll on April 11, 2013, 02:50:34 PM
Length and girth have their place, but I am sure you agree that black stick has the ability to be right expressive.

This is the most bizarrely suggestive post I've ever read on GMG.

From Amazon, quoted earlier:

Quote

JAY GREENBERG'S SONATA. The cello was the first instrument in which I displayed any particular interest. I began taking lessons at four on a cello taller than myself.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2013, 05:05:34 AM
The cello is still the taller of the two.

Quote from: Johnll on April 11, 2013, 02:50:34 PM
Length and girth have their place, but I am sure you agree that black stick has the ability to be right expressive.

Quote from: Brian on April 11, 2013, 03:06:29 PM
This is the most bizarrely suggestive post I've ever read on GMG.

Well, I thought of a conductor's baton, but an illusionist's magic wand also seems to be suggested!  0:)

(http://www.psdgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/magic-wand.jpg)


Look at all those happy magic stars at the tip!   ??? $:)

Quote from: Brian on April 11, 2013, 03:06:29 PM
This is the most bizarrely suggestive post I've ever read on GMG.

I take your point but it did not occur to me in the post. The black stick is a clarinet and the other that have length and girth are strings things. In the future I will try avoid exciting your imagination and post in a manner that will not be confused for suggestive.

Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2009, 06:04:19 PM
And stop posting and reposting the "let me explain what an opinion is" nobody is confused about opinions vs facts as we are not three years old, and nobody thinks that you are asserting facts. :D  It's not a shield, it's not a valid point, it's not a relevant point.  I'm asking you to defend your position, not hide behind "I can think what I want!" that's not the point of a discussion.

If you are going to assert your opinion, then defend it. :)

I couldn't agree more, David.  People do have a right to think what they want, though I am loathe to categorize an opinion that Mozart is a bad composer as "thought."  It seems to me the antithesis of thought.  What people who say that are really suggesting is not only that they can think any damn fool thing they want, but that they are entitled to have their opinion respected even by people who know what they are talking about.  And when you say outlandish things like Mozart is not a good composer, you lose that right.  They don't understand that, and it needs to be pounded into them until they learn some humility.

Dude, that post is getting on for four years of age : )

Quote from: Tapkaara on August 25, 2009, 06:42:05 PM
I'd like to know if there are other people who believe that, without an appreciation for Mozart or Schönberg, one lacks breadth in classical music. Is this really true?

I'm confused about your last bit. I'm not sure why I have to listen to other composers, some of them obscure, to validate my distate for Mozart?

Not liking Mozart is a sign of incredible, monumental shallowness which cannot be respected by any knowledgeable person.  Schoenberg, not so much.   0:)

Quote from: RebLem on May 07, 2013, 07:28:37 AM
Not liking Mozart is a sign of incredible, monumental shallowness which cannot be respected by any knowledgeable person.

There's nothing wrong with not liking Mozart (I don't understand it, but there's nothing wrong with it).

The problem is in conflating "I don't like N.'s music" with "N. is a bad composer."  Now, that conflation happens to some degree or another quite frequently on GMG, sometimes quite innocently.  But I am apt to agree that anyone calling Mozart a bad composer is shallow.

The shallowness resides in the astoundingly comic hubris of "How can he be a great artist? I don't care for his work."

Quote from: RebLem on May 07, 2013, 07:28:37 AM
Not liking Mozart is a sign of incredible, monumental shallowness which cannot be respected by any knowledgeable person.  Schoenberg, not so much.   0:)

I can assure you that quite a number of professional orchestra players detest Mozart. So I don't buy into your opinion. I also endorse Karl's post in reply to you.

Mike

Quote from: RebLem on May 07, 2013, 07:28:37 AM
Not liking Mozart is a sign of incredible, monumental shallowness which cannot be respected by any knowledgeable person.  Schoenberg, not so much.   0:)

To quote Bugs Bunny: "Dem's fightin' woids!"   ;)

Quote from: Johnll on April 11, 2013, 05:44:26 PM
I take your point but it did not occur to me in the post.

... do you live in a monastery? ...  ???