Who do you think it is? My guess is that Schoenberg will take the prize on this one, although John Cage might surpass the master.
Quote from: Simula on August 08, 2016, 05:09:52 PM
Who do you think it is? My guess is that Schoenberg will take the prize on this one, although John Cage might surpass the master.
Not in this group.
Quote from: Simula on August 08, 2016, 05:09:52 PMWho do you think it is?
I have no clue, but I know who is the most TAUNTED
ittersdorf.
Wagner certainly must be a candidate as well. Also Stockhausen. Puccini for all that seems wrong with opera, Richard Strauss for pomposity and maybe even Johann Strauss (some people seem to love to hate "light" classical music).
Well, as an admirer of Pierre Boulez, I have noticed that there's no love lost for him among many music lovers (including here on GMG).
Quote from: Jo498 on August 09, 2016, 01:31:48 AM
Wagner certainly must be a candidate as well. Also Stockhausen. Puccini for all that seems wrong with opera, Richard Strauss for pomposity and maybe even Johann Strauss (some people seem to love to hate "light" classical music).
Not taunting you at all ... but why the heck would people hate Puccini and/or his operas? After all, opera doesn't get much better, does it?
I have no clue and no idea what we will achieve by seeking an answer. I don't even know who to nominate.
On this forum .. of major composers whom earned their place, I'd say definitely Stockhausen. In the real world, not so much - his music does just fine, probably better than the 2nd Viennese School, and most composers of his generation.
Quote from: king ubu on August 09, 2016, 02:20:58 AM
Not taunting you at all ... but why the heck would people hate Puccini and/or his operas? After all, opera doesn't get much better, does it?
I am not expressing my opinion. ;)
But I have certainly seen the opinion expressed (and can understand it) that Puccini is soppy kitsch, over the top, whatever, namely all operatic clichées fulfilled to the point of caricature. Although Wagner is probably even easier to make fun of, with Wagner it's often not the music but the 19th century winged helmets.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 09, 2016, 03:27:19 AM
I am not expressing my opinion. ;)
Puccini is soppy kitsch, over the top, whatever, namely all operatic clichées fulfilled to the point of caricature.
It is, but I don't see the problem with that. It is well done soppy kitsch and nothing to be ashamed of if soppy kitsch is what you like. Badly done soppy kitsch of course is quite another matter.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 09, 2016, 03:27:19 AM
Although Wagner is probably even easier to make fun of, with Wagner it's often not the music but the 19th century winged helmets.
;)
These days, however, the dislike comes not from the operas, but from the anti-Jewish scribblings.
Quote from: James on August 09, 2016, 02:53:06 AM
On this forum .. of major composers whom earned their place, I'd say definitely Stockhausen. In the real world, not so much - his music does just fine, probably better than the 2nd Viennese School, and most composers of his generation.
Again, the composer's writings/statements did not help him (e.g. the September 11th attacks as an artwork, which comment I can understand, given Stockhausen's point of view, but which was doomed to be sensationalized.
See e.g. :
http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/karlheinz-stockhausen/ (http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/karlheinz-stockhausen/) Note the column on the right from
Stockhausen.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/jun/23/isittimetoforgivestockhau (https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/jun/23/isittimetoforgivestockhau)
Quote from: 71 dB on August 09, 2016, 01:25:59 AM
I have no glue, but I know who is the most TAUNTEDittersdorf.
Only speculative.
Quote... of major composers whom earned ....
Send James back to school.
Thread Duty:
A couple of possibilities:
Lowell Liebermann
Tikhon Khrennikov
Now, it may be objected that I selected two 20th-c. composers, when we are discussing "of all Time."
But over time, any composers of earlier epochs who were hated, time has worked in their favor for audiences to listen more favorably.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 09, 2016, 05:29:42 AM
Thread Duty:
A couple of possibilities:
Lowell Liebermann
Tikhon Khrennikov
Khrennikov I understand, but what has been
Liebermann's crime, outside of shamelessly imitating e.g.
Prokofiev ? ;)
That's fair 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 09, 2016, 05:29:42 AMLowell Liebermann
What did this composer do to be on your 'Most Hated' list? Inquiring minds want to know...
