Worst, most poorly composed piece by a major composer?

[phil13]

I got that. But you said they were twelve tone, they aren't. Other people might write off these excellent pieces of music because they don't like Stockhausen. I just wanted to make sure that doesn't happen.

No, no, no, no. I didn't say that they were twelve-tone or atonal or anything like that. They SOUND atonal to me, but I can see tonality in the sonatas. I don't care for them, just like I don't care for twelve-tone music (TOTALLY separate). The two specimens of music don't please my ears, but they are worth studying and they certainly have fans elsewhere. That's what I was trying to say.

Again, sorry for the misconception.

Phil

[prometheus]

I said I got your point.

Maybe you should read what you posted.

[dbrainiak914]

I think Liszt Sonata sucks.





















































JUST KIDDING.  What's the point of this thread then?

[burstroman]

Anything by Borodin

[Nightscape]

Aren't we asked to be very (you call it overly) critical in this topic?

You are indeed asked to be critical in this topic - however citing that Ravel had doubts about Bolero is not being critical on your part.   

You told them, or they told you? Don't they call every teacher on a collage a professor in the US?

What?  This doesn't make semantical sense to me.  They told me it was a masterpiece - (Otherwise, I would have been lying in my post), not because of the orchestration though.  There are better examples of Ravel's orchestration technique written even before Bolero (like Daphnis et Chloe), the Bolero is a masterpiece for other reasons, which they did explain to me (which I have reproduced in part here on this forum, and also which you seem not be questioning).

Maybe.

There is absolute way of judging music.  You simply cannot say that the Baroque or Classical or Romantic method of composing is the best for some reason or other....  it is a matter of personal preference.  If that is the case, then saying Bolero is a bad composition is a personal belief, not an absolute fact.

When I look at a western classical piece, because of my background in jazz and world music, the first think I look at is form and structure. The bolero doesn't have any.

If I'm not mistaken (which I'm not), the Bolero is composed of definate phrases, and therefore has a form.  And also just because you look at form first doesn't mean it is the deciding factor in the quality of a piece - its a personal preference on your part.  Personally, the first thing I notice about a piece is the atmosphere it creates (which is a combination of texture, timbre, melody, harmony, and rhythm).

Really, how can an 'attentive listener' bear this? Really, they don't. The Bolero might be popular, but lets view it's two primary uses. The first is in movies or cartoons. The second is to play it while having sex.

How very sad, and what a shallow view of Bolero!  I've never seen the Bolero in either of these circumstances personally (although no doubt is does occur), as I (an attentive listener) listen to it merely for the pleasure it brings to my ears and to my musical mind. 

When your teachers refer to the Bolero, they must refer to it because it is a exersize in orchestration.

No, this is not what they told me.  By 1928, at the time of Bolero's composition, Ravel was already a master of orchestration and had surpassed all of his peers and those who came before him in his knowledge of the instruments and his creative uses of them.  Why would he need to continue writing orchestration excercises?  It seems to me that Ravel composed Bolero for different reasons, and hid behind his orchestration defense due to harsh criticism by music critics at the time.  Don't try and tell me that there is no music in Bolero - it is composed of notes, and rhythms and is certainly well-organized.

great piece to study orchestration

Actually, no, since Ravel is using most of the instruments in rather unusual ways and ranges (and also using unusual instruments).  It's great to learn about unusual timbres, however there are other works by Ravel which provide more immediate insight into the instruments and instrument combinations (Mother Goose is one of the best.)

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you claim a good composition is one that touches or moves people and that there can not be any other way to judge music.

I have not contradicted myself.  I stand firmly by my belief that the "quality" of a piece of music is not the final determination for whether or not I enjoy a piece of music.  I said what I said because people were posting personal opinions instead of trying to find out what pieces were actually poorly composed.  I do know that there are ways of determing the so called quality of a piece of music by analysing from the perspectives of the elements of music (like I did with the Bolero) but again I still don't think that "quality" in this case equates "enjoyment" or even "appreciation".

Basically, let me clear up my opinion for you.

First off, I enjoy Bolero, regardless of how poorly composed it is or not.

Secondly, the Bolero is in fact not poorly composed (although this has not effect on my enjoyment of it) because of the reasons I listed in one of my previous posts in which I analyzed various components of the piece.

So basically I've said two things - that Bolero does not deserved to be called Ravel's worst, because it is a well written, well-organized piece, and second that it doesn't even matter whether or not Bolero is well-composed because it continues to provide of source of joy and inspiration for many listeners, which far outweighs any consideration of it's inherent "quality".

As a composer myself, I know that I would be more touched if someone told me they enjoyed listening to my piece and that it moved them, than if someone told me that the piece was just well-composed.

Because otherwise I would have to add all Mozart and all Vivaldi to this topic. Surely I don't want to call all those pieces 'bad compositions' because they don't move me. I rather try to make an objective judgement. 

