Piano Forum
Piano Board => Repertoire => Topic started by: imbetter on April 16, 2007, 11:46:47 AM
-
discuss :)
-
Underrated.... Grieg
-
Underrated.... Grieg
it says overrated >:(
-
Mozart.
-
Mozart.
I'd agree.
Though this is a subjective opinion, and I do love Mozart in the right quantities, but he is played too often, especially in the last couple of years.
-
Mozart... well, at least in these "Mozart for the mind" stuff.
-
mozart is very overrated
-
Mendelssohn, Brahms, Mahler, Schumann, Haydn
-
I find myself in complete agreement with soliloquy.
In addition, Schumann should be wiped off the face of the earth and completely erased from history.
Thal
-
Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Berlioz.
As for Mozart, he is definitely overplayed (particularly the early stuff, which should be erased from the face of the earth), but whether he is over-rated or not i cannot say. I think he is actually one of the most miss-understood among the major composers. Some of the stuff i hear about him, even among fans it's just outlandish...
-
schumann
-
Beethoven
-
I find myself in complete agreement with soliloquy.
In addition, Schumann should be wiped off the face of the earth and completely erased from history.
Thal
If you think Brahms is a bad composer I think you should see a shrink ::)
-
Beethoven
I believe he is the greatest composer of all time, but he could only be considered overrated if people saw the margin between him and others as large, because I don't, but it's large enough for me to have no doubt.
-
I believe he is the greatest composer of all time, but he could only be considered overrated if people saw the margin between him and others as large, because I don't, but it's large enough for me to have no doubt.
Well said, even my friends who all play in rock bands are completly in to the symphonies like th 5th, 6th and 9th.
-
Mozart.
I'd agree.
What?? Mozart may be "overplayed", but is indeed underrated, if anything.
(just to meet the original question, which was sadly changed later on by the author into that boring "over"/"over"-thing...)
-
Most overrated and overplayed... must be myself actually!
I have composed very little, and i'm the only one who've played it. That's definately overplayed! And one person once said it was ok... definately overrated. :)
-
oh, well, schumann of course. him and schubert.
-
If you think Brahms is a bad composer I think you should see a shrink ::)
I do x 2
-
Philip Glass.
Keeps combining the same damn measures in every piece he writes and it's monotonous.
-
its called minimalism.
-
If you think Brahms is a bad composer I think you should see a shrink ::)
I second this motion.
-
I have to 2nd Phillip Glass ::)
-
I have to 2nd Phillip Glass ::)
Why? Isn't just one at least three too many?
Best,
Alistair
-
for me its alistair hinton 8)
-
for the piano:
Chopin.
*awaits the barrage of insults and noob-labelling*
-
chopin was a genius and people like him so much because of it.
-
its called minimalism.
Thanks, now I have a name for the disease.
-
for the piano:
Chopin.
*awaits the barrage of insults and noob-labelling*
Grrr....hiss.... >:( :P :'(
-
This is an example of stupidity in the making.
There is no single composer that is both overplayed AND overrated, because for every piece that is overplayed and overrated, you will find another piece by that same composer that is both underplayed and underrated. In addition, almost every composer that is overplayed (meaning they have a lot of pieces that are overplayed- the composer him/herself can't be overplayed. ;) ) are actually underrated, because people get completely sick of the pieces and stop recognizing them for the genius works they are. Beethoven's Fur Elise, when played by a truly masterful pianist, is still exquisite to my ears, no matter how many times over it is butchered. So is the 'Pathetique' Sonata. Mozart's Serenade in G major is another example (although I much prefer it when all 4 movements are played, rather than just the first.) Do we forget that these works are played ad nauseum because people LIKE them?
Furthermore, nobody is going to be in agreement on this sort of thing. It's not exactly a thing we can measure- how overplayed or overrated a piece or composer is. Someone who dislikes Chopin's works will post his name, thinking only of the Minute Waltz, the Etudes Op.10 No.3 and Op.10 No.12, etc., and someone who loves ANY of his works- overplayed or underplayed or neither- will refute the former. Same goes for every composer already mentioned here- Schumann, Schubert, Brahms, Mozart, even Phillip Glass, and the same goes for every composer which will, no doubt, be brought up later... (I realize I may be exaggerating reasoning for posting the certain composers, but hopefully you understand the general concept I'm trying to convey. :) )
These types of threads never end well.
Phil
-
This is an example of stupidity in the making.
There is no single composer that is both overplayed AND overrated, because for every piece that is overplayed and overrated, you will find another piece by that same composer that is both underplayed and underrated. In addition, almost every composer that is overplayed (meaning they have a lot of pieces that are overplayed- the composer him/herself can't be overplayed. ;) ) are actually underrated, because people get completely sick of the pieces and stop recognizing them for the genius works they are. Beethoven's Fur Elise, when played by a truly masterful pianist, is still exquisite to my ears, no matter how many times over it is butchered. So is the 'Pathetique' Sonata. Mozart's Serenade in G major is another example (although I much prefer it when all 4 movements are played, rather than just the first.) Do we forget that these works are played ad nauseum because people LIKE them?
Furthermore, nobody is going to be in agreement on this sort of thing. It's not exactly a thing we can measure- how overplayed or overrated a piece or composer is. Someone who dislikes Chopin's works will post his name, thinking only of the Minute Waltz, the Etudes Op.10 No.3 and Op.10 No.12, etc., and someone who loves ANY of his works- overplayed or underplayed or neither- will refute the former. Same goes for every composer already mentioned here- Schumann, Schubert, Brahms, Mozart, even Phillip Glass, and the same goes for every composer which will, no doubt, be brought up later... (I realize I may be exaggerating reasoning for posting the certain composers, but hopefully you understand the general concept I'm trying to convey. :) )
These types of threads never end well.
Phil
tards never get sick of Tchaik1 or nutcracker.
-
tards never get sick of Tchaik1 or nutcracker.
Okay, so those 2 pieces are overplayed...along with the Violin Concerto...but how many of them appreciate Tchaik 2, or the Concert Fantasia, or many of the piano works?
I think you can see the point I'm getting at.
Phil
-
Okay, so those 2 pieces are overplayed...along with the Violin Concerto...but how many of them appreciate Tchaik 2, or the Concert Fantasia, or many of the piano works?
I think you can see the point I'm getting at.
Phil
You have to judge as such:
Number of times Tchaik1 is played vs. number of times Tchaik2 should be played more. I would venture a guess and say Tchaik1 is probably performed a few thousand times a year, and that Tchaik2 does not need to be performed that much, therefore Tchaikovsky is overplayed.
-
You have to judge as such:
Number of times Tchaik1 is played vs. number of times Tchaik2 should be played more. I would venture a guess and say Tchaik1 is probably performed a few thousand times a year, and that Tchaik2 does not need to be performed that much, therefore Tchaikovsky is overplayed.
That seems a bit vague. After all, in order to truly see if Tchaikovsky is 'overplayed' per se, we would have to use that equation on a larger scale, making every important work he composed a factor. That is why it seems impossible to me to judge such a thing, with any composer.
Phil
-
Tchaikovsky symphonies are boring as hell, except for the last one maybe.
String Sextet is where it's at... ;D
-
....String Sextet is where it's at... ;D
I heard that with enough cash or credit, you could buy one of those sextets in Vegas.
-
some say saint-saens only composed arpeggiations. i tend to think otherwise and like the simpleness of saint-saens (even if there are a lot of arpeggios). his concerto or fantasy? for harp and flute is so beautiful. sometimes simplicity is ridiculed. maybe some of schumann's pieces were short. but they were short AND sweet. but, it is all the eye of the beholder.
i suppose that saint-saens is not 'over played.' frankly, the only things i think are overplayed are songs on my daughter's radio station. we hear the same three songs when i drive her home from school EVERY day. the kids never get tired of them. HOW can this be. they drive me CRAZY. anything can be overplayed. just play it every day.
-
Brahms
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
which brahms pieces could you possibly overrate?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
which brahms pieces could you possibly overrate?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
If he is even mentioned, he is overrated. 8)
-
I think a lot of the "big name" composers are overplayed, and some are also overrated. The two that particularly irritate me are Mozart (in terms of piano music) and Schumann (in general).
I thoroughly detest the manner in which many recital programs are so conformist; I think this is intellectual laziness and lack of musical curiosity. There is so much almost unknown repertoire out there which is music of a very acceptable level, and yet it seems that almost none of it is ever performed. Are Liszt's Transcendental Etudes so much better than Liapunov's? Is Tausig's Ungarische Zigeunerwiesen so much worse than Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies? Are Chopin's piano concerti so much better than Henselt's concerto? Etc, etc.
-
Is Tausig's Ungarische Zigeunerwiesen so much worse than Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies?
In my humble opinion, it is better.
Thal
-
All pop music is overplayed and overrated. It's all crap and you hear it ALLL THE TIME and people pay five times for one of those concerts as they would for Cleveland Orchestra or Murray Perahia.
All classical music--mozart, chopin, everyone....are all underplayed and underrated if you take into account the fact that there are 6 billion people in the world, and they've all probably heard of the beatles yet couldn't tell you how many symphonies beethoven wrote.
-
Also... Wagner. lol
-
I think a lot of the "big name" composers are overplayed, and some are also overrated. The two that particularly irritate me are Mozart (in terms of piano music) and Schumann (in general).
I thoroughly detest the manner in which many recital programs are so conformist; I think this is intellectual laziness and lack of musical curiosity. There is so much almost unknown repertoire out there which is music of a very acceptable level, and yet it seems that almost none of it is ever performed. Are Liszt's Transcendental Etudes so much better than Liapunov's? Is Tausig's Ungarische Zigeunerwiesen so much worse than Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies? Are Chopin's piano concerti so much better than Henselt's concerto? Etc, etc.
The Tausig and Liapounov are sweeeet, i don't know if they are better than the liszt one though. But they should be played way more often that's for sure (Also the Tausig/Weber Invitation to dance)
Henselt Concerto is better than the 2nd Chopin concerto I would say.
Henselt's Concerto is probably one of my favorite along with the 'regulars'.
Also, Wagner and Mahler would be my pick.and Shostakovitch should stick with non-piano-solo work.
-
If he is even mentioned, he is overrated. 8)
what do u mean by that??? i cant believe thats coming from someone with rach in their name.
-
All pop music is overplayed and overrated. It's all crap and you hear it ALLL THE TIME and people pay five times for one of those concerts as they would for Cleveland Orchestra or Murray Perahia.
All classical music--mozart, chopin, everyone....are all underplayed and underrated if you take into account the fact that there are 6 billion people in the world, and they've all probably heard of the beatles yet couldn't tell you how many symphonies beethoven wrote.
It's supply and demand.
Popular music is art, just on a simpler scale, and popular music is superior in it's form, if superior means the amount of people it can be enjoyed by and moved by.
Superiority and inferiority aside from subjectivity can only be judged in any absolute way by ascertaining what cause they are superior at achieving.
-
It's supply and demand.
But that's business, not art.
Popular music is art, just on a simpler scale, and popular music is superior in it's form, if superior means the amount of people it can be enjoyed by and moved by.
By that token Telemann is a superior composer then Bach, since he was by far the most popular and 'readily enjoyable' in his own time. I'd call superior something that is more readily enjoyed by people of distinction rather then the masses.
-
Schumann overrated???? what?
I think Liszt tends to be overrated...and overplayed...but honestly no 'classical' music is over-anything today...except overly criticized...
-
I adore Schumann's symphonies - I think they are thoroughly successful in realizing classical ideals using the full resource of the symphony orchestra. I wish I could say the same about his piano works. I'm at loss as to why the Fantasy op. 17 or Sonata op. 22 are considered masterpieces. If they're not overplayed, they are certainly overrated in my book.
-
It's supply and demand.
Completely true.
In the 1830's the composer Francois Hunten sold more sheet music than Liszt and Chopin put together.
Now (apart from me), who plays Hunten?
Thal
-
In the 1830s, Liszt was hardly the serious composer he came to be.
;).
Chopin was a great composer, but his works were out of the reach of the technically hampered public. Might these factors have played roles?
-
Undoubtedly that was part of the reason.
The piano was the main source of entertainment in that period, especially in Paris where it has been estimated that there were 25,000 piano's in the 1830's.
The works of Liszt and Chopin were out of the reach of the average piano player and Hunten filled the gap and made a fortune with his easy to play whistle along to little ditties.
He was perhaps the Kylie Minogue of his day.
Thal
-
Brahms
ok i still have to pinch myself to make sure i'm really seeing this. you were joking werent you?
-
ok i still have to pinch myself to make sure i'm really seeing this. you were joking werent you?
Soliliquy dislikes Brahms because he didn't compose most of his music after 1925.
;)
-
I can understand you saying that Mozart is overplayed, even though I disagree, but overrated??? I know it's cliche, but you can't disregard the incredible brilliance of the Requiem. Also, the 'dissonance' quartet is so far ahead of its time it could almost be late Beethoven. His genius is incomprehensible.
As for my most overrated composer, probs a tie between Handel, Liszt (suicide on a piano forum, I know) and Sibelius.
-
Over-rated - Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Over-played - Chopin. If I had just one grain of rice for every unnecessary or plain Bad performance I've heard of poor Frederic's music......
-
OH my god, I can't believe I didn't say Andrew Lloyd Webber, I agree completely!!!
-
Soliliquy dislikes Brahms because he didn't compose most of his music after 1925.
;)
to be honest i don't think brahms composed any of his music after 1925
-
By that token Telemann is a superior composer then Bach, since he was by far the most popular and 'readily enjoyable' in his own time. I'd call superior something that is more readily enjoyed by people of distinction rather then the masses.
That's interesting, and certainly a viable viewpoint, but it's also elitist, and who is to say who the people of distinction are..?
Telemann is an incredible composer, his melodic gift and fluidity shows a gift greater than Bach in that respect.
Bach was a guru and an architect, but I certainly wouldn't say he was the greatest tune-writer of his day.
-
mozart is very overrated
i dont think he is overrated. i would agree that some works are overplayed, but i don't think mozart could ever be called overrated. he was a genius!
-
He is often considered among the 'big 3', and rating him that high is overrating him IMO.
Noones saying he wasn't a genius...
It'd be interesting to see what he'd be like as a romantic composer, born up to 100 years later.
-
Right, remember, Mozart's keyboard was way less than 88-keys; it wasn't until Beethoven that keyboards started to get larger (in terms of added keys).
Size maybe ain't everything, but it helps.
-
Beethoven is overplayed especially in exams&competitions
-
and who is to say who the people of distinction are..?
Other people of distinction, of course. And what's wrong with elitism?
Telemann is an incredible composer, his melodic gift and fluidity shows a gift greater than Bach in that respect.
Too bad 99% of Telemann's melodies are wholly forgettable. What's the point of having a high melodic gift if you can't be bothered to write something meant to last more then a few listening?
-
Completely true.
In the 1830's the composer Francois Hunten sold more sheet music than Liszt and Chopin put together.
Now (apart from me), who plays Hunten?
Thal
I think he's an ancestor of mine even. Though I have never played something by him, I admit. Btw do you know Julius Weismann? He is also an ancestor of mine. Underrated in my opinion. I love his "Lullaby". And his "Fugenbaum" is a very interesting piano work.
-
I find myself in complete agreement with soliloquy.
In addition, Schumann should be wiped off the face of the earth and completely erased from history.
Thal
Absolutely not!! Have you heard his Cello compositions?? You ain't heard nothing, mate!
-
He is often considered among the 'big 3', and rating him that high is overrating him IMO.
Noones saying he wasn't a genius...
It'd be interesting to see what he'd be like as a romantic composer, born up to 100 years later.
Agree
The greatest thing he ever composed was his fugue in D major and that is the only thing that is up there with the greatest works by Bach and Beethoven if you ask me
The only reording I found of it is the one below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGSGMJMX7p8
-
I'd call superior something that is more readily enjoyed by people of distinction rather then the masses.
Write a pop* song.
Granted, there is a lot of tripe in that genre that is put out with the sole intention of sounding like whatever the 'flavour of the month' in the charts is, but I'll bet there were as many classical pieces written and discarded as there are bad pop* tunes released solely to sell records to idiots then forgotten in a month.
There have been MANY extremely talented and deservedly popular artists however, who are no less 'sophisticated' than composers of classical music.
*I'm grouping all 'popular music' under this name, not just 'chart pop'.
-
I find myself in complete agreement with soliloquy.
In addition, Schumann should be wiped off the face of the earth and completely erased from history.
Thal
a bit harsh maybe? i like the op 17 fantasie, and the fantasy pieces for cello (/clarinet) & piano.
however in my opinion clara schumann was much better
-
If you think Brahms is a bad composer I think you should see a shrink ::)
What are some good pieces by Brahms =p, imo they're all inferior to Chopin.
-
What are some good pieces by Brahms =p, imo they're all inferior to Chopin.
piano quartet op. 25? Piano pieces Op. 117 - Op. 119? Rhapsodies Op. 79? Piano Concerto No. 2? The piano concerto alone is better than both the Chopin Concerti in my opinion
It's still a matter of opinion.
Tom
-
What are some good pieces by Brahms =p, imo they're all inferior to Chopin.
WHAAAAT. i cant think of a single chopin work that is superior to any brahms. perhaps ballade 4 is better than some of the lesser known miniatures.
but brahms op 117-119 is godly, chopin doesnt come near it
-
He is often considered among the 'big 3', and rating him that high is overrating him IMO.
Noones saying he wasn't a genius...
It'd be interesting to see what he'd be like as a romantic composer, born up to 100 years later.
just out of interest who would you say were the top 3?
mine would be bach beethoven & brahms
-
just out of interest who would you say were the top 3?
mine would be bach beethoven & brahms
There would probably be a difference between top composers, and top "piano composers".
To mention Bach,mozart and beethoven. I concider them the tops, but for piano, i find bach and mozart less intresting IMO. I would play them in early years for tecnical exercises, but later i would move more toward chopin, liszt and rachmaninov...(my top 3 piano composers) beethoven is top composer, but for piano, im not totally sure.
Liszt, rachmaninov and chopin is all much overplayed.
Clementi is much underrated. I read that in competitions between clementi and mozart, they would get tied. Witch clementi would be concidered as great as mozart.
Other very underrated composers: Stephen heller, chaminade, alkan, jensen adolf, and griegs more unknown works etc etc.
-
well ok obviously bach wrote for harpsichord, but id still say that beethoven & brahms were top. maybe liszt then.
-
Grieg is definitely underrated. And next year is the Grieg centennial; everyone play Grieg!
I would say that Liszt is a very important piano composer, as is Chopin; even though they may be considered overplayed and/or overrated, piano music was completely different after them.
Brahms, overrated?!!
-
wow next year ? good ive been wanting to learn the holberg suite for ages, such a fabulous set of pieces.
if we're talking outside of piano. ..
i would go with beethoven purcell and mahler
-
its unusual. I just saw garrick ohlsson performing Brahms 2, and my auntie didn't enjoy it as much as the Schumann Rhenish symphony. It sounded like the charge of the light brigades in the second movement to me. I almost cried within the first 30seconds of the Brahms. She didn't like it so much.
How come I wonder? Is it just the immediacy of the appeal? Are the melodies to long and drawn out in the brahms? i struggle to understand, because im just in love with the brahms. The chinese man next to me conducted to himself throughout the whole piece.
Stunning performance for me... its also going to be broadcast on radio later if you are interested.
Tom
-
some of these comments by elevateme are utter rubbish
-
Soliliquy dislikes Brahms because he didn't compose most of his music after 1925.
;)
Right. That's why I also hate Liszt, Chopin, Scarlatti etc. ::) ::)
I hate Brahms because his music is pedestrian, simple and obvious. Brahms is the romantic-era equivelant of a highschool course in Harmony, with about as much structural and harmonic creativity as Vaughn Williams on his worse days.
-
Liszt, rachmaninov and chopin is all much overplayed.
Ultimately, a lot of composers can become "overplayed" when people insist on trotting out the same old pieces time and time again. In Liszt's case, that would especially be HR2 and Liebestraume no.3.
-
Brahms is the romantic-era equivelant of a highschool course in Harmony, with about as much structural and harmonic creativity as Vaughn Williams on his worse days.
Bit of an insult to Williams, but accurate.
Thal
-
Thalberg was of course a better composer than Brahms ::)
-
Thalberg was of course a better composer than Brahms ::)
Indeed he was not, but he is hardly overplayed is he.
Thal
-
Thalberg was of course a better composer than Brahms ::)
Indeed he was not, but he is hardly overplayed is he.
Thal
Only by me ;D
-
Indeed he was not, but he is hardly overplayed is he.
Thal
That I can agree upon.
I have a recording of Hamelin playing Thalberg's Fantaisie I - Sur Les Huguenots de Meyerbeer op 20. It is a kickass piece, particulary the allegretto section. I can give you the recording if you don't have it already.
-
some of these comments by elevateme are utter rubbish
*** you. im expressing my opinion. which comments are rubbish?
we were talking composers that werent piano based, right?
well, i think for orchestral, beethoven and mahler are top. maybe mozart jupiter fits in there, but its only one piece.
and for choral, purcell. listen to works like the music for death of queen mary. or in particular the anthem hear my prayer o lord.
the other one i said was for piano, (or harpsichord..) bach, beethoven and brahms
thats because in my opinion, the WTC books, the beethoven late sonatas and brahms op 118 and 119 are the greatest things written for the keyboard. in my opinion.
so whats utter rubbish about any of that?
please, do go ahead, correct me on my own opinion. who are the greatest 3 then oh master of all musical knowledge. who copies chopin studies for his own compositions
-
Right. That's why I also hate Liszt, Chopin, Scarlatti etc. ::) ::)
I hate Brahms because his music is pedestrian, simple and obvious. Brahms is the romantic-era equivelant of a highschool course in Harmony, with about as much structural and harmonic creativity as Vaughn Williams on his worse days.
but the simplicity is the beauty of it. the late pieces work as a set, one after the other, from 118 - 119. on their own, they dont have the same effect . brahms' music is hardly obvious though.
-
but the simplicity is the beauty of it. the late pieces work as a set, one after the other, from 118 - 119. on their own, they dont have the same effect . brahms' music is hardly obvious though.
Ah well then we are going to be disagreeing simply on the aesthetic, as I personally rarely enjoy simple and motivicly repetitive pieces of the romantic era, no matter who the composer is. I know a lot of people do like that, but they simply don't elicit any real emotional reaction from me other than "when will this piece be over?" It might be because I have a slightly short attention span ^^; I would much prefer to listen to say, the Liszt Ballade No. 2, with all of its twists and turns and layers and myriad of ideas, than a Brahms Sonata, that seems to only produce one idea per movement, if you know what I mean.
-
Right. That's why I also hate Liszt, Chopin, Scarlatti etc. ::) ::)
I hate Brahms because his music is pedestrian, simple and obvious. Brahms is the romantic-era equivelant of a highschool course in Harmony, with about as much structural and harmonic creativity as Vaughn Williams on his worse days.
but the simplicity is the beauty of it. the late pieces work as a set, one after the other, from 118 - 119. on their own, they dont have the same effect . brahms' music is hardly obvious though.
What are you two talking about? 85% of Liszt's output is far more simple, pedestrian, and obvious than Brahms'.
-
What are you two talking about? 85% of Liszt's output is far more simple, pedestrian, and obvious than Brahms'.
Specifics plz.
-
What are you two talking about? 85% of Liszt's output is far more simple, pedestrian, and obvious than Brahms'.
hey, i didnt say brahms was more simple than liszt. all i said was that the simplicity of 118 -119 is the beauty of it, because they are perfectly written pieces when next to one another.
even though i prefer liszt to chopin, im not a big liszt fan.
-
some of these comments by elevateme are utter rubbish
come on then ! whats rubbish?
-
even though i prefer liszt to chopin
The absurdity of this thread never seem to end...
-
The absurdity of this thread never seem to end...
how? i dont understand whats absurd about the quote you posted
-
What are some good pieces by Brahms =p, imo they're all inferior to Chopin.
Erm....the late pieces? the concerto's are better than Chopins concerto's imo.
Thalberg was of course a better composer than Brahms ::)
hahahahahahahaha yes of course. Thats why Thalberg is known to non pianists as well as Brahms. Have you even heard a Brahms symphony? The cello sonata? The VIOLIN SONATAS?????? Brahms op116-119? Op76? The concerto's? And thalberg has to offer??? some riddiculous "virtuosic" transcriptions of crap pieces.
That I can agree upon.
I have a recording of Hamelin playing Thalberg's Fantaisie I - Sur Les Huguenots de Meyerbeer op 20. It is a kickass piece, particulary the allegretto section. I can give you the recording if you don't have it already.
yes kickass piece, not sublime like Brahms.
Most overplayed doesn't mean bad, I wish people would realise that. If anything, the Hammerklavier is underplayed. How many people do we see playing that?? How many people here could sing the middle section of the 3rd movement from memory right now? this very second.
What are you two talking about? 85% of Liszt's output is far more simple, pedestrian, and obvious than Brahms'.
Most of liszt's compositions are simple. Hungarian rhapsody's, etudes, concerto's, the transcriptions, schubert songs....compared with most of Brahms. Have you ever done an analysis class on Brahms? You'll soon find that he was very clever and incredibly complex.
-
franzliszt2 are you joking!?
Of course I think Brahms as acomposer is about 1000 times better than Thalberg. The rolling of the eyes should make it clear that i was being sarcastic.
But I still think that some of Thalberg's operatic fantasies are great and should be played more.
Brahms' Concertos alone make him one of the best composers of all time.
-
although im not a fan of the last movement of the 2nd... its kinda sh*t
-
franzliszt2 are you joking!?
Of course I think Brahms as acomposer is about 1000 times better than Thalberg. The rolling of the eyes should make it clear that i was being sarcastic.
But I still think that some of Thalberg's operatic fantasies are great and should be played more.
Brahms' Concertos alone make him one of the best composers of all time.
oh sorry. I missunderstood you hehe. I didn't see the rolling of the eyes. :)
-
Beethoven.
Seriously, I don't see why he's so effin great anyway. Plus EVERYONE plays Beethoven even if it's that god-fosaken piece of crap Fur Elise.
I hate beethoven with a passion, bach isn't great either though, but most people feel that way, so very few in my area play him for enjoyment (although most of his fugues are delightful)
-
Specifics plz.
Here's your answer.
Most of liszt's compositions are simple. Hungarian rhapsody's, etudes, concerto's, the transcriptions, schubert songs....compared with most of Brahms. Have you ever done an analysis class on Brahms? You'll soon find that he was very clever and incredibly complex.
-
hey, i didnt say brahms was more simple than liszt. all i said was that the simplicity of 118 -119 is the beauty of it, because they are perfectly written pieces when next to one another.
even though i prefer liszt to chopin, im not a big liszt fan.
Actually, if I count the number of Liszt pieces I like, it's far more than the number of Chopin pieces I like.
-
Beethoven.
Seriously, I don't see why he's so effin great anyway. Plus EVERYONE plays Beethoven even if it's that god-fosaken piece of crap Fur Elise.
I hate beethoven with a passion, bach isn't great either though, but most people feel that way, so very few in my area play him for enjoyment (although most of his fugues are delightful)
Beethoven? ok thats bad enough but BACH!!!!!!!
-
Beethoven? ok thats bad enough but BACH!!!!!!!
The line has been drawn. Back away from my B's please.
Mozart is underrated, as is Bach and so is Beethoven. Liszt is underrated. I'd say. Too often his weakest pieces are treated as if they were his best.
-
Beethoven.
Seriously, I don't see why he's so effin great anyway. Plus EVERYONE plays Beethoven even if it's that god-fosaken piece of crap Fur Elise.
I hate beethoven with a passion, bach isn't great either though, but most people feel that way, so very few in my area play him for enjoyment (although most of his fugues are delightful)
Don't be hatin' on da Brotha
-
Beethoven? ok thats bad enough but BACH!!!!!!!
Hear hear!
-
Actually, if I count the number of Liszt pieces I like, it's far more than the number of Chopin pieces I like.
Maybe it has to do with the fact Liszt lived nearly twice as long as the former. Even then, i still rank Chopin much higher, which says something about both composers...
-
Beethoven.
Seriously, I don't see why he's so effin great anyway. Plus EVERYONE plays Beethoven even if it's that god-fosaken piece of crap Fur Elise.
I hate beethoven with a passion, bach isn't great either though, but most people feel that way, so very few in my area play him for enjoyment (although most of his fugues are delightful)
what have you been smoking...
-
I might add a few comments of my own concerning my tastes. I personally love most of the maybe "overplayed" or well known composers, but I have never really known them for being popular in the sense that I hardly ever meet anyone who knows them.
I suppose that's back to the comment about pop music compared to classical.
Second I don't see composers individually as over or underrated, some are just played far more than others, possibly because they are more musical, possibly because they had better connections, publicity whatever. I always look at individual pieces for their interest, and tyr to find new ways of looking at them which make sense to me, even if they are overplayed such as the Pathetique.
Rachmaninoff was criticised by a lot of his fellow music students for adhering to cliches, I suppsoe like Andrew Loyd Webber today possibly, but there is so much depth and intensity to his music which in loyed Weber is just slushy and sentimental.
I can understand why people don't like Bach or Mozart, but being born in Austria it means so much to me to hear music by these composers, so simple, yet so heartfelt, true to their thoughts. What I hate is some people here in England for instance who just go "Brahms is crap" on the basis of one symphony, and stick to that opinion until they find the absolutely best example of his stuff.
A very important thing to remember is that often composers were churning out music in great quantities to earn a living, they had no time to be vastly original or try to develop new styles. A true work of genius could not stand on its own if there wasn't an ocean of musically interesting but perhaps just entertaining music available. Another thing I find bad is how pieces are learnt for such a long long LONG time, done to death, so that it is completely unspontaneous and it takes forever to acquire repertoire.
my jazz piano teacher interestingly was also saying that music today is far too technical, and not enough of the heart. So that is possibly why many composers are discarded as overrated because there is no time and space to enjoy them in all their richnnes and context than just simply for intensely crammed pieces.
-
what have you been smoking...
what???? i said i like beethoven and bach, and you said "what a load of rubbish"
this guy says he DOESNT like them, and you say "what have you been smoking.." !!!
when are you gona learn not to go with the crowd. make your own decisions
-
Actually, if I count the number of Liszt pieces I like, it's far more than the number of Chopin pieces I like.
same here! i find chopin to be a bit boring sometimes. but some pieces are fabulous. in my opinion the 24 preludes are the best things he wrote. each one a gem... well.. almost each one
-
Here's your answer.
That's not even close to an answer. I HAVE done harmony analysis on works of both composers of course, and it is completely... well a total lie to say Liszt's music is less harmonically complex than Brahms'. That statement is utterly absurd. The fact that he lists some pieces by Liszt doesn't mean anything at all; it just means he can list pieces. I can copy/paste the entire works of Brahms into here and say "these pieces are simple", and my argument would be equally as valid as that trash.
-
Beethoven.
Seriously, I don't see why he's so effin great anyway. Plus EVERYONE plays Beethoven even if it's that god-fosaken piece of crap Fur Elise.
I hate beethoven with a passion, bach isn't great either though, but most people feel that way, so very few in my area play him for enjoyment (although most of his fugues are delightful)
i had this impression before i played any, but i'm liking it more now. His 3rd concerto is one of my favourites...
Tom
-
That's not even close to an answer. I HAVE done harmony analysis on works of both composers of course, and it is completely... well a total lie to say Liszt's music is less harmonically complex than Brahms'. That statement is utterly absurd. The fact that he lists some pieces by Liszt doesn't mean anything at all; it just means he can list pieces. I can copy/paste the entire works of Brahms into here and say "these pieces are simple", and my argument would be equally as valid as that trash.
what about brahms' canons ? have you harmonically analysed those?