My pick is Stockhausen. Can't stand his music and I think he's done absolutely nothing but create bad blood amongst classical listeners (those who actually
like his music that is).
Quote from: Cato on August 09, 2016, 05:43:32 AM
Khrennikov I understand, but what has been Liebermann's crime, outside of shamelessly imitating e.g. Prokofiev ? ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 09, 2016, 05:54:48 AM
That's fair 0:)
I recall rather vividly hearing a
Prokofiev Piano Concerto on the radio, and wondering if a
Sixth had been discovered, because I did not recognize the work!
No, it was by
Lowell Liebermann. :D
Quote from: Cato on August 09, 2016, 06:05:27 AM
I recall rather vividly hearing a Prokofiev Piano Concerto on the radio, and wondering if a Sixth had been discovered, because I did not recognize the work!
No, it was by Lowell Liebermann. :D
Your quarrel with him is already greater than my own 0:)
That dastardly murderer Salieri!
Saul.
Hah!
Quote from: Jo498 on August 09, 2016, 03:27:19 AM
I am not expressing my opinion. ;)
I knew that, of course, but I've probably not hung here long enough to have heard that opinion yet, so I was curious
Quote from: The new erato on August 09, 2016, 04:24:44 AM
Badly done soppy kitsch of course is quite another matter.
... like Verdi, I guess? ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 09, 2016, 05:25:01 AM
Send James back to school.
I envy the school curriculum that even mentions Stockhausen once!!!
I forgot all about Stockhausen, although his place in music is exceedingly important. Schnittke even wrote an essay on him. I agree with the Stockhausen citation. :)
Some will consider this splitting hairs, but I should nominate Stockhausen for Most Contemptible Composer of all Time 8)
Quote from: jessop on August 09, 2016, 07:15:05 AM
I envy the school curriculum that even mentions Stockhausen once!!!
Mind you, one does not nitpick every GMGer's grammar, (especially those for whom English is not the first language). My point is actually that for someone who is such a snide, intemperate, self-appointed Cultural Authoritarian, his grammar is an indifferent amalgam of inept and pretentious.
I think it will take a bunch of major revolutions for Wyshnegradsky and Haba (in his more edgy mood) to become widely popular, at least. But they are too obscure to be hated; I´m talking about people´s first acquaintance with them & the amount of instinctive, negative reaction - piano quarter-tone music just isn´t loved by the majority.
Well, Wagner's genius is certainly tainted by his anti-semitism. He might be the most disliked due to personality - not the music.
A lot of folks detest Stockhausen. I appreciate what he did, but he didn't do much with it but make a hash of it, mostly. Can't stand to listen to it because it is so boring. However, other musicians in the Rock field were influenced by him, and took part of his sound into far, far more creative areas. He just didn't have the imagination or composing chops to compete.
Although I like some of his music I think that Britten was quite an unpleasant individual - keen on denigrating other fine British composers. Wagner and Richard Strauss would also feature on my list for reasons already mentioned.
Quote from: vandermolen on August 09, 2016, 11:48:01 AM
Although I like some of his music I think that Britten was quite an unpleasant individual - keen on denigrating other fine British composers like Alwyn. Wagner and Richard Strauss would also feature on my list for reasons already mentioned.
He also liked little boys. (Britten that is, not Wagner or Strauss.)
Quote from: 71 dB on August 09, 2016, 01:25:59 AM
I have no glue, but I know who is the most TAUNTEDittersdorf.
I know your English is several million times better than my Finnish, but the word here would be "clue."
Quote from: king ubu on August 09, 2016, 02:20:58 AM
After all, opera doesn't get much better, does it?
Yes.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 09, 2016, 06:01:39 AM
My pick is Stockhausen. Can't stand his music and I think he's done absolutely nothing but create bad blood amongst classical listeners (those who actually like his music that is).
I like and admire some of his music (by no means all) immensely.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 09, 2016, 11:51:42 AM
I know your English is several million times better than my Finnish, but the word here would be "clue."
