LEAST Favorite Composer/Work?

[da jake]

Xenakis and not Brahms
Finnissy and not Bach
Penderecki and not Schubert
Stockhausen and not Mendelssohn

There's definitely something wrong with you

[panic]

Not so much that as it'll just be impossible for him to ever have a sustained conversation with basically any other classical music fan.

[alejo_90]

I never cared about all those strange composers from the second half of the 20th century. I just don't find anything interesting on them.

My favourites are:
Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Vivaldi (who seems to be forgotten on this forum), etc, etc. Basically everything from 1650 to 1950... except for Haydn.

Best
Alex

[sergei r]

Can't believe so many people hate Tchaikovsky. The first time I listened through his last three symphonies I immediately liked them.

[panic]

Tchaikovsky was a master of the orchestral form. If you can extend orchestral pieces out to like 27 minutes without them ever losing pace or becoming boring, I think that's pretty darn good. He and Mahler are the only two guys I know that could do that consistently.
Maybe he gets a bad rap for being sentimental or something, but I think Rachmaninoff was way more sentimental whereas Tchaikovsky was more focused and evocative. The Fifth Symphony is like the tightest-wound Romantic symphony I know.

[Waldszenen]

I was never interested on all those strange composers from the second half of the 20th century. I just don't find anything interesting on them.

My favourites are:
Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Vivaldi (who seems to be forgotten on this forum), etc, etc. Basically everything from 1650 to 1950... except for Haydn.

Best
Alex

I like your taste. Except I do like Haydn here and there.

Tschaikowsky and Brahms, in my opinion, are two of the greatest orchestral composers. Pity they hated each other.

[soliloquy]

Xenakis and not Brahms
Finnissy and not Bach
Penderecki and not Schubert
Stockhausen and not Mendelssohn

There's definitely something wrong with you

I'm sorry you aren't able to appreciate anything that isn't "pretty" and/or sedating.

[alejo_90]

If you can extend orchestral pieces out to like 27 minutes without them ever losing pace or becoming boring, I think that's pretty darn good.

have you heard Shostakovich's 7th Symphony (Leningrad) ?

1st mov - 32 min
2nd mov - 15 min
3rd mov - 19 min
4th mov - 19 min





Best
Alex

[Waldszenen]

I'm sorry you aren't able to appreciate anything that isn't "pretty" and/or sedating.

Rather, most people don't seem to enjoy music that makes barely any sense...

Obscure composers like Xenakis are forgotten for a reason.

[bearzinthehood]

Rule #1 of being a snob:  Say you hate everything that most people like.  The fact that you can find flaws in what most people enjoy makes you better than them in every way.

[mikey6]

have you heard Shostakovich's 7th Symphony (Leningrad) ?

1st mov - 32 min
2nd mov - 15 min
3rd mov - 19 min
4th mov - 19 min





Best
Alex

Well I think that pretty much goes for most Shosta symphonies, Mahler, Bruckner (if you have patience - I'm sortta getting there, very slowly!)
Love the Leningrad!

[da jake]

I'm sorry you aren't able to appreciate anything that isn't "pretty" and/or sedating.

Liking something just because it is obscure does not entail sophistication (as your rejection of the greatest composers so shockingly proves).

[prometheus]

Obscure composers like Xenakis are forgotten for a reason.

I see more talk about him than about Xenakis than about Reger or Medtner.

Actually, he gets talked about more often than even Mahler...

Xenakis and not Brahms
Finnissy and not Bach
Penderecki and not Schubert
Stockhausen and not Mendelssohn

There's definitely something wrong with you

Maybe something is wrong with him. But that doesn't mean something bad is wrong with him...

[kriskicksass]

My listening is somewhat limited, but I've never run into any composer or music I couldn't find something enjoyable in. A lot of stuff I used to dislike (Beethoven's Opus 22, Chopin Ballade in g minor and Scherzo in b minor, Rachmaninoff D-flat Major Prelude, Debussey's Fireworks) is now actually on my list of favorites. The only music I don't like is music that I've heard hackneyed or overplayed, and even then it's not the music I dislike but the fact that I have to hear it butchered about 10 times when I go to a competition.

The closest I come to having music I dislike would be Rachmaninoff's g minor Prelude and Chopin's Opus 10 No. 12 etude. It's not that I dislike either piece, but I don't think that they can necessarily stand on their own, and that's the only way I ever hear them. Either is perfectly beautiful music, provided that they're paired with something appropriate and played well.

I guess that my feelings on music are like that old saying "there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers." To me, there are no bad pieces, only bad performances.

[panic]

I see more talk about him than about Xenakis than about Reger or Medtner.

Actually, he gets talked about more often than even Mahler...

I think that's similar to how Philip Glass is more well known than most 20th century composers just because his music is widely perceived as so awful. Not that Xenakis is awful, but surely to the ears of most he's more displeasant than Reger or Medtner.

Not to mention that most of the Xenakis discussions around here seem like one or two guys saying "OMG GENIUS" and the rest saying either "I respect him but that's all" or "you know what, he's actually not that amazing."