-
That's not even close to an answer. I HAVE done harmony analysis on works of both composers of course, and it is completely... well a total lie to say Liszt's music is less harmonically complex than Brahms'. That statement is utterly absurd. The fact that he lists some pieces by Liszt doesn't mean anything at all; it just means he can list pieces. I can copy/paste the entire works of Brahms into here and say "these pieces are simple", and my argument would be equally as valid as that trash.
its hard to sum up the entire works of both composers into a who is more harmonically advanced argument. franz was just naming liszt pieces that are simple harmonically in comparison to brahms.
i feel like good music is like a good essay. . its hard to describe why it's good... it just seems to flow. brahms seems to do that a lot more for me than liszt.
-
its hard to sum up the entire works of both composers into a who is more harmonically advanced argument. franz was just naming liszt pieces that are simple harmonically in comparison to brahms.
i feel like good music is like a good essay. . its hard to describe why it's good... it just seems to flow. brahms seems to do that a lot more for me than liszt.
Franz's list is almost as ridiculous as his claim; I would be very hard-pressed to find someone to agree with him when he says that works like Chasse-Neige or Fusees, or Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12, or certainly Piano Concerto No. 2 are harmonically plebeian. And keep in mind, he is listing some of the more encore-type pieces, not the masterworks such as the Sonata, Venezia e Napole, the Harmonies Poetiques et Religiouse, Annees des Pelerinage, Ballade No. 2 etc. Also, the transcriptions? How absurd; would the harmonies in his transcriptions not be the harmonies of OTHER composers? Are you willing to agree with him when he says that, for instance, the harmonies of WAGNER are simple? When someone says something as stupid as that, they lose any/all credit in my mind, and his statement as to having analysed the works of Liszt becomes incredibly suspect.
As far as the second part of your statement, perhaps Brahms' music is more like an essay, but shouldn't music be poetry? Brahms' music, for the most part, just plugs along, concluding in only the ways we could expect from the metaphorical thesis it presents in its first paragraph, with the occasional quickly-resolving, ear-pleasing suspension and appoggiatura here and there in the middle. Liszt's music sings, Brahms' music talks. I think you summed it up quite well.
-
Liszt's music sings, Brahms' music talks. I think you summed it up quite well.
As far as the second part of your statement, perhaps Brahms' music is more like an essay, but shouldn't music be poetry?
yes soliloquy thats EXACTLY what i wanted to say. youre so perceptive. ::)
i dislike liszt apart from a few pieces. i like all brahms except last mvt of 2nd piano concerto.
also, to me im an english student, a perfect essay is waaay more beautiful than perfect poetry. essays are a LOT harder to write. remember that.
-
Franz's list
seriously did no one notice that ^^ ?? PUN
-
i dislike liszt apart from a few pieces. i like all brahms except last mvt of 2nd piano concerto.
also, to me im an english student, a perfect essay is waaay more beautiful than perfect poetry. essays are a LOT harder to write. remember that.
Well, thats your opinion, not a fact.
As for this discussion, Liszt and Brahms are too different. Soliloquy summed it up quite nicely. Some people prefer Brahms because the music speaks to them in a way that no other composer does. The same for Liszt.
And claiming either composer has poor harmonic structure, well, that really shows a clear lack of understanding, and disrespect towards the composer and his followers.
But of course, given the same thematic material as Brahms had, im sure you could do much much better, no?
-
i never claimed either had poor harmonic structure.
and thats not actually what soliloquy said, he actually said "liszt sings, brahms speaks."
BIASED
-
Do you even know yourself what you are saying? For an english student you sure dont express yourself very clearly.
-
Look, Brahms and Liszt were actually extremely similar if you get hardcore into analysis. Brahms' canonic imitation is often dry, though superb. At the same time, Liszt's use of sequences is just as sophisticated as Brahms'.
I don't like all of Liszt, but I love much of it. Brahms is different.
Let's stop hammering both.
Thanks,
Dan
-
Do you even know yourself what you are saying? For an english student you sure dont express yourself very clearly.
----
-
look, its hard to describe in words why brahms is better than liszt, it really is. but let me have one last go.
i KNOW FOR A FACT that these are the 4 composers to have acheived true genius in their lifetime
The 3 Bs and M
Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart. (MAYBE purcell. but many will argue. you have to have heard a lot of purcell to argue mind - if you havent, get out there and listen to some.)
bach for basically everything he wrote, b minor mass , WTC, goldberg etc.
beethoven for symphony no 9 , late string quartets and the late sonatas
brahms for the 1st (and maybe 2nd... minus last mvt) piano concerto, symphonies & late piano pieces
and mozart for the jupiter symphony, in particular the fugal last movement. maybe the requiem too.
because mozart acheived genius at a much earlier age than the others, it makes you wonder how amazing the music he'd have written later in his life would have been had he lived on longer. he really was the greatest prodigy ever.
all the others, what have you, mendelssohn, schubert, chopin, debussy, stravinsky, ravel etc theyve all written fabulous music and its really really good. but i KNOW FOR A FACT THAT its not genius like those 4 giants ^^^^ schubert is close sometimes. well they all are really.
if you dont understand that, or if it's not worded well enough, then sorry. but im SURE thats right
and its not just my opinion, more often than not id much rather listen to liszt than bach.
but i know that bach's music was genius, you can just feel it, its hard to explain, and although people like liszt or chopin's music is brilliant in many ways i just KNOW FOR A FACT THAT its not on the same musical level as bach brahms beethoven or mozart.
-
i consider these 4 composers to have acheived genius in their lifetime
i just dont think its genius like those 4 giants
and its not just my opinion
right..
-
*** off!!! jesus. if you would just be so kind as to read my post properly and not just pick out the nitty bits that might suggest its opinionated you would realise how stupid your reply is!! i really cant be bothered to explain. but what the hell, il do it anyway.
brahms at his best wrote better music than liszt at his best. fact.
IT COULD BE SAID THAT my opinion was that those 4 composers acheived genius. and thats an EXTREMELY valid opinion. probably closer to fact than opinion. others will argue its not true. but what do they know. and more importantly, what does it matter - i know the truth.
and i said "i dont think" and less blatant expressions to try and be polite to you & show more respect. but if you want me to be blatant and obvious then please go ahead and read my modified post ^^^
-
First you write a few sentences about how you think bach, beethoven, brahms and mozart are geniuses. You make various claims about composers that clearly is your opinion and speculation.
Then you claim its not your opinion? Everything you wrote is your own opinion, and its not supported by facts.
-
anyone that thinks otherwise is wrong. FACT.
add purcell to the list of geniuses, but his output is nowhere near as big as those 4.
my favourite composers are scriabin, rachmaninov schubert, etc. brahms too. but bach and beethoven are not top of my playlist.
but i KNOW that those four i mentioned write the best music. even though a lot of it isnt to my taste, i realise, understand and accept that its simply genius.
-
Well, that would mean what you think is best is a fact, wich it isnt. The term "better" is a highly individual claim, wich is supported by our personal opinion.
-
OMG ITS COMMON SENSE MATE
BACH BEETHOVEN BRAHMS MOZART ALL ACHEIVED GENIUS
AND THEY WERE THE ONLY COMPOSERS TO DO IT.
maybe purcell... not quite sure
-
Well, that would mean what you think is best is a fact, wich it isnt. The term "better" is a highly individual claim, wich is supported by our personal opinion.
really. so real madrid are better than doncaster. OMG OPINION OPINION
evgeny kissin has a better technique than me. OMG JUST OPINION MATE JUST OPINION
seriously, to any great musician it should be obvious fact that the music of bach beethoven mozart and brahms is in a different league to all others.
the opinionated stuff comes in the bit where people say, "oh, my favourite piece is so-and-so, or, oh, my favourite composers are so-and-so"
like you can tell that chelsea are better than carlisle, you can tell that bbbm are better than all the rest.
-
You mean BBBL
-
no liszt work is better than last two mozart symphonies
-
Music is not football. A definiton of music could be
Music is an art form consisting of sound and silence expressed through time. Elements of sound as used in music are pitch (including melody and harmony), rhythm (including tempo and meter), and sonic qualities of timbre, articulation, dynamics, and texture.
Now, people experience these elements in different ways, each is individual. You could say that Liszt composed better music then me, but who can really decide that, other then the individual listener? My point is, music is such a personal thing, that putting labels on compositions and comparing them to eachother is simply wrong, and only gives us an idea about how our personal feelings are.
-
no liszt work is better than last two mozart symphonies
I agree
-
if you cant see that bach beethoven brahms and mozart are the best, unlucky. from now on thats your problem.
-
Well if you could convince me as to WHY they are "best", then maybe i could understand you, but you still havent given a single argument of the sort.
-
This guy HAS to be joking.
-
yeaaah man im joking bach is so sh*t!!! how can anyone call that music!!?!?!
and late beethoven!???!! THATS SO sh*t ITS SO SLOW WHERES THE SPEED MAN WHERES THE SPEEEEEED
OMG TELL YOU WHATS MINT WICKED COOL CHOPIN ETUDE OP 10 / NO 4 ITS SO FASST MAN YEAH THATS WHAT YOU CALL REEEAL MUSIC. none of that bach sh*t god bachs rubbish its so slow and boring HAHA FUGUES ANYONE COULD WRITE THOSE BUT NAAA CHOPIN AND LISZT THEYRE THE TRUE GODS OF MUSIC FAST FAST FAST YEAHHHHH
ALSO LISZT HUNGARIAN RHAPSODIES YEAH MAN MAN FAST FAST
ALL STUDIES YEAH YEAH FAST FAST FAST FAST although some are fabulous music.
SONATA IN B MINOR YEAH MAN OCTAVE OCTAVE OCTAVE OCTAVE END!!!!!!! but also a very fine piece.
i wish you could appreciate real music for what it is.....
-
Well if you could convince me as to WHY they are "best", then maybe i could understand you, but you still havent given a single argument of the sort.
on a more serious note nicco im afraid i cant convince you, its just something you will have to realise yourself as your musical taste develops and matures. didnt barenboim once say, whats the point in any other music apart from the well tempered klavier books?
-
no liszt work is better than last two mozart symphonies
Last THREE Mozart Symphonies, I much prefer 39 over the other 2
-
There's a lot of speed in late Beethoven.
And while you're at it, not really much of it in late Liszt.
And I disagree about the last Mozart Symphonies. Besides, we're discussing keyboard compositions. No Mozart keyboard work is greater than the Liszt Sonata.
Dan
-
on a more serious note nicco im afraid i cant convince you, its just something you will have to realise yourself as your musical taste develops and matures. didnt barenboim once say, whats the point in any other music apart from the well tempered klavier books?
Maybe he did, but again, wouldnt that be his opinion? And try looking at how you expose yourself on this forum before you start talking to me about maturity. I can assure you i have more than enough knowledge about all the greatest composers, and refuse to rank anyone other than by my personal taste.
-
then have fun doing that, and i wish you all best for the future x
-
There's a lot of speed in late Beethoven.
And while you're at it, not really much of it in late Liszt.
And I disagree about the last Mozart Symphonies. Besides, we're discussing keyboard compositions. No Mozart keyboard work is greater than the Liszt Sonata.
Dan
i'd say most of the concertos were better.
-
yeaaah man im joking bach is so sh*t!!! how can anyone call that music!!?!?!
and late beethoven!???!! THATS SO sh*t ITS SO SLOW WHERES THE SPEED MAN WHERES THE SPEEEEEED
OMG TELL YOU WHATS MINT WICKED COOL CHOPIN ETUDE OP 10 / NO 4 ITS SO FASST MAN YEAH THATS WHAT YOU CALL REEEAL MUSIC. none of that bach sh*t god bachs rubbish its so slow and boring HAHA FUGUES ANYONE COULD WRITE THOSE BUT NAAA CHOPIN AND LISZT THEYRE THE TRUE GODS OF MUSIC FAST FAST FAST YEAHHHHH
ALSO LISZT HUNGARIAN RHAPSODIES YEAH MAN MAN FAST FAST
ALL STUDIES YEAH YEAH FAST FAST FAST FAST although some are fabulous music.
SONATA IN B MINOR YEAH MAN OCTAVE OCTAVE OCTAVE OCTAVE END!!!!!!! but also a very fine piece.
i wish you could appreciate real music for what it is.....
Kid, you need to log off the internet and get a life. Also a word of advice, the 'play dumb and act sarcastic' trick doesn't work on the internet, it just makes you look like a stupid immature shut in with too many hours logged online.
-
why are you on the internet then? i mean to be honest, its sad enough that we're on a piano forum. i just make comments like that for laughs. internet isnt serious
-
This guy HAS to be joking.
why? bach beethoven brahms and mozart are the best by miles. even though theyre not my favourite
-
Works for keyboard: D. Scarlatti > Mozart. Also Haydn > Mozart.
-
why are you on the internet then?
I've got a cover gig coming up that I need to work on songs for, I've been transcribing/memorizing/practicing them most of today. Since I'm at the computer anyway I check a few forums every 30 mins or so.
its sad enough that we're on a piano forum. i just make comments like that for laughs. internet isnt serious
I have laughs with my real life friends, I come to a piano forum to gain information and insight into piano playing and piano music.
-
what have you been smoking...
Obviously not enough to think that he's any better... 8)
But really, I have yet to hear anything TRULY SPECTACULAR (that isn't overplayed, like the Waldstein, which is overplayed, and thus counts it out)by Beethoven.
Now, i'll give Bach his wonderfulness in fugues, but I draw the line there. There are probably about 3 preludes that I like, and ALL from the WTC.
Now, about Mozart. I heard a piano concerto by him that sucked booty. Really, I like him, but I loathe some of his music.
-
yeaaah man im joking bach is so sh*t!!! how can anyone call that music!!?!?!
and late beethoven!???!! THATS SO sh*t ITS SO SLOW WHERES THE SPEED MAN WHERES THE SPEEEEEED
OMG TELL YOU WHATS MINT WICKED COOL CHOPIN ETUDE OP 10 / NO 4 ITS SO FASST MAN YEAH THATS WHAT YOU CALL REEEAL MUSIC. none of that bach sh*t god bachs rubbish its so slow and boring HAHA FUGUES ANYONE COULD WRITE THOSE BUT NAAA CHOPIN AND LISZT THEYRE THE TRUE GODS OF MUSIC FAST FAST FAST YEAHHHHH
ALSO LISZT HUNGARIAN RHAPSODIES YEAH MAN MAN FAST FAST
ALL STUDIES YEAH YEAH FAST FAST FAST FAST although some are fabulous music.
SONATA IN B MINOR YEAH MAN OCTAVE OCTAVE OCTAVE OCTAVE END!!!!!!! but also a very fine piece.
i wish you could appreciate real music for what it is.....
LOL!!!!!! You should be a comedian.
This whole thread is pretty funny actually. It's true no one has given any arguments for WHY anything is good or bad.
I can give arguments. I'm just too tired.
-
Beethoven.
Seriously, I don't see why he's so effin great anyway.
I agree about the Early Beethoven. The first true masterpiece he did was Pathetique I think. His Symphonies and Pianoconcertos may be a bit overrated too
The last String Quartets https://www.unheardbeethoven.org/midis/woo62gp1.mid and his unfinished piano trio in F-minor https://www.unheardbeethoven.org/search/search.pl?piece=biam637.mid are milestones in the music history without any doubt
-
I have laughs with my real life friends, I come to a piano forum to gain information and insight into piano playing and piano music.
ok, me too. heres your info for today : bach beethoven brahms and mozart are the 4 greatest composers ever.
-
Beethoven.
Seriously, I don't see why he's so effin great anyway.
are you ACTUALLY SHITTING ON MY HEAD. have you any idea how genius he was?!?!?!?!
he wrote the last 5 sonatas and the last symphony (or last two) when he was COMPLETELY STONE DEAF.
i really really do feel sorry for you man. youre missing out
-
thal has a point, I mean who on earth is hunten? its interesting to see how composers popular in their day don't seem to last post-mordem whearas the ones that were under appreciated in life are loved and worshipped in death.
-
i just KNOW FOR A FACT THAT its not on the same musical level as bach brahms beethoven or mozart.
If you know it "for a fact" it shouldn't be difficult for you to tell us on which objective criteria you state it. Please try...
-
If you know it "for a fact" it shouldn't be difficult for you to tell us on which objective criteria you state it. Please try...
Dont bother. I tried asking for any argument that proves this "fact" of his, but no matter how certain he seems to be he has no way of explaining why.
-
I agree about the Early Beethoven. The first true masterpiece he did was Pathetique I think. His Symphonies and Pianoconcertos may be a bit overrated too
The last String Quartets https://www.unheardbeethoven.org/midis/woo62gp1.mid and his unfinished piano trio in F-minor https://www.unheardbeethoven.org/search/search.pl?piece=biam637.mid are milestones in the music history without any doubt
COME ON!!!!!!!! PATHETIQUE HIS FIRST MASTERPIECE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA SYMPHONIES AND PIANO CONCERTOS OVERATED!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW CAN ANYONE SAY THAT???? ARE YOU DEAF? Have you heard his 3rd symphony? 4th? 5th?( stupid question but I wouldn't be suprised if some people here hadn't) th? 7th? 8th? 9th?
-
Kid, you need to log off the internet and get a life. Also a word of advice, the 'play dumb and act sarcastic' trick doesn't work on the internet, it just makes you look like a stupid immature shut in with too many hours logged online.
yeh go listen to his scarbo and then come back with the argument.
-
There's a lot of speed in late Beethoven.
And while you're at it, not really much of it in late Liszt.
And I disagree about the last Mozart Symphonies. Besides, we're discussing keyboard compositions. No Mozart keyboard work is greater than the Liszt Sonata.
Dan
I totally disagree. Most mozart is better than Liszt sonata. Last mozart symphies are just mindblowing. Look at the fugue in the Jupiter symphony!!! Genius
-
COME ON!!!!!!!! PATHETIQUE HIS FIRST MASTERPIECE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA SYMPHONIES AND PIANO CONCERTOS OVERATED!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW CAN ANYONE SAY THAT???? ARE YOU DEAF? Have you heard his 3rd symphony? 4th? 5th?( stupid question but I wouldn't be suprised if some people here hadn't) th? 7th? 8th? 9th?
Errr, the Patetique was written before the 3rd Symphonie...
-
WHEN THE HELL DID I SAY IT WASN'T????
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I SUPPOSE I ALSO MEANT THAT ALL 5 PIANO CONCERTO'S WERE AS WELL?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I totally disagree. Most mozart is better than Liszt sonata. Last mozart symphies are just mindblowing. Look at the fugue in the Jupiter symphony!!! Genius
exactly. its like 5 or 6 parts or something that round off to a massive finish. mozart was so so young when he wrote this as well, thats why hes the real biggest prodigy. and while the liszt sonata is much more pianistic than any of mozart's keyboard works, mozart was the better musician because of his output of higher musical quality
-
WHEN THE HELL DID I SAY IT WASN'T????
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I SUPPOSE I ALSO MEANT THAT ALL 5 PIANO CONCERTO'S WERE AS WELL?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First of all, please for the lvoe of God, stop typing post like that.
Your original post wich you also posted in that manner confused me. When you wrote that you found it hard to belive that the Patetique was his first real masterpiece, and started to list lots of other pieces I assumed that you ment that you thought they were masterpieces written before the Opus.13 Sonata.
Try to write more understandable post.
-
Please for the love of God stop inventing things!! How could you misundertsand it? Seems pretty simple to me. He said that the piano concerto's and symphonies were poverated thats what I was getting at AFTER my comment on pathetique.
-
you see, what you should have said just then franz was "apology accepted" oh, wait there wasnt one
-
Please for the love of God stop inventing things!! How could you misundertsand it? Seems pretty simple to me. He said that the piano concerto's and symphonies were poverated thats what I was getting at AFTER my comment on pathetique.
I already said that I missunderstood what you wrote, by saying that I admit that I was wrong. Ok?
And stop using more than one question - or exlamation marks at a time.
-
Schubert--he just bores the crap out of me.
-
And stop using more than one question - or exlamation marks at a time.
to be fair, that should definitely be allowed!!!!!!!
shouldnt it???????
-
Schubert--he just bores the crap out of me.
he used to for me. now i enjoy his sonatas. Especially 960, 850 (probably my favourite), 784, and 959. His wanderer fantasie isnt bad either...
Tom
-
to be fair, that should definitely be allowed!!!!!!!
shouldnt it???????
No.
-
i dont really understand what the problem is with them!!!!!!!!
could you explain ? ? ? ?? ? ?
-
Schubert--he just bores the crap out of me.
impromptus & moments musicaux are nice.
but the string quintet has to be the best thing he wrote... masterpiece
-
... stravinsky, ravel etc theyve all written fabulous music and its really really good. but i KNOW FOR A FACT THAT its not genius like those 4 giants ....
How can Stravinsky's rite of spring not be a work of genius? Have you heard Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe?
-
i dont really understand what the problem is with them!!!!!!!!
could you explain ? ? ? ?? ? ?
It looks childiss, and anyone who writes like that loses any dignity. Pluss it is not allowed.
-
impromptus & moments musicaux are nice.
but the string quintet has to be the best thing he wrote... masterpiece
surely you cant beat the brahms g minor quartet?
Tom
-
surely you cant. but i was talking about schubert!! but i agree. brahms is better
-
How can Stravinsky's rite of spring not be a work of genius? Have you heard Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe?
sorry, i didnt make it clear. maybe it is genius (rite of spring) actually it probably is, perhaps because nothing had ever been done like it at the time. but not genius like the 4 giants of music i mentioned. genius, but at a lower level
-
Kid, you need to log off the internet and get a life. Also a word of advice, the 'play dumb and act sarcastic' trick doesn't work on the internet, it just makes you look like a stupid immature shut in with too many hours logged online.
there you go, "kid" https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,24966.0.html
do you think youre cool calling me "kid" ? i reckon you look kind of stupid without intending to.
how does a sarcastic comment make you look like you spend too many hours on the internet ? i dont spend that much time. too much revision to do. and fests at friends houses. i could have just come on for 5 minutes, made a sarcastic comment and logged off.
-
yeaaah man im joking bach is so sh*t!!! how can anyone call that music!!?!?!
and late beethoven!???!! THATS SO sh*t ITS SO SLOW WHERES THE SPEED MAN WHERES a
OMG TELL YOU WHATS MINT WICKED COOL CHOPIN ETUDE OP 10 / NO 4 ITS SO FASST MAN YEAH THATS WHAT YOU CALL REEEAL MUSIC. none of that bach sh*t god bachs rubbish its so slow and boring HAHA FUGUES ANYONE COULD WRITE THOSE BUT NAAA CHOPIN AND LISZT THEYRE THE TRUE GODS OF MUSIC FAST FAST FAST YEAHHHHH
ALSO LISZT HUNGARIAN RHAPSODIES YEAH MAN MAN FAST FAST
ALL STUDIES YEAH YEAH FAST FAST FAST FAST although some are fabulous music.
SONATA IN B MINOR YEAH MAN OCTAVE OCTAVE OCTAVE OCTAVE END!!!!!!! but also a very fine piece.
i wish you could appreciate real music for what it is.....
ROFTLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if there was room id so save that into my sig
-
overplayed: chopin or beethoven
overrated: no idea
-
I'd sometimes like to know how old some of the users here are because the mental age of most of this thread doesn't seem to be much above 5
-
16. just done gcses
-
just done gcses
Post-exam stress ;D
-
omg tell me about it. lol my last exam is actually on thursday, but its the only one this week. so im just getting over them
-
let it all out.
-
omg on thursday i will lol
-
ok, me too. heres your info for today : bach beethoven brahms and mozart are the 4 greatest composers ever.
oh please elevateme, don't leave Chopin out. =)
-
Mozart and Liszt.
ihatepop
-
oh please elevateme, don't leave Chopin out. =)
HAHAHAHAHA good one, good one.
-
I wish I was qualifyed to tell which composers are the best ever :'(
-
I wish I was qualifyed to tell which composers are the best ever :'(
Nobody is, even how easy they think scarbo is.
-
funny. nice one nicco, nice one.
-
Ok, I played some Beethoven today, and I gotta admit, the guy had talent, he was very good at what he did, but unfortunately, i CANT SAY THE SAME FOR MOZART!
Chopin, on the other hand, is God. He's beautiful, he's slow and fast in nearly equal amounts (although slow probably wins out) and is sentimental to the point of melodrama. What more could a passionate pianist want?
Bach was good for technique, but like Czerny, I believe he should stay at the bench and not be brought out into the public (except for longer works like chorales and toccattas &c.)
back to beethoven: I agree that his later works are masterpieces (probably because he didn't have his sense of hearing to screw them up like he did his earlier works) and his symphonies, although wonderful, are played SO much that it sucks ALL the delectible taste of the works out.
his concertos are great, hands down.
AND HOW CAN ANYONE HATE ON LISZT? Or nearly anyone else of the romantic period, for that matter? ESPECIALLY Schubert. His sonatas are... well... beyond words.
General rule of thumb: If you walk into a high school music class and ask them if they know the guy and they say yes, then they're over played.
If you can get a ringtone of the song: It's overplayed (with exception of Mussorgsky's ballet of the unhatched chicks)
AND DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE PATHETIQUE! I HATE IT, I HATE IT, I HATE IT!
and that goes for the moonlight, fur elise, and Chopin's minute waltz.
-
no, youre absolutely right, mozart clearly wasnt talented at all.
i mean, at what age did he write his first piece ? wasnt it like, 3 or 4 or something?
ha. what an amateur. ;)
no, with all due respect, have you heard the last symphonies?
Chopin, on the other hand, is God.
look, ok, i realise my errors everyone. because you have such strong opinions about who is the best and who is not, i think i should in future just keep my own ideas to myself. after all, who am i to say who is better than who. i blame it entirely on exam stress.
i hope you will all accept my most humble apologies.
-
No, you completely take it wrong.
Mozart's piano music SUCKS! Like his sonatas, there's 1 that's acceptable, and that's his first.
No, we don't accept your apology: TAKE IT BACK! Never apologise for opinion, we all get stressed we all spell words wrong. Not our fault, people should just learn to deal with it.
-
No, you completely take it wrong.
Mozart's piano music SUCKS! Like his sonatas, there's 1 that's acceptable, and that's his first.
No, we don't accept your apology: TAKE IT BACK! Never apologise for opinion, we all get stressed we all spell words wrong. Not our fault, people should just learn to deal with it.
First of all, saying Mozart's piano music sucks is saying you suck. Consider the fact that you're just too stupid to get it?
And if it's not your fault that you can't spell, then tell me, whose fault is it?
-
Like his sonatas, there's 1 that's acceptable, and that's his first.
i dont really understand what you mean by acceptable
-
I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the WORLD that puts me in a better mood than playing a Mozart Sonata, they are deceptively difficult, they are bright, light and spritely. I mean, if only good composers are brooding and moody like Brahms or Beethoven, and Chopin, I think we have a problem. I think most don't like Mozart because he actually has a sense of humor, and is a little goofy. (I am speaking in terms of his Sonatas)
-
I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the WORLD that puts me in a better mood than playing a Mozart Sonata, they are deceptively difficult, they are bright, light and spritely. I mean, if only good composers are brooding and moody like Brahms or Beethoven, and Chopin, I think we have a problem. I think most don't like Mozart because he actually has a sense of humor, and is a little goofy. (I am speaking in terms of his Sonatas)
Hmm...do people dislike Haydn for the same reasons?
Phil
-
I think that is very astute of you phil. yeah, I mean Haydn is certainly not a composer to the degree that Mozart is, but people dont really perceive him as a very serious composer either.
-
Did anybody say Brahms is overrated? RACHMANINOFF??? Schumann?? I am now going to cut my wrists, as life no longer has meaning :'( emo
-
I prefer Haydn WAY over Mozart. Especially when it comes to music including piano. Mozart's best music may of course surpass Haydn's.
-
I prefer Haydn WAY over Mozart. Especially when it comes to music including piano. Mozart's best music may of course surpass Haydn's.
i agree
-
I prefer Haydn WAY over Mozart. Especially when it comes to music including piano. Mozart's best music may of course surpass Haydn's.
Yeah, I much prefer Mozarts symphonies to Haydns symphonies, they're so much more lively, and loads more fun to play!
-
I prefer Haydn WAY over Mozart.
Me too :D
-
Beethoven has lots of humor- see his Op. 1 trios to see that :p.
Haydn's great in his way, but Mozart is different. Haydn represented the innovations of the classic period and Mozart the peak of the forms in their current form. After Mozart, Beethoven had to explore different forms and ideas.
Anyone know the C# minor Sonata by Haydn (#26 or #36 maybe?) Nice piece with sturm und drang.
-
Beethoven has lots of humor- see his Op. 1 trios to see that :p.
Haydn's great in his way, but Mozart is different. Haydn represented the innovations of the classic period and Mozart the peak of the forms in their current form. After Mozart, Beethoven had to explore different forms and ideas.
Anyone know the C# minor Sonata by Haydn (#26 or #36 maybe?) Nice piece with sturm und drang.
Several of Haydn's sonatas deserve more merit than they usually recieve, in my opinion. I believe that as a whole, Haydn's sonatas were more varied than Mozart's, and they therefore have a greater difference between the 'good' sonatas and the 'bad' sonatas. (Mozart's are not quite as different- in fact, many of the sonatas draw on similar material from one another)
These are just a few of the ones that I think surpass most of Mozart's output in the form:
B minor, Hob. XVI No.32
C# minor, Hob. XVI No.36
Ab major, Hob. XVI No.46
Eb major, Hob. XVI No.52
Phil
-
Several of Haydn's sonatas deserve more merit than they usually recieve, in my opinion. I believe that as a whole, Haydn's sonatas were more varied than Mozart's, and they therefore have a greater difference between the 'good' sonatas and the 'bad' sonatas. (Mozart's are not quite as different- in fact, many of the sonatas draw on similar material from one another)
These are just a few of the ones that I think surpass most of Mozart's output in the form:
B minor, Hob. XVI No.32
C# minor, Hob. XVI No.36
Ab major, Hob. XVI No.46
Eb major, Hob. XVI No.52
And the above list is by no means complete. For example, add XVI/44 in G minor, XVI/48 in C major, XVI/50 in C major, and even XVI/20 in C minor.
Pity Haydn didn't experiment with the 4-movement form (I especially think this of XVI/49 in Eb major).
And my personal feeling is that, apart from A minor KV 310 and C minor KV 457, Mozart quickly becomes boring as you get to know more of his sonatas. Is it just a coincidence that exactly these two are in minor keys?
-
And the above list is by no means complete. For example, add XVI/44 in G minor, XVI/48 in C major, XVI/50 in C major, and even XVI/20 in C minor.
Pity Haydn didn't experiment with the 4-movement form (I especially think this of XVI/49 in Eb major).
And my personal feeling is that, apart from A minor KV 310 and C minor KV 457, Mozart quickly becomes boring as you get to know more of his sonatas. Is it just a coincidence that exactly these two are in minor keys?
Ah, I forgot about the C minor one. Thanks.
As for Mozart, his sonatas are somewhat similar, but I don't think you can narrow his good output down to just 2 sonatas. That's pretty unfair.
Mozart may have a lot of common material in his sonatas, but a few of the major-key ones stand out along with the A minor and C minor as really great works:
K.311 in D major
K.330 in C major
K.331 in A major
K.332 in F major
K.333 in Bb major
Phil
-
As for Mozart, his sonatas are somewhat similar, but I don't think you can narrow his good output down to just 2 sonatas. That's pretty unfair.