Yes, of course. Thanks! ;)
Quote from: vandermolen on August 09, 2016, 11:48:01 AM
Although I like some of his music I think that Britten was quite an unpleasant individual - keen on denigrating other fine British composers. Wagner and Richard Strauss would also feature on my list for reasons already mentioned.
Agreed - can't stand his stuff, either.
Kenny G. Ugh. I hate that guy. :'(
Quote from: Cato on August 09, 2016, 04:54:44 AMAgain, the composer's writings/statements did not help him (e.g. the September 11th attacks as an artwork, which comment I can understand, given Stockhausen's point of view, but which was doomed to be sensationalized.
See e.g. :
http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/karlheinz-stockhausen/ (http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/karlheinz-stockhausen/) Note the column on the right from Stockhausen.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/jun/23/isittimetoforgivestockhau (https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/jun/23/isittimetoforgivestockhau)
Old news which mostly points to the true nature of journalism than all else, it's been cleared up too .. hardly a factor in the real world at this point. For this forum though, of the major composers .. easily the least explored and consequently, understood.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on August 09, 2016, 02:13:16 PM
Kenny G. Ugh. I hate that guy. :'(
Has anyone claimed that he is a composer? 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 09, 2016, 03:14:48 PM
Has anyone claimed that he is a composer? 8)
I imagine he has.
Who is Kenny G?
Ken B's evil half brother?
No one has seen Saul and Kenny G in the same place at the same time, right?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 09, 2016, 05:07:38 PM
No one has seen Saul and Kenny G in the same place at the same time, right?
Saul is Ken B's evil composing half brother
Q.E.D.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 09, 2016, 05:07:38 PM
No one has seen Saul and Kenny G in the same place at the same time, right?
Lets ask this guy....
(https://uncletnuc.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/yanni.jpg)
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on August 09, 2016, 05:27:53 PM
Lets ask this guy....
(https://uncletnuc.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/yanni.jpg)
Or this guy...?
(https://travistation.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tumblr_lrx03lofkb1qemxfbo1_500.jpg)
Ok, Stockhausen it is, time to fold up the mats and go home.
Quote from: Simula on August 09, 2016, 05:57:25 PM
Ok, Stockhausen it is, time to fold up the mats and go home.
Bye then.
Heino clearly is no composer, he is just a singer; I am pretty sure someone else does the arrangements (most of his songs are traditionals or older Schlager anyway).
But this cover is priceless.
A little later he changed to his signature dark glasses because his eyes are affected by Graves' disease ("Basedowaugen", in German the condition is called Morbus Basedow after the doctor who described it a few years after Graves).
Kenny G is not what is known as a 'composer' - he played light light simplistic music which comes under the Jazz umbrella, but only in the most bland sort of way. I suspect that his noise and some others will be what will be on the muzak speakers in hell. >:D
Kenny G features in this video.
I want to make it quite clear,however, that I do not usually listen to such material and the video was simply tracked down in the interests of 'GMG Academic Research'
8)
https://youtu.be/KlyXNRrsk4A
Quote from: vandermolen on August 11, 2016, 04:00:41 AM
Kenny G features in this video.
I want to make it quite clear,however, that I do not usually listen to such material and the video was simply tracked down in the interests of 'GMG Academic Research'
8)
https://youtu.be/KlyXNRrsk4A
Brave man!
Not even the interests of GMG Research could induce me to listen to anything by Mason Bates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_Bates).
Please note: Mason Bates has a Wikipedia page. Karl Henning does not.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2016, 04:17:38 AM
Brave man!
Not even the interests of GMG Research could induce me to listen to anything by Mason Bates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_Bates).
Please note: Mason Bates has a Wikipedia page. Karl Henning does not.
That is a true injustice.
Time will redress it.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2016, 04:17:38 AM
Brave man!
Not even the interests of GMG Research could induce me to listen to anything by Mason Bates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_Bates).
Or even Norman Bates . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2016, 04:17:38 AM
Not even the interests of GMG Research could induce me to listen to anything by Mason Bates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_Bates).
I heard his violin concerto in concert a couple of years ago. A peculiar experience.
One way to re-phrase the title question: Who is the most hated composer in the sense of being the composer that orchestras (or other ensembles) most hate to play? There might even be some research on that, if only anecdotal.