But why?  If Vivaldi and Mozart do nothing for you, then subconsciously you must consider them boring, poor compositions.  Even if you respect them because they are "well-written", that feeling of respect is surely a mild and detached emotion (and so often a contrived emotion) and whatever discomfort or boredom you feel from listening to them surely is more powerful.

Why defend something that brings you no enjoyment?  The only reason to defend it is to appease those who do enjoy it.

Plus that reasoning would have a much bigger effect. Atonal music would be bad music no matter how it is composed. And what about music from the middle east and india. Not only do they use just temperament, they also use microtones. It sounds horribly out of tune to people only familiar to our system and way of making music. Therefore it would not touch anyone. So then it would be bad music, huh?

Wouldn't touch anyone? Are you saying that Indians are nobody?  Besides, atonal music does have a profound effect on much of us.  There are many people who enjoy it, and furthermore, we'll all heard it in films and on television, and it does help to create a genuine feeling of tension.  In that sense, it "touches" us and invokes rather powerful emotions, even if in a bad way.

Yes, sure you can enjoy pieces that are not 'well written'. What is 'well written'? That's a hard question. I cannot nail it down. We are talking about art. I don't want to claim I know what art is.

Yet you seem to know enough to judge Bolero.  If you don't know how to define a good composition, how can you say that Bolero is a bad composition?
 

But I do not thing 'enjoyment' and 'good composition' have much to do with each other.

Yes!! It seems that deep down, we share the same core belief.  We just have different ways of expressing it.  It just seems to me that the primary purpose of music is enjoyment (enjoyment is not the best term here.  What I mean to say is that people listen to music because it resonates with them, and it brings them some sort of emotional relief, satisfaction, or pleasure).  Therefore, music that doesn't do this, even it is "well-written" doesn't seem to function the way that music is regarded to function.  This seems to me the better way to judge quality in music - how well it fulfills its particular function.

[thracozaag]

aww Rachmaninov's fourth is my favorite of the 5 ^^


hmmmmm....... Brahms Variations on a Theme by Schumann.  BLEH!  what else....

  That's my favorite (large-scale) Brahms solo piano work.

koji

[jehangircama]

Ravel's Bolero
Chopin's Fantasie-Impromptu in c# sharp minor
Liszt's Grand Galop Chromatique

no way!! the fantasie impromptu is one of my favourites...

[c18cont]

Well,

One thing I know...Older persons are MISTAKEN when they suggest that modern youth has little training and discipline, and even less intelligence....This thread should dispel that foolish attitude very well....I am However, not surprised; The attraction of this forum would not draw many of low training and intelligence...And I believe our youth of today are intelligent, but not perhaps doing the best with it....

However....I would suggest also that some are very sure of themselves at say, age 16, or 18 and already have a lifetime (?) of experience in what makes poor, or excellent composition....It seems to me, (from a lifetime four times that length); You may find great change in what you believe as time passes...But ...what the h---...Youth is nothing, if not confident....

However, it remains, there are two issues here....One is measuring composition by a set of rules..(In which case we can go back and choose a fugue as being the best, or even melismaticism or plainsong...),and emotional impact..in which case many pop "songs" may be better than the Fantasie Imp...to some people...so they would surely find many things by major composers "poorly composed", if it did not arouse any strong emotion...

All this came into excellent play between issues covered by prometheus, and  nightscape, with several others taking one or another side....The ideas of prometheus play well with me..(and to some extent, the true idea behind composition from a studied view....). And the strength of arguement by nightscape is precocious if anything, and sucessful indeed...

Well done!...The solution is there, if we only look...Yes we can pick the most poorly composed piece...It must be 4min. 33sec,...John Cage....

My Regards,   John Cont

[prometheus]

What moves me? Now that is a puzzling question.

Music never moved me during childhood, though I did realise it's potential of raw emotional power.

Then I started to play an instrument, at about 16. My journey through music has begon. Now when I look back I can only say that music began to move me when I fell in love for the first time, at age 19. That was also when I began to drift away from rock music and into more subtle emotions of jazz and world music.

Music today probably moves me less than before. The degree of movement always increased with more knowledge and experience. But it seems I hit the celing or something. I still get terribly exited, but raw primitive emotion? That is becomming rare.

I used to have almost orgasmic experiences generated by pieces that do very little to me today.

At this moment I am listening to a highly romantic album. It was the first CD I bought after I fell in love: Al Di Meola's Winter Nights. At that time I only listened it a few times. All the other music from that time I listened a lot.
So it still caries memories from that period. It's the only way for me to feel like I did back then. But I know, the more I listen to it the more it will fade. Maybe I should stop listening and safe the emotions for later.

I can't see how I can put being touched by music into an objective discussion about the quality of music.

[apion]

What was Beethoven thinking when he converted his awesome VIOLIN CONCERTO into a loathesome PIANO CONCERTO.