Mozart may have a lot of common material in his sonatas, but a few of the major-key ones stand out along with the A minor and C minor as really great works:
K.311 in D major
K.330 in C major
K.331 in A major
K.332 in F major
K.333 in Bb major
Ok, perhaps I didn't say that clearly enough. I don't think Mozart sonatas are of bad quality, but many of them are so similar in style, e.g. structure, harmony, phrasing, articulation etc., that they seem to me a variation on the same idea. And that is the reason I said they can quickly become boring. Except possibly for KV 331 which I admit also stands out (but is too often spoiled, unfortunately), I will probably never have good motivation to play all of the other four you mentioned, even though all of them are definitely good works. However, they just don't seem to give "enough variety". I don't want to limit Mozart's good output. But his cycle of piano sonatas is in my opinion, and with a few select exceptions, too homogenous. Some people say "monotonous" instead. Even Bach's WTC, which is also a huge collection, offers more variety, not to mention Beethoven's sonatas.
Not that I want to depreciate Mozart in any way. But my point is that it's easy to get a good grasp of what most Mozart piano sonatas are really about, which cannot be said about Haydn - just look at differences between XVI/20, XVI/32, XVI/52. That's already huge evolution.
-
First of all, saying Mozart's piano music sucks is saying you suck. Consider the fact that you're just too stupid to get it?
And if it's not your fault that you can't spell, then tell me, whose fault is it?
Now that's real mature, isn't it? Aristotle say: attack the subject, not the speaker.
Whose fault is it? No one's s***t happens, yo.
Of course, then again, I consider all music after Vivaldi and before Schubert to be crap (with few exceptions, like Beethoven)
-
I think that Mozart is given just a bit more attention than is fair, considering the contributions of a lot of other composers. About half of the effort spent on him should go to some 20th century music, that would make me happier.
His music is lovely, of course, and perfect within its own boundaries, but for god's sake, does he have to put a I64-V-I cadence with a trill in the right hand in every single piece! (I'm exaggerating of course, but it does get annoying after a while).
-
I think that Mozart is given just a bit more attention than is fair, considering the contributions of a lot of other composers. About half of the effort spent on him should go to some 20th century music, that would make me happier.
His music is lovely, of course, and perfect within its own boundaries, but for god's sake, does he have to put a I64-V-I cadence with a trill in the right hand in every single piece! (I'm exaggerating of course, but it does get annoying after a while).
Haha! yeah it does seem like that sometimes...
I think it's true that he's overperformed in proportion to other extremely able composers, but also that he is just performed because he is very widely known, and that people consider him to be great just because of this fact, not for what he really was trying to express in his music. Which is why you so often hear, when someone wants to know if you like classical music, "you listen to mozart and sh#t?"
-
hmm... that's not quite true that Mozart's overperformed, I mean look at Beethoven...if you go somewhere and ask someone which classical composer they play the most if would be Beethoven c'mon when my teacher examines like 60% students play Beethoven. For me I really like Mozart and Haydn.
-
I like almost any composers, not for what people think they are, but for the interest in the individual pieces. I don't see the point in "rating" as it is something which is so personal, and also that alot of it has to do with popularity, which as I said does not necessarily mean that less popular composers aren't just as good or even sometimes better!
-
I like almost any composers, not for what people think they are, but for the interest in the individual pieces. I don't see the point in "rating" as it is something which is so personal, and also that alot of it has to do with popularity, which as I said does not necessarily mean that less popular composers aren't just as good or even sometimes better!
that's why this is such an interesting thread, you see why certain people so passionately believe that Brahms is under appreciated in their eyes, whereas other people think he is over rated, for example. or how most people find Mozart trite and irritating versus hadyn (which actually kind of surprises me, but whatever). This is my favourite thread in a long time, actually. you may see it as being too personal to be scientific, which it obviously is, and naturally there is no attempt for it to be as such. I don't think that this thread is in anyway attempting to determine "once and for all" who's overrated etc.. just a (hopefully) curteous and intellectual discussion of composers and various aspects of their works. another morsal for thought, why does one have to expect finality or fairness, is musi itself final or fair? no, of course not. Everyone sees something different in a piece. I mean some people hear moonlight and lcpa their hands over their ears screaming "OVERPLAYED! GAH OVERPLAYED!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!" though personally, when it is artfully playe I cry everytime, because my mother would play it when I was a baby and I'd cry then because "it's too sad, mummy! too sad! stop playing that sad sad song".
I guess what I am so ineloquesntly saying is that I think that this thread is an attempt solely to express our thoughts a feelings about certain composers, pregnant dog about the ones that we think are under appreciated and whine about the ones that we think that if we hear it one more time, we will take an ax to the piano (Ie. canon in D)
-
I perfectly agree with the idea of putting forward personal opinions, I think that's fine. When people start attacking other's opinions based on supposedly objective merit, I see no point in continuing the discussion if the sole aim is for people to repeatedly attack others on their beliefs jsut by picking on ridiculous things like spelling mistakes etc., which is what happened earlier in this thread. It has got a lot better recently.
Yes, just as you say, I absolutely despise Andrew Lloyd Weber, and I think the Phantom of the Opera is poor, but unfortunately my girlfriend, who is also a musician, is in tears when she watches the film, so I don't know what to say to her... I suppose it means something else to her, I just can't get past the cheesy semitone key changes every 3 minutes or so....
As i think I said earlier, I actually love almost any composer from baroque to late romantic, but I find it difficult to associate with what most contemporary composers do. It's just that in my very close knit family, I have always just "lived" the music of the past, and it makes sense to me, whereas modern music I have never much listened to and can not therefore appreciate as being part of my lifestyle or any particular feeling I can recognise.
It took me a while to get used to Rautavaara, but I think I can say that I love his piano concerto, especially as I listened to it once when I was fairly drunk and it seemed to me to be the best thing ever written, and sounded absolutely fantastic with the amplifying effects of wine ;D
-
Someone may already have made this point, I haven't read the whole thread, but the term "overrated" is just totally flawed. Essentially, if you say that, for example, Liszt is overrated, what you're really saying is that it's ok for some people to like him - but not too many. As though there's some kind of set level above which a particular thing's popularity shouldn't be allowed to go.
Who's to say what makes a composer's works worth liking? And who's to say when the frequency with which a composer's works are performed moves into "overplayed" territory? Depends what you're into and what you're looking for. People prefer one piece or composer over another for many many different reasons - there's no right or wrong.
-
Yes, just as you say, I absolutely despise Andrew Lloyd Weber, and I think the Phantom of the Opera is poor,
:o :o :o
Phantom? YOU HATE PHANTOM??? That's the only play by him I can tolerate! Woman in White was an insult to Wilkie Collins....
-
Mozart is taking some damage in this thread.. Myself I agree, and much prefer Haydn at his best, as a fore-shadower of Beethoven.
-
Mendelssohn, Brahms, Mahler, Schumann, Haydn
Die.
-
I can't believe we are insulting Mozart!!!!!!!
-
beethoven...
-
neither mozart nor beethoven should be insulted. they both wrote amazing music. far better than that of liszt.
-
neither mozart nor beethoven should be insulted. they both wrote amazing music. far better than that of liszt.
I would say different, but equally exhilarating
-
what a bunch of children.
-
True. No reason to say anything about all of these composer regardless if their name is Xenakis, Liszt, Reger, Mozart or Ornstein.
-
what a bunch of children.
im a child, dont know about the others. so, for me, thats a compliment!
-
Now that's real mature, isn't it? Aristotle say: attack the subject, not the speaker.
Whose fault is it? No one's s***t happens, yo.
Of course, then again, I consider all music after Vivaldi and before Schubert to be crap (with few exceptions, like Beethoven)
You make the broad, stupid generalisation that Mozart's piano music sucks, then come talking about maturity?
Your comment about the music between Vivaldi and Schubert once again proves your ignorance.
Oh, and spelling errors don't "just happen"; They happen because some people have communicating and making sense of themselves.
-
True. No reason to say anything about all of these composer regardless if their name is Xenakis, Liszt, Reger, Mozart or Ornstein.
or smith. why did you leave out smith? have you got something against him? why would you do that? why?
-
You make the broad, stupid generalisation that Mozart's piano music sucks, then come talking about maturity?
Your comment about the music between Vivaldi and Schubert once again proves your ignorance.
Oh, and spelling errors don't "just happen"; They happen because some people have communicating and making sense of themselves.
No, sir brilliant, some people arent as great at typing as they think they are, ok?
So I don't like almost anything between Vivaldi and Schubert? Whatt're you goin to do, huh? Call the freaking music gestapo?
No opinion is stupid (because it's an OPINION. OPINION being the key word... ;) ) just becasuse you don't agree. If you don't agree with Hinduism, does that make it stupid? HUH?
Ok.
I'll give it up.
You like mozart.
I hate him.
That's no reason for me to hate you.
Truce? ;D
agg6
-
Another vote for Mozart- almost all of his music is hacknyed
Scott
-
in my opinion it is Schumann and Mozart
-
Another vote for Mozart- almost all of his music is hacknyed
Scott
hahahahaha yeh sure whatever have you even heard his music?
Why do people hate Mozart?
-
As far as the piano repertoire goes, I think the most overrated and especially overplayed has to be Liszt. When I were a lad he was considered a rather minor composer, and you didn't hear him much. Today every performance major has to learn him if they want to get their MA. And there aren't that many performers who can get beyond the technical aspect to really make him sound like a great composer.
Mozart is also overrated in the piano repertoire, but only because most of his solo piano pieces were written for amateurs to play at home. I think Haydn's sonatas are better by and large.
Schumann is also overrated, if only because he didn't know when to shut up. In most of his pieces he justs goes on and on. He should have done more miniatures like Chopin. Carnaval is a great piece, though.
Also extremely overrated is all "new age" noodling, whether by George Winston or Keith Jarrett or anybody else. But maybe I don't need to say that here...
-
Why do people hate Mozart?
Because he's a music genius and his music requires a lot of intelligence and musicality to play... I love Mozart though.
-
Rachmaninov is propably the most overrated composer on this forum.
Josef Hofmann didn´t even think his third concerto was worth learning and I know where he was coming from when he said.
It is very overrated as well as most of his other works
Liszt did at least have something new to say at times
-
Rachmaninov is propably the most overrated composer on this forum.
>:(
;)
-
Well you guys have soon mentioned every major composer. Well done.
-
Rachmaninov is propably the most overrated composer on this forum.
Rakhmaninov is a member of this forum? Wow! I'll send him a PM right now...
Best,
Alistair
-
Rakhmaninov is a member of this forum? Wow! I'll send him a PM right now...
Haha, many people here think that Rach was one of the greatest composers ever and I just can´t agree with that.
As a composer he was average I think he was more talented as a pianist.
-
Haha, many people here think that Rach was one of the greatest composers ever and I just can´t agree with that.
As a composer he was average I think he was more talented as a pianist.
he wasnt one of the best ever. but he was very good
-
Rakhmaninov is a member of this forum? Wow! I'll send him a PM right now...
Best,
Alistair
You might be the only person on this forum that could have met him.
Thal
-
hahahahaha
-
Rachmaninov is propably the most overrated composer on this forum.
Josef Hofmann didn´t even think his third concerto was worth learning and I know where he was coming from when he said.
That figures, cause Hofmann is the most overrated pianist -- all glitz and no soul.
Is there a thread for overrated pianists? Martha Argerich, Glenn Gould, Evgeny Kissin spring to mind...
-
Why do people hate Mozart?
Because he's a music genius and his music requires a lot of intelligence and musicality to play... I love Mozart though.
Ooh, just to be clear, I love Mozart too and I love playing him as well.
But the question was, who is the most over-rated. A lot of people are now calling Wolfie the greatest composer of all time, which he was not, and especially not in the solo piano repertoire. (Piano concertos is a different story.)
-
No, sir brilliant, some people arent as great at typing as they think they are, ok?
So I don't like almost anything between Vivaldi and Schubert? Whatt're you goin to do, huh? Call the freaking music gestapo?
No opinion is stupid (because it's an OPINION. OPINION being the key word... ;) ) just becasuse you don't agree. If you don't agree with Hinduism, does that make it stupid? HUH?
Ok.
I'll give it up.
You like mozart.
I hate him.
That's no reason for me to hate you.
Truce? ;D
agg6
So here's an opinion: I'm a better than composer than any composer mentioned in this thread.
Do you think that's a valid opinion, considering I've never written anything?
Of course it's not, it's stupid, because opinions can very well be stupid. Just like yours is.
-
smooth. that was well thought out
-
I agree that Rachmaninoff was more talented as a pianist. My teacher has a record disc of Rachmaninoff playing Bach's Partitas and Chopin's Etudes, they are simply brilliant. Anyway tons of practise does not make you better, you have to listen to music...
-
That figures, cause Hofmann is the most overrated pianist -- all glitz and no soul.
His earliest recordings are brilliant, his late ones are not not to great since he was drinking a lot at the time.
Hofmann is far from the most overrated pianist, David Helfgott, Lang Lang and Kissin come to mind on the other hand
-
That figures, cause Hofmann is the most overrated pianist -- all glitz and no soul.
Is there a thread for overrated pianists? Martha Argerich, Glenn Gould, Evgeny Kissin spring to mind...
I have heard every known Hofmann recordings in existence (minus Marston Volume 9), and the claim that the pianist is "all glitz and no soul" is absolute insanity barely meriting rebuttal. My advice is: get a musical education, get your ear trained, learn to play the piano, or find a happy combination of the three. I hope you are ignorant, because ignorance is easier to overcome than stupidity. :)
-
ahh, this is getting stupid. just stop...everyone has different opinions
-
ahh, this is getting stupid. just stop...everyone has different opinions
best post in the thread so far ;)
Writing fugues and fugatomovements is something I have tried personally and it was much harder then i thought.
Composers who can write great fugues and counterpointmelodies are usually the greatest in my book
A 3 year old can come up with great melodies but only a a true master can make a mirrorfugue of these melodies
-
exactly. and thats exactly why mozart is not bad. last movement last symphony, 5 voice fugue
-
So here's an opinion: I'm a better than composer than any composer mentioned in this thread.
Do you think that's a valid opinion, considering I've never written anything?
Of course it's not, it's stupid, because opinions can very well be stupid. Just like yours is.
If it IS your opinion, then yes, it's valid.
Only because it IS...yours. Not because it's true or not.
Mine is stupid to you, because you don't understand my reasoning, which is purely my fault.
All opinions are valid, as long as they're believed by at least one person. I believe God is dead. My opinion is valid, although some would say not true.
Reasons why Mozart sucks at piano music:
1) As compared to Haydn and Handel and the Early Beethoven (which I don't like either), he simply OVERplays the era's style, like the Baroque (as in too much) version of Classical music, if you will.
2)He gets stuck on themes. They show up OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER, he just changes a note here and there so he can say it isn't the same.
3) As an orchestral composer, he just lacks the ability to give his piano music the oomph that he gives his orchestral music.
I don't hate Mozart, I hate his piano music, and even that opinion has exceptions.
-
I don't hate Mozart, I hate his piano music, and even that opinion has exceptions.
I must admit that i am of a similar opinion, although i would restrict myself mainly to his solo works.
Haydn, Clementi, Dussek and C P E Bach provide me personally with greater pleasure.
Thal
-
I believe God is dead.
you mean to say... the earth and everything wasnt created in 6 days??? :o
-
For the last time Mozart does'nt suck, your opinion does...
-
Hofmann is far from the most overrated pianist, David Helfgott, Lang Lang and Kissin come to mind on the other hand
Hmm, now I can't remember why I even said that. I actually do enjoy listening to him although not as much as many of his contemporaries.
But, there are certainly people who call him the greatest pianist who we can judge from recordings. Since I don't agree, that would make him overrated in my book.
-
I have heard every known Hofmann recordings in existence (minus Marston Volume 9), and the claim that the pianist is "all glitz and no soul" is absolute insanity barely meriting rebuttal. My advice is: get a musical education, get your ear trained, learn to play the piano, or find a happy combination of the three. I hope you are ignorant, because ignorance is easier to overcome than stupidity. :)
Well, you've proved you can express your opinion in a forceful way... and that's about it. It's OK, I'm used to that kind of reasoning on the Internet...
-
you mean to say... the earth and everything wasnt created in 6 days??? :o
Heavens no! It was created over a vast amount of time. The 6 days theory is, as I shall put bluntly, since we're ALL slinging mud now :'( ::), a way for people unable to comprehend such vast periods of nothingness to shrink it down into a more manageable size.
My question for Christians is: If God REALLY is all powerful, why can't he lengthen the days to contain what we would now consider millions of years? Why not prolong the length of the rotation of the earth? He can't do that? :o Then he's really not ALL POWERFUL, now is he?
But that's beside the point.
For the last time Mozart does'nt suck, your opinion does...
For god's sakes, i've tried and tried to explain why opinions are opinions, and although not your own doesn't mean they suck. But I'm tired of trying, since I'm getting nowhere, so I give up.
Have it your way. I don't really care what ya'll think of my taste in music anyway. It's MY taste, not YOURS.
Not that either of us really care about it that much anyway.
And now that I've successfully stomped on everyone's toes that I can think of, I think i'll go on a bit of a vacation. Toodles.
-
[exactly. and thats exactly why mozart is not bad. last movement last symphony, 5 voice fugue/quote]
A very short fugato that is.
I didn´t notice it until I knew about it actually
very hard to compose such a thing though
-
a lot of vivaldi sounds exactly the same and is quite repetitive. he wrote something like 500 sonatas. we sang a choral piece by him at school and it was the most boring piece we'd done for years.
-
hahaha... yeah... no vivaldi please :D
-
vivaldis not so bad. cello & violin stuff is good
-
Mozart is definitely the most over-rated. I don't get what's so amazing about his stuff. It's very repetetive and predictable. Beethove is much better.
-
vivaldis not so bad. cello & violin stuff is good
especially the famous Allegro :D
-
Considering that Chopin wrote solely for the piano, you can't say that he is overplayed for that instrument. That's all he wrote for, so you should almost expect to hear his pieces.
I would have to say... Mozart or Beethoven. Possibly Bach, but I'd go with Mozart first.
-
Heavens no! It was created over a vast amount of time. The 6 days theory is, as I shall put bluntly, since we're ALL slinging mud now :'( ::), a way for people unable to comprehend such vast periods of nothingness to shrink it down into a more manageable size.
My question for Christians is: If God REALLY is all powerful, why can't he lengthen the days to contain what we would now consider millions of years? Why not prolong the length of the rotation of the earth? He can't do that? :o Then he's really not ALL POWERFUL, now is he?
First of all, you must be too stupid to understand elevateme's irony.
Second, your view is typical of a wannabe-intellectual atheist, with only primitive pseudoscientific arguments, that really rely more on your own idea of religion and only serves to show a huge lack of knowledge in the area.
Oh, and the answer to your nonsensical questions: Why would he? Fact is that it is impossible to prove that a God exist.
And to think you were the one who were trying to be shallowly openminded before, and then come here with your childish, unfounded criticism of religion, trying to impose your view as fact. I hope your vacation is a lengthy one.
-
I think there are two types of overrated composer/compositions- The ones that are played too much and the ones that aren't really played very much but that for some reason people tend to talk about as if they had written something very important. In the first category I think we have pieces like the alla turca by Mozart and in the second category composers like Stockhausen and Boulez spring to mind.
-
Any and all of the persons who have "composed" rap. :P
-
Beethoven
rubbish! u should be the one who should be erased from the face of the world. and schumann's great for special individuals to appreciate anw.
-
If we're going to bump this thread, do I get to say Liszt again?
-
Any and all of the persons who have "composed" rap. :P
Whoa, good for you. What an incredible and seemingly effortless cheap shot. I suppose you could produce and mix a better album than the studio-trained professionals who arrange the music and mixes for rap artists like Outkast, etc..., but you're simply too busy being the obviously amazing and stunningly relevant musician you are.
It should go without saying that plenty of rap and electronica composers are far more compelling, creative, and talented than most of the washed-up hack "classical" composers who weasel around on this forum talking s**t as if they're automatically superior by virtue of their 80-times-removed relationship with Beethoven and Mozart.
-
Brahms and Mahler
-
I suppose you could produce and mix a better album than the studio-trained professionals who arrange the music and mixes for rap artists like Outkast, etc..., but you're simply too busy being the obviously amazing and stunningly relevant musician you are.
Cumon Indutrial, you're capable of better than the tired old "I suppose you could do better" argument - seems to pop up regularly on this forum when disagreements arise. I merely responded to the question by stating that I consider rap over-played and over-rated - I didn't imply that it had no artistic merit or that it doesn't have a place somewhere in our kaleidoscopic world of "composition". But, I see by your somewhat characteristically churlish reply, that you were anxious to jump to the defense of an imagined attack on your viewpoint.
Incidentally, your use of the words "studio-trained professionals", "produce," "mix," and "arrange" doesn't particularly constitute an effective argument for original artistic compositional merit.
BTW, thanks for the compliment - "obviously amazing and stunningly relevant musician" - I can live with that.
-
I only think that Chopin is abit overplayed (not saying overrated ofcourse). Seems to be hardly any concert where people are NOT playing pieces like Chopins 4th balad :s
-
Incidentally, your use of the words "studio-trained professionals", "produce," "mix," and "arrange" doesn't particularly constitute an effective argument for original artistic compositional merit.
Well, I really, really, reallllly hate rap, but I have to disagree with the assertion of this statement. Implying the compositional technique of an "artist" is inferior to another technique infers an entirely biased viewpoint, which you hypocritically debase the merits of indutrial's statement on. It would be similar to saying... oh... that Xenakis or Murail are not artists, because they are, in effect, "mixing", albeit in an assuredly more complex fashion. Not to say I don't find indutrial's comment hilariously unprovoked.
-
I keep going back to the original question regarding "composer". Having worked as a studio musician in Hollywood and as a post-production audio consultant with Oscar-winners, I would never debunk the technical artistry of these people. What I was responding to was the defense of rap by citing the the post-production people rather than defending the "composer" or "composition" if you will - I apologize if that sounded like it pitted one technique over another - and I certainly hope I don't appear "hypocritical" after this clarification.
BTW, would you please clarify and elaborate on your statement regarding Xenakis and mixing - I don't understand what his composition has to do with studio mixing. Thanks.
Gerry
-
Well, I really, really, reallllly hate rap, but I have to disagree with the assertion of this statement. Implying the compositional technique of an "artist" is inferior to another technique infers an entirely biased viewpoint, which you hypocritically debase the merits of indutrial's statement on. It would be similar to saying... oh... that Xenakis or Murail are not artists, because they are, in effect, "mixing", albeit in an assuredly more complex fashion. Not to say I don't find indutrial's comment hilariously unprovoked.
While I was definitely in a sour mood when I made that post >:( I will still say that blasting rap musicians contributes little to the purpose of discussing who is or who isn't an overrated composer in a classically-geared thread. Targetting rap composers just seems unnecessary since the demands of rap production don't really call for the kind of compositional output that is going to competing for promotion in the world of recital halls and classical CD releases (with the exception of the shameless Vitamin String Quartet tributes of Eminem, Dr. Dre, whatever else is selling, etc..).
It would be just as nonsensical if someone were to start talking about how John Williams, Nobou Uematsu, Kenny G. or Billie Joe Armstrong is overrated. Well, of course they are. Their individual genres are immensely more popular and market-friendly than the most treasured and ingenious output of the classical music scene. Since the classical world is obviously very self-dependent, any question of over-rated/under-rated would do better than to pull its answer from the inside-out. Plus, the post asked for a "composer", not for a vague category that suggests (and I'm sure this wasn't his/her intentions) enough of this forum's annoying prejudices to sink a ship.
-
I'd rather listen to a great pop recording, even rap, than yet another mediocre version of the Mozart concertos, or the Goldberg Variations, or Chopin, or Liszt (God forbid).
But it depends what mood I'm in. At 3 in the morning I love to watch music videos. In the middle of the afternoon I'd rather play the piano myself than listen to just about anything. And I lower my standards considerably for a live (classical) performance. Even some local yokel with moderate talent is more enjoyable to listen to than most recordings.
-
I agree that Mozart and Chopin are overplayed relative to the quality of their piano compositions (personal opinion). There are a few real gems from Chopin (fourth Ballade, two of the sonatas, and the Etudes), but most of the rest to me seems cliche to the point that I usually get bored listening to recordings unless the pianist does something really unique. I think that the Mozart sonatas are not as good as his concertos, so I like it when a program includes Haydn instead. I disagree that Mahler is overplayed, at least in the US. Most orchestras, if they manage to do any Mahler at all, will only do one symphony a season, versus at least one or two major orchestral works by Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, etc. It takes enormous resources to do even one (and well worth it, IMO). At piano recitals, Beethoven is played frequently but I don't think this is a bad thing (same argument can be made for Bach). Grieg is underplayed. Bruckner is highly underplayed. That's all I can think of off-hand.
-
I dont think that some composers are neccesarily overplayed, just that many good composers are underplayed.
-
In my opinion Mozart is by far the most overrated and overplayed composer. Overrated in the most staggering magnitude. His piano music is utterly dull. Insipid. Vapid. Twinkly. Emotionless. Dead. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but it's simply the way I feel. Mozart was a genius, without question but I find his music so repetitive and samey. He seemed to write mostly in major keys and not very interesting keys at that. The sonata in Am and the sonata in Cm are the exceptions and I'm quite fond of these two works but the rest of it...
-
I dont think that some composers are neccesarily overplayed, just that many good composers are underplayed.
This is likely not as important on this forum because people mostly just want to piss and moan about things they don't like. It's more important to pick apart everyone's individual quibbles about Mozart and Liszt than to figure out ways to breathe new life into the repertoire.
-
I agree that Mozart and Chopin are overplayed relative to the quality of their piano compositions (personal opinion).
When you say "I agree" I hope you don't mean you agree with me. I never indicated there was any problem with the quality of Mozart and Chopin's pieces, just that too many people are performing them who have no business doing so. Actually I should probably not have mentioned Mozart here because some may remember me saying in another thread that I thought poor recordings of him were rare. And some may not...
-
withoutadoubt Sorabji :P every time he is played is one too many :P
-
Oh dear, off we go.
Thal ;D
-
withoutadoubt Sorabji :P every time he is played is one too many :P
PK's great insight into the Chopin Piano Concerti:
They are beautiful but boring they certainly doesnt reach the level of the music he wrote after ending the.
Please oh genius, tell us who else you don't like so we know what we shouldn't be listening to ::)
-
withoutadoubt Sorabji :P every time he is played is one too many :P
Oh dear, off we go indeed (if I may quote Thal); "one too many" for whom, might I ask? And if that is the case, that's a awful lot of broadcast, performance and recording royalties to be returned as well as compensatory payments to be made to ticket-buying, record-buying and broadcast licence paying folk the world over, is it not? (and the fact that some of those payments haven't actually been paid as they should have been shouldn't make any difference in principle, should it?). I think that, if you really believe that, you should consult a brace of high-powered intellectual property lawyers and a bunch of private detectives in order respectively to try to redress past issues and ensure that none of his music ever gets put before the public again, don't you?
Dammit, I just took you seriously! (not...)
Best,
Alistair
-
withoutadoubt Sorabji :P every time he is played is one too many :P
Poking the finger at Sorabji is like the Budweiser WHAASSSSUUUPPPP of this forum.
It's not funny anymore.
It was barely funny to begin with.
Get over it.
F**king troll.
-
Poking the finger at Sorabji is
...
not funny anymore.
It was barely funny to begin with.
Get over it.
I know - tiresome in the extreme, is it not? Never mind. We move on. Easily.
Best,
Alistair
-
Why don't we poke fun at Satie? He was trying to make it easy.
I've been tempted to play vexations, just to drive people crazy.
Daniel
-
mozart ;)
-
schumann ???
-
schumann ???
That would be my vote.
Teutonic trash of the worst kind.
Thal
-
Handel i find his works just so preditable some are great but others are very forgetable they lack that subtelty found in many other composers works I don't listen to him and discover somthing new with each listen
I also find Mozart (especially piano works) way too predictable and safe he doesn't seem to take any risks and apart from Opera he did not really change anything in music he copied the styles developed by Haydn J.C Bach and others before him
As Einstein once said "any fool can make somthing bigger, better, and more agresvie but it takes a touch of Genius to move something in the oppisite direction"
and personnally i find Mozarts music very old fashioned kind of like reading Shakespeare it is not relevent any more and sounds kind of dorkish when played it would sound good if you closed you eyes and pictured yourself inside an 18th century court wearing a powderd wig but then you open your eyes and your down the Nags head with a pint of watery beer that cost a fortune
-
Don't you guys have anything better to do? I just read the last page and brain fluid was leaking from my ears.
IT'S OPINION, GUYS.
-
Don't you guys have anything better to do?
At the moment, no.
Thal
-
Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Berlioz.
What? My Four favorite composers?! I am crying :'( :'( :'(
-
I would say that Liszt is overated as a composer but Berlioz? that man was way ahead of his time, his writings on Orchestration didn't need updating until Richard Strauss even then he only added newly invented instruments. Tchaikovsky's ballet music is overplayed but if you give his symphonies a listen then he certanly isn't overated.
I would say Chopin is overated personally, i find his works very aesthetically pleasing but i don't feel they carry any real depth, they are like a footballers wife very good to look at but that it.
-
Chopin is the best.
try to go to piano forum then go to miscellaneous.
try to search the article "the novice classical composer".
then listen to the music to the composer who claims to be a 15 yr. old composer who has a difficulty in gaining a reputation but has a unbelievably ability to compose.
maybe you will reply that he must be the over-rated one.
-
By shineRL's point of view
definition of over-rated is a song that is being rated higher than the rating that it deserve. it implies a music with greater subtlety but not rating a really good composition that it is bad because i't was composed by a 15 yr old or any race.
For me the over-played (Not over-rated)composer which compositions we're played on 2003-2008 might be Kajiura Yuki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajiura_Yuki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajiura_Yuki)
might be funny but I have a basis since she sold many albums.
She is a very talented composer than you imagined.
She had Elaborate self-performed piano solos. She is a Virtuoso pianist.
Then she has composed many songs. nobody knows the actual values.
She must have 150~200+ compositions.
Listen to her music and It is impossible not to like her musicality.
She had originality.
I suggest that you should listen to her compositions.
1.)"A Song of Storm and Fire"
2.)"MATERIALISE"
3.)"Before the storm"
4.)"Canta per me "
5.)"Winter"
Listen to Kajiura's music =millions of people cannot be wrong.
Don't sue me in court=There is nothing wrong about writing this forum reply.
Watch anime=Millions of Otaku's cannot be wrong.
-
i do like him but i have to say Chopin and i completely disagree with soloiquy
-
Chopin is the best.
try to go to piano forum then go to miscellaneous.
try to search the article "the novice classical composer".
then listen to the music to the composer who claims to be a 15 yr. old composer who has a difficulty in gaining a reputation but has a unbelievably ability to compose.
maybe you will reply that he must be the over-rated one.
Surely if someone is struggling to get a reputation then they are not over rated they are under rated?
Also how narrow minded are you to say that Chopin is the best?
-
Stravinsky's definately overrated, especially when he is rated higher than Tchaikovsky. that's just ridiculous!!
-
Tchaikowsky is overrated.
-
If I've not yet been cited here (and I have to admit that I've not scoured every post to this thread so cannot actually be certain that I've not), then I may as well take it as carte blanche to continue to do what I do...