Personally I suspect it might be one of those pay-for-play guys like Richard Nanes. Or it might be due to over-exposure (Pachelbel, Tchaikovsky).
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 11, 2016, 06:27:04 AM
You could start your own.
I don't know if I should. Or is that the best practice?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2016, 06:38:17 AM
I don't know if I should. Or is that the best practice?
It will need to be based on secondary or tertiary sources, though.
Quote from: North Star on August 11, 2016, 07:01:40 AM
It will need to be based on secondary or tertiary sources, though.
Exactly.
If it be an injustice, time will redress it.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2016, 06:38:17 AM
I don't know if I should. Or is that the best practice?
Can't answer that. I doubt you would be the first.
Stockhausen at least possesses some interest. Now Glass is an immediate turn off.
Quote from: jessop on August 09, 2016, 05:06:05 PM
Ken B's evil half brother?
You should hear Kenny J.
Beethoven, Mozart or Bach.
As classical music is generally hated the most hated composer must be the most played one.
Quote from: mszczuj on August 31, 2016, 09:04:19 AM
Beethoven, Mozart or Bach.
As classical music is generally hated the most hated composer must be the most played one.
Hated? I'd say
ignored. Most people live their lifes as if classical music didn't exist. People don't care about it enough to hate.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 31, 2016, 02:46:31 PM
Hated? I'd say ignored. Most people live their lifes as if classical music didn't exist. People don't care about it enough to hate.
Unless they hear a little bit of it by chance.
Quote from: mszczuj on August 31, 2016, 10:19:27 PM
Unless they hear a little bit of it by chance.
I don't think they
hate it, they just say it to be socially accepted.
Quote from: king ubu on August 09, 2016, 02:20:58 AM
... why the heck would people hate Puccini and/or his operas? After all, opera doesn't get much better, does it?
Any reason why some people can not find Puccini's music as repellent in equal proportion as those who find it attractive?
"I mean, who could possibly dislike Puccini? / Opera doesn't get much better, does it?"
Is really saying,
"How can others not feel the same as I do about Puccini?" ("Because they are not you." :-)
Puccini is as praised as he is negatively criticized. Negative criticism has it that the composer was an obvious and 'shameless' manipulator, his dual crafts as melodist and musical dramatist used to provoke coldly calculated emotional responses. Some say the intent of his talents so applied was only motivated by a commercial purpose to ensure the popularity, and income, from his work. In more current parlance, people feel he is a tacky commercial sell-out, like some film composers or pop industry composers, writing not for 'art' but only with popularity and sales in mind... i.e. there is major question on the 'sincerity' of his entire ouevre. Despite the level of craft, some hear it as tacky, and cheaply and transparently manipulative.[/i] Of course, that is one of those posits once launched as a question which could fill a thread of any music for for pages and pages....
"Is it possible for a work of art to seem both completely sincere in its intentions and at the same time counterfeit and manipulative? Puccini built a major career on these contradictions. But people care about him, even admire him, because he did it both so shamelessly and so skillfully. How can you complain about a composer whose music is so relentlessly memorable, even – maybe especially – at its most saccharine?"."
~ Pulitzer Prize-winning music critic Lloyd Schwartz.This dual aspect is exactly what can and does make for a highly polarized difference in opinion on Puccini; this divided opinion has been pretty much ongoing from his first being acclaimed to the present.
Neither pro or con really disputes the level of craft and skill of Puccini's music per se, while
how he applied that craft in the context of the libretti he chose has been a pretty constant matter of
aesthetic disputes that started with the composer's first wave of audience and critical recognition, and therein lies the major divisive split of opinion on Maestro Puccini.
Best regards
P.s. I feel compelled to add that once again, I think you have found and posted as near to a most perfectly negative OP as is possible, once again using in its text a negative in the lower / lowest extremes.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 01, 2016, 10:03:11 PM
Puccini is as praised as he is negatively criticized. Negative criticism has it that the composer was an obvious and 'shameless' manipulator, his dual crafts as melodist and musical dramatist used to provoke coldly calculated emotional responses.