And Mahler wrote nothing for solo piano, closest he came was a piano quartet. If this were a symphony forum he would probably get center stage.

[jam8086]

Any piece composed by anyone with the last name Strauss will probably drive me mad.

Agreed.  I also do not care for Wagner, probably more because he was just a terrible person than for his music.  I do find most of his music to be so overbearingly dragged out and melodramatic, but I remember one time I heard something on the radio and I thought, "hmm...that was kind of cool!" only to hear the DJ say it was by Wagner, to which I responded by vomiting on everything in sight. 

Schoenberg and other atonal composers aren't my favorite, but I kind of respect them because no other music does a better job of making you feel as if you are literally in World War II Germany.  I wouldn't really say it's fair to compare tonal composers with atonal composers.

[steve_m]

.

[gymnopedist]

Music was created to give you something pleasant to hear.  I can appreciate some modern-sounding music, but I just can't understand why people like some of this stuff.  If you played the Opus Clavicembalisticum for Bach, he would hate it. I guarantee it.  In the end, music is about sounding good, at least that's what I think it should be about, and your music just doesn't have that quality.

Did it ever cross your mind that some people think it sounds good? I mean, i can't stand a lot of Sorabji, but with some of it, he just completely blows me away... And since when is "whatever Bach would have liked" the definition of good music? He probably would not have liked a lot of Chopin as well...

[steve_m]

4

[panic]

That's not the best comparative example in my opinion because the second piece has a lot more human depth than the first. Generally Mozart's piano sonatas are too shallow for one to be able to say they are really better than most modern music, IMO.

But when I start really disliking modern music is when it becomes so weird as to render the music meaningless. Xenakis is one example - Xenakis completely failed in his music to carry across any gist of what lay behind it. It sounds like nothing. Stockhausen is another example - doesn't sound like anything more than a bunch of randomly arranged notes. And for those two cases and others, I honestly don't care if there is anything behind it. The music completely fails. Some Sorabji is the same way, like a lot of OC - it sounds profound for the sake of being profound, not because it's charged by anything. These kinds of examples are what I mean.

If music isn't going to be pleasant to hear, then at least it's got to be something else (meaningful, having a coherent purpose, whatever) so that there's some point listening to it. If it's not, then it's worthless. Music is what it sounds like. If it sounds like a bunch of random notes, then it is a bunch of random notes.

[alfred macdonald iv]

I think that's similar to how Philip Glass is more well known than most 20th century composers just because his music is widely perceived as so awful. Not that Xenakis is awful, but surely to the ears of most he's more displeasant than Reger or Medtner.

Well..

Glass is easier to like. It's repetitive, sure, but it can grow on you. Xenakis is the type of music where, even if you "get it", you can still loathe it.

[gymnopedist]

Listen to the top link first.  Try telling me it's not one of the most beautiful things you've ever heard.

Ok, no, it is not one of the most beautiful things i have ever heard. I find it boring and shallow, and it does not inspire as much emotion in me as for example Ravel does.

Now, listen to the link below it.  PLEASE tell me it's not one of the most beautiful things you've ever heard 

In this case, I would actually prefer the bottom link, because i find it much more interesting and  emotional than the first. I will however say that i do not think it is beautiful either, but fascinating.

This is the point I'm trying to make.  It didn't occur to me that people think it sound good, because that is pretty inconceivable for me.  I can't understand why people would prefer the bottom link to the top link.

Well, some people do. That's all you need to know; different people like different pieces, regardless of when it was written or how it sounds.

[soliloquy]

You people make it sound like I ONLY like Xenakis and Finnissy etc.  Did you not see Liszt, Alkan, Scarlatti and Chopin on the list of composers I like?  And you guys accuse me of having a narrow taste in music?  That seems extremely hypocritical, when you ONLY like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and the like.  You guys refuse to like anything besides the most completely common composers, and then take a stab at my "sophistication" which I never commented on in any of my posts?  Maybe you should look up the definition of sophisticated ^^  If anyone has the narrow, unsophisticated, and right-out boring taste in music it's the guys in this thread bashing composers like Xenakis just because they "don't get it."  I never said that liking obscure or modern composers made my taste in music sophisticated but I'll certainly say liking nothing but the most common, popular and simplistic composers would be quite the opposite of sophisticated.

[mike_lang]

I think that at this point, Mozart is my least favorite composer, though I suspect it is due to a lack of appreciation, not a sincere distaste.  I remember, for example, that it was not until I learned more about Beethoven (as well as heard some of his later works) that he became more appealing to me.  I suppose it is that some are more acquired tastes for me, while others stir me to emotion from the start (i.e. Prokofiev in his 2nd piano concerto, or Rach. in the climax of the 1st mvt of the 2nd piano concerto). 

[steve_m]

o

[steve_m]

f

[cfortunato]

I'm sire that there is something I'm missing, but I've never cared for Bach, and I've tried.  I usually find his stuff unemotional.  And Debussy bores me - it hardly sounds like music to my ears. 