Best,
Not Chopin (unfortunately)
-
Jon Shmidt ;D
-
Tchaikovsky and Schumann both should be wiped from the face of the history. Brahms.....well, imo, not the greatest ever...
-
Stravinsky's definately overrated, especially when he is rated higher than Tchaikovsky. that's just ridiculous!!
I personally think Stravinsky actually deserves a lot of his fame. He was perhaps the most influential composer the 20th century ever saw. And a lot of his pieces were pleasurable to listen to at the same time. Tchakovsky never really did anything revolutionary. Sure, he has nice pieces, but that isn't enough.
-
Tchaikovsky and Schumann both should be wiped from the face of the history. Brahms.....well, imo, not the greatest ever...
Brahms?!? How can you say that!?! His late piano works, concertos, symphonies!?!?!?
-
Brahms?!? How can you say that!?! His late piano works, concertos, symphonies!?!?!?
I knew this was coming..........
-
I personally think Stravinsky actually deserves a lot of his fame. He was perhaps the most influential composer the 20th century ever saw. And a lot of his pieces were pleasurable to listen to at the same time. Tchakovsky never really did anything revolutionary. Sure, he has nice pieces, but that isn't enough.
Agreed. Stravinsky's various stylistic approaches and influence were very important and representative of some of the best changes in music during his own time. If he does get publicly overrated, which probably just means that a lot of wet-behind-the-ears students are nuts about The Rite of Spring, that's an overrating that's pretty easy to brush aside. Almost anyone you could talk to about Stravinsky probably has little to no clue of most of his later music. Even so, Stravinsky's representation in concert halls is scant at best, especially compared to someone like Tchaikovsky.
For the same reason, Debussy couldn't be called overrated based on the fact that far too many students and teachers go crazy over Clair de Lune.
-
discuss :)
Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen, Britten. These are either unlistenable, or completely boring.
-
Schönberg, Bartók, Messiaen and Strauss. :-\
Personally I just don't like them, I can't help it.
-
I vote in Bach.
-
not overplayed, but overrated: Alkan
-
not overplayed, but overrated: Alkan
Whilst the thread title merely encourages members to name names, the exercise would be more meaningful if responses avoid merely naming composers whose work the poster happens to dislike and provide detail in support of their contention that this, that or the other composer is either overplayed or overrated or both.
Alkan's music is far more widely played and recorded than was the case a few decades ago - a fact worth bearing in mind even if it is not actually "overplayed" as such; it might be worth considering why this is so.
Best,
Alistair
-
Judging by that racket i endured on the Proms last night, I would be inclined to nominate Shostakovich.
Thal
-
Whilst the thread title merely encourages members to name names, the exercise would be more meaningful if responses avoid merely naming composer whose work the poster happens to dislike and provide detail in support of their contention that this, that or the other composer is either overplayed or overrated or both.
Alkan's music is far more widely played and recorded than was the case a few decades ago - a fact worth bearing in mind even if it is not actually "overplayed" as such; it might be worth considering why this is so.
Best,
Alistair
I dont feel much like debating subjective opinions. I find Alkan boring, simplistic and too technical. Others may find differently, but does that really matter? I dont have to convince anybody of my opinion do i ;)
Gyzzzmo
-
Judging by that racket i endured on the Proms last night, I would be inclined to nominate Shostakovich.
Which particular "racket" on last night's Prom was that?
Best,
Alistair
-
I dont feel much like debating subjective opinions.
Such opinions themselves are not in any case amenable to debate per se, although it is possible to debate their relevance and rôle as distinct from critical judgement.
I find Alkan boring, simplistic and too technical.
All of it? - or at least all that you've heard? Out of interest, what Alkan works have you heard? And have you made due allowances for the possibility that in at least some cases your personal opinion might have been influenced by performances that may be "boring, simplistic and too technical"?
Others may find differently
Oh, they do, gyzzzmo - they do! Many others, at that!
does that really matter?
It almost certainly matters to those others!
I dont have to convince anybody of my opinion do i
No.
The point that I was seeking to make, however, was the difference between personal opinion and pragmatic critical judgement, of which the latter is surely of greater importance than the former in any realistic assessment of what works might be deemed to be "overplayed" and which composers "overrated".
Best,
Alistair
-
And have you made due allowances for the possibility that in at least some cases your personal opinion might have been influenced by performances that may be "boring, simplistic and too technical"?
I think that you should seek an alternate job as a rocketscientist since you somehow managed to find out that 'boring, simplistic and too technical' is actually my personal opinion 'in least some cases'.
And yes i heard quite alot of Alkan's work else i wouldnt have stated that opinion (oh my god, i just gave away that it was just my opinion!)
-
Haydn. All he ever did was spit out music
-
Haydn. All he ever did was spit out music
Anyone who could 'spit' out the Lord Nelson Mass is an okay chap in my book.
-
I think that you should seek an alternate job as a rocketscientist since you somehow managed to find out that 'boring, simplistic and too technical' is actually my personal opinion 'in least some cases'.
I do not need a job in addition to my current activities, thanks, but in any case it does not take a rocket scientist (what a wearisome cliché that one is - and a gross insult to real rocket scientists, I imagine!) to figure out that negative impressions of certain music might in some instances arise as a consequence of listening to inadequate performances of it.
Best,
Alistair
-
Negative impressions of certain music might in some instances arise as a consequence of listening to inadequate performances of it.
Possibly and possibly not, but one could spend a lot of time listening to various performances of works one does not like.
Horrific exercise.
Thal
-
Which particular "racket" on last night's Prom was that?
I think it was the 5th racket.
Thal
-
I think it was the 5th racket.
That's a racket? Maybe the 12th, but the 5th? ::)
-
I think it was the 5th racket.
Thal
I did think Brahms was the only who produced rackets! BRAHMS! BRAHMS 3RD RACKET! ;D
-
I did think Brahms was the only who produced rackets! BRAHMS! BRAHMS 3RD RACKET! ;D
Assuming you do not mean the benevolent 3rd symphony (and I hope not the 3rd piano trio), then it must be his 3rd piano sonata?
Oh the perfidy. Listen to the slow movement. If it is miles removed from the hot house of Tristan, Brahms certainly created an atmosphere of intense love interest. Have you ever been in love? ;)
-
Possibly and possibly not, but one could spend a lot of time listening to various performances of works one does not like.
Horrific exercise.
One could indeed; the point that I was making, however, is that one might on occasion derive a negative first impression of a piece as a direct consequence of the inadequacy of the performance getting in the way of that piece. Some composers' music might appear to be rather better protected against such vagaries than others' (although why this might seem to be the case would require vast amounts of research and a substantial book to reveal), but the risk is nevertheless a very real one in many cases (and, as a composer myself, I ought to know!). I recall, for example, listening for the first time years ago to one of Medtner's piano sonatas and wondering whether the fact that it sounded quite boring was down to the performance or the music or both, but at least the seeds of doubt were sown rather than my coming to the immediate conclusion that it must be the fault of the music alone (Medtner strikes me as one of the composers who can at times withstand poor performances rather better than some others); as it turned out, it was indeed the performance that had done it for me. I won't name the errant pianist, but listening to the same work played by Hamish Milne not long afterwards gave an entirely different and vastly more favourable impression of it. I discussed this with Sorabji a few days after hearing the first of those performances; I was not intending to raise the issue, but he did, asking me if I'd happened to hear it. I admitted that I had and that I'd not thought very well of it. He said that he'd heard it but could immediately recognise it as an inadequate interpretation of a fine work with which he was already familiar, having long since heard it played by Moiseiwitsch and by the composer himself. He added that some people hearing the other player's performance as their first experience of it would immediately have blamed the composer and had done with it.
In answer to your point, however, the likelihood of hearing a whole succession of bad performances from different performers as one's first experiences of any work would surely be pretty small.
Best,
Alistair
-
Beethoven.
Seriously, I don't see why he's so effin great anyway. Plus EVERYONE plays Beethoven even if it's that god-fosaken piece of crap Fur Elise.
I hate beethoven with a passion, bach isn't great either though, but most people feel that way, so very few in my area play him for enjoyment (although most of his fugues are delightful)
yes, what have you been smoking?
-
Assuming you do not mean the benevolent 3rd symphony
He was referring to a rather amusing scene in Fawlty Towers.
Thal
-
I won't name the errant pianist
If it was bad Medtner, the chances are it was Madge.
Thal
-
He was referring to a rather amusing scene in Fawlty Towers.
I don't remember, it's been a while. What scene was that?
-
If it was bad Medtner, the chances are it was Madge.
The chances might have been, but in fact it wasn't; different nationality and different sex.
Best,
Alistair
-
I don't remember, it's been a while. What scene was that?
A Touch of Class
[Classical music is playing in the background. Basil is putting up a picture. Sybil walks in.]
Sybil: Don't forget the menu.
Basil: I beg your pardon?
Sybil: Don't forget the menu.
Basil: I thought you said you want— Right! I'll do the menu!
[puts down the picture, walks over to a typewriter and sits down.]
Sybil: You could have had them both done by now if you hadn't spent the whole morning skulking in there listening to that racket.
Basil: Racket? That's Brahms! Brahms' Third Racket!
-
overplayed: bach, beethoven, chopin , liszt, rachmaninoff
overrated: scriabin
-
A Touch of Class
[Classical music is playing in the background. Basil is putting up a picture. Sybil walks in.]
Sybil: Don't forget the menu.
Basil: I beg your pardon?
Sybil: Don't forget the menu.
Basil: I thought you said you want— Right! I'll do the menu!
[puts down the picture, walks over to a typewriter and sits down.]
Sybil: You could have had them both done by now if you hadn't spent the whole morning skulking in there listening to that racket.
Basil: Racket? That's Brahms! Brahms' Third Racket!
Ah! - momeries are made of this! Thanks for posting this, Thal! The nearest equivalent to this that I can think of right now is one of the episodes of The Good Life in which Richard Briers and his screen wife Felicity Kendal are (if memory serves me correctly) about to be evicted from their home and, at one point as all the goods and chattels are being removed therefrom, I seem to recall the former uttering the line "that's all my Shostakovich symphonies!" which I found quite curious at the time, given that the names Mozart, Beethoven or even Brahms might have far more readily registered with a BBC1 audience...
Best,
Alistair
-
I agree definitely that Grieg is underrated. I did a school project on Grieg, my friends teased that no one's heard of him. But his music is amazing!
Chopin is probably the most overplayed in my opinion...
As for overrated, my first instinct is to say Chopin-- but I don't know how to explain why. Because I love Chopin's music. He was definitely a genius and he was the first composer I learned about as a kid. After reading about him I listened to his music and begged my parents for piano lessons. =) I also enjoy playing Chopin. The thing is, there are other composers I like who have music I like just as much as Chopin, yet they aren't as popular or highly rated. So in a "percentile" sense he is overrated.
If overrated= bad/ not that great, then no. Chopin is awesome!
-
Thanks to Fur Elise and the 1st movement of Moonlight Sonata Beethoven is probably the most overplayed, but definitely not overrated.
I can't judge the composers well enough to say who's overrated, but I can tell you a REALLY overrated player: Glenn Gould. I hate everything about him -- from his interpretations to his movements and facial expressions -- and how can he reject Liszt and Chopin while still playing plenty of Beethoven? ::)
-
IMO, Liszt isn't overplayed cuz barely anybody can play his most difficult pieces.
Chopin-so overplayed, probably overrated cuz his music is really easy to listen to. It doesn't take a genius to like Chopin. :T
-
There's a certain class of "cute" French composers such as Satie and Poulenc which are tiresome after listening to them once.
Overrated and overpromoted by a few enthusiasts is the completely pretentious and fake note-writer (not even a composer) Sorabji. John Ogdon was lucky enough to have been able to sight read him just once.
Terry Riley's "In C" stands as an equally horrible parody of note-non-spinning.
Also the noisy Phillip Glass and another of his ilk which offers relentless iterations of the most annoying chords you can imagine.
Stravinsky is like eating sour pickles and stale bread crusts.
Medtner is a pale, anemic Rachmaninoff imitator. Horowitz often talked about playing his material but he rightly never bothered to record any of it except a "Fairy Tale."
John Field's Nocturnes are boring.
Clementi wrote a few snappy things but is rightly largely forgotten.
As to Schumann, you must be a very senstitive and sympathetic musician to grasp his wonderfully crafted, sentimental and homey meldies and structures.
Chopin detractors probably suffer from overexposure. I play at lot of his stuff, but you just run out of interest after a while.
Shostakovitch on the piano is simply awful. I always get the impression he tries too hard to be clever and "wrong-notey." Funny funny, not ha-ha.
Anyone mention Purcell and others of that era?
How about practically any opera? Oh, this is for piano. OK.
-
Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Krenek. Random notes I can invent and play at any time. [Knocks head for not mentioning them before].
-
Overrated and overpromoted by a few enthusiasts is the completely pretentious and fake note-writer (not even a composer) Sorabji. John Ogdon was lucky enough to have been able to sight read him just once.
Whatever your opinion of the only one of Sorabji's works that Ogdon performed, your assertion doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You are, of course, referring to Opus Clavicembalisticum, a published score of which was given to him around 1956 by Peter Maxwell Davies with the hope that he (Ogdon) would prepare and perform it since, in Davies' estimation, no one else was capable of doing this. At that time, Davies's interest in the piece prompted him to orchestrate its first two movements but sadly he appears not to recall to whom he gave this work and I've never been able to trace its whereabouts. Ogdon gave a private reaading of it in 1959 and always kept a score of it by him in the hope that he would one day record and/or perform it. Before he gave the work its first complete performance in England in 1988 just three months before the composer's death, he had recorded it; that recording was released in 1989, just three months before Ogdon's own death and it is still available today. The suggestion that Ogdon "sight read him just once" is therefore as fatuous as it is unfounded.
There are rather more than just "a few enthusiasts" for Sorabji around these days; there have been more than 35 recordings of his music by various artists as well as hundreds of performances and broadcasts in many countries, much of which have only been made possible by means of the sterling work done by a number of highly gifted and committed editors who continue to produce typeset edition sof the composer's scores. The most recent recording is our around now and is the third CD in Fredrik Ullén's series in which he is recording the complete 100 Transcendental Studies; perhaps you should try this!
...a certain class of "cute" French composers such as Satie and Poulenc...
...Terry Riley's "In C"...an equally horrible parody of note-non-spinning.
...the noisy Phillip Glass and another of his ilk...
...Stravinsky...
...Medtner...a pale, anemic Rachmaninoff imitator...
...John Field's Nocturnes are boring...
...Clementi wrote a few snappy things but is rightly largely forgotten...
...Schumann...
...Chopin...I play at lot of his stuff, but you just run out of interest after a while.
...Shostakovitch on the piano is simply awful...
...Anyone mention Purcell and others of that era?...
...How about practically any opera?...
There's not much left for you to like, is there?! How sad for you! Riley and Glass don't do it for me either, but whilst I admit to the heresy of being able also to live without most of Stravinsky, there are a handful of pieces by him that are utterly indispensible. Medtner never "imitated" anyone, let alone Rakhmaninov, as Rakhmaninov himself would have been the first to agree. Clementi's now quite extensive discography doesn't suggest a "largely forgotten" composer to me. If "you" run out of interest in Chopin after playing his music for a while, that's your problem and not a value judgement of Chopin. Shostakovich's piano writing may not all be either the composer at his best or as important as that of other Russian composers, but he was a considerable pianist himself (who had initially contemplated a career as a pianist until the international success of his first symphony took over), so he knew what he was doing when writing for the piano.
Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Krenek. Random notes I can invent and play at any time.
If Schönberg's D minor quartet or E major chamber symphony comprise "random notes" that anyone can invent and play at will, then Christ was a Muslim.
[Knocks head for not mentioning them before]
Please don't knock your head in case any more spleen falls out (I know that this sounds like a physical impossibility for most of us, but you seem to manage it OK!)...
Best,
Alistair
-
Stating personal tastes and preference (i.e. personal likes and dislikes) as hard absolutes of artistic value is the way of the critic, not the real music lover...
gep
-
John Field's Nocturnes are boring.
Then we must be thankfull that he wrote a few other pieces.
Thal
-
Overrated and overpromoted by a few enthusiasts is the completely pretentious and fake note-writer (not even a composer) Sorabji.
Having the privilege to have been present at the 2nd performance of Sorabji’s Organ Symphony no. 2, I must say that being able to write a piece of music that lasts for 9 hours yet is totally captivating from the beginning to the end at the very first time a non-musician like me hears it, should be proof enough that Sorabji IS a composer, be it not to everyone’s taste. Which is not a problem in itself whatsoever!
Sorabji’s music as seen on the page (and I do have the distinct pleasure of having some scores) looks insane indeed when compared to, say, a Haydn Sonata. However, once one has heard this “insane” music played by those who can not only play it, but play it with the apparent consummate ease as do Jonathan Powell, Frederik Ullén, Kevin Bowyer and others, one discovers, if one has ears attuned to it, or at least willing to try to attune to it, hear that what looks insane on the page at first fright is quite staggeringly brilliant music indeed!
And as for looking insane on the page, have a look at what JSBach writes for a solo violin…
I'm puzzled by what you mean by "overpromoted". There seem to be very few commercials about him about...
Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Krenek. Random notes I can invent and play at any time.
If indeed this is so please consider yourself invited to provide the proof, which should not be a great problem to you…!
then Christ was a Muslim.
Considering that Christ in Islam is considered to be one of the great prophets before Mohamed, one might say he is if not a Muslim than at least a precursors thereof. (In reality Christ was, of course, a Jew by birth and practice; a fact that will tick off not only quite a few Christians and Muslims but also a number of Jews… That Christ was not a Jew is a twisting of the truth, invented by disciples who wanted to make his teachings Salonfähig [Cubiculumfähig?] for the Roman world.)
To make your point valid you might consider changing the last part of the sentence to “..then Madoff is a honest banker.”
gep
-
I vote in Bach.
Then you cannot be a musician or an appreciator thereof. The only way a musician of any sort could be deaf to Bach would be when he is dead.
Sorry, have to go now to find where my lower jaw rolled to after reading your post....
gep
-
Considering that Christ in Islam is considered to be one of the great prophets before Mohamed, one might say he is if not a Muslim than at least a precursors thereof. (In reality Christ was, of course, a Jew by birth and practice; a fact that will tick off not only quite a few Christians and Muslims but also a number of Jews… That Christ was not a Jew is a twisting of the truth, invented by disciples who wanted to make his teachings Salonfähig [Cubiculumfähig?] for the Roman world.)
Of course this is correct; what I ought perhaps to have done to make it clearer was to suggest that Christ in His own time was a Muslim which, since He predated Mohamed by several centuries, would have been as impossible in reality as that assertion with which I was seeking to draw comparison; that said, whilst I hope that the point which I was trying to make was already valid, your suggested alternative
"then Madoff is a honest banker"
is vastly better, so many thanks for that!
Best,
Alistair
-
I think the most overrated is Debussy and the most underrated is Glinka ;)
And please don't underestimate my opinion because i have heard tons of classical compositions! :D
-
Overrated? Cage, Morton Feldman and George Gershwin.
Also, while Alkan should be played more often, I find the whole cult around him to be over-the-top, especially when people claim that his music is crafted better than Chopin's or Liszt's.
-
Also, while Alkan should be played more often, I find the whole cult around him to be over-the-top, especially when people claim that his music is crafted better than Chopin's or Liszt's.
I would just like it to be known (to those who do not already know) that, as a most ardent champion of Alkan, I am not at all interested in any alleged "cult" around him (or anyone else) and would no more dream of claiming that his work is "better crafted" than that of Chopin or Liszt any more than Chopin or Liszt would themselves have asserted their own respetive work to be "better crafted" than that of Alkan; can you not see that this fabulous triumvirate of pianist/composers all born within some three years of one another represent one of the 19th century's greatest ornaments in Western keyboard music? We should celebrate the work of all three - not least their individualities - rather than seek to set up some silly kind of "competition" between them.
Best,
Alistair
-
... can you not see that this fabulous triumvirate of pianist/composers all born within some three years of one another represent one of the 19th century's greatest ornaments in Western keyboard music? We should celebrate the work of all three - not least their individualities - rather than seek to set up some silly kind of "competition" between them.
Fair enough, and if you add a year, 1814, then we get Henselt. His music is most agreeable -if not terribly striking- but he was obviously an extremely talented man, and I wonder if given different circumstances Henselt might have better fulfilled a promise which was certainly there to begin with.
Who knows. Just a thought.
-
Alkan sounds uninspired, long-winded and gauche or klunky. Somewhat bombastic. Yes, I have enjoyed some pleasant moments but for some reason have no longing wish to return to listen, except out of curiosity every 5 years or so. And I have never wished to play any of his material, as I have so benefited from playing Chopin, especially.
-
If you dare to imply again that Alkan is overrated,fire shall burn your asses! :( >:( >:( >:( >:(
(oupssss sorry!) ;D
-
Alkan's compositions are definitely not of the quality of for example Chopin's and Liszt. But people are hardly playing Alkan if you compare to those other 2. In that way Alkan surely isnt overrated/overplayed.
-
Overrated George Gershwin?!?!?! MAH!.... (Italian expression denoting wonder and perplexity)
-
Ahem...
Could someone else not like Phillip Glass, too?
And how about Edward MacDowell?
-
Could someone else not like Phillip Glass, too?
Yes, there are some people who like Philip Glass...
And how about Edward MacDowell?
No, there's no evidence that he liked Philip Glass...
Best,
Alistair
-
Yes, there are some people who like Philip Glass...
But not his wives, it seems, since three divorced from him. Perhaps things got too unpredictable in living with him...
Quote from: ingunite on Today at 02:55:28 PM
And how about Edward MacDowell?
No, there's no evidence that he liked Philip Glass...
Best,
Alistair
But perhaps he did like a glass of Phillips!
gep
-
I would just like it to be known (to those who do not already know) that, as a most ardent champion of Alkan, I am not at all interested in any alleged "cult" around him (or anyone else) and would no more dream of claiming that his work is "better crafted" than that of Chopin or Liszt any more than Chopin or Liszt would themselves have asserted their own respetive work to be "better crafted" than that of Alkan; can you not see that this fabulous triumvirate of pianist/composers all born within some three years of one another represent one of the 19th century's greatest ornaments in Western keyboard music? We should celebrate the work of all three - not least their individualities - rather than seek to set up some silly kind of "competition" between them.
Best,
Alistair
The "cult" to which I'm referring here is that of people, who obstinately believe that well-known classical music should be ignored, whereas obscure classical music should get all the spotlight. Many people, it seems to me, have fallen victims to this idea. Since Alkan is certainly one of the greater neglected romantic-era composers, some people automatically claim him to be pretty much the greatest composer for the piano among the Romantics, which I certainly can't agree with (though I do not deny the fact that his music is underplayed; I was simply saying, that its fans claim it to be much greater than it actually is).
Frankly, I was shocked when I saw someone on this site claim that several of Alkan's works represent the best of the romantic-era and that his Op. 39 No. 12 is superior to every theme-and-variations set from the Goldberg Variations till Rachmaninoff's Corelli Variations. Such a statement is completely absurd if one seriously listens to Beethoven's Diabelli Variations or Brahms' Op. 24. It also tosses aside the true geniuses of romanticism, such as Wagner and Bruckner, who receive absolutely no attention here, despite having composed some phenomenal music.
I was even more shocked when I saw some guy on Amazon.com claim that Alkan's Aime-moi is equally beautiful as any Chopin Ballade. Frankly, I might put it above the 2nd, but the 4th is probably the greatest solo piano piece after Beethoven and before Scriabin.
Also, as far as chord inversions are concerned, Chopin pawns both Liszt and Alkan. 8) :-*
-
The "cult" to which I'm referring here is that of people, who obstinately believe that well-known classical music should be ignored, whereas obscure classical music should get all the spotlight. Many people, it seems to me, have fallen victims to this idea. Since Alkan is certainly one of the greater neglected romantic-era composers, some people automatically claim him to be pretty much the greatest composer for the piano among the Romantics, which I certainly can't agree with (though I do not deny the fact that his music is underplayed; I was simply saying, that its fans claim it to be much greater than it actually is).
OK - that's fair comment as far as it goes - but when a composer such as Alkan does find himself in the discarded pile for many decades but remains one of the most important composers of his day (note that I wrote "one of", not "the"), enthusiasts do have from time to time to over-egg the pudding in trying to redress this grave imbalance. Don't forget what Sorabji wrote about Liszt only around 80 years ago - that some 95% of his work was unknown to the general public - which, for all that Liszt was a "household name" long before then, was nevertheless true - and we know far more of Liszt's music now than we did then.
Frankly, I was shocked when I saw someone on this site claim that several of Alkan's works represent the best of the romantic-era and that his Op. 39 No. 12 is superior to every theme-and-variations set from the Goldberg Variations till Rachmaninoff's Corelli Variations. Such a statement is completely absurd if one seriously listens to Beethoven's Diabelli Variations or Brahms' Op. 24. It also tosses aside the true geniuses of romanticism, such as Wagner and Bruckner, who receive absolutely no attention here, despite having composed some phenomenal music.
I agree with you here; the problem is with this ineffably silly persuasion to "grade" works by different composers by saying that this is superior or inferior to that; yes, of course the Fifth Symphony of Bruckner (since you mention him) is greater than that of Mendelssohn, but beyond a certain point this obsession with comparing can become far more coutyer-productive than it is instructive (and I suspect that Wagner and Brucker have not been mentioned in this context here simply because they weren't piano composers). I would not make such a claim, although I do think that Le Festin is one of the great 19th century sets of variations for piano.
I was even more shocked when I saw some guy on Amazon.com claim that Alkan's Aime-moi is equally beautiful as any Chopin Ballade. Frankly, I might put it above the 2nd, but the 4th is probably the greatest solo piano piece after Beethoven and before Scriabin.
Hard to argue withe your last statement here! - that's something that strikes quite a chord with me, since it was the first piece of music I ever heard and it blew me away then, just as it still does. But now you're doing it - "the greatest..." etc.!
Also, as far as chord inversions are concerned, Chopin pawns both Liszt and Alkan. 8) :-*
Chopin's harmonic language is indeed quite incredibly inventive and a subject of eternal fascination - but the point at issue here should surely be that all three composers are so different to one another despite being such close contemporaries who all knew one another in the Paris of the 1840s. Vive la difference!
Best,
Alistair
-
It also tosses aside the true geniuses of romanticism, such as Wagner and Bruckner, who receive absolutely no attention here, despite having composed some phenomenal music.
Well, it is sort of a piano forum here and Wagner's piano music aint worth a pint of panther piss.
Thal
-
Frankly, I was shocked when I saw someone on this site claim that several of Alkan's works represent the best of the romantic-era.
They may be in the minority, but I think you need to accept that some people feel that way.
Frankly, I would rather listen to Alkan than Schumann or Brahms and I would rather listen to Wagner transcriptions than original operas, that go on for hours with screaming women in possession of ridiculous metallic breasts.
Many composers that were extremely popular in their day are relatively ignored today and whilst they are not to everyone's taste, I like to champion the cause of Henselt, Alkan, Dreyschock, Herz, Kalkbrenner, Thalberg & even De Meyer, who can be immensely amusing. They are the composer/pianists that sparked off the romantic movement. Arguably, it was Wagner & Bruckner that were the height.
Thal
-
Frankly, I would rather listen to Alkan than Schumann or Brahms and I would rather listen to Wagner transcriptions than original operas, that go on for hours with screaming women in possession of ridiculous metallic breasts.
Why do you dislike Brahms? I know you said that before in this thread, but I'm interested in your reasons.
-
I don't, albeit some pieces such as the intermezzi and sonata 1 i find beyond boring. I just prefer Alkan.
It is Schumann who i reserve the bulk of my hatred for.
Thal
-
I don't, albeit some pieces such as the intermezzi and sonata 1 i find beyond boring. I just prefer Alkan.
It is Schumann who i reserve the bulk of my hatred for.
Whilst agreeing that the peak of 19th century Romanticism is, as you claim, Wagner and Bruckner, I have not only to disagree wih you about Brahms but wonder why it is actual hatred that you reserve for Schumann. Wagner's and Bruckner's attitude to Schumann was quite different to your own, Brahms and Elgar revered Schumann and Schumann's contribution to the early part of Romanticism can surely not reasonably be undermined. Chopin was largely puzzled and perplexed by Schumann; Schumann's famous "hats off, gentlemen - a genius" celebration of Chopin was responded to by Chopin's very formal and arguably somewhat cold dedication to Schumann of his Second Ballade "à Monsieur Robert Schumann". I'm not immediately sure what Liszt and Alkan made of Schumann, but both Liszt and Alkan were crucial figures in the Romantic movement in 19th century music (think of Liszt's Années de Pèlerinage, the Sonata and the symphonic poems and Alkan's character pieces).
Do please try to reconsider your attitude towards Schumann - one which seems pretty much at odds with your interest in not only the great moments in but also some of the more obscure byways of the Romantic tradition.
Best,
Alistair
-
Chopin was largely puzzlded
I was not aware of this.
Thal
-
Definitely Tsjaikowsky. I'm not even listening to his very, very popular 1st piano concerto or his violin concerto anymore. Besides the two other piano concertos (# two and three) are absolute garbage. Forget about them totally. Only his sixth symphony is somewhat worth the effort. But that's really it!!!
-
I was not aware of this.
Your awareness or otherwise of "this" or indeed anything else simply ain't my problem, nor is it any real part of the subject under discussion.
Best,
Alistair
-
...Brahms and Elgar revered Schumann and Schumann's contribution to the early part of Romanticism can surely not reasonably be undermined.
No, I would not think so. Elgar loved Brahms and Schumann , and if you listen to the Elgar 2nd Symphony (first movement), you can 'hear' the first movement of the Brahms 3rd in the background.
Elgar did indeed conduct the Brahms 3rd.
As for the Schumann piano concerto, well Argerich has always been devoted to it. Call out the deficiencies of the piece, but care to question why Argerich has always loved it?
-
As for me, I have been repeatedly a "victim" of blind-taste listening tests in regards to Schumann; i.e., I was hearing his music on the radio, but I didn't know it was him. Each time I enjoyed the music tremendously, and when the person in the radio announced we had been listening to Schumann, I was always surprised that so many people despise such high quality music.
Regarding Chopin contra Schumann: Chopin, as he was very aristocratic, hated Schumann's romantic way of writing (articles, not music), and he also couldn't stand Schumann praising him in a bombastic manner (he wrote an extremely enthusiastic article about his Op. 2, for instance). In the Carnaval Schumann created a musical portrait of Chopin, and when the Carnaval got published and Chopin was asked what he thought of it, he reportedly said that "it's a well bound publication."
-
Deleted
-
Call out the deficiencies of the piece, but care to question why Argerich has always loved it?
Indeed, let us question why.
Someone here must have her e mail, let us find out. I truly would be interested to know.
Thal
-
Regarding Chopin contra Schumann: Chopin, as he was very aristocratic, hated Schumann's romantic way of writing (articles, not music), and he also couldn't stand Schumann praising him in a bombastic manner (he wrote an extremely enthusiastic article about his Op. 2, for instance). In the Carnaval Schumann created a musical portrait of Chopin, and when the Carnaval got published and Chopin was asked what he thought of it, he reportedly said that "it's a well bound publication."
Is there really factual evidence that Chopin "hated" Schumann's way with words or that he "couldn't stand" Schumann's effusive praise? It strains belief, especially as regards the familiar statement about Chopin's Op. 2. At that early stage of his career, validation from an established musical critic would have been valuable and useful to Chopin.
