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.
Topic: Worst, most poorly composed piece by a major composer?