I LOVE Pictures at an Exhibition, especially the original piano version.  And Schumann.  Beethoven is every bit as good as his reputation.  And Grieg.  And I'm just recently developing a liking for Haydn.

[presto agitato]

Debussy bores me - it hardly sounds like music to my ears. 

Same with me.

BTW I HATE Piano cocnerto num 5 by Saint Saens...Overrated work IMO

[superstition2]

Let the music grow on you

Like mold? 

[counterpoint]

Hindemith, Henze and ... Liszt   

[houseofblackleaves]

PROKOFIEV!! 


I hate his dissonance... Not dissonance in general, just his.  I'm sorry.  I don't know why. 

HOWEVER I love his Romeo and Juliet, and a few interpretations of him that I heard once, only the interpretations though.

*MY OPINIONS start here, so don't call me a "liar" because I know that no one will agree with me anyways*

MY OPINIONS REMEMBER.

I think that Rachmaninoff surpassed almost all of the other Russian "big shot" composers of the late romantic era.  In technique, such a vast range of themes, and dissonance that surpassed the later *prokofiev."

I also think that Liszt's music itself is overrated.  Yes, him and Scriabin, from what I've read, are the only two who have been reffered to as "technecal virtuosos,"  Where as other composers such as Chopin, who didn't compose ONE virtuoso piece, surpasses them both 1000000% in musicallity.

That's just my opinion.  PLEASE do not get mad at me, please?

[ravel]

That kind of music just doesn't sound good.  Yes, it might be the most difficult piece ever written, with thousands of little technicalities that people believe to be "genius", but it hurts your ears to hear!

The main claim in favor of atonal music would probably be that it does the best job conveying emotions. I'm okay with that, but I don't think there's anything you could say that would make me believe that it is good music, and that I couldn't compose a 2 hour piece that's just as good in the next...2 hours.  I could be wrong, so if you want to try and convince me, go ahead.

Music was created to give you something pleasant to hear.  I can appreciate some modern-sounding music, but I just can't understand why people like some of this stuff.  If you played the Opus Clavicembalisticum for Bach, he would hate it. I guarantee it.  In the end, music is about sounding good, at least that's what I think it should be about, and your music just doesn't have that quality.

Have you seen Leonard Bernstein's lectures on music... its in five parts... and in the last one which is about stravinsky and neo-classical composers... he talks about how music doesnt have to sound "pleasant" or "serious"    to be good...
well... if music is an expression of emotion... then well... not every emotion is pleasant... then why should one expect all music to sound good or pleasant??? emotions like agony.... horror... etc... would make the composer write music which might not sound good.. but it expresses those perfectly ...
just my two cents

[steve_m]

g

[phil13]

I think that Rachmaninoff surpassed almost all of the other Russian "big shot" composers of the late romantic era.  In technique, such a vast range of themes, and dissonance that surpassed the later *prokofiev." 

Good opinion, although I would say Scriabin was the better composer of the two.

I also think that Liszt's music itself is overrated.  Yes, him and Scriabin, from what I've read, are the only two who have been reffered to as "technecal virtuosos,"  Where as other composers such as Chopin, who didn't compose ONE virtuoso piece, surpasses them both 1000000% in musicallity.

That's just my opinion.  PLEASE do not get mad at me, please?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Rachmaninoff and Medtner also "technical virtuosos"?

Incidentally, Medtner rules in combining blazing virtuosity and amazing musicality, so I don't think it's an 'either/or' situation. Check out the 'Night Wind' Piano Sonata if you don't believe me.

Phil

[pies]

PROKOFIEV!! 


I hate his dissonance... Not dissonance in general, just his.  I'm sorry.  I don't know why. 

Odd, Prokofiev's dissonance makes me hard.

[jakev2.0]

Scriabin couldn't compose his way out of a box of packing peanuts.

[prometheus]

Rachmaninoff is only big by pianists. Other people don't really care.

Scriabin and Liszt are known for pushing the development of music and are generally not credited for this because in itself it is not entertaining. Rachmaninoff, for example, did nothing new. And still he felt himself forced to be too innovative by his critics. This is why his symphonies do not get performed while those of Scriabin do.

Not many scolars will claim that Scriabin was not the greater of the two composers. But ironically this composer-giant never got a gold medal for composing when he graduated. There is a long list of people no one has ever heard of who did receive this medal.

[phil13]

Scriabin couldn't compose his way out of a box of packing peanuts.

I take serious offense at that. 

He did a helluva lot better than many other composers, he was innovative in a way only a few other composers could be (Beethoven and Medtner just to name two), and his range of music- from Chopinesque to the 'magic chords' to the quartal harmony is amazing stuff.

Please, think before you speak.

Phil

[jakev2.0]

I was joking.

I'm actually rather fond of Scriabin. 

[phil13]

I was joking.

I'm actually rather fond of Scriabin. 

Oh. Well, then, you are forgiven. 

Sorry about the outburst. I love Scriabin.

Phil