My assumption (and it's only that, as I would never claim to know with certainty) has always been that "Schumann's romantic way of writing ... music" was precisely what Chopin found unsympathetic. Chopin didn't associate himself with the Romantic movement and, unlike Schumann, eschewed extramusical associations in his own compositions; his personality was reserved and refined, and he probably found Schumann's frank openness (e.g., about the Florestan/Eusebius duality within himself) perplexing, foreign, undignified and even indulgent.
The quip about "a well bound publication" is amusing (and Chopin was known to have a sense of humor). If it's genuine, I'm surprised it's not better known.
-
Tchaikovsky. Can't stand anything by him at all. Everything is just sappy, emotional nonsense, IMHO. I agree somewhat with Nikolai Rubinstein that his piano concerto is worthless and unplayable. Not to mention that he was a miserable person who denigrated composers far superior to him (Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner).
-
I think the most overrated is Debussy and the most underrated is Glinka ;)
And please don't underestimate my opinion because i have heard tons of classical compositions! :D
I forgot all about Debussy and I am in total agreement. I don't get his music at all. I find the preludes to be unlistenable, with the exception of La cathédrale engloutie and La fille aux cheveux de lin, the latter of which I consider to be one of the finest short pieces ever written for the piano. It's wistful, delightful, and full of deep longing - qualities which I find lacking in all the rest of Debussy's works.
-
Tchaikovsky. Can't stand anything by him at all. Everything is just sappy, emotional nonsense, IMHO. I agree somewhat with Nikolai Rubinstein that his piano concerto is worthless and unplayable. Not to mention that he was a miserable person who denigrated composers far superior to him (Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner).
Which concerto? If you mean the first one, it seems contradictory that the best-known piano work by a composer alleged to be “overplayed and overrated” can simultaneously be described as “worthless and unplayable.”
For what it’s worth, some of the reasons for which Tchaikovsky might have been a “miserable person” are fairly well known.
-
Which concerto? If you mean the first one, it seems contradictory that the best-known piano work by a composer alleged to be “overplayed and overrated” can simultaneously be described as “worthless and unplayable.”
For what it’s worth, some of the reasons for which Tchaikovsky might have been a “miserable person” are fairly well known.
Yes, the first. And don't blame me for the quote. Rubinstein said it and he knew more about the piano than I will ever know. Anyway, I said I agreed somewhat. It certainly isn't unplayable, but I still hold that like most of Tchaikovsky, it is emotion-laden nonsense. Anyway, it's just my opinion. Take it or leave it.
-
I'll leave it.
-
it is emotion-laden nonsense.
I guess some people would see "emotion-laden" as a plus point.
Not me, I prefer Xenakis.
Thal
-
Xenakis the great!
Being Greek,like Xenakis was, i also like greek composers!
LOL
;D
-
Yeh, Xenakis is one of my faves, along with Berio, Boulez and Ferneyhough.
Such joy.
Thal
-
Yeh, Xenakis is one of my faves, along with Berio, Boulez and Ferneyhough.
Such joy.
Thal
If you are into Greek and difficult piano concertos, I'd guess you have the four by Skalkottas? Esp. no. 3 (for piano and 10 winds, lasting some 65 minutes) should be a joy indeed!
Just got Evgeny Svetlanov's Piano Concerto, bit weird piece, seems to lack a 1st movement proper. Anyone else know this piece?
gep
-
I still hold that like most of Tchaikovsky, it is emotion-laden nonsense.
Could you possibly explain, to those of us here who might not understand, how you distinguish between music that is "emotion-laden" and that whose expression of emotions is inherent in it rather than plastered on from the outside?
Anyway, it's just my opinion.
Perhaps not quite "just" yours alone but I agree that few are likely to share it.
Take it or leave it.
I'll leave it, thanks.
Best,
Alistair
-
If you are into Greek and difficult piano concertos, I'd guess you have the four by Skalkottas? Esp. no. 3 (for piano and 10 winds, lasting some 65 minutes) should be a joy indeed!
The CPS has only 2 of them. I understand the others are unpublished although this might have changed.
The best Piano Concerto I have heard in yonks is by the Dutch composer Carl Smulders. Perhaps you might have heard of this, but if not, it is on youtube.
CPS member in Amsterdam acquired the score, but it is completely beyond my powers.
Thal
-
Overrated: Tchaikovsky, Schumann
None of their music worth repeated listening.
-
I cannot help but agree on the latter and mostly the former.
Thal
-
The best Piano Concerto I have heard in yonks is by the Dutch composer Carl Smulders. Perhaps you might have heard of this, but if not, it is on youtube.
CPS member in Amsterdam acquired the score, but it is completely beyond my powers.
Thal
Unfortunately not, but it turns out the Rotterdam Central Library has a copy, so I've ordered it for loan.
That CD has also the Pijper Concert (which I know) and the Van Baaren and Badings (the latter for 2 pianos) which I don't know, so I could be in for a treat!
gep
-
A friend of mine has that CD and is gonna send it to me.
Like you, I know the Pijper but not the other two.
For some strange reason, Dutch composers seem to like concertos for 2 pianos. There are hundreds of them.
Thal
-
can you not see that this fabulous triumvirate of pianist/composers all born within some three years of one another represent one of the 19th century's greatest ornaments in Western keyboard music? We should celebrate the work of all three - not least their individualities - rather than seek to set up some silly kind of "competition" between them.
Best,
Alistair
I like how you side-stepped Schumann so unconsciously.
-
I like how you side-stepped Schumann so unconsciously.
Perhaps he wasn't included because of the specific reference to keyboard music.
-
The best Piano Concerto I have heard in yonks is by the Dutch composer Carl Smulders. Perhaps you might have heard of this, but if not, it is on youtube.
Thal
I'ne now heard that concerto, and it's indeed quite interesting (so thanks for the tip!). It seems to be in more (Northern) autumnal shades and hues rather than bright (Southern) colo(u)rs (more Grieg than Greek so to say). What I somewhat deplore (but this is no blame) is the fact that the composer seems to avoid any letting go, making the music somewhat aloof and uneventfull. The only real full throttle parts are at the end of the 1st and the end of the 3rd movement, but even there the breaks are on rather too quickly. Perhaps the composer was thinking of not overstretching the polite audience?
But then perhaps all this is due to the performance rather than the work itself.
If you get the CD, I think you might like the Badings, and less so (if at all) the Van Baaren. But do tell us!
all best,
gep
-
OK, will report back.
I don't anticipate hearing anything that surpasses the Roentgen, which in my humble opinion is the greatest of Dutch Concerti.
Thal
-
OK, will report back.
I don't anticipate hearing anything that surpasses the Roentgen, which in my humble opinion is the greatest of Dutch Concerti.
OK, but don't forget Time's Arrow, will you, there's a good chap...
Best,
Alistair
-
As soon as I have finished with Bridgewater.
I have a feeling I will need something a little lighter before this Time's Arrow.
Thal
-
As soon as I have finished with Bridgewater.
"Bridgewater"? Who he? Leslie of that ilk, by chance, the one-time student of Roberto Gerhard whose piano concerto presumably had what one can only (on the basis of experiences of her Medtner playing) be assumed to have been an inadequate performance from a pianist whose name was not actually Irish Liversausage but who got called that by a certain musician of my acqaintance? (not that I know the piece, of course)...
I have a feeling I will need something a little lighter before this Time's Arrow.
Maybe some Berkeley, then - as in
I shot Time's Arrow into the air;
It fell to the ground -
Hit Berkeley -
Square.
Best,
Alistair
-
"Bridgewater"? Who he? Leslie of that ilk, by chance, the one-time student of Roberto Gerhard whose piano concerto presumably had what one can only (on the basis of experiences of her Medtner playing) be assumed to have been an inadequate performance from a pianist whose name was not actually Irish Liversausage but who got called that by a certain musician of my acqaintance?
I followed the Iris Loveridge recording with the score and there are considerable cuts. My own opinion is that there should have been even more cuts resulting in a recording of about 30 seconds, as precious little else was music as I know it. I am not convinced this is worthy of a fresh recording which might be why it has not been done in the 63 years since the premier.
Investigating 20th century British Piano Concerti has not always been a pleasing experience, Bainton, Bax & Bowen being notable exceptions for me.
Oh well, R R Bennett next.
Thal
-
As for this Time's Arrow, I can only suggest that it would sound better in the vacuum it is attempting to describe.
Thal
-
Incredibly, I log off from Pianostreets, switch on the telly and there is Anthony Payne.
Small World innit.
Thal
-
i personally have to go with beethoven as the most played. or chopin. i think mozart is the most overrated.
-
There's a certain class of "cute" French composers such as Satie and Poulenc which are tiresome after listening to them once.
Overrated and overpromoted by a few enthusiasts is the completely pretentious and fake note-writer (not even a composer) Sorabji. John Ogdon was lucky enough to have been able to sight read him just once.
Terry Riley's "In C" stands as an equally horrible parody of note-non-spinning.
Also the noisy Phillip Glass and another of his ilk which offers relentless iterations of the most annoying chords you can imagine.
Stravinsky is like eating sour pickles and stale bread crusts.
Medtner is a pale, anemic Rachmaninoff imitator. Horowitz often talked about playing his material but he rightly never bothered to record any of it except a "Fairy Tale."
John Field's Nocturnes are boring.
Clementi wrote a few snappy things but is rightly largely forgotten.
As to Schumann, you must be a very senstitive and sympathetic musician to grasp his wonderfully crafted, sentimental and homey meldies and structures.
Chopin detractors probably suffer from overexposure. I play at lot of his stuff, but you just run out of interest after a while.
Shostakovitch on the piano is simply awful. I always get the impression he tries too hard to be clever and "wrong-notey." Funny funny, not ha-ha.
Anyone mention Purcell and others of that era?
How about practically any opera? Oh, this is for piano. OK.
Pretty dumb.
-
Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Krenek. Random notes I can invent and play at any time. [Knocks head for not mentioning them before].
Same as above.
-
One should never listen to Lennox Berkeley without a crate of lager to dampen the senses.
Thal
-
Agreed Djealna. A total idiot. And then some. And some more.
-
And then some. And some more.
What do you mean by this?
-
One should never listen to Lennox Berkeley without a crate of lager to dampen the senses.
Unless, as in my case, the very prospect of a crate of lager is far more likely to bring about a severe irritation of certain of the senses than is anything ever written by Lennox Berkeley.
Best,
Alistair
-
Even if it was Stella Artois??
Thal
-
Even if it was Stella Artois??
Yes. I happen to be allergic to all beers, lagers, ciders and I cannot even look at a shandy without feeling queasy.
Best,
Alistair
-
I truly feel sorry for you.
Thal
-
Underrated: Wilhelm Stenhammar
Overrated: Messiaen, Stravinskij, Mussorgsky
-
Underrated: Wilhelm Stenhammar
Overrated: Messiaen, Stravinskij, Mussorgsky
Couldn't disagree more. :o
-
Schubert. I hate is music.
-
I ban you from pianostreet.com. >:(
-
Schubert. I hate is [sic] music.
Haha, welcome to my world. 8)
Anyway, I propose the following composers apart from the ones I mentioned previously:
Messiaen, Shostakovich, Chopin, Grieg, Dvořák, MacDowell, Poulenc and Babbitt. Should be enough for another discussion. 8)
-
Messiaen, Shostakovich, Chopin, Grieg, Dvořák, MacDowell, Poulenc and Babbitt.
Messiaen is given a lot of credit where it's undeserved, but his music is often good stuff. I would say he's academically overidolized, but not from a playing/listening standpoint.
Shostakovich. . . really not sure what to say. If all you hear are the 5th/10th symphonies, then yes. But he has written so much good stuff that is underappreciated, it evens out.
Chopin is a good composer, but I am bored of him. He is only very-slightly better than other, similar composers of his era, but he is a magnet for less sophisticated listeners. He is overrated in such a way, but I wouldn't say he is "overrated" in the way most people would use the word.
Grieg, Dvorak and McDowell I agree on, although McDowell isn't really played enough for me to consider him "overrated" or "overplayed", in the more general sense of the words. He's kitschy garbage, and has pretty much stayed relegated to performers/listeners who are into that crap.
Poulenc I would say the same thing as McDowell about, but even more-so regarding how little he is performed. He's better than McDowell, though. If you want to go after composers like Poulenc. . . Milhaud, Delius and Dalbavie are more deserving of derision.
Babbitt is a very important composer, historically and academically, but not the most compelling listen. Exceptionally dry music. But really, Babbitt is very niche; I certainly can't say he is overplayed. I'd even say he's underplayed; a lot of his best works aren't the ones that show up the most. There are a ton of composers from that era that are plenty worse than Babbitt. Wuorinen is plenty worse; go for him.
Since it's been a while, I'll redo my list:
Schumann, Grieg, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Dvorak, Sibelius, Milhaud, Delius, Rossini, Wagner, Mahler, Brahms, Mussorgsky, Reich, Riley, Clementi, Medtner, Berlioz, Holst, Rota, Delibes, Strauss, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Weber, Rameau, Reger, Meyerbeer, Dun, Dukas, Harrison, Rorem, Torke, Liebermann, Khachaturian, Pachelbel, Strauss II, Boccherini, Respighi, Mantovani, Gluck, CPE Bach, A. Scarlatti, Donizetti, Corelli, Telemann, Satie, Yun, Couperin and Handel (except the keyboard suites).
Respighi, Telemann, Handel, Haydn, Dvorak, Mendelssohn, Khachaturian and Vaughan Williams are probably what I want to hear NPR say is "next" the very least.
-
Messiaen is given a lot of credit where it's undeserved, but his music is often good stuff. I would say he's academically overidolized, but not from a playing/listening standpoint.
I used to like his music, but for me it was just a phase, nowadays I absolutely despise most Regards, the Quartet, while his purportedly "spiritual" orchestral stuff strikes me as shallow (just as Gershwin et al.), and don't even get me started on his use of bird-song. Maybe in the future I will discover some great Messiaen work.
Shostakovich. . . really not sure what to say. If all you hear are the 5th/10th symphonies, then yes. But he has written so much good stuff that is underappreciated, it evens out.
I won't question Shostakovich's talent, which many of his detractors do, but my dislike of his music has much to do with my aesthetic ideas; in my book a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one filled with both brilliant movements and trashy movements. Shostakovich composed some great music, which definitely could have been composed only by a genius, but he is often so uneven even within the same piece, that I regard him as very overrated.
Chopin is a good composer, but I am bored of him. He is only very-slightly better than other, similar composers of his era, but he is a magnet for less sophisticated listeners. He is overrated in such a way, but I wouldn't say he is "overrated" in the way most people would use the word.
My dislike of Chopin is far more complicated. I genuinely enjoy some of his pieces (the Etudes, the Ballades and a few miscellaneous compositions), but some other works by him I consider almost invariably superficial (the Nocturnes and the Mazurkas, for instance). However, it displeases me when he is presented as a master of counterpoint, when even among the early romantics Mendelssohn and probably Schumann as well were both greater in that respect. It also annoys the hell out of me that he overshadows many great (and relatively accessible) piano composers who are heavily neglected (at least among the mainstream public), such as Medtner, Godowsky, late Liszt, Alkan, Sorabji or even Scriabin.
Poulenc I would say the same thing as McDowell about, but even more-so regarding how little he is performed. He's better than McDowell, though. If you want to go after composers like Poulenc. . . Milhaud, Delius and Dalbavie are more deserving of derision.
Perhaps, but Milhaud gets played so little that I would never consider him overrated.
Babbitt is a very important composer, historically and academically, but not the most compelling listen. Exceptionally dry music. But really, Babbitt is very niche; I certainly can't say he is overplayed. I'd even say he's underplayed; a lot of his best works aren't the ones that show up the most. There are a ton of composers from that era that are plenty worse than Babbitt. Wuorinen is plenty worse; go for him.
Boulez once said that a balanced composition has an emotional as well as an intellectual side. While serialism can take some time to insinuate itself into one's mind and I admittedly haven't yet gotten into Babbitt from an intellectual standpoint, I found his music incredibly dry and lacking in emotion; if his music has some intellectual worth, then it's there definitely at the expense of expressivity. Carter, for instance, always wanted to compose intellectual music, yet his work never seems "inhuman" and/or "cold" to me. I've also read criticisms of Babbitt stating that he basically rehashed Webern's techniques and introduced nothing truly original, but that could be false; personally I know next to nothing about "intervallic" serialism.
Since it's been a while, I'll redo my list:
Schumann, Grieg, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Dvorak, Sibelius, Milhaud, Delius, Rossini, Wagner, Mahler, Brahms, Mussorgsky, Reich, Riley, Clementi, Medtner, Berlioz, Holst, Rota, Delibes, Strauss, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Weber, Rameau, Reger, Meyerbeer, Dun, Dukas, Harrison, Rorem, Torke, Liebermann, Khachaturian, Pachelbel, Strauss II, Boccherini, Respighi, Mantovani, Gluck, CPE Bach, A. Scarlatti, Donizetti, Corelli, Telemann, Satie, Yun, Couperin and Handel (except the keyboard suites).
Out of this list, I'd like to see you justify the inclusion of Schumann, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Wagner, Mahler, Medtner, Reger, Liebermann and Pachelbel. Preliminarily, I will state my belief that virtually no romantic music is as good as Mahler's Symphonies Nos. 6 and 9; the same goes for Wagner's Tristan and Ring.
-
I used to like his music, but for me it was just a phase, nowadays I absolutely despise most Regards, the Quartet, while his purportedly "spiritual" orchestral stuff strikes me as shallow (just as Gershwin et al.), and don't even get me started on his use of bird-song. Maybe in the future I will discover some great Messiaen work.
I'm not a big fan of the Quartet. If you have some random hatred of bird song, there's not a lot I can recommend to you, although I hope you see how arbitrary something like that is. Same thing as saying "I hate X interval, Y key signature or Z tempo".
I won't question Shostakovich's talent, which many of his detractors do, but my dislike of his music has much to do with my aesthetic ideas; in my book a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one filled with both brilliant movements and trashy movements. Shostakovich composed some great music, which definitely could have been composed only by a genius, but he is often so uneven even within the same piece, that I regard him as very overrated.
I'm not sure how uneven he is as how varied he is, although I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. I think that's coming down more to subjective taste than objective dislike. But then again, it might just be the pieces you're listening to. Really don't know; what do you think of his Piano Sonata No. 2, Symphony Nos. 7/15, Cello Concerto No. 1 and Violin Concerto? Those are probably the most consistently strong works, IMO (along with a couple of the quartets, but I'm too lazy to go listen through them to figure out which ones).
My dislike of Chopin is far more complicated. I genuinely enjoy some of his pieces (the Etudes, the Ballades and a few miscellaneous compositions), but some other works by him I consider almost invariably superficial (the Nocturnes and the Mazurkas, for instance). However, it displeases me when he is presented as a master of counterpoint, when even among the early romantics Mendelssohn and probably Schumann as well were both greater in that respect. It also annoys the hell out of me that he overshadows many great (and relatively accessible) piano composers who are heavily neglected (at least among the mainstream public), such as Medtner, Godowsky, late Liszt, Alkan, Sorabji or even Scriabin.
Seems like that has less to do with Chopin's music, as much as it has to do with his audience. As well, I'd venture a guess that your opinion on Chopin's counterpoint is too heavily influenced by this forum; that crap started up here after someone posted a link to a couple of essays a year or so ago, but I don't hear it anywhere else. As in, nowhere else at all. And I would agree that it is crap.
Perhaps, but Milhaud gets played so little that I would never consider him overrated.
My local NPR station loves him, for some reason.
Boulez once said that a balanced composition has an emotional as well as an intellectual side. While serialism can take some time to insinuate itself into one's mind and I admittedly haven't yet gotten into Babbitt from an intellectual standpoint, I found his music incredibly dry and lacking in emotion; if his music has some intellectual worth, then it's there definitely at the expense of expressivity. Carter, for instance, always wanted to compose intellectual music, yet his work never seems "inhuman" and/or "cold" to me. I've also read criticisms of Babbitt stating that he basically rehashed Webern's techniques and introduced nothing truly original, but that could be false; personally I know next to nothing about "intervallic" serialism.
Babbitt is a mixed bag from a listening aspect. Listen to his Piano Concerto No. 1, and then his Piano Concerto No. 2. No. 1 is an extremely "dry" and pointillist work, while the second is very sonorous. You'll find that disparity in his output a lot. The thing is, it's those "dry" works that have been recorded more, because they're the ones that are more famous. As I said, Babbitt is really more famous from an academic standpoint, and it's his early work that gets played more (because that's where his ideas were, of course), which is sort of a shame. As an aside, Babbitt made a number of innovations to Serial processes (the most important of which is the fact that he invented Total Serialism; he was writing in the idiom before Boulez, and even before Messiaen's little experiments), although he became very much a figurehead and proponent of Modern music in general, and did a lot of writing/teaching. He also had some very important residencies. Hence why we still hear about him. He also predated a lot of Goehr's, Goeyvaert's, Wuorinen's, Pousseur's and Stockhausen's "innovations", and had a pretty impressive resume of "important" students. He was also at the forefront of electronic music in America.
Totally unrelated, but I think your comment about Carter is a bit misguided. Carter was/is vehemently anti-intellectual. It's a bit ironic that you bring him up, as Babbitt and Carter were very much as Stockhausen and Cage were to Boulez.
Out of this list, I'd like to see you justify the inclusion of Schumann, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Wagner, Mahler, Medtner, Reger, Liebermann and Pachelbel. Preliminarily, I will state my belief that virtually no romantic music is as good as Mahler's Symphonies Nos. 6 and 9; the same goes for Wagner's Tristan and Ring.
Not upset about Brahms? So anyway, and superficially:
Haydn- C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, B Major. Repeat six hundred times and you have his output. His music is repetitive, meticulous, overly refined, often devoid of emotional value and his works are too-often extremely similar and derivative. His music is painfully safe and seems to, somehow, simultaneously lack exploration in formula and form and immediacy and spontaneity. It is morning radio music, and more specifically, Sunday morning.
Pachelbel- Repeat.
Mendelssohn- Repeat, with the addendum of he has a couple (and I might even be using that word literally, just to be clear) of pieces I can actually find a reason to like. The Octet is one of them, and that's the only one that comes to mind, but I just assume there has to be at least one more.
Wagner/Mahler- I like Wagner more than Mahler by quite a bit, firstly. But they are both one thing, and in the case of Mahler, one thing only: massive blobs of FFFF. Wagner's melodic ingenuity and orchestration puts him a couple steps above Mahler, IMO, but I mean. . . the Symphony of 1000 is the perfect example of why I hate them; it seems to beg the question of "how big, bold and loud can we get". I can listen to some seriously aggressive and noisy stuff, but when it's just so tonic and unnecessary, and constant, I find it obnoxious. I don't get the interest in listening to a nine billion hour piece by Mahler at all. With Mahler, I think he is trying to evoke something I'm just not interested in, nor are my ears. With Wagner, he's just *** exhausting.
Reger- Just worthless. A relic, clinging to the past, combining what I view to be the worst aspects of early Romantic music with the worst aspects of late Romantic music. From the first, excessive and easily anticipated harmonic/modal structures, that never cease and lack any form of spontaneity or surprise, and from the latter, a constant density that wears the listener down and beats him into a pulp. I don't care how excellent he was at counterpoint; if he didn't do something interesting with it, then why should I be interested? His works are certainly "interesting" from the standpoint of difficulty, but that doesn't make a good piece, and I'm just not the type to find a 40 minute set of variations fun to listen to just for what might come up if I analyze them later on.
Schumann- Something of a combination of the reasons I dislike Reger and Mendelssohn; it should be obvious which ones match. Add a "too dry" and that's about it.
Medtner- Medtner I don't despise, like the others you mentioned. I just think he's overrated, that's all. I think he's a fad. He has some decent works, and a ton of mediocre ones. The Night Wind Sonata is a good example of the sort stuff he can do that I really hate: incredibly repetitive, an admittedly pretty (but idiomatic) language, zoloft-inducing melodrama that has no end, and nothing to contrast with. But as I said, I like some of his stuff; I just think he's too easy to like, if you get what I mean, and I think the sudden influx of recordings have bestowed him a new, annoying fan base that he doesn't quite deserve.
Liebermann- Lowell Liebermann is a Neoromantic composer, and he ain't exactly Carl Vine or John Corigliano, who have such incredible skill for composition that they have an honest place in music. For me to have absolutely any respect for a Neoromantic composer, they pretty much have to be, and even Vine is pretty hit or miss. Liebermann is a sell-out, and he doesn't have the skill or inspiration to show me something new, so I just can't be bothered to feel anything about him other than disgust. Besides that, I simply don't like his music; he seems to get lost in his own work a lot of the time. He'll set up an ok motif, but then has no idea how to go somewhere with it.
-
I will comment on your post selectively (that is, if I have something to add or I disagree with what you wrote):
I'm not a big fan of the Quartet. If you have some random hatred of bird song, there's not a lot I can recommend to you, although I hope you see how arbitrary something like that is. Same thing as saying "I hate X interval, Y key signature or Z tempo".
I would agree it might be a bit random, but in general I find it (and most of Messiaen's music as well) uninventive. I still think that some parts of the Vingt Regards are extraordinary, though.
I'm not sure how uneven he is as how varied he is, although I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. I think that's coming down more to subjective taste than objective dislike. But then again, it might just be the pieces you're listening to. Really don't know; what do you think of his Piano Sonata No. 2, Symphony Nos. 7/15, Cello Concerto No. 1 and Violin Concerto? Those are probably the most consistently strong works, IMO (along with a couple of the quartets, but I'm too lazy to go listen through them to figure out which ones).
Of the aforementioned works I have heard Symphonies Nos. 7 & 15, the 1st Cello Concerto and several Quartets. The 1st Cello Concerto is probably the only piece out of these I find engaging. It's really hard to explain my dislike for some of his music (well, actually it isn't, but I don't want to say something stupid), but I think he sometimes uses dissonances just for the sake of using them. A perfect example of the Shostakovich I dislike is his Piano Quintet in C minor; it has a fantastic opening movement, while the remaining four movements are either overly populist or include a pointless quotation of the first movement. Some people might find that kind of music appealing, I simply don't.
Seems like that has less to do with Chopin's music, as much as it has to do with his audience. As well, I'd venture a guess that your opinion on Chopin's counterpoint is too heavily influenced by this forum; that crap started up here after someone posted a link to a couple of essays a year or so ago, but I don't hear it anywhere else. As in, nowhere else at all. And I would agree that it is crap.
Well, this thread is called "the most over played and overrated composer is...", and I was talking about his fans/promoters; your opinion on Medtner's fanbase illustrates the basis for my attitude towards Chopin. In my book he is certainly overplayed, as he takes attention away from some of the composers I mentioned in my previous post here. Rosen's claims are nonsense, I agree on that - Chopin certainly wasn't a greater master of counterpoint than Beethoven.
Babbitt is a mixed bag from a listening aspect. Listen to his Piano Concerto No. 1, and then his Piano Concerto No. 2. No. 1 is an extremely "dry" and pointillist work, while the second is very sonorous.
OK, I'll check it out.
Totally unrelated, but I think your comment about Carter is a bit misguided. Carter was/is vehemently anti-intellectual. It's a bit ironic that you bring him up, as Babbitt and Carter were very much as Stockhausen and Cage were to Boulez.
My position is based on the following:
What Elliott Carter always wanted to write was music that was cerebral as opposed to emotional. Just as it is more difficult to read someone’s thoughts than their emotions, so it is more difficult to understand music that is cerebral rather than emotional.
Source: https://www.overgrownpath.com/2009/11/radical-traditionalist.html
Not upset about Brahms? So anyway, and superficially:
Nah, I have a mixed opinion about Brahms. His orchestral music makes me yawn about as much as a pretty mediocre baroque concerto; his chamber music, on the other hand, is mostly enjoyable, as conservative as it may be in many regards.
Haydn- C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, B Major. Repeat six hundred times and you have his output. His music is repetitive, meticulous, overly refined, often devoid of emotional value and his works are too-often extremely similar and derivative. His music is painfully safe and seems to, somehow, simultaneously lack exploration in formula and form and immediacy and spontaneity. It is morning radio music, and more specifically, Sunday morning.
Well, I can't help disagree. I used to feel that way about both Haydn and Mozart, but I started to enjoy the music of both once I managed to get past the whole "it's all in a major key" attitude.
Pachelbel- Repeat.
Here I disagree even more, especially because only one work by him is known to the public at large (even musicians in general are familiar only with the Canon & Gigue). His work also influenced Bach (at least that's what I read somewhere), so I definitely value him at least a bit.
Wagner/Mahler- I like Wagner more than Mahler by quite a bit, firstly. But they are both one thing, and in the case of Mahler, one thing only: massive blobs of FFFF. Wagner's melodic ingenuity and orchestration puts him a couple steps above Mahler, IMO, but I mean. . . the Symphony of 1000 is the perfect example of why I hate them; it seems to beg the question of "how big, bold and loud can we get". I can listen to some seriously aggressive and noisy stuff, but when it's just so tonic and unnecessary, and constant, I find it obnoxious. I don't get the interest in listening to a nine billion hour piece by Mahler at all. With Mahler, I think he is trying to evoke something I'm just not interested in, nor are my ears. With Wagner, he's just *** exhausting.
I agree that Mahler's 8th Symphony is overcomposed (just like Beethoven's Missa Solemnis), but there is much more to Mahler than that. We are of course dealing with late romanticism, so emotional restraint is a tad unexpected (even Bruckner indulged a bit in having massive climaxes in his Symphonies), but if Mahler's 4th Symphony, his 7th Symphony, large portions of the 9th and virtually the entire DLVDE make you think of relentless orchestral banging, then I don't know what to say.
Medtner- Medtner I don't despise, like the others you mentioned. I just think he's overrated, that's all. I think he's a fad. He has some decent works, and a ton of mediocre ones. The Night Wind Sonata is a good example of the sort stuff he can do that I really hate: incredibly repetitive, an admittedly pretty (but idiomatic) language, zoloft-inducing melodrama that has no end, and nothing to contrast with. But as I said, I like some of his stuff; I just think he's too easy to like, if you get what I mean, and I think the sudden influx of recordings have bestowed him a new, annoying fan base that he doesn't quite deserve.
I admit I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Night-Wind Sonata; the first movement is just fine, but when I get into the middle of the second movement, I find myself almost invariably wondering whether he couldn't come up with something more remarkable. The Sonata-Ballade, the Sonata Romantica, as well as the Sonata Minacciosa are greater and more inventive pieces, I think. I certainly can't agree with the claim that he is repetitive and easy to like, and I'm sure many others think the same that I do. I would say, however, that he had trouble with making good contrast; for example, in his 2nd Piano Concerto he has a very light and "easygoing" finale (as opposed to the previous two movements), but I also think that that's the movement from that Concerto which has the smallest amount of substance of all.
An additional thought (I still haven't posted, though): Some of Medtner's use of the Sonata-allegro form may require an exceptional insight from the performer. I always liked his Sonata Tragica, but I found the recapitulation unnecessary and longsome. However, when I heard this piece performed by Tozer, I could appreciate the way Medtner wrote this piece; he truly managed to nail the part prior to the recapitulation (as well the beginning of the rec.) in such a way that Medtner's intentions could be understood. I also think the same of the following rendition of the Night-Wind Sonata (i.e., it illuminates the purpose of the piece's structure very well):
&feature=related
-
Of the aforementioned works I have heard Symphonies Nos. 7 & 15, the 1st Cello Concerto and several Quartets. The 1st Cello Concerto is probably the only piece out of these I find engaging. It's really hard to explain my dislike for some of his music (well, actually it isn't, but I don't want to say something stupid), but I think he sometimes uses dissonances just for the sake of using them.
