POSEUR or COMPOSER?

[da jake]

Which composer's really do suck?

I nominate Satie, Philip Glass, pretty well any minimalist (i.e., meandering CRAP).

[anodibu]

You really like to provoke people, don't you?

[thalbergmad]

Awaits the first post by prometheus.

[JCarey]

This is the worst thread in the history of Piano Street.

Congratulations.

[prometheus]

How can I ever argue with this?

I mean, there is nothing to argue against.

[Etude]

I agree with JCarey.  You either like a composer or you don't.  NONE of them 'suck'. 

I had been hoping no one would reply to this thread, but anodibu's post explains.

[ahinton]

This is the worst thread in the history of Piano Street.

Congratulations.

I cannot confirm or deny that with authority, as I am relatively new to the forum, but I am - sadly - more than willing nevertheless to defer to Mr Carey here, since it does indeed seem that this thread is destined by definition from the outset to be about as hopelessly unhelpful, uneducative and unedifying as any could be...

Best,

Alistair

[da jake]

In the time it took to bash the thread you could have come up with an actual response!

I mean, what composers are famous despite not actually being very good at composing.

Some of a composer's skills can be judged objectively. Take harmony for example. Schubert was a master of traditional harmony, Scriabin innovated traditional harmony.

Which composers really aren't all that?

I think the substance of Satie, Glass and other minimalist composers is pathetically lacking, and it's clear that they really aren't very good composers at all. This can be proven by comparing individual skills to other composers.

I don't think that Satie deserves a 1/10th of his fame. He's basically a one-hit wonder.

[dmk]

Would probably disagree with this one

In order to be able to deconstruct traditional harmony you have to have an excellent understanding of it.

-----------------------------------
A little bio of Phillip Glass stolen from Wikipedia

Glass was born in Baltimore, Maryland and studied the flute as a child at the Peabody Conservatory of Music. He then went on to the Juilliard School of Music where he switched to mostly play the keyboard; his composition teachers included Vincent Persichetti and William Bergsma. A next step was Paris, where he studied with the eminent composition teacher Nadia Boulanger, analysing scores of Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. After the work with Ravi Shankar in France on a film score, Glass traveled, mainly for religious reasons, to north India in 1966, where he came in contact with Tibetan refugees......

-----------------------------------

food for thought...

May I ask how your propose to compare the work of the minimalist's with other composers....probably like comparing apples and oranges I would suggest?

cheers

dmk

[ramseytheii]

Would probably disagree with this one

In order to be able to deconstruct traditional harmony you have to have an excellent understanding of it.

-----------------------------------
A little bio of Phillip Glass stolen from Wikipedia

Glass was born in Baltimore, Maryland and studied the flute as a child at the Peabody Conservatory of Music. He then went on to the Juilliard School of Music where he switched to mostly play the keyboard; his composition teachers included Vincent Persichetti and William Bergsma. A next step was Paris, where he studied with the eminent composition teacher Nadia Boulanger, analysing scores of Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. After the work with Ravi Shankar in France on a film score, Glass traveled, mainly for religious reasons, to north India in 1966, where he came in contact with Tibetan refugees......

-----------------------------------

food for thought...

May I ask how your propose to compare the work of the minimalist's with other composers....probably like comparing apples and oranges I would suggest?

cheers

dmk

A music journalist asked Aaron Copland what he thought of minimalists. He said, "By definition, they can't do much damage."

[ramseytheii]

I agree with JCarey.  You either like a composer or you don't.  NONE of them 'suck'. 

I had been hoping no one would reply to this thread, but anodibu's post explains.

Are you referring to any composer in the great traditional canon of composers, or any person at all who puts music on paper?  If there can be expertise in a field, there can most definitely be the opposite!

[stevie]

I cannot confirm or deny that with authority, as I am relatively new to the forum, but I am - sadly - more than willing nevertheless to defer to Mr Carey here, since it does indeed seem that this thread is destined by definition from the outset to be about as hopelessly unhelpful, uneducative and unedifying as any could be...

Best,

Alistair

hahaha, you mean to say 'it sucks'?

if so, i partially agree, but i enjoy a good larff and henceforth i shall regain my honour by awaiting the hilarity that may ensue.

[allthumbs]

In the time it took to bash the thread you could have come up with an actual response!

And perhaps to start the thread, you could have laid out a credible argument to back up your suppostion in the first place. Saying someone "sucks" IMO will not enjoin anyone to elicit an intelligent response, as they have nothing to serve as a starting point for a debate.

Cheers

allthumbs

[xvimbi]

In the time it took to bash the thread you could have come up with an actual response!

I mean, what composers are famous despite not actually being very good at composing.

I don't know if your ramblings deserve an "actual response"...

Some of a composer's skills can be judged objectively. Take harmony for example. Schubert was a master of traditional harmony, Scriabin innovated traditional harmony.

Which composers really aren't all that?

I think the substance of Satie, Glass and other minimalist composers is pathetically lacking, and it's clear that they really aren't very good composers at all. This can be proven by comparing individual skills to other composers.

I don't think that Satie deserves a 1/10th of his fame. He's basically a one-hit wonder.

Satie deserves his fame for what he represents. Same with Glass. I doubt you have the slightest idea about whether they had good composing skills. In fact, they did. However, they chose to compose a different kind of music. In a way, they were explorers. They clearly influenced whole new generations of composers in a positive way.

So, you don't like minimalists, fine. You can say that, but you can't turn your own preference into an absolute statement. Do you prefer those who cram as many notes into a bar as possible? If so, you'd like Alkan, Finnissey or Sorabji. Somebody who can say something meaningful with few notes is ten times the composer than somebody who has nothing to say and expresses this with a thousand notes.

[stevie]

interestingly i like alkan and i like satie.

alkan actually composed music that was proto-satie, minimalistic and unique.
he also composed some almost impressionistic works that influenced debussy and ravel to a degree.

[da jake]

Alkan's best impressionistic and miniatures wipe the floor with Satie...Tambour bat, Heraclite et Democrite, Folle au bord de la mer, Enharmoniques, etc...vs what? Gymnopedies? Je te Veux Valse? 

Ravel and Debussy are a plane above Satie as well.

PS: training in theory and composition do not constitute skill as a composer. Education in general does not guarantee skill. The only way to attain street cred in this area is by composing! Alkan, Ravel, Debussy all demonstrated it.

Satie did not. He's just a hack who history has been very kind to.

[da jake]

Another thing: as pianists, don't you guys feel it necessary to judge composers and their works? As someone who puts a lot of work into learning and polishing pieces, I sure as heck think if the piece is truly worth my time and attention before I decide to learn it.

I think criticism is both warranted and vital for artistic growth. Not all music is great or worth learning. It's harsh but true.

That's why it's more important to learn the Wanderer Fantasy before the Opus Clav (if ever). 

[pianistimo]

there will never be another mozart or beethoven, but poulenc is my favorite modern composer.  the lightness, clearness, and lack of only objectivity.  i don't like webern.  he's too cold. and, don't kill me, i don't like busoni's solo piano music at all.  his bach transcriptions are really beautiful though.