Just thinking about that horrendous "piano concerto" turns me into a lobotomized catatonic with a severe bladder problem 

[c18cont]

Al Di Meola?...?,

You like him?  Fantastic performer....I have some albums I still love, and one in particular...."Friday Night In San Francisco"...with two others...John McLaughlin and Paco De Lucia...sub-title... Acoustic Supertrio Live....(Sorry folks, I KNOW this is all about classical...but ...these guys are GOOD together...Very spanish AND some jazz sounds..as well)

John

[Skeptopotamus]

I got that. But you said they were twelve tone, they aren't. Other people might write off these excellent pieces of music because they don't like Stockhausen. I just wanted to make sure that doesn't happen.

stockhausen follows 12-tone?  since when?   XD

anyways guys these are just single people's opinions; I don't think we need to fight here.  You guys turned a simple, fun little thread into a big fight.  For shame.....

[Nightscape]

Yes, its always fun to bring down the greats.....  it makes us feel better to point out the flaws in those we think are greater than ourselves, in some attempt to make ourselves feel more secure....


Anyways, we weren't fighting.  Just discussing - it may have been a heated discussion at times, but thats the best way to uncover new ideas and opinions!

[Skeptopotamus]

nope.  mind-suckers are.  they exist.

[prometheus]

I have always seen Stockhausen being described as a serialist. I always assumed their authority as I didn't look closely at his music.


The other two guys are Bireli Lagrene and Larry Carlton. The first was a child prodigy as a Django imitator and turned to other styles later. Since he is a gipsy his technique is incredible. He doesn't hav Al's iron picking hand and his note choice is more interesting if you ask me.

Larry Carlton doesn't have the incredible technique of the other 5. He is more of a real jazz and blues guy.

Paco De Lucia is 'the' flamenco guitarist.

Pat Metheny is my favorite jazz guitarist though. He does a lot of different stuff. But when he plays the bepop style stuff he is amazing. His time is really special for a guy playing guitar.

I agree with Nightscape.

[c18cont]

Yes! Pro,

Agree with your picks on guitarists...and have a few myself....for classical...I still like Ernesto Bitetti, ..guess he is getting prety old..(I am ...), and Maria-Livia Sao Marcos, also getting pretty old I guess. She was considered great on Leo Brower......and Angel Romero
for Baroque....and Nino de Granada....dead...Flamenco...

And...then there is Tony McAlpine....................

John

[prometheus]

Hehe MacAlpine is great fun every once in a while. Plus he puts a Chopin piano piece on most of his albums. If I remember correct he studied both classical violin and piano.

I am afraid I am not really familiar with the works of those classical guitarists. I never liked classical music on the classical guitar.


There is also this woman that studied violin at Julliard. Apperently living wasn't very good as a Julliard gratuate. Because she turned into a heavy metal guitarist with a terrible gimmick. She calls herself the Great Kat. It's terrible.

[c18cont]

Great Kat....,

Yes, I have heard of her, but never heard her....And then there is "Cello Rock", with  groups like Apocalyptica....and the female group...Rasputina....

John

 

[gorbee natcase]

Rachmaninovs 2nd and third concerto remind me of a child lost in a gloomy wood being persued by evil forces with danger in every direction and not knowing which way to turn

[Skeptopotamus]

  That's my favorite (large-scale) Brahms solo piano work.

koji

aww koji i thought you had good taste ^^  (jk)

[sonata_5]

Beethoven Wellington Victory

[perfect_pitch]

Holy smokes - nice thread Necro. No one's seen this thread since before Swine flu.

However, I'm going to add my 2 cents... that piece that shall not be named by Sxrxbjx

(I think everyone who's a major poster will know EXACTLY what I'm talking about).

[brogers70]

Beethoven Wellington Victory

I had always read how bad that piece was, but when I actually listened to it, I could hear the real Beethoven behind the commercial piece. He sometimes wrote mostly for the money (e.g. those scads of folk song arrangements), but he still did a good job at it.

[kosulin]

"Worst" is very subjective, and "poorly composed" can be synonymous to "experimental" or "original". A piece can be an intentionally disorganized reflection on a composer mood at the moment.
You can only guess the composer intentions unless the composer or their close ones left notes on why the piece was written, and why it was written the way it was written.

[sonata_5]

Wellington Victory Beethoven

[liszt-and-the-galops]

I've often not been fond of some of the pieces by, e.g., Liszt, Chopin, and Alkan, but I've almost never outright disliked one. I really don't like Messiaen's (did I spell that right?) Vingt Regards, but I wouldn't say it was poorly composed.

[thorn]

My old composition professor used to say the only music you could objectively grade is serialist pieces because they're mathematical. As in what they do with the formula is subjective but the question of " is it composed properly" is objective.

[lelle]

Never been a fan of Chopin's "Military" Polonaise Op. 40 no. 1. Can't say it's objectively poorly composed, but I find it to be mostly loud, repetitive and cheesy. I do not feel emotionally enriched after listening to it.