I don't understand your objection. Can you amplify and/or cite specific instances of this?
Well, this thread is called "the most over played and overrated composer is...", and I was talking about his fans/promoters; your opinion on Medtner's fanbase illustrates the basis for my attitude towards Chopin.
No. I qualified my statements regarding Medtner, beyond what I viewed to be a momentary surge in his popularity.
What Elliott Carter always wanted to write was music that was cerebral as opposed to emotional. Just as it is more difficult to read someone’s thoughts than their emotions, so it is more difficult to understand music that is cerebral rather than emotional.
You're misunderstanding that statement, not that it's exactly clear (or especially correct, even). There is a difference between "cerebral music" and "academic music"; one could say Bach is cerebral, but one wouldn't say he is "academic".
Well, I can't help disagree. I used to feel that way about both Haydn and Mozart, but I started to enjoy the music of both once I managed to get past the whole "it's all in a major key" attitude.
What key the pieces are in was not a specific facet of my dislike of Haydn; it was merely an illustration to paint a broader picture. . . to evoke what one associates with writing in such a way. My distaste for Haydn is complex, and certainly not worth "getting over", as I have put a lot of work into cultivating it <:
Here I disagree even more, especially because only one work by him is known to the public at large (even musicians in general are familiar only with the Canon & Gigue). His work also influenced Bach (at least that's what I read somewhere), so I definitely value him at least a bit.
If that's the only work you know of his, then to say his value as a composer, and the number of performances his work(s) receive, is justified, you are saying it is based solely on his Canon and Gigue. You are necessarily saying that the number of times that idiotic piece is played is justified, and that it is a piece so, incredibly good that it deserves to be played that number of times. Whether or not he influenced Bach is irrelevant to the topic. Pachelbel influenced Bach who influenced CPE Bach who influenced Mozart who influenced Beethoven who influenced Liszt who influenced Schoenberg who influenced Ferneyhough. Do you like Brian Ferneyhough?
I agree that Mahler's 8th Symphony is overcomposed, but there is much more to Mahler than that.
Everything else you said after that is unnecessary, because I disagree. I could list pieces of Shostakovich and go, "well, I don't know what to say if you don't like them," but that doesn't mean it has value. Just like you proved.
I admit I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Night-Wind Sonata; the first movement is just fine, but when I get into the middle of the second movement, I find myself almost invariably wondering whether he couldn't come up with something more remarkable. The Sonata-Ballade, the Sonata Romantica, as well as the Sonata Minacciosa are greater and more inventive pieces, I think.
The first movement of the Night Wind Sonata would be fine if it was 6 minutes long, instead of 20. And the "difference" between the first and second movements is basically nil. Even Carter's Sonata has more tonal variety. But the Night Wind Sonata was just an example; while it's a particularly good example, I feel the same way about many of his pieces, including the Sonata-Ballade. The Sonata Minacciosa is much more variable, but wholly underwhelming. The Sonata Reminiscenza and Sonata Tragica are swoony trash. There is simply a lot to hate after you've gotten over the kitsch. Too much for a composer to be as loved as he is, IMO.
I certainly can't agree with the claim the he is repetitive and easy to like, and I'm sure many others think the same.
Ah, yes, because everyone hates Rachmaninov and early Scriabin. Such a difficult aesthetic. Refer back to the Night Wind Sonata, regarding repetition. Sorry, but as arresting as the harmonies might be, they kind of lose their edge the 800th time they show up in the piece.
-
I don't understand your objection. Can you amplify and/or cite specific instances of this?
See below (I might elaborate on this when I have more time).
No. I qualified my statements regarding Medtner, beyond what I viewed to be a momentary surge in his popularity.
I will simply quote what you said previously:
Medtner- Medtner I don't despise, like the others you mentioned. I just think he's overrated, that's all. I think he's a fad. He has some decent works, and a ton of mediocre ones. The Night Wind Sonata is a good example of the sort stuff he can do that I really hate: incredibly repetitive, an admittedly pretty (but idiomatic) language, zoloft-inducing melodrama that has no end, and nothing to contrast with. But as I said, I like some of his stuff; I just think he's too easy to like, if you get what I mean, and I think the sudden influx of recordings have bestowed him [Medtner] a new, annoying fan base that he doesn't quite deserve.
You're misunderstanding that statement, not that it's exactly clear (or especially correct, even). There is a difference between "cerebral music" and "academic music"; one could say Bach is cerebral, but one wouldn't say he is "academic".
I never made mention of academic music, on both occasions I described Carter as a primarily intellectual composer.
If that's the only work you know of his, then to say his value as a composer, and the number of performances his work(s) receive, is justified, you are saying it is based solely on his Canon and Gigue. You are necessarily saying that the number of times that idiotic piece is played is justified, and that it is a piece so, incredibly good that it deserves to be played that number of times.
I said he isn't overrated, that's all. Only a tiny fraction of his output gets any attention.
Whether or not he influenced Bach is irrelevant to the topic. Pachelbel influenced Bach who influenced CPE Bach who influenced Mozart who influenced Beethoven who influenced Liszt who influenced Schoenberg who influenced Ferneyhough. Do you like Brian Ferneyhough?
Pachelbel gets treated (almost all the time) by serious fans of classical music as a worthless composer, who gave the world of classical music nothing besides an overplayed and uninteresting piece, while I tried to show (by pointing at the fact that his works influenced Bach's music and the fact that he composed more music than just that one overplayed piece) that such a judgment on his output and his overall value (this includes his importance in music history) is unfair.
Everything else you said after that is unnecessary, because I disagree. I could list pieces of Shostakovich and go, "well, I don't know what to say if you don't like them," but that doesn't mean it has value. Just like you proved.
WRONG. I said I view him as overrated because my aesthetic ideas dictate that a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one with both great and awful movements. I dislike many of his pieces because I don't find his use of dissonances very interesting. You can go back to my post and see the following:
I won't question Shostakovich's talent, which many of his detractors do, but my dislike of his music has much to do with my aesthetic ideas; in my book a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one filled with both brilliant movements and trashy movements. Shostakovich composed some great music, which definitely could have been composed only by a genius, but he is often so uneven even within the same piece, that I regard him as very overrated.
I never claimed to dislike all of Shostakovich's music, as you are presently implying.
You, on the other hand, said that all of Mahler's music consists of quadruple fortes. There is no anology between our claims:
Wagner/Mahler- I like Wagner more than Mahler by quite a bit, firstly. But they are both one thing, and in the case of Mahler, one thing only: massive blobs of FFFF. Wagner's melodic ingenuity and orchestration puts him a couple steps above Mahler, IMO, but I mean. . . the Symphony of 1000 is the perfect example of why I hate them; it seems to beg the question of "how big, bold and loud can we get". I can listen to some seriously aggressive and noisy stuff, but when it's just so tonic and unnecessary, and constant, I find it obnoxious. I don't get the interest in listening to a nine billion hour piece by Mahler at all. With Mahler, I think he is trying to evoke something I'm just not interested in, nor are my ears. With Wagner, he's just *** exhausting.
The first movement of the Night Wind Sonata would be fine if it was 6 minutes long, instead of 20. And the "difference" between the first and second movements is basically nil. Even Carter's Sonata has more tonal variety. But the Night Wind Sonata was just an example; while it's a particularly good example, I feel the same way about many of his pieces, including the Sonata-Ballade. The Sonata Minacciosa is much more variable, but wholly underwhelming. The Sonata Reminiscenza and Sonata Tragica are swoony trash. There is simply a lot to hate after you've gotten over the kitsch. Too much for a composer to be as loved as he is, IMO.
Ah, yes, because everyone hates Rachmaninov and early Scriabin. Such a difficult aesthetic. Refer back to the Night Wind Sonata, regarding repetition. Sorry, but as arresting as the harmonies might be, they kind of lose their edge the 800th time they show up in the piece.
You claimed to like him a bit, now I'm left with the impression you loathe his music passionately. Nice. Good job at ignoring my other points (though I imagine you'll claim my arguments have no merit). What Medtner pieces do you like?
Anyway, perhaps someone might quote what Sorabji said regarding this "trashy" piece?
-
Sorry, but you're just not understanding much, or you're refusing to do so. Feel free to quote Sorabji; I'll quote Adorno, Hegel, Eco, Sciascia and Duchamp.
I'm not going to respond to that blob like I normally would, because it's all over the place, you're quoting/misinterpreting/manipulating chunks from several posts, and you omit the vast majority of relevant information to present a biased viewpoint.
Firstly, you did not qualify your statement(s) regarding Shostakovich allegedly using "unnecessary dissonance", whatever that may mean. You didn't even define such a bizarre and seemingly arbitrary word combination. Considering that's the only part of your post that I quoted, it's obvious that's what I'm referring to. To attempt to direct my statement to something else, so-as to demerit it, means you're either a bit slow to not understand that's what I was referring to, or you're not interested in worthwhile discussion. Either way, it kind of makes me disinterested in continuing this, and I probably won't after this post.
I don't understand why you're quoting my comments about Medtner, at that juncture. What are you talking about? Can you please be more clear? Are you saying that you consider Shostakovich a "fad"? Did you forget to respond to something? You quoted three passages and didn't explain how they're related. As well, I don't think there has been (read: there hasn't been) a "sudden influx" of Shostakovich recordings; he's been popular throughout his career, so you're either misinformed or you're talking about something that's not germane to your "point", whatever that might have been trying to be.
Regarding Carter, we were talking about the differences between his ideology and Babbitt's. I don't care what word you used; if I used your word in a different way (as I did, and explained I did, and mentioned the fact that you were misunderstanding your own quotation; again, you're either not quite up to this discussion, or you're going way out of your way to twist things around) then I made it adequately clear how I was using it. Besides, I didn't even use "intellectual" in the first place. I used "cerebral" and "academic".
Regarding Pachelbel, you misworded yourself. You go way out of your way to talk about how nobody knows any of his work except the Canon, and now you're saying we should be talking about his entire output. Listen: if the Canon is the only work people know, then that's the only work they're using to judge his value. It doesn't matter if you think that's an incorrect way to assess him. That is, simply, the state of affairs. I thought you understood that, but I guess not only do you not understand that, but you also worded yourself completely backwards, before, if that's what you were trying to get at. Not my fault I didn't magically assume you actually meant the opposite of what you really said.
At this point:
WRONG. I said I view him as overrated because my aesthetic ideas dictate that a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one with both great and awful movements. I dislike many of his pieces because I don't find his use of dissonances very interesting. You can go back to my post and see the following:
Lollllllll. Caps lock? Makes me picture this:
Nobody cares what you said. It has nothing to do with what you're responding to. Jesus; I don't even know what to say. You're responding to this:
"I could list pieces of Shostakovich and go, "well, I don't know what to say if you don't like them," but that doesn't mean it has value. Just like you proved."
Again, there isn't an intelligent way to misunderstand what I was saying, so unless you're unintelligent, you're going way, way, way out of your way to try to twist these words into something you can use. "Value" obviously refers to statements, not the music of Shostakovich. Please try harder to follow. I can say anything I want, but if the statement isn't qualified, then the statement has no value. This selected fragment of a larger post obviously refers to the fact that I listed pieces by Shostakovich, which you still claimed to dislike, as well as the reverse happening with your list of works by Mahler, vis-a-vis your comment:
but if Mahler's 4th Symphony, his 7th Symphony, large portions of the 9th and virtually the entire DLVDE make you think of relentless orchestral banging, then I don't know what to say.
Whereupon, similarly, I disagreed with your feelings about the works you cited. There is nothing complicated, obtuse, esoteric or difficult about how that comment was presented, so I really don't know how you could misunderstand it so fully.
Nobody said you dislike all of Shostakovich's music. Again, you're very confused. I am referring to the inherent lack of value in making statements, such as the one I was originally directing the one you quoted at. You claim that there is not a sufficient parallel between our statements, and then proceed to note statements that aren't the ones I'm referring to. I am referring to your listing out of those Mahler pieces, and my listing out of those Shostakovich pieces. Again, that was made clear.
Finally:
You claimed to like [Medtner] a bit, now I'm left with the impression you loathe his music passionately. Nice. Good job at ignoring my other points (though I imagine you'll claim my arguments have no merit). What Medtner pieces do you like?
What points? You made no points. Here is exactly what you said (ah, the magic of the internet, where I can quote you):
I admit I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Night-Wind Sonata; the first movement is just fine, but when I get into the middle of the second movement, I find myself almost invariably wondering whether he couldn't come up with something more remarkable. The Sonata-Ballade, the Sonata Romantica, as well as the Sonata Minacciosa are greater and more inventive pieces, I think. I certainly can't agree with the claim that he is repetitive and easy to like, and I'm sure many others think the same that I do. I would say, however, that he had trouble with making good contrast; for example, in his 2nd Piano Concerto he has a very light and "easygoing" finale (as opposed to the previous two movements), but I also think that that's the movement from that Concerto which has the smallest amount of substance of all.
An additional thought (I still haven't posted, though): Some of Medtner's use of the Sonata-allegro form may require an exceptional insight from the performer. I always liked his Sonata Tragica, but I found the recapitulation unnecessary and longsome. However, when I heard this piece performed by Tozer, I could appreciate the way Medtner wrote this piece; he truly managed to nail the part prior to the recapitulation (as well the beginning of the rec.) in such a way that Medtner's intentions could be understood. I also think the same of the following rendition of the Night-Wind Sonata (i.e., it illuminates the purpose of the piece's structure very well):
&feature=related
You have a sea of subjective, unspecific comments directed at particular works, followed by something about his execution of Sonata form, and all of the others I actually did respond to, or you were simply repeating something I had already said. I'm sorry if you thought you were making a "point" by talking about Sonata form; I found it so tangential and unimportant I simply didn't respond to it, because it was a waste of time. I'm still not going to talk about; god help you if that's how you judge a piece of music. I mean, it's just so banal and unimportant I know I won't be able to deride it civilly. I mean, honestly, you're talking about Sonata form in a late Romantic, two movement sonata, a single sonata of. . . what is it. . . 15(?) sonatas, not to mention the rest of his work. Tangential and insignificant.
Regarding which of Medtner's pieces I like, not many, but a lot of the Faerie Tales are nice. I'm not going to go rushing through his discography, to pointlessly namedrop some of his works.
-
Oh I do love it when John pays a visit.
I wonder how long this one will last :o
Thal
-
Sorry, but you're just not understanding much, or you're refusing to do so. Feel free to quote Sorabji; I'll quote Adorno, Hegel, Eco, Sciascia and Duchamp.
I didn't know any of them was familiar with Medtner's music. But anyway, let's get past that and discuss this topic.
I'm not going to respond to that blob like I normally would, because it's all over the place, you're quoting/misinterpreting/manipulating chunks from several posts, and you omit the vast majority of relevant information to present a biased viewpoint.
No. I didn't omit anything crucial; in fact, when dealing with your opinions concerning Medtner and Mahler, I quoted whole paragraphs. If that strikes you as manipulation through omission, then feel free to post the relevant part(s) of your statement(s) which I allegedly omitted. By the way, I consider myself patient, but to call my post a blob strikes me as very offensive and completely unnecessary. Not that you care, of course.
Firstly, you did not qualify your statement(s) regarding Shostakovich allegedly using "unnecessary dissonance", whatever that may mean. You didn't even define such a bizarre and seemingly arbitrary word combination. Considering that's the only part of your post that I quoted, it's obvious that's what I'm referring to. To attempt to direct my statement to something else, so-as to demerit it, means you're either a bit slow to not understand that's what I was referring to, or you're not interested in worthwhile discussion. Either way, it kind of makes me disinterested in continuing this, and I probably won't after this post.
I said I don't find his use of dissonances interesting. I admit the word combination "unnecessary dissonances" is inappropriate and confusing, so I retract it. It's simply my personal opinion and it's also largely colored by my experience with his String Quartets, which I have heard performed by the Emerson String Quartet. Perhaps their performances of them was what I found annoying; to be sure of that, I would have to hear more performances of those pieces.
I don't understand why you're quoting my comments about Medtner, at that juncture. What are you talking about? Can you please be more clear? Are you saying that you consider Shostakovich a "fad"? Did you forget to respond to something? You quoted three passages and didn't explain how they're related. As well, I don't think there has been (read: there hasn't been) a "sudden influx" of Shostakovich recordings; he's been popular throughout his career, so you're either misinformed or you're talking about something that's not germane to your "point", whatever that might have been trying to be.
I said Chopin is overrated because he receives too much attention, attention which he doesn't deserve and which other, lesser known composers could be receiving. You said this is not related to the issue with which this thread deals, and then I pointed out you spoke of Medtner in the same way. You said he is overrated because he is getting more fans than he deserves, which is the same as what I said about Chopin.
I never tried to imply Shostakovich is a fad by using comparisons with your attitude towards Medtner. I don't know how this confusion came about. Notice also, that I'm not calling you anything and complaining about your grasp of my words (which you enjoy doing).
Regarding Pachelbel, you misworded yourself. You go way out of your way to talk about how nobody knows any of his work except the Canon, and now you're saying we should be talking about his entire output. Listen: if the Canon is the only work people know, then that's the only work they're using to judge his value. It doesn't matter if you think that's an incorrect way to assess him. That is, simply, the state of affairs. I thought you understood that, but I guess not only do you not understand that, but you also worded yourself completely backwards, before, if that's what you were trying to get at. Not my fault I didn't magically assume you actually meant the opposite of what you really said.
Sure, but it's inaccurate. It's certainly not the way I'd go about judging a composer. Tell me, when you first hear a piece by a new composer, do you immediately proceed to say he is decent/mediocre/great/bad/awful? In my mind it's not a wise decision, but if you think Pachelbel can be justifiably judged on the basis of only one piece, well, fine. Also, I didn't say the opposite of anything. Just read my post again. It may have been the opposite of the way you understood my post, but not of the way in which I meant it and which I explained later.
Again, there isn't an intelligent way to misunderstand what I was saying, so unless you're unintelligent, you're going way, way, way out of your way to try to twist these words into something you can use. "Value" obviously refers to statements, not the music of Shostakovich. Please try harder to follow. I can say anything I want, but if the statement isn't qualified, then the statement has no value. This selected fragment of a larger post obviously refers to the fact that I listed pieces by Shostakovich, which you still claimed to dislike, as well as the reverse happening with your list of works by Mahler, vis-a-vis your comment:
Whereupon, similarly, I disagreed with your feelings about the works you cited. There is nothing complicated, obtuse, esoteric or difficult about how that comment was presented, so I really don't know how you could misunderstand it so fully.
Nobody said you dislike all of Shostakovich's music. Again, you're very confused. I am referring to the inherent lack of value in making statements, such as the one I was originally directing the one you quoted at. You claim that there is not a sufficient parallel between our statements, and then proceed to note statements that aren't the ones I'm referring to. I am referring to your listing out of those Mahler pieces, and my listing out of those Shostakovich pieces. Again, that was made clear.
OK, let's simplify it (I could complain about the fact that you did not address the difference between our statements, but forget that):
Do you think Mahler's DLVDE or his Symphonies Nos. 4 and 7 consist of nothing but "massive blobs of FFFF"? And if you do not think that, then why did you use such a sweeping generalization?
What points? You made no points.
You said Medtner is too repetitive, I pointed out that the inner logic of his music and the purpose of his repetitiveness can be obfuscated by inadequate performances and cited an example of that (or at least something which I view as an example of that). Since you are so well versed in logic, could you at least tell me which part of my argument was faulty, please? Did I use a flawed premise? Was my point about the Sonata-allegro form a non-sequitur? Or did I make some other logical mistake?
-
Oh I do love it when John pays a visit.
I wonder how long this one will last :o
Thal
Well, he has more or less told us in advance how much he is enjoying this discussion:
Either way, it kind of makes me disinterested in continuing this, and I probably won't after this post.
The interesting thing is that he doesn't mind having long discussions with people he deems complete idiots, but he is not willing to talk with me (although I'm probably still too stupid for him, considering his IQ is supposed to be 205). Just look at this, for instance:
Nobody here is talking about the piece any more. You made a post that was about the ideology of the piece, and then switched half-way through to being about me again. If you want to talk about me, then let's not blame it on me. Do you literally need me to copy/paste all the comments that are transpiring in this thread for you as evidence, are you actually unaware of the fact that you and others are concentrating on me instead of the music, or are you just trying to make a point? Frankly, whether or not your "point" means anything to anyone does not concern me, because it obviously doesn't mean anything to me, which I would hope would be your "point" in the first place. If it's exhibition, I suggest you start thinking about your own actions as well as mine. If you want to discuss the piece of music, make a comment about it. Not a comment about me, or what you think I am, or things I've said, or things you've interpreted about me from some online interaction.
You said I am not a sociopath "because I want to kill everyone" and "because I don't even remember my own actions". Again, is this exhibition rhetoric, or do you honestly believe yourself? If you think anyone who vaguely speaks English and doesn't have Autism is going to interpret that comment as sincere, you need to evaluate your use of the language. Social Darwinism is a philosophy invented by someone far smarter than me or you; take it up with them. I also severely doubt you understand what it is.
You are not understanding that comment. It directly proceeded the remark about the execution of what I labeled as "vitriol". It has nothing to do with your playing or your offense.
I don't know my history, apparently. I have over 100 posts on this account, now. If you tally those that are constructive and those that are argumentative, you will find it leans hugely in favor of being constructive. Let's also keep in mind that all but one post are constructive, if we disregard the fact that all, other argumentative posts I've made are in response to other people behaving the exact, same way as I do. Like I said, less four letter words, same meaning. But no, everyone else is a saint and I am Satan, because I give slightly less of a sh*t about your feelings and slightly less of a sh*t about what is "acceptable insulting practice". Do you have any idea how stupid that is? "Acceptable insulting practice". That's what this whole ideology you have is about. I can be more coy, guiled, sarcastic and condescending than anyone you will ever meet, but it's less fun for me because when I go for it, people usually don't even realize I'm insulting them. Much less fun. Keep that in mind; I am under more attack than you are, for being an attacker. That is why this is stupid beyond recognition. It is playground psychology you and the others like you have. I don't know how old you are, but apparently you have a lot more growing up than I do when it comes to removing yourself from a confrontation and realizing what it actually is. Even if my dialog is often immature, at least I understand what this is. Also, if I remember correctly, I apologized (I doubt you know how rare that is, and you might not care); you could have let it die, but you brought it back up. You did.
"Padowan" is common language. I have seen one and a half Star Wars movies in my life and I know the word; therefore it is understandable for me to assume something (you are not the only one with that right), which was that most people know what the word means. Also, I don't particularly see a difference; a need for patience is merely the abridged version of the comment which you will go on to call highly constructive. I can not believe you wrote a huge paragraph berating me because you had to look up a word, and subsequently misinterpreted the meaning of my comment. That is beyond ridiculous. Just outrageous! That is like trying to order food in a French and then screaming at the waiter when he brings you a steak, when you tried to order fish, not knowing French. It's exactly the same. I am not obligated to leave your video any comment, much less obligated to leave an extensive one. If you wanted to know what I meant, you should have asked, not make wild assumptions about me insulting you.
Because, contrary to overwhelmingly popular belief, I am not "pompous" or "pretentious", and leaving a comment like that is just such. My taste in music may be "pretentious", and I am most certainly arrogant, but I am not those things. Had you engaged me and asked me what the meaning of my comment was, I would have then explained it to you.
I don't think my manners are constructive to anything other than my own enjoyment, as doing what Alistair does in the face of ignorance, for instance, is less fun for me. The words that I actually type can be constructive; you just have to pay attention to them instead of the way I'm saying them. Your choice; most people don't. You come on this forum for enjoyment, and so do I. I'm not going to ruin my own time by being harassed and just taking it, which is what's happening. Where's the sympathy for me, eh? I bite back, I don't bite first; this is almost without variance. I just bite harder, and I get all the sh*t. It's so stupid. Just painfully stupid. Nobody pays attention to the context of my arguments; all you see are how many times I used the words "***" or "idiot", which is more than the other guy, which means I'm the evil one. Seriously, go find all the infamous threads of me tearing people up; I never start it. On here, for example. Go look in the "polls" sub-board of "Miscellaneous", "Hardest Classical Piece", and you'll find your little posse trying to start sh*t with me, going out of their way to piss me off. So, excuse me if I get pissed off.
And Thal's idiotic argument that I post these threads to "show off my knowledge" or to "instigate trouble" is asinine. Trouble comes to me, I don't make it. Seriously. Look through the history of all my accounts. That's:
Skeptopotamus
Soliloquy
I_love_Xenakis
I_heart_Xenakis
s_bussotti
Ikedian
ferret_dance
meowmix
Oeillade
Probably others. If you actually care this much. You will see that I'm not the one who starts these fights; I'm just the one who ends them. Just like I apologized to you to try to end it, which is not my typical strategy, so to speak. But you brought it back up, and then bitched that it was being brought back up. What do you think is going to happen if you respond to this post in a civil manner? Do you think I will still be nasty? If you respond like you just did, of course I will. But if you act the way you're telling me I'm supposed to act all I'm going to do is say "fine" and let it be done, which is what I always do. It's not me: it's you.
Let's take a look:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35908.msg412743#msg412743
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412665#msg412665
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412671#msg412671
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412677#msg412677
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412623#msg412623
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412607#msg412607
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412435#msg412435
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35841.msg412721#msg412721
Undeniable harassment. So, excuse me if I don't deal with you civilly. Or, these people. Like I said, that one, big post had a lot of displaced anger from them to you which I already apologized for, mistaking (possibly) you for being in their crowd, so to speak. So, if these people harass me, I am not allowed to retaliate? Are you the Gestapo or something? You like to insinuate that I'm crazy, but I want to know what sort of crazy, self-serving world it is you're trying to force on me. Because I don't want any part of it. I might seem crazy to you, but that's only because I'm sane enough, not rooted in sociostigma enough, to see what is actually going on.
This is another example of what I mean:
An IQ test is a perfect way to measure intelligence. It's not a way to measure social skills, wisdom or knowledge. These are not intelligence, and are thus not applicable to intelligence. If you honestly think IQ tests don't signify anything, I can't honestly think of why that would be. Sounds pretty self-serving. Like, if you think someone with Down's Syndrome is going to score the same as Richard Dawkins, then just what. Otherwise, they do have meaning. Maybe my example is extreme, but it's true. Do you need for me to categorize the syllogisms for you and explain it? I think you might.
Yes, the problem is with me. Allow me to immediately quote myself, here:
"Do you need for me to categorize the syllogisms for you and explain it? I think you might."
Notice that I didn't, however. The problem here is that you need me to explain everything to you like you're a little baby to understand what I'm saying. I refuse to do that because it's a waste of my time, and then I'd need to explain my explanation, and explain the explanation of my explanation etc., bordering on ad infinitum for you to understand. I'd have to categorize the syllogisms, then I'd have to explain what a syllogism is, then I'd have to show you the Aristotlean model of analytics, then I'd have to explain that, then I'd have to explain the terms used in it, then I'd have to explain the terms used in defining the terms, then I'd have to actually do the categorizing again, using the newly founded semantic relationship between the constraints of my supporting definition(s) and explanation, then I'd have to propose the argument, then I'd have to dismantle your rebuttal, then I'd have to explain my rebuttal, then I'd have to go through the whole process again. I'd probably have to bring Russell and Wittgenstein into it at this point, which I don't want to do. Then you'd think you were right because you don't understand what's going on and you would just argue with me forever, which is the same thing that's going to happen anyway. Same thing happening right now. So, since you're just going to think you're correct, I'm not going to bother explaining it to you like that, because I don't pander to your type. The people whose opinions are valid to me, that meaning the people who can understand what I have to say without me having to go through all this, will see that I am correct and that you are incorrect. I do not care if you think you are correct, because you are not one of those people, therefore your opinion does not matter to me. So I have no motive to assist you at the expense of my effort. I'm also not going to explain that paragraph.
So, the problem here is that you don't understand me because I do not submit my arguments in a fashion that is congruent with your ability to comprehend their mechanisms, because you are unfamiliar with the mechanisms and incapable of making the necessary inferences that the people who I care about would be able to understand/make.
So, it's good because you love it. Do you realize how stupid that is? How in the world is that not subjective? I mean, that's the definition of subjective. "I love it". Also, you need a reason to love it. You don't love something for no reason. It's impossible.
And, yes, music is purely intellectual. You are just taking the word "intellectual" into an improper form. You don't love music with your fingers, you love it with your brain. "Love" is a mental state: mental. Want the roots for "mental"? Do I honestly need to explain further?
By your logic, all I need to say about the works of Ferneyhough to make them as valid as the works of Beethoven is "I love it". DONE. Wow, you could have saved me so much time! If only I was as wise and well-versed in debate forensics as you.
Yes. Also, someone with seven arms might find one piece easier than someone with one arm. Someone with small hands might find playing parallel 10ths harder than someone with large hands. What is your point? Pieces that fall into the category of "the most difficult piece of music" transcend normal abilities of pianists to the point of being feasibly impossible to perform as notated, for the longest/most frequent/most intense durations. One pianist might find jumping from A5 to A8 easier than another does, while one pianist might find that easier to do with the left hand (bad example, but you get the point. Well, nah, probably not). This isn't the point; the point is, what would be the most difficult piece for a pianist with an average and well-rounded technique. It's stupid to say that the works of Kiyama are easy because someone might have a lot of experience as a sideshow performer playing the piano with his feet. By your argument, someone might have a mental handicap in which the exercises of Hanon make him vomit; that would mean that Hanon exercise No. 1 is as hard as Finnissy's Solo Concerto No. 4.
That's your logic. Your so-called logic. That is the difference between me and you; you waste time because you don't think out what you say. You just say random crap that you think suits your argument at the time; I'm sure your next post will be an entirely new argument, likely contradicting the one you just proposed, as you will have no way to back up the one you just made. You'll just keep saying new, stupid things over and over again, continuing to think you're so enlightened, even though every time I respond I will show you how wrong you are. That's the habit you, and all the people like you, have. You're like a child trying to play chess; you don't think ahead, you don't take your argument in any direction, much less the number of directions necessary to insure that it is a strong one. You don't follow the argument to its logical conclusion. You're basically playing the lottery, trying to get lucky and hoping you say something smart. But just like playing the lottery, the odds are pretty slim. You say something, anything, that is in contradiction to what I say and you think that is an argument. Idiotic.
Also, an addendum. Here's another thing you don't think about: I want to know why you are posting, and why you are posting what you're posting. Any action formed in any part of the brain (just so you don't derail this into BS about the reptilian brain or some garbage) is reaction to a stimulus. What about me is stimulating you, and what is the meaning of your response? What are your goals, here? What is your intended outcome, what outcome would you consider perfect, and what is the worst outcome? How and why are your actions leading you towards the hopeful outcome, or are they? To what do you intend to gain?
I'm thinking about these things; you are not. Given that, how can you "win"? After all, "winning" is surely the outcome you're after. And on that note, what would you consider "winning"? Why is it winning, and why do you want it? If you do win, will be worth it? How can you be sure that, if these are things I'm thinking about, I'm not in complete and utter control? Don't you think I can easily anticipate you? Are you not aware of the amount of experience I have in this situation? If so, isn't it safe to assume you're only going to do what I want you to do? How does that fit into your plan?
Maybe you should do less saying and more thinking. C'mon kid, put some effort into it. It's more fun for me that way.
-
I don't know how I managed to fail to notice this, but:
Sorry, but you're just not understanding much, or you're refusing to do so. Feel free to quote Sorabji; I'll quote Adorno, Hegel, Eco, Sciascia and Duchamp.