If opera isn't for manipulating the emotional responses of listeners, I don't know what it is for. Typical opera librettos are nothing but emotional manipulation. It is only logical the music is too. I have always felt opera is one of the most commercial branches of classical music, numerous arias being the hit songs of the past. In my opinion Puccini is one of the greatest opera composers ever and I enjoy being manipulated by this master.
Quote from: 71 dB on September 01, 2016, 11:48:26 PM
If opera isn't for manipulating the emotional responses of listeners, I don't know what it is for. Typical opera librettos are nothing but emotional manipulation. It is only logical the music is too. I have always felt opera is one of the most commercial branches of classical music, numerous arias being the hit songs of the past. In my opinion Puccini is one of the greatest opera composers ever and I enjoy being manipulated by this master.
Well, I guess this puts you firmly in the pro Puccini camp of what I think is both interesting and a bit of a curiosity -- where the general public in such large numbers are so near to equally divided in holding such highly polarized opinions of a widely popular composer's works. (Ergo, why I brought it up :-)
I think that phenomenon is fairly rare. Other than Puccini and Wagner (duly noted -- both opera composers), I can't off the top of my head think of any other composer who is as popular and whose music elicits such a polarized split response from such large numbers of listeners.
Maybe Verdi as well? I remember some interview with a professional musician (I think a former member of a 20th century quartet, maybe 2nd violin of the Kolisch quartet?) trashing Verdi in favor of Puccini but more frequently encountered the opposite stance.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 02, 2016, 12:40:47 AM
Well, I guess this puts you firmly in the pro Puccini camp.
Quote from: Jo498 on September 02, 2016, 02:01:21 AM
Maybe Verdi as well? I remember some interview with a professional musician (I think a former member of a 20th century quartet, maybe 2nd violin of the Kolisch quartet?) trashing Verdi in favor of Puccini but more frequently encountered the opposite stance.
I have never enjoyed Verdi's music and I have tried. His over-emphasis of melody over harmony is not my cup of tea at all.
Quote from: Jo498 on September 02, 2016, 02:01:21 AM
Maybe Verdi as well? I remember some interview with a professional musician (I think a former member of a 20th century quartet, maybe 2nd violin of the Kolisch quartet?) trashing Verdi in favor of Puccini but more frequently encountered the opposite stance.
Personally, I don't either composer. :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 02, 2016, 06:12:27 AM
Personally, I don't either composer. :)
I think I should like Verdi more than I do but I still prefer him to Puccini. I detest Madama Butterfly but have a soft spot for Tosca and Turandot. Overall I admit that I don't know important works of either well enough to really have an informed opinion, I am just not such a big fan of opera (and less of opera on records).
Quote from: Jo498 on September 02, 2016, 07:19:59 AM
I think I should like Verdi more than I do but I still prefer him to Puccini. I detest Madama Butterfly but have a soft spot for Tosca and Turandot. Overall I admit that I don't know important works of either well enough to really have an informed opinion, I am just not such a big fan of opera (and less of opera on records).
I certainly don't pretend to be a fan of opera, but there are a few operas that I love: Bartok's
Bluebeard's Castle, Ravel's
L'enfant et les sortileges, Berg's
Wozzeck, Janacek's
Kata Kabanova, Britten's
Death in Venice, and Szymanowski's
King Roger.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 01, 2016, 10:03:11 PM
Negative criticism has it that [Puccini] was an obvious and 'shameless' manipulator, his dual crafts as melodist and musical dramatist used to provoke coldly calculated emotional responses.
If this were true --- ie, if it were indeed possible to (1) coldly calculate emotional responses and, (2) to actually get those responses each and every time the music is played, to each and every audience hearing it --- it would mean that (a) music is far from being a mere combination of sounds without any significance whatsoever beyond that very combination, and (b) on the contrary, it can, and it does, express emotions which are (1) contained in the music itself, and (2) always and unequivocally recognized as such by whatever audience hears it. ;D ;D ;D
I don't like Puccini because, saying this as a huge opera fan, his music sounds awful to me. However, I acknowledge that this is subjective, something Florestan and other folks need to work on.