Sure, go ahead and quote Adorno, who would disagree with your take on Mahler. :)
-
I didn't know any of them was familiar with Medtner's music. But anyway, let's get past that and discuss this topic.
That's nice. I'm sure most of them are/were, but I can't say, specifically. Either way, good job at not changing tactics. Considering what I was quoting did have the word "Medtner" in the sentence, surely it must have been about Medtner, and not about aesthetic valuation, as you were referring to my diction (unless you don't know how to parse a sentence correctly, and meant to talk about Medtner).
No. I didn't omit anything crucial; in fact, when dealing with your opinions concerning Medtner and Mahler, I quoted whole paragraphs. If that strikes you as manipulation through omission, then feel free to post the relevant part(s) of your statement(s) which I allegedly omitted. By the way, I consider myself patient, but to call my post a blob strikes me as very offensive and completely unnecessary. Not that you care, of course.
I already did mention specific things you failed to mention, in my post above, particularly pertaining to comments made in previous posts that were necessary to contextualize proceeding comments. Do you want me to do it again, for some reason?
I said I don't find his use of dissonances interesting. I admit the word combination "unnecessary dissonances" is inappropriate and confusing, so I retract it. It's simply my personal opinion and it's also largely colored by my experience with his String Quartets, which I have heard performed by the Emerson String Quartet. Perhaps their performances of them was what I found annoying; to be sure of that, I would have to hear more performances of those pieces.
I'm glad you retract it. However, you still haven't explained what you originally meant by it.
I said Chopin is overrated because he receives too much attention, attention which he doesn't deserve and which other, lesser known composers could be receiving. You said this is not related to the issue with which this thread deals, and then I pointed out you spoke of Medtner in the same way. You said he is overrated because he is getting more fans than he deserves, which is the same as what I said about Chopin.
Except for the fact that nobody was talking about Chopin, at that point, hence why your statement was incomprehensible, to the point by which you had hoped it would make.
I never tried to imply Shostakovich is a fad by using comparisons with your attitude towards Medtner. I don't know how this confusion came about. Notice also, that I'm not calling you anything and complaining about your grasp of my words (which you enjoy doing).
I never said that you did. I said it was a possibility, among others. Please read your previous post to see why I would say that; you have two blocks of text quoted next to one another, with no extrapolation between them. One is about Medtner, and one is about Shostakovich, with the comments about Medtner being a "fad" reoutlined in bold lettering. Care to explain why?
Sure, but it's inaccurate. It's certainly not the way I'd go about judging a composer. Tell me, when you first hear a piece by a new composer, do you immediately proceed to say he is decent/mediocre/great/bad/awful? In my mind it's not a wise decision, but if you think Pachelbel can be justifiably judged on the basis of only one piece, well, fine. Also, I didn't say the opposite of anything. Just read my post again. It may have been the opposite of the way you understood my post, but not of the way in which I meant it and which I explained later.
It doesn't matter. Pachelbel isn't overrated because you think he's a good composer. He's overrated because a billion people like his stupid Canon. Those people aren't thinking about the rest of his repertoire. Therefore, he is overrated. Would you prefer the term "overappreciated, given knowledge of those who appreciate him"? Perhaps that alternate and expanded definition of "overrated" illustrates the point.
Do you think Mahler's DLVDE or his Symphonies Nos. 4 and 7 consist of nothing but "massive blobs of FFFF"? And if you do not think that, then why did you use such a sweeping generalization?
Yes. Do you think I am being literal when I say "FFFF", or do you think I am using it figuratively? Would you prefer "dense", "heterophonic" and "monochromatic"? They are pointless works, to me. Whatever their point is, I'm not interested in it, nor are my ears interested in the ride. This is a subjective opinion, and I never claimed it to be anything but that. However, there are certainly more works by Mahler that fit my case than yours.
You said Medtner is too repetitive, I pointed out that the inner logic of his music and the purpose of his repetitiveness can be obfuscated by inadequate performances and cited an example of that (or at least something which I view as an example of that). Since you are so well versed in logic, could you at least tell me which part of my argument was faulty, please? Did I use a flawed premise? Was my point about the Sonata-allegro form a non-sequitur? Or did I make some other logical mistake?
A mechanical purpose or ideology for repetition is not germane to the acousmatic, aesthetic experience. This is why I find such an argument irrelevant. I do not find a notable difference in voicing, sonority or chromaticism in the recording you posted to have my feeling on the work change. Logical errors abound in your posts. There are surely more than a handful in my own. Even Wittgenstein or Kripke would count themselves incredibly lucky to write even such a small amount of material on aesthetics and subjective interest in works of music and avoid any fallacies. It's pointless to list them out. There would be tens - maybe even 100+ -, and calling them by their formal names (no pun intended) would be a massive waste of time, as the more important ones have already been noted.
Oh I do love it when John pays a visit.
Do you ever feel like the boring in-law who vastly overstays his welcome?
The interesting thing is that he doesn't mind having long discussions with people he deems complete idiots, but he is not willing to talk with me (although I'm probably still too stupid for him, considering his IQ is supposed to be 205). Just look at this, for instance:
I'm glad you care so much to surf through my previous posts; if you get closer and closer to that proverbial corner, will you literally start to bark? I'm sorry, but I won't be bothering with reciprocation. I do hope you aren't under the delusion that you can embarrass me: I'm not interested in being nice, so your excerpts do very little, not that I think anyone here was getting the impression I was especially worried about my moral standing. Quite useful what you did there, isn't it?
My IQ might be 205. Personally, I think that number's a bit high. I scored a 220 on the Sigma VI Supplement, but only 187 on the actual Sigma Test (Version 4). 205 is an average: I've typically scored 190-195 on high ceiling tests. The 220 pushes it up a bit. I might have tacked on a few points for "x or higher", admittedly, as I broke the ceiling on two of Hoeflin's. An honest self-appraisal would put me in the low 190's, to be honest. Thanks for bringing that up! You know, it's hard to fit into a conversation, but if you're going to oblige me like that. . .
Regarding whether you're an idiot or not. I'd say no, but I think you vastly overvalue the difference between yourself and someone with more. . . pedestrian sensibilities. . . when it comes to how someone like me views and interacts with someone like you.
I have not read Adorno's work on Mahler, but I know enough about it to be dissuaded from giving it much value. It is in direct opposition to nearly all of his own teachings, and has little to do with reason, and much to do with fan-gushing. From what I understand, it is flowery idolization of Mahler's lack of concession to trend and his works' strong sense of evocation.
-
Do you ever feel like the boring in-law who vastly overstays his welcome?
More like a hotelier who puts up with big headed twats knowing their visit will be a short one.
Thal
-
More like a hotelier who puts up with big headed twats knowing their visit will be a short one.
Thal
I just picture you moping in the corner of a hotel lobby, pining about how you wish you went to school so you could afford those nice suits all of your guests wear, but then go console yourself in the company of the kitchen staff, talking about their "excess" you secretly wish you had, intermittently bemoaning how your tips have been steadily declining, lately. Couldn't possibly be your fault; blame it on the jerks!
Of course, the irony in that is that you used to drive a TVR, if I'm not mistaken? Well, only for the enjoyment of it, of course (certainly not compensation, and I'm not talking about penile). I feel kind of bad ragging on you, given what I know about some of your issues (and I'm feeling above pot shots, at the moment), but maybe you shouldn't bring it on yourself, unless you enjoy it for the same reasons you try to deride me of. Just jealous that I'm better at it, or don't you like my style? Erudition over a delusive, causal, self-preserving "brevity is the soul of wit" get on your nerves?
-
I just picture you sitting at a large table in a restaurant waiting for someone to speak so you can immediately shoot them down and assert your superiority. When everybody ignores you at the after dinner dance, you blame it on them as it couldn't possibly be anything to do with you. After all, you have such a high IQ.
Of course, the irony is that you used to drive a SAAB, if I am not mistaken. Well, only for the enjoyment of it (nothing penile).
Please do not feel bad about ragging on me and if you want to tell the entire forum about my homosexual phase, please feel free. You might come out with something funny.
Anyway, I am pleased to advise that I was cured shortly after.
Luv
Thal :-*
-
A 1989 Saab; I think there is a big difference between the connotations of "Saab" and "1989 Saab". I wasn't referring to your homosexual phase; why would I rag on you about that? I mean, I'm plenty of things, but hypocrite is not one of them. I was talking about some of the to-remain-unnamed issues that surrounded that. I was not implying that I would bring them up, although I figured you would interpret it that way. I was too lazy to fix it. Originally, I wrote that phrase referring to the "penile" comment, but then it was stretched away from that comment.
I don't think you understand me. Regarding intellectual superiority, it is a factual statement that, in comparison to a random person, I will usually be superior. However, I do not go out of my way to hoist that around. Enjoyment from activities in which such occurs is not derived, primally and innately, from the act of "being" and/or "appearing" and/or "feeling" superior. I do not have a need to do so. Occasionally, but rarely, I might mention my academic credentials, but not simply for the sake thereof, but instead to qualify a statement. As well, I very rarely do that unless someone else has brought it up. I'm not completely uninhibited, or ignorant to how such statements look. Of course, this is typically overlooked, based on people's laziness to assess situations, and instead cling to incomplete, simple, social cues and paradigms.
I enjoy arguing, philosophy, logic and linguistics. Combine these interests with a long-winded writing style and I can superficially appear to qualify for how you describe me. I do not enjoy stupidity or slowness, but I don't loathe them. What I loathe are unqualified statements, and unqualified egos. Most egos are unqualified, particularly from my generation. They make me resentful; being knowledgeable is hard work, so why should I allow someone to pretend they've done the work I actually have? When I encounter such, I often reduce to a harsh tone more quickly than most, because, while I almost never get "angry" (and certainly never over something on the internet), I am quick to become frustrated or exasperated. Sorry, but this is a character flaw I have been incapable of fixing. And, of course, one quickly realizes there isn't a point in continuing the conversation with a person who exasperates you; I realize this. I just enjoy the activities of the aftermath, as well. Never is the intent to pleasure my ego by engaging in conflicts in which I feel superior over; I enjoy the conflict itself. It falls into place among many of my interests.
-
Honest and enlightening post.
Thanks for that.
Thal
-
I don't want to make it sound like I'm not aware of my flaws, though. There are infinitely more respectful ways to go about saying what I have to say.
-
Do you ever feel like the boring in-law who vastly overstays his welcome?
Can't answer for Thal (he can do that quite well, I think), but you provide exellent examples of having one.
Regarding intellectual superiority, it is a factual statement that, in comparison to a random person, I will usually be superior.
A laugh a day keeps the doctor away they say. So I aint in need for one the whole year now, if that's true...
What I loathe are unqualified statements, and unqualified egos.
So how do you live with yourself, I ask?
. And, of course, one quickly realizes there isn't a point in continuing the conversation with a person who exasperates you; I realize this. I just enjoy the activities of the aftermath, as well. Never is the intent to pleasure my ego by engaging in conflicts in which I feel superior over; I enjoy the conflict itself. It falls into place among many of my interests.
And you make lots and lots of friends, of course!
My IQ might be 205. Personally, I think that number's a bit high. I scored a 220 on the Sigma VI Supplement, but only 187 on the actual Sigma Test (Version 4). 205 is an average: I've typically scored 190-195 on high ceiling tests. The 220 pushes it up a bit. I might have tacked on a few points for "x or higher", admittedly, as I broke the ceiling on two of Hoeflin's. An honest self-appraisal would put me in the low 190's, to be honest.
But you do not brag about it, thankfully... At least yours is a case that proves high IQ has absolutely nothing to do with being a worthwhile person. Sadly, I'm way dumber than you are, but you know what, I've at least got a personality that isn't pathological...
Enjoy yourself, nobody else does... No, that is not true; of course you will attract some who enjoy being with you, but then, so does horse dung, and for the same reason
gep
-
Oh no, we were just beginning a new era of understanding and I think you might have taken us back a step :'(.
Thal
-
And you make lots and lots of friends, of course!
Only goes to show how little you understand. Do you really think I want you as my friend? :)
-
Only goes to show how little you understand. Do you really think I want you as my friend? :)
Only goes to show how little you understand. Do you really think I want you as my friend?
gep
-
Only goes to show how little you understand. Do you really think I want you as my friend?
gep
I don't know if that is a better example of your misunderstanding of logic or of English. Please, oh please, in italics, because it makes sentences so cool, explain how that is germane.
Even better, please explain what I meant by my statement. Surely you don't just randomly respond to things you don't even understand!
-
The most underrated composer is me and the most overrated is the one i wish i was! ;)
-
The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!! >:(
-
The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!! >:(
And just how much - and which works - of Boulez have you listened to? I am no unequivocial admirer of Boulez's music myself, but your statement, which goes beyond mere personal opinion, seems to me to take little account of the entirety of Boulez the composer and may, I suspect, be based almost entirely upon just some of the works that he wrote in the two decades or so from the late 1940s. The sheer absurdity of your description of this eminent conductor as a "music-destroyer" is all too self-evident.
Best,
Alistair
-
Prokofiev
-
I already did mention specific things you failed to mention, in my post above, particularly pertaining to comments made in previous posts that were necessary to contextualize proceeding comments. Do you want me to do it again, for some reason?
I'll reread it and see if I get it or not.
I'm glad you retract it. However, you still haven't explained what you originally meant by it.
I might buy a few Shostakovich scores to grasp better what I dislike about his use of dissonances. For now I'd say I dislike them because they are employed in such a way that they do not allow me any relief. However, this statement is still too vague, considering I enjoy extremely aggressive music like Xenakis' Synaphaï.
Except for the fact that nobody was talking about Chopin, at that point, hence why your statement was incomprehensible, to the point by which you had hoped it would make.
I was using an analogy; I was comparing my reasoning with yours.
I never said that you did. I said it was a possibility, among others. Please read your previous post to see why I would say that; you have two blocks of text quoted next to one another, with no extrapolation between them. One is about Medtner, and one is about Shostakovich, with the comments about Medtner being a "fad" reoutlined in bold lettering. Care to explain why?
OK, I get you now (at least I hope I do). The "see below" remark does not refer to what follows immediately, it refers to a later portion of the text. Perhaps I shouldn't have written it, the paragraph would have been clearer.
It doesn't matter. Pachelbel isn't overrated because you think he's a good composer. He's overrated because a billion people like his stupid Canon. Those people aren't thinking about the rest of his repertoire. Therefore, he is overrated. Would you prefer the term "overappreciated, given knowledge of those who appreciate him"? Perhaps that alternate and expanded definition of "overrated" illustrates the point.
Let me use a different analogy. Some random guy comes to you and says: "Classical music sucks." You reply: "What classical music have you heard?" He says: "I have heard Für Elise, Rondo alla Turca and that slow piece called Elvira Madigan. It's banal, sleep-inducing, relies on simple harmonies, and it's filled with clichés. I'd much rather listen to the music of Joy Division." Would you take such a person seriously? You would probably tell him that he is ignorant of music history and should listen to more classical music. According to your logic, I could say the following: "Uninteresting pieces like Brahms' Lullaby, Beethoven's Für Elise, Pachelbel's Canon or Liszt's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody get played so often and so much more than they deserve to be played, that I can say without the slightest shadow of a doubt that classical music is overrated and overplayed." To me, that is absurd.
Yes. Do you think I am being literal when I say "FFFF", or do you think I am using it figuratively? Would you prefer "dense", "heterophonic" and "monochromatic"? They are pointless works, to me. Whatever their point is, I'm not interested in it, nor are my ears interested in the ride. This is a subjective opinion, and I never claimed it to be anything but that. However, there are certainly more works by Mahler that fit my case than yours.
I would prefer it. There's a large difference between disliking something because you perceive it as monotonous and because it's filled with sheer percussiveness.
A mechanical purpose or ideology for repetition is not germane to the acousmatic, aesthetic experience. This is why I find such an argument irrelevant.
OK, it's a non-sequitur then, right?
Logical errors abound in your posts. There are surely more than a handful in my own. Even Wittgenstein or Kripke would count themselves incredibly lucky to write even such a small amount of material on aesthetics and subjective interest in works of music and avoid any fallacies.
Aren't such discussions pointless in that case? Is there even such a thing such as objective dislike?
I'm glad you care so much to surf through my previous posts; if you get closer and closer to that proverbial corner, will you literally start to bark? I'm sorry, but I won't be bothering with reciprocation. I do hope you aren't under the delusion that you can embarrass me: I'm not interested in being nice, so your excerpts do very little, not that I think anyone here was getting the impression I was especially worried about my moral standing. Quite useful what you did there, isn't it?
I wasn't seeking to embarrass you; rather, I chose to show that you apparently prefer dealing with fools instead of mildly educated people. I do not surf through your past posts regularly, but I do happen to frequently read threads in which you have contributed.
My IQ might be 205. Personally, I think that number's a bit high. I scored a 220 on the Sigma VI Supplement, but only 187 on the actual Sigma Test (Version 4). 205 is an average: I've typically scored 190-195 on high ceiling tests. The 220 pushes it up a bit. I might have tacked on a few points for "x or higher", admittedly, as I broke the ceiling on two of Hoeflin's. An honest self-appraisal would put me in the low 190's, to be honest. Thanks for bringing that up! You know, it's hard to fit into a conversation, but if you're going to oblige me like that. . .
220 would pretty much make you the smartest person in the world, which isn't impossible, but I have reasons for doubting that.
Regarding whether you're an idiot or not. I'd say no, but I think you vastly overvalue the difference between yourself and someone with more. . . pedestrian sensibilities. . . when it comes to how someone like me views and interacts with someone like you.
I didn't ask you about my intelligence. For what it may or may not be worth, I took one IQ test today and scored 142, which would place me (based on your estimates of yourself) some 50 points below you.
I have not read Adorno's work on Mahler, but I know enough about it to be dissuaded from giving it much value. It is in direct opposition to nearly all of his own teachings, and has little to do with reason, and much to do with fan-gushing. From what I understand, it is flowery idolization of Mahler's lack of concession to trend and his works' strong sense of evocation.
:)
-
I don't want to make it sound like I'm not aware of my flaws, though. There are infinitely more respectful ways to go about saying what I have to say.
No problem at all, your reply to my now-no-longer last post was completely fine.
-
The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!! >:(
Stepping aside the rather overheated and pretty nonsense second sentence, I must disagree with the first too. I would agree that in some 20th Centrury music the "method" seems more important than the resulting music (think total serialism, computer-generated music [Xenakis' ST-pieces]; but also "socialist realism' at its worst and such), but in Boulez's case that happens only to a few, and rather early pieces. I do not know all that much of his music, but what I know I generally like, such as Pli selon Pli (of which I have an earlier version and the, at present, final one), or Le Marteau sans Maître. There is much beauty and such to be found in his music, but appreciating it needs some acoustic fine tuning in the ears. That Boulez sounds so much "harder" or even more "alien" may be very much due to lack of experience. Beethoven III is much more well known (or at least much more heard...) than Le Marteau, but in its day, Beethoven III was as much a violation of "general taste" as Le Marteau was at its inception.
Pli selon Pli may be harder work to appreciate than, say, L.Mozart's Toy Symphony, but it is, at least for me, infinitely easier to appreciate than about 99,99999999% of all "Pop"-drizzle I had/have the misfortune of not being able to avoid....
all best,
gep
-
The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!! >:(
W00t? How could you dislike Sur Incises? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
A bit of a waste of time if our friend has absolutely no interest or ear for contemporary music, but some of Boulez' later works are down-right. . . pretty. . .
-
A bit of a waste of time if our friend has absolutely no interest or ear for contemporary music, but some of Boulez' later works are down-right. . . pretty. . .
Thank you again for going to the trouble to post all of this. I do wish (as I have long wished) that you did this kind of thing and argued interestingly and cogently as I know you can and sometimes do in preference to picking fights as I also know that you have an unfortunate habit of doing. In these works, Boulez demonstrates to anyone with ears to hear that he is as French a composer as Debussy who writes with a perfectly understandable love of the sheer sounds that he makes; it might be rather less obvious to some in certain early-ish works of his, such as the apparently seminal (sorry!) Deuxième Sonate for piano, but there is no denying that Boulez has something well worth saying among those pieces that you post above. As a conductor, he has, of course, done sterling service to numerous important French works, including Roussel's wondrous Third Symphony; I can only continue to wish that he had done - and indeed might do - far more for the work of his senior compatriot Henri Dutilleux who attains his 95th birthday in just a few days' time.
Best,
Alistair
-
If a thread gets as far as this (i.e. more than 450 posts) and one's own name has yet to be mentioned, one can perhaps take some heart in the knowledge of that absence...
Best,
Alistair
-
If a thread gets as far as this (i.e. more than 450 posts) and one's own name has yet to be mentioned, one can perhaps take some heart in the knowledge
that very few members know you are a composer??
Thal
-
If a thread gets as far as this (i.e. more than 450 posts) and one's own name has yet to be mentioned, one can perhaps take some heart in the knowledge of that absence...
Best,
Alistair
for me its alistair hinton 8)
Haha, wrong. 8) :D ;D
-
Haha, wrong. 8) :D ;D
Ah, doesn't that just go to show how one can forget the instantly forgettable! Well done for trawling through to find that post! That said, of course, "imbetter" is supposed to be better than everyone else, so perhaps that post is less than surprising.
If we are to return to trying to be serious here, it is perhaps important not only to evaluate the quality of his or her work in the context of the topic but also to define "over-played" and "overrated" by establishing means by which the statistics are ascertained for the purpose of justifying the citation of this or that composer as one or the other or both; how frequently, for example, does a composer need to receive performances in order to qualify as "over-played"?
Best,
Alistair
-
Quote from: imbetter on April 17, 2007, 12:54:08 PM
for me its alistair hinton
I can only hope you're joking here! So far, only three of Alistair's pieces have been issued on CD, and several of his pieces await even their first performance!
Having heard four pieces, and seen a few more, I can only say it's a daemn shame Alistair's music isn't more played and recorded, for they sound and look very interesting indeed, containing true originality and craftmanship!
I for one would love to hear his Piano Quintet and Concerto for 22 Wind Instruments, to name but two.
all best,
gep
-
So far, only three of Alistair's pieces have been issued on CD
And one on 78.
Thal
-
And one on 78.
No, but certainly not 78 on one CD, that's for sure.
Best,
Alistair
-
The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!! >:(
Hmm, these two reviews (one reviewer) on Classics Today seem to echo your sentiments:
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8687
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8692
However, another one seems to completely disagree with you:
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=2380
De gustibus and all that, of course!
I myself cannot help but laugh after reading all three of them completely. I hope you will spot why after you read them. I aint going to point you to the why, though.... ;D
all best,
gep
-
Hmm, these two reviews (one reviewer) on Classics Today seem to echo your sentiments:
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8687
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8692
However, another one seems to completely disagree with you:
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=2380
De gustibus and all that, of course!
I myself cannot help but laugh after reading all three of them completely. I hope you will spot why after you read them. I aint going to point you to the why, though.... ;D
all best,
gep
If one is informed enough to notice, one can see that the first two reviews (the negative ones) are for CDs that contain (almost) exclusively Boulez's early music, which has been mentioned as rather lacking in quality (to put it lightly), whereas the last review is for a CD that contains his later, better works that many of us here have shown to enjoy.
-
Boulez's early music, which has been mentioned as rather lacking in quality (to put it lightly)
>:(
>:(
...
>:( >:( >:(
-
Hmm, these two reviews (one reviewer) on Classics Today seem to echo your sentiments:
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8687
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8692
However, another one seems to completely disagree with you:
https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=2380
De gustibus and all that, of course!
I myself cannot help but laugh after reading all three of them completely. I hope you will spot why after you read them. I aint going to point you to the why, though.... ;D
all best,
gep
I don't get it. Was the pro-Boulez an earlier review?
-
I don't get it. Was the pro-Boulez an earlier review?
Elementary logic dictates that the anti-Boulez review was older, but with music critics you never know. :P
-
A little help perhaps?
You will notice the first two (anti-)reviews are exeedingly hostile toward Boulez the composer, performer and pretty much the man. This hostility goes rather far beyond the more customary "I do not like the music, therefor the music is inferior, for my taste is gospel" stance of most reviewers. The third (pro-)review is completely different (quote: Enjoyable, even wonderful)
Now, if you play close attention to the three reviews, something must therefor pop up as rather, well, funny. The devil is in the details, or detail (singular), I might add.
Let's see who spots it...
all best,
gep
-
I give up. Hurwitz's pro-boulez critique dates from 2000. His anti-boulez critiques have no date. Is this the detail?
-
I give up. Hurwitz's pro-boulez critique dates from 2000. His anti-boulez critiques have no date. Is this the detail?
Not the date, but Mr. Hurwitz himself! Aint it starnge that the very same reviewer in one review slashes and burnes Boulez (and not just his music, but the very person), only to praise him in another review!? I find the dichotomy rather hilarious, it doesn't do his credibillity much good, at least not to me. Having read several of his other jottings, I must say his credibility isn't raised by it either...
I mean:
There's too much good stuff out there, both old and new, for me to be able to suggest with a clear conscience that anyone invest their precious time here [i.e., Boulez's music; gep], ferreting out meager scraps of expressive meaning from an idiom consisting essentially of equal parts fear, negativity, inhibition, and aimless technique. Indeed, to say "Blow up IRCAM" would be to give that place far more credit and attention than it deserves.
against
If Boulez wanted to be popular, he would write like Poulenc, or maybe Philip Glass. This doesn't mean, of course, that he doesn't compose great, or more to the point, consistently sincere and meaningful music. He does, and this latest disc offers a case in point.
from the same reviewer, both times given as hallowed truth, now how does that sound, I ask??
all best,
gep
-
Not the date, but Mr. Hurwitz himself! Aint it starnge that the very same reviewer in one review slashes and burnes Boulez (and not just his music, but the very person), only to praise him in another review!? I find the dichotomy rather hilarious, it doesn't do his credibillity much good, at least not to me. Having read several of his other jottings, I must say his credibility isn't raised by it either...
I mean:
There's too much good stuff out there, both old and new, for me to be able to suggest with a clear conscience that anyone invest their precious time here [i.e., Boulez's music; gep], ferreting out meager scraps of expressive meaning from an idiom consisting essentially of equal parts fear, negativity, inhibition, and aimless technique. Indeed, to say "Blow up IRCAM" would be to give that place far more credit and attention than it deserves.
against
If Boulez wanted to be popular, he would write like Poulenc, or maybe Philip Glass. This doesn't mean, of course, that he doesn't compose great, or more to the point, consistently sincere and meaningful music. He does, and this latest disc offers a case in point.
from the same reviewer, both times given as hallowed truth, now how does that sound, I ask??
If I were being at my most charitable, I might venture that it signifies the kind of change of mind of which Sorabji wrote when stating that the great thing about changing one's mind is having a mind to change in the first place but, given the identity of the "critic" concerned, such a charitable interpretation would sadly be entirely misplaced.
Best,
Alistair
-
Boulez's early music [...] has been mentioned as [being] rather lacking in quality (to put it lightly).
I'd just like to go on the record and say that I certainly didn't express such a thing, nor would I. Boulez' early works are often just as good, and at the least more original; they are, simply, in a much less accessible voice.
-
I'd just like to go on the record and say that I certainly didn't express such a thing, nor would I. Boulez' early works are often just as good, and at the least more original; they are, simply, in a much less accessible voice.
This last part is undoubtedly true, although I'm not entirely certain about the first; Boulez's early (or rather earliest known) works are indeed "original", but acceptance of that fact begs (or perhaps should beg) the question of whether and/or to what extent "originality" per se is "good" in the sense of being guaranteed - or even likely - to enable the production of works that are likewise "good". To this day I still struggle with his Deuxième Sonate; a seminal work, evidently and one that the composer himself could and did play in the immediate aftermath of its completion (has anyone here been around long enough and in the right place to have heard Boulez play, by the way?), yet one that still communicates little to me even after many years of familiarity with it. It is perhaps no mere coincidence that works of that period in Boulez's life emerged at a time when Boulez himself was presenting his most radical stances and polemical attitudes in more general terms; I prefer to think (and, I believe, can do so with good reason) that Boulez has not so much "mellowed" since then as "matured". Nowadays, he sounds as French as Debussy; indeed, some of music could not sound more French if he included French folksongs in it (a somewhat unlikely scenario, I think!)...
Anyway, the thread topic is about overplayed and overrated composers. Although I am sometimes given to wonder if that Deuxième Sonate might be overrated by some, it is certainly not overplayed, even by those pianists who include it in their repertoires and, in general terms, it would never occur to me to claim that Boulez is either overrated or overplayed; it is therefore less than obvious to me why he is being discussed here in the context of the topic.
Best,
Alistair
-
To this day I still struggle with his Deuxième Sonate
In reaction to this I took out the recording I have (Idil Biret, Naxos) and must say I quite enjoyed the work. Of course, I cannot listen so "deeply" as you can because I am not a composer, but still. The scintillation of the first movement (like sunlight reflecting of a water surface in motion), the colourfulness of the second, the almost "dansant" third and the fourth in which all that is combined provide an interesting journey.
question of whether and/or to what extent "originality" per se is "good" in the sense of being guaranteed - or even likely - to enable the production of works that are likewise "good".
Too many work of modern art suffer from a mistaken "enforcement" to be original in the sense that what one produces cannot and may not sound or look like anything else, and turn out to not sound or look like anything much. To be truly original in the present one must acknowledge the past, I think. Reaching a goal involves knowing the whole road that leads there.
all best,
gep
-
Too many work of modern art suffer from a mistaken "enforcement" to be original in the sense that what one produces cannot and may not sound or look like anything else, and turn out to not sound or look like anything much. To be truly original in the present one must acknowledge the past, I think. Reaching a goal involves knowing the whole road that leads there.
Yes; I think that one symptom of this is the kind of regrettable blurring of distinction in some people's minds between originality and individuality that caused one commentator to write of a particular work that its composer was trying hard to be original like almost everyone else...
I'm glad that you get as much as you do from Bou Two!..
Best,
Alistair
-
I'll say Bach!
Although I do not think he is Overrated, he is over played (for good reason!) ;D
-
mozart: why do people play his immature works so often ---here i particularly mean his early works
-
Bach. Overrated and Overplayed, he's got so me beautiful works, but people I know just go on about him like he was the second coming of Jesus.
-
Overrated and overplayed?!?!?!?!? BACH?!?!?!? I'm really at a loss for words. :o
-
Overrated and overplayed?!?!?!?!? BACH?!?!?!? I'm really at a loss for words. :o
Don't get me wrong, I love Bach's music, I'm just sick of him being apotheosised, I'd much rather listen to Handel, Purcell or Scarlatti than Bach. I feel like the Baroque era is kinda just overshadowed by this ever present looming shadow of Bach, Bach and more Bach. Even earlier Baroque composers like Monteverdi are overlooked because of Bach.
-
Well, now I sort of get your gist. Overplayed but not overrated. Well, overplayed doesn't even sound right. But on the other hand, when was the last time I heard one of Handel's suites in concert on a beautiful steinway grand? Uh, let's see...never. A smithering of Scarlatti here and there. There's another woderful italian composer never played ever - Padre Martini. And there's very little of his music in the IMSLP. I have a collection of his suites for keyboard - I must work up one of them.
-
Well, now I sort of get your gist. Overplayed but not overrated. Well, overplayed doesn't even sound right. But on the other hand, when was the last time I heard one of Handel's suites in concert on a beautiful steinway grand? Uh, let's see...never. A smithering of Scarlatti here and there. There's another woderful italian composer never played ever - Padre Martini. And there's very little of his music in the IMSLP. I have a collection of his suites for keyboard - I must work up one of them.
I did hear Richter play Handel's keyboard suites, they sound beautiful, I just wish more Baroque was recognised, its such an interesting era of music, not my personal favourite, and I think Bach is the biggest thing about Baroque, but Handel's music has just as much merit :) I must listen to this Padre Martini
-
Overplayed: Mozart and Beethoven
Overrated: Bach (I think)
-
Overrated: Bach (I think)
That's funny, though it's probably unintentional.
-
I just read through this thread, I don't understand the Schumann bashing on this forum...Firstly I LOVE his music...IMO his solo piano work is some of the best in the repertoire, his piano concerto is one of the best in the repertoire...His lieder is terrific, probably second only to Schubert, his chamber music is good, and his symphonies while not the greatest, are very good themselves. This is the ONLY place where Schumann seems to be ridiculed - great pianists love him, and I frequent many different forums and they all LOVE his music. Even the forums with the most educated classical music listeners, with very broad knowledge of the standard repertoire AND not so standard, really serious classical music listeners, love Schumann and rate him very highly. I don't understand why this is not the case on this forum...Schumann bashing seems to be a very common occurence on here, but you guys are the only ones doing it!
-
I just read through this thread, I don't understand the Schumann bashing on this forum...Firstly I LOVE his music...IMO his solo piano work is some of the best in the repetoire, his piano concerto is one of the best in the repetoire...His lieder is terrific, probably second only to Schumann, his chamber music is good, and his symphonies while not the greatest, are very good themselves. This is the ONLY place where Schumann seems to be ridiculed - great pianists love him, and I frequent many different forums and they all LOVE his music. Even the forums with the most educated classical music listeners, with very broad knowledge of the standard repetoire AND not so standard, really serious classical music listeners, love Schumann and rate him very highly. I don't understand why this is not the case on this forum...Schumann bashing seems to be a very common occurence on here, but you guys are the only ones doing it!
I have to agree on what you say. I've never heard any of his lieder but the dedication arrangement by Liszt and it is fantasically fantastic. I've never heard any music that could be compared to fantasie Impromptu in similarity in my opinion. His music are one of the things that really define the Romantic period. There is no reason to hate Schumann because personally I find he and Chopin's music have similarities and sometimes I could not distinguish between the two. Almost everyone hates Schumannn in this forum. I don't see many people hate Chopin. In my opinion every composer mentioned frequently (like Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Liszt, Rach, Tchai) and their music have been over played but NOT overated. Their music has become so overplayed to the point we can virtually predict what will happen in the music and most interpretations of the same work I hear are very similar. Some people can already recognise music by composers even though they've never heard the work before. I believe their music must remain part of the standard concert repertoire but I also believe that the overlooked composers must get their music heard more frequently. Maybe 1 performance of a composer's works is enough to bring more fame to the composer. In piano competitions I watch from youtube and their programs I google, rarely do I come across a name I can't recognise.
So in conclusion: Overplayed: the big guns
Over rated: NONE
JL
-
I have to agree on what you say. I've never heard any of his lieder but the dedication arrangement by Liszt and it is fantasically fantastic. I've never heard any music that could be compared to fantasie Impromptu in similarity in my opinion. His music are one of the things that really define the Romantic period. There is no reason to hate Schumann because personally I find he and Chopin's music have similarities and sometimes I could not distinguish between the two. Almost everyone hates Schumannn in this forum. I don't see many people hate Chopin. In my opinion every composer mentioned frequently (like Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Liszt, Rach, Tchai) and their music have been over played but NOT overated. Their music has become so overplayed to the point we can virtually predict what will happen in the music and most interpretations of the same work I hear are very similar. Some people can already recognise music by composers even though they've never heard the work before. I believe their music must remain part of the standard concert repertoire but I also believe that the overlooked composers must get their music heard more frequently. Maybe 1 performance of a composer's works is enough to bring more fame to the composer. In piano competitions I watch from youtube and their programs I google, rarely do I come across a name I can't recognise.
So in conclusion: Overplayed: the big guns
Over rated: NONE
JL
JL
Utterly agree with you. Great post!!
-
I adore Schumann's symphonies - I think they are thoroughly successful in realizing classical ideals using the full resource of the symphony orchestra. I wish I could say the same about his piano works. I'm at loss as to why the Fantasy op. 17 or Sonata op. 22 are considered masterpieces. If they're not overplayed, they are certainly overrated in my book.
The Sonata Op. 22, maybe. But the great Fantasie in C, op. 17? How can you say that? But of course most of us hear these works in their bowdlerization by Clara, who was embarrassed by her husband's romanticism and recomposed certain parts of his works.
For example, in the original autograph, the ending of the first movement of the Fantasie, with its quote of Beethoven and its pianissimo dominant chords over a held tonic bass, is also the ending of the third movement. This changes the character of the piece, and also unifies, it. But we usually hear the conventional, dull perfunctory ending of the third movement as found in most editions.
-
I don't see many people hate Chopin.
Indeed not. Last year, Gramophone magazine had an anniversary feature about Chopin. Their reviewer included quotes from many prominent pianists who all admired Chopin's music. He said that he was hoping to include comments from some players who disliked it - but he couldn't find any, even among those who don't include Chopin in their concert repertoires!
-
Indeed not. Last year, Gramophone magazine had an anniversary feature about Chopin. Their reviewer included quotes from many prominent pianists who all admired Chopin's music. He said that he was hoping to include comments from some players who disliked it - but he couldn't find any, even among those who don't include Chopin in their concert repertoires!
Ives said some nasty things about Chopin.
-
To add to the Schumann hate: I find his music to be the most boring example of 19th century music available. There are, of course, exceptions (I enjoy the Frauenliebe und Leben).
From a pianist's standpoint, there are sections of his music that are truly uncomfortable to play (many parts of the concerto, for example). The time put into practicing his music, for me, is not worth the finished product.
From a theorist's standpoint, I see a lot of Chopin and a lot of awkward counterpoint. It bores me. I am not intrigued by his ideas, although there are some exceptions.
The only recording I care for is Leon Fleisher's recording of the piano concerto. The first movement cadenza is absolutely astonishing.
Maybe this will clear the air a little. Maybe not. Meh.
Best wishes,
-
To add to the Schumann hate: I find his music to be the most boring example of 19th century music available.
My thoughts exactly. Unimaginative teutonic trash.
Thal
-
overplayed: Liszt & Chopin
overrated: Beethoven. There, I've said it.
-
From a theorist's standpoint, I see a lot of Chopin
!
Your ears are broken :P
I prefer Schumann's piano music to that of Chopin and Liszt. As a composer he was much more versatile than Chopin anyway (though credit to Chopin for knowing what he was good at, and damn he was good at it), with his wealth of admirable music not for piano. And that stuff is certainly not overplayed, nor overrated.
-
overplayed: Liszt & Chopin
overrated: Beethoven. There, I've said it.
Liszt overplayed? I'm sure many never even heard of more than 20 of his works ::)
-
Based entirely on my own impressions from my own experience compared with what I have read and heard from others.
Overrated: Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov (make that Russian Romantic music in general except Mussorgsky), Saint-Saens, Bruckner, and all that Holy Minimalist junk from Part, Gorecki et al.
Underrated: Purcell, Handel, D Scarlatti, CPE Bach, Gluck, Haydn (though this is improving), Mozart (on this forum at least), Weber, Schumann, Berlioz, J Strauss II (if only because many seem afraid of professing a liking for pure entertainment), Webern, Britten. Maybe Shostakovich and Bartok a little bit too.
Renaissannce composers are a curious case in that overall they are underrated since few people bother listening to them, but amongst those who do they tend to be wildly overrated. Music still had a way to develop at that time and not much Renaissance music can be compared favourably to anything from late-Baroque onwards.
Bach is undoubtedly a compositional demi-god who wrote reams of music of astonishing quality, and it is hardly correct to call him overrated, but I wish some fanatics would acknowledge that occasionally his music lapses in to the mechanical and, dare I say it, boring.
Beethoven will be underrated until the day when it is universally acknowledged that he was the best thing ever to happen in music, and that the Diabelli Variations are the crowning jewel of the solo piano literature :)
-
!
Your ears are broken :P
I prefer Schumann's piano music to that of Chopin and Liszt. As a composer he was much more versatile than Chopin anyway (though credit to Chopin for knowing what he was good at, and damn he was good at it), with his wealth of admirable music not for piano. And that stuff is certainly not overplayed, nor overrated.
Well, they may very well be, but I study his music with my eyes. My eyes see what they see in Chopin and Schubert before him. Often times when one mimics another composer, one still manages to develop an individual style; such as Schubert did with Beethoven. Schumann is just...boring.
We are certainly not arguing preferences here; however, many of these posts are based on "that one time I heard that once piece and it sucked. OVERRATED." People criticize the works of others before knowing that composer, which is done away from a piano and away from just listening to the music.
Now, if you want to get into a discussion about Schumann's below average orchestration skills...
Best wishes,
-
Well, they may very well be, but I study his music with my eyes. My eyes see what they see in Chopin and Schubert before him. Often times when one mimics another composer, one still manages to develop an individual style; such as Schubert did with Beethoven. Schumann is just...boring.
Hmm. I really don't hear (nor see) much Chopin in Schumann. Look even at the forms they use; Chopin prefers the single short miniature, Schumann the set of 'character pieces'. Neither composer's style would work well if transferred to the other form; Schumann's cycles allow for the restlessness and frequent changes of mood which would be denied to him in isolated miniatures; Chopin's perfectly contained gems would be utterly ruined if hung together like Schumann's works. And they thought of musically very differently too; Schumann being one of the first composers to conceive of a union between literature and instrumental music and strongly tied to programmatic works, compared with Chopin's absolute music. Chopin never really understood Schumann's music at all.
Now, if you want to get into a discussion about Schumann's below average orchestration skills...
I'll not argue with you there :) . It never manages to sound better than 'barely passable' even in the best performances (ie the ones in which the conductor has fixed the particularly horrendous passages).
Not that there's much good to say about Chopin in that department either.
-
Ha! I love your taste in music Thalbergmad. I've always detested Brahms and Schumann and honestly thought there was something wrong with me. I can't help it; after years of trying to listen to them, I feel like jumping off a bridge every time I do. (Brahms is a little more tolerable though) :-X
-
I've always detested Brahms and Schumann and honestly thought there was something wrong with me.
Nothing wrong with you at all. If there is, then there is something wrong with me and a fair few others that vomit at the thought of listening to more Schumann. I can tolerate Brahms a little more, but I cannot see that happening with Schumann.
The Sonata Op.22 was on the Radio last week and I forced myself to listen to it in an attempt to notice any musical gift, but heard nothing. It was devoid of any interest, completely barren in all respects and I will never again waste time on this non work.
Schumann was an all round musical failure (composer, pianist & critic) and his reputation as one of the great romantics is perhaps built more on the work of his wife than the quality of his compostitions.
I have nothing against those who love him, but submit a few might change their opinion if they expanded what they play and listen to.
Thal
-
Haydn, Schumann, Grieg, Dvorak, Brahms, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Faure, Delius, Milhaud, Franck, Poulenc, Hindemith, Honegger, Tchaikovsky, Puccini, Satie, Copland, Torke, Weber, Berlioz, Vaughan Williams, Walton, Messiaen, Chausson, Dallapiccola, Maderna.
While several of those composers are important, historically, I get absolutely no enjoyment out of listening to their music, with the possible exception of a couple pieces, here and there.
-
Haydn, Schumann, Grieg, Dvorak, Brahms, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Faure, Delius, Milhaud, Franck, Poulenc, Hindemith, Honegger, Tchaikovsky, Puccini, Satie, Copland, Torke, Weber, Berlioz, Vaughan Williams, Walton, Messiaen, Chausson, Dallapiccola, Maderna.
While several of those composers are important, historically, I get absolutely no enjoyment out of listening to their music, with the possible exception of a couple pieces, here and there.
Mon Dieu, quelle list! What you get enjoyment out of, however, is not the thread topic, which is about the most over-played and over-rated composer (in whomsoever's opinion).
Best,
Alistair
-
Mon Dieu, quelle list! What you get enjoyment out of, however, is not the thread topic, which is about the most over-played and over-rated composer (in whomsoever's opinion).
Best,
Alistair
Clearly, my answer to either is "as above." I'm simply taking into account the rather subjective nature of such a question.
-
Clearly, my answer to either is "as above." I'm simply taking into account the rather subjective nature of such a question.
In which case I can only note that if so apparently arbitrarily chosen a list is not necessarily comprehensive as a direct consequence of its very arbitrariness, the genuinely full one might risk suggesting that very little is left...
Best,
Alistair
-
In which case I can only note that if so apparently arbitrarily chosen a list is not necessarily comprehensive as a direct consequence of its very arbitrariness, the genuinely full one might risk suggesting that very little is left...
Best,
Alistair
Quality, not quantity.
-
Quality, not quantity.
If you say so...
Best,
Alistair
-
Bach is undoubtedly a compositional demi-god
Only demi? Tsktsk...
who wrote reams of music of astonishing quality, and it is hardly correct to call him overrated, but I wish some fanatics would acknowledge that occasionally his music lapses in to the mechanical and, dare I say it, boring.
I do not think I'm a 'fanatic', but to call Bach mechanical is a bit harsh. But boring??? Sorry, I cannot get 'Bach' and 'boring' to work in the same sentence (unless there is a 'never' in that sentence too!). I mourn your loss....
all best,
gep
-
Only demi? Tsktsk...I do not think I'm a 'fanatic', but to call Bach mechanical is a bit harsh. But boring??? Sorry, I cannot get 'Bach' and 'boring' to work in the same sentence (unless there is a 'never' in that sentence too!). I mourn your loss....
all best,
gep
By 'occasional' I mean very infrequently indeed. Most of the well known works are entirely free from these; there isn't a dull moment in the B minor Mass, either of the Passions, the Goldbergs, the Brandenburgs, the Cello Suites or Violin Ps&Ss or the Flute Sonatas, the 48, nor in a great many other works. However, some of the movements in Clavier Ubung III I find dull (though many are fantastic, especially the opening and closing P&F), some of the cantatas are below par and many of the lesser known keyboard works sound mechanical.
Certainly I don't think I'm missing out on anything with Bach. There is just a certain type of enthusiast I sometimes come across who believe every note the man wrote to be divinely inspired and refuse to consider the possibility he could ever fall below some kind of golden standard.
-
Hmm. I really don't hear (nor see) much Chopin in Schumann. Look even at the forms they use; Chopin prefers the single short miniature, Schumann the set of 'character pieces'. Neither composer's style would work well if transferred to the other form; Schumann's cycles allow for the restlessness and frequent changes of mood which would be denied to him in isolated miniatures; Chopin's perfectly contained gems would be utterly ruined if hung together like Schumann's works. And they thought of musically very differently too; Schumann being one of the first composers to conceive of a union between literature and instrumental music and strongly tied to programmatic works, compared with Chopin's absolute music. Chopin never really understood Schumann's music at all.
I think we're debating on different levels of analysis. You are more on a macro-analysis level, while I'm speaking on a micro-analysis level. All the same, convincing one or the other isn't possible!
"Schumann being one of the first composers to conceive of a union between literature and instrumental music and strongly tied to programmatic works, compared with Chopin's absolute music."
Schubert!!!!!! This existed even much before Schumann. Dittersdorf wrote a series of symphonies based on Ovid's Metamorphoses.
There is just a certain type of enthusiast I sometimes come across who believe every note the man wrote to be divinely inspired and refuse to consider the possibility he could ever fall below some kind of golden standard.
Yup. Although I'm one of those who feel Bach did no wrong. We can't expect to frame every piece of music. Even Beethoven hated Wellington's Victory!
Best wishes,
-
Sorry guys but I'm going to bend the rules a bit here. Most overplayed and overrated composers to me, are Schumann, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, and Liszt. I am completely serious about the following statement. I started Uni in 2008, and up until last year, all I heard was Chopin, with a bit of Bach and, of course, Beethoven and Mozart. But mainly Chopin. Underrated/underplayed composers include Berg (the only atonal composer I actually like), C.P.E Bach and Prokofiev, as well as Scriabin (who has never really been my cup of tea).
-
There's no such thing as overplayed if it's actually good.
That being said, my answer is Bach.
-
Overrated = Schoenberg. Lots of people I know like him but I cannot stand serialism.
Overplayed = Beethoven. It pains me to say it because he is my favourite composer but there is such thing as hearing Fur Elise one too many times...
And for this I apologise, but I don't understand what some people's dislike for Schumann is.
-
Probably the two most overplayed and (often) very bad played ones are Chopin and Beethoven. Overrated? Never! They probably will never be appreciated enough.
-
Overrated = Schoenberg. Lots of people I know like him but I cannot stand serialism.
So Schönberg is all about serialism, is he?! Of his 50+ surviving comp[leted works with opus numbers, the firs 20-odd are pre-serial, Schönberg did not espouse serialism in every work thereafter and, in any case, are you certain that you can identify a piece as being based on serial principles just by listening to it?
Overplayed = Beethoven. It pains me to say it because he is my favourite composer but there is such thing as hearing Fur Elise one too many times...
There is indeed, but hs the possibility not occurred to you that Beethoven wrote rather a large number of other works?...
And for this I apologise, but I don't understand what some people's dislike for Schumann is.
Nor, for that matter, do I, but one lives in hope (albeit perhaps vainly) for the provision of a reasonably detailed and credible explanation for it...
Best,
Alistair
-
So Schönberg is all about serialism, is he?! Of his 50+ surviving completed works with opus numbers, the firs 20-odd are pre-serial, Schönberg did not espouse serialism in every work thereafter and, in any case, are you certain that you can identify a piece as being based on serial principles just by listening to it?
Schonberg is not all about serialism, no, but he is the creator of it. He didn't abandon tonality on his own, that had been happening for many years and had started ever since the diatonic key system was invented. But he did create serialism and that is what he is remembered for by most, not for his works that were not serialistic (but still atonal!).
There is indeed, but hs the possibility not occurred to you that Beethoven wrote rather a large number of other works?...
I know Beethoven wrote many other works. As I said he is my favourite composer at this current time. I am talking about one piece being the most overplayed, not the most overplayed composer, which is not what the question is, so for that I apologise.
Nor, for that matter, do I, but one lives in hope (albeit perhaps vainly) for the provision of a reasonably detailed and credible explanation for it...
Hopefully.
-
Schonberg is not all about serialism, no, but he is the creator of it. He didn't abandon tonality on his own, that had been happening for many years and had started ever since the diatonic key system was invented. But he did create serialism and that is what he is remembered for by most, not for his works that were not serialistic (but still atonal!).
Schönberg was not the sole creator of serialism; Josef Matthias Hauer also experimented with this, as did Skryabin, Roslavets and others, with Schönberg merely being the best known for his work on it as a method of composition but, in any case, you did not answer my question, which was "are you certain that you can identify a piece as being based on serial principles just by listening to it?". Also, if Schönberg is indeed best remembered for his serial composition, we have a disproportionate view of him, given the proportion of non-serial work of great merit that he composed; further more, he himself expressed the wish to be known as a 12-tone composer, not as a 12-tone composer!
Best,
Alistair
-
schumann, schubert, liszt
-
In the 1830's the composer Francois Hunten sold more sheet music than Liszt and Chopin put together.
Now (apart from me), who plays Hunten?
You do like salon music don't you?
-
I'd say Chopin is overplayed only because listening to so many pianists play his music the same makes it a bore. With the standard competition interpretation, it's easy to dismiss Chopin as overrated, but under different hands, the magic can still be heard:
That being said, I think the Tchaikovsky debate is a bit like the Horowitz debate. Is it wrong that the music should do everything it can to appeal to an audience? Or is that part of its genius?
-
You do like salon music don't you?
Not as fond of it as I was 6 years ago when I wrote that.
Thal
-
Philip Glass.
I'll admit his 'music' isnt played -that- much, but to my opinion it shouldnt be played at all.
-
I still haven't figured out why people think Rolling Stones are so good.
8)
Blasphemy, eh? Or just off topic?
-
chopin is overplayed but definitely not overrated
overrated is beethoven :P
-
and, in any case, are you certain that you can identify a piece as being based on serial principles just by listening to it?
No, not usually, and that in fact brings up the biggest problem about serialism, in my opinion. The original purpose of serialism was not to create an audible structure at all, but rather to avoid tonality by making it harder for the composer to create the tonal relationships to which his or her musical intuition was naturally guided.
-
I have to 2nd Phillip Glass ::)
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. .......
-
chopin is overplayed but definitely not overrated
overrated is beethoven :P
You were saying?
-
No, not usually, and that in fact brings up the biggest problem about serialism, in my opinion. The original purpose of serialism was not to create an audible structure at all, but rather to avoid tonality by making it harder for the composer to create the tonal relationships to which his or her musical intuition was naturally guided.
I don't think that Alban Berg, for one, would have agreed with you about that, but this is not really the point that I was making which, to try to be more precise, was to ask if you your ears/brain can distinguish serial music from any other atonal music (subject to the obvious caveat in the cases of both that "atonality" is generally a matter of degree and of listening experience rather than something more specifically definable).
Best,
Alistair
-
I don't think that Alban Berg, for one, would have agreed with you about that
As a matter of fact, I was thinking of Berg when I put in the caveat "not usually."
but this is not really the point that I was making which, to try to be more precise, was to ask if you your ears/brain can distinguish serial music from any other atonal music (subject to the obvious caveat in the cases of both that "atonality" is generally a matter of degree and of listening experience rather than something more specifically definable).
No, it can't, except for a few cases like some of Berg's music. I got that point and I was merely pointing out one of its implications. Look at it this way: In music, what's the point in using a technique whose effect cannot even be perceived by the listener? It may make for visual scores that have a certain quasi-mathematical beauty (which as a math afficionado I can appreciate), but it adds nothing to the music per se. My underlying assumption here, of course, is that music is an art-form involving sound heard by human beings.
-
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. .......
Or in some of his pieces: Yes. Ye.s Y.es .Yes Yes. Ye.s Y.es .Yes Yes. Ye.s Y.es .Yes ... ;)
-
I don't know anything about overrated or overplayed, but Debussy, Shostakovich, and Schoenberg do nothing for me. I absolutely adore Shostakovich's Second Piano Concerto, but that's about it. Debussy wrote some charming pieces for the orchestra.
I definitely think that any and every composer can be argued to be underrated, or at least, underappreciated. Many Soviet composers, such as Protopopov, Feinberg, Roslavets, and Rakov are only a few out of the hundreds of forgotten geniuses. And there are Medtner, Scriabin, and Kabalevsky, who don't tend to be the first choices -- or the second, third... -- for anyone who ventures the literature of classical music.
I personally feel that Mozart is one of the most underappreciated composers whilst being one of the most overplayed. Not nearly enough people appreciate his piano concertos, especially his 14th, 17th, 19th, and 26th.. they all contain some of the most supreme moments in the entirety of music. And of course, there are breathtakingly poignant 22nd, 23rd, and 27th (which has to be my personal favorite by Mozart). And his early gems are not to be missed -- 4th, 8th, and 12th. As Emmanuel Ax had once said, it is immensely difficult to say anything nice about Mozart, because they are all stating the obvious.
Most composers who are now known for THE work -- Faure and his divine requiem, Moszkowski with his Caprice Espagnol, and Respighi with his Roman Trilogy. I'm yet to listen to Respighi's Piano Concerto and Modo Misolidio, which deserve a new category of revitalization. Respighi's Piano Concerto in A Minor arguably outshades both Schumann's and Grieg's, yet has only a fraction of the popularity of the two famous staples of piano concertos. To be honest, Grieg's piano concerto is pretty boring.
And more people should play Faure's chamber music and piano music. His barcarolles, Ballade, and Piano Trios are to die for.
And last, but not least, Moszkowski's Piano Concerto belongs to one of my favorite piano concertos of all time. It inspires me, makes me tear up, and makes me elated in a way that Brahms's 2nd Piano concerto can only dream of.
-
Respighi's Piano Concerto in A Minor arguably outshades both Schumann's and Grieg's
Indeed it does, along with about 500 others.
Thal
-
I am not sure if there are any overrated composers as such
(mind you, I don't regard people like Glass or many other "moderns" of his league as composers)
...and I do feel music lovers don't have a chance to get many quality productions these days.
For example, I would never attend any concert where for example Bach and Stravinsky
are being played at the same concert,
because I don't consider Bach and Stravinsky to be on the same musical planet...
and I could not imagine to spend money and being conned into listening
to some modern inharmonious "tooth-ache-symphony",
when I pay good money to listen to the real harmony of Bach...
... another point is that many pianists these days appear to play like inhuman robots
instead of playing like qualified, professional human beings
who also happen to be talented pianists.
They are - of course - highly qualified and highly trained, but their training often appears
like an inhuman robot being programmed and it sounds terribly artificial...
I am saying this because I mainly listen now to my huge collection of LP-records
with real quality productions, where many musicians "play from the heart"
and they have been without any doubt really talented... there is often a touch of genius,
imagination and inspiration to be heard as well.
It is from this point of experience that I can say that on many occasions I have been in despair
when I had paid good money to listen to a pianist who was praised as a genius
through the efforts of a huge music-industry and all I had to listen to at the concert
was brilliantly technically performed/played BUT without any emotion and without any feelings,
just how I would imagine a programmed robot would play the piano or any other instrument.
I don't know what has happened to the music industry these days,
but it does not appear to be going in the right direction
and in an effort to find out more, I have talked with many music-lovers
and we all agree with the observation, that many musicians these days
appear to the music loving public like programmed inhuman robots,
whether they play an instrument or whether they conduct....
-
Whomever necro'd this thread, thank you very much. Its contents were hilarious. Quite the collection of pseudo-intellectual amateur musicologists.
-
Whomever necro'd this thread, thank you very much. Its contents were hilarious. Quite the collection of pseudo-intellectual amateur musicologists.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
And yes, just as you seem to have an opinion, so do others ;)
PS. Is your last name maybe 'Glass'? That would explain a lot.
-
No offence. Just want to say that Chopin is terribly overplayed, many piano competitions bear the name of Chopin. For CDs, I think every major pianist has recorded nearly 50 percent of his piano works.Liszt is in the second place. Mendelssohn's piano music (exclude SWW) is mainly underplayed and underrated. Fontana, close friend of Chopin though, is never heard in any major concerts..
-
Debussy
-
I can't say "overrated," but overplayed certainly yes... I've heard too many students butchering up a Chopin etude or his Fantaisie Impromptu -___-
-
I don't think any one composer can be overplayed (unless that composer is Chopin), it's more certain pieces themselves. Even if you did go by composer, at what point would they cross the line into overplayed territory? You could argue that every composer's works are overplayed compared to lesser/unknown composers.
And I believe that no art can really be "overrated", no matter how you define the word.
I have to wonder how anyone could say Bach though. Most people I know don't like his music for some reason or another. But I do think those are mostly just very ignorant opinions. I used to hate him too, before I really listened to his music.
As for an answer to the topic... I'd have to say Liszt. Only because the stuff that is always overplayed isn't even his good stuff.
-
Liszt is probably the most underrated of all the well known composers.
-
Wouldn't this thread be so much more interesting if it were about the most underrated and underplayed composer instead?
-
I have following this thread and I do find the comments insightful, no matter what perspective people are coming from. But perhaps, am I getting it right?
Overrated for me would mean "the composition is say, good, but people are giving it an "outstanding" rating which means, the composition did not really deserve to be rated that high? Or perhaps, the piece is already on the excellent and putstanding level, and yet, millions of people are constantly giving it super extra mega high ratings. Like on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being outstanding, the overrated would mean a 100?
On the Overplayed, I guess it is because the piece is repeatedly being played by millions of people from different backgrounds, race, culture, lifestyle and others ... not to mention that you hear the piece in almost every walk of life, hence, you will hear it in disney or nick channels for animation and cartoons, commercials and ads of airlines, hotels, etc., variations of the piece done by today's artists from pop, hip-hop, rock, and others, to the halls and walls of Royal Albert Hall caressed by top concert pianists. In this case, I would put Bach's Toccata in A minor , Fur Elise by Beethoven, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik by Mozart, and Lizst Hungarian Rhapsody no. 2 ... they are the ones I often hear ever since I was a child ... oh, and Claire de Lune by Debussy where if I am not mistaken, Twilight even used as a dancing tune between the vampire and the girl?
-
Chopin is over played but not overrated.
Man, to the people who call Brahm's music simple and boring...
I have no idea how someone can say that after listening to his E minor Symphony...
Poor Brahms :'(
-
Definitely Mozart. If I'm gonna have to hear that dreadful k.545 one more time...
-
Strauss II?
-
Strauss II?
This is not true in some kind of sense, only certain works by Strauss Jr. is overplayed, a large portion of his music fell into oblivion. His complete works has been recorded by Marco Polo label which add up to 52 volumes of music.
-
The answer to that question lies in three names and three names only:
LISZT, LISZT, AND LISZT.
-
I'd rather agree to say "overplayed" than "overrated". Chopin it is. He is literally EVERYWHERE in classical music. Although his importance for classics should not be underestimated, of course...
-
I'd rather agree to say "overplayed" than "overrated". Chopin it is. He is literally EVERYWHERE in classical music. Although his importance for classics should not be underestimated, of course...
Firstly, he's Romantic, so nowhere in "classical" music at all. Secondly, he's almost completely absent unless one is restricting oneself solely to the piano repertoire.
-
What?? Mozart may be "overplayed", but is indeed underrated, if anything.
Amen to that!
-
This is an example of stupidity in the making.
There is no single composer that is both overplayed AND overrated, because for every piece that is overplayed and overrated, you will find another piece by that same composer that is both underplayed and underrated. In addition, almost every composer that is overplayed (meaning they have a lot of pieces that are overplayed- the composer him/herself can't be overplayed. ;) ) are actually underrated, because people get completely sick of the pieces and stop recognizing them for the genius works they are. Beethoven's Fur Elise, when played by a truly masterful pianist, is still exquisite to my ears, no matter how many times over it is butchered. So is the 'Pathetique' Sonata. Mozart's Serenade in G major is another example (although I much prefer it when all 4 movements are played, rather than just the first.) Do we forget that these works are played ad nauseum because people LIKE them?
Furthermore, nobody is going to be in agreement on this sort of thing. It's not exactly a thing we can measure- how overplayed or overrated a piece or composer is. Someone who dislikes Chopin's works will post his name, thinking only of the Minute Waltz, the Etudes Op.10 No.3 and Op.10 No.12, etc., and someone who loves ANY of his works- overplayed or underplayed or neither- will refute the former. Same goes for every composer already mentioned here- Schumann, Schubert, Brahms, Mozart, even Phillip Glass, and the same goes for every composer which will, no doubt, be brought up later... (I realize I may be exaggerating reasoning for posting the certain composers, but hopefully you understand the general concept I'm trying to convey. :) )
These types of threads never end well.
Phil
^^^ This guy. He nailed it.
-
Exactly, composers who have certain overplayed pieces are often underrated in that other pieces are neglected.
Rach's Concerto 1 is neglected compared to 2. Same for Symphonies 3 and 2 respectively.
Shostakovich Symphonies 5 and 7 overwhelm all the others.
Debussy wrote a whole beautiful Suite Bergamasque yet people only care about the single most impressive piece.
-
Honestly, it's chopin that's the most over played and overrated. You guys should see how many asians are playing chopin and the major population in china...(not including me).
-
Final conclusion. Not even 1% of the people here can write music half as good as the composers listed in this topic ^.^
-
Final conclusion. Not even 1% of the people here can write music half as good as the composers listed in this topic ^.^
"half as good"? ..."half" ? :P