My hatred for Bach is looked down upon

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Slightly different spin... Can you appreciate Bach?

Appreciate is such a...

Harsh word...

How about...

...
...
...

I acknowledge him.

[chopin2015]

Bach was a romantic! Come on, admit it! And jazzy, too! I recently had to do book 1 E major p and f no 9. Now I am doing bvw 887 book II...

[outin]

Who?

Bäuchlen?

Hermann? Did he even write for the piano?

You know very well who I'm talking about 

I guess it's best not to mention the other tiny stain in your excellent taste 

[forte88]

So according to what you're saying, good taste is having the same taste as everyone else.  I'm not gonna blindly say that something sounds good just because everyone else thinks it's good

.  

No you do the opposite.

The reason why Bach, Mozart and Vivaldi are great is because a lot of people have SIMILAR taste which is the social norm.

No the reason they are great is because their music is based on universal principles of proportion and harmony etc that are pleasing to the ear. These principles can also be found in architecture(pyramids, Gothic cathedrals etc). So there is a reason why, at least with music lovers, this music resonates with people

Anyways, some cultures don't even consider the "Great composers" as actual musicians.  Because according to them, true music is something you only improvise, and it's looked down upon if it's arranged.

Name a composer that wasn't a great improviser as well?

Everyone receives music differently which is why there is no such thing as good or bad taste.  Bach and Mozart might mean something to you, but it doesn't mean much for me because I just think it sucks.  No actually, Mozart might not mean anything for you either, but just because everyone told you that they're good, you followed everyone else like sheep and just convinced yourself that you like them.

Actually, I don't come from a musical background. When people in my environment(probably to be with the in-crowd)listened to rap & house I was listening to the Beatles. And it was only with the advent of the internet I discovered Classical music. Perhaps I'm even judging those people that were into house etc unfairly. I can see how some people don't really care about a good melody and they prefer a good beat but in your case it seems to be disliking what sounds good and going for a Rachmaninov, Cage or Schoenberg, coz you're 'so special', you're 'not a sheep'. Which in a way confirms that your reasoning for liking or disliking something has very little to do with the actual music.

Saying otherwise makes you a music snob.  People like you are the reason why classical music is such An elitist genre, and deters audience.  We don't need your kind.

The pot calling the kettle black. If anything I'm the exact opposite. Ëlitists generally do what you do, dislike something that's 'too mainstream', whereas the general public are often afraid to admit they like classical music because there's been so much negative propaganda against it. Some won't even bother to take the time to listen coz they'd be worried what other people would think. Neither of these reasons has anything to do with music so I'd say a more accurate description of yourself

[forte88]

Let me ask you this: Do you like Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Prokofiev, Alkan, Thalberg, or any composer for that matter? Chances are there will be one which you'll like less than another, say Bach.

All the above composers, with perhaps the exception of Thalberg coz I've never actually heard anything of his are captivating to watch performed, but to actually listen to...no thanks

What if Bach were the most unpopular music amongst us. And you would like it. Then, according to your statement, you would have bad taste and you are the reason for which so many do not like classical. Fucked up, isn't it?

It's  a hypothetical statement, he's not and rightly so as I mentioned in my comment to R4ever. And again, the reason many don't like classical is for other than musical reasons.

Just because someone is different than the norm doesn't mean that this person has bad taste. It sometimes means the opposite.

Being different from the norm is a good thing, coz that means you're not influenced by group-think.But say someone who wants to be 'special' goes around places that smell good and starts smearing those places with sh*t, if he said that smelt better would you say the same thing? Hmm, he is kind of special, perhaps he's got a point,  maybe sh*t really does smell good and the smells that 'all those sheep like' are perhaps inferior to his special smelling sensitivity. He's right, dogs like sniffing sh*t too and their sense of smell is far superior to ours.
Ok, I think I'm starting to understand where you guys are coming from, where your love for shitty music comes from
Compromise...you don't have bad taste, you just like shitty music

[outin]

Actually, I don't come from a musical background. When people in my environment(probably to be with the in-crowd)listened to rap & house I was listening to the Beatles. And it was only with the advent of the internet I discovered Classical music. Perhaps I'm even judging those people that were into house etc unfairly. I can see how some people don't really care about a good melody and they prefer a good beat but in your case it seems to be disliking what sounds good and going for a Rachmaninov, Cage or Schoenberg, coz you're 'so special', you're 'not a sheep'. Which in a way confirms that your reasoning for liking or disliking something has very little to do with the actual music.

The pot calling the kettle black. If anything I'm the exact opposite. Ëlitists generally do what you do, dislike something that's 'too mainstream', whereas the general public are often afraid to admit they like classical music because there's been so much negative propaganda against it. Some won't even bother to take the time to listen coz they'd be worried what other people would think. Neither of these reasons has anything to do with music so I'd say a more accurate description of yourself

I cannot speak for R-4, but you sure do sound like a snob.

It is true that elite likes to differentiate from the common, but the composers discussed here are quite established in the classical genre. If one really wants to be different, one should look for something recent and revolutionary in our own time.

Isn't Rachmaninoff pretty maintream btw? 

[momopi]

My hatred for Bieber is also looked down upon. Teenage girls attacked me. 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

.  

No you do the opposite.

No the reason they are great is because their music is based on universal principles of proportion and harmony etc that are pleasing to the ear. These principles can also be found in architecture(pyramids, Gothic cathedrals etc). So there is a reason why, at least with music lovers, this music resonates with people
 

Name a composer that wasn't a great improviser as well?

Actually, I don't come from a musical background. When people in my environment(probably to be with the in-crowd)listened to rap & house I was listening to the Beatles. And it was only with the advent of the internet I discovered Classical music. Perhaps I'm even judging those people that were into house etc unfairly. I can see how some people don't really care about a good melody and they prefer a good beat but in your case it seems to be disliking what sounds good and going for a Rachmaninov, Cage or Schoenberg, coz you're 'so special', you're 'not a sheep'. Which in a way confirms that your reasoning for liking or disliking something has very little to do with the actual music.

The pot calling the kettle black. If anything I'm the exact opposite. Ëlitists generally do what you do, dislike something that's 'too mainstream', whereas the general public are often afraid to admit they like classical music because there's been so much negative propaganda against it. Some won't even bother to take the time to listen coz they'd be worried what other people would think. Neither of these reasons has anything to do with music so I'd say a more accurate description of yourself

1.  You're an idiot.  I can't even...  This is one *** composer, you can't make any assumptions based on that.

2.  That statement is FALSE.  Music is NOT universal.  They're considered great because their music is based on WESTERN principals of proportion and harmony, and those principles are found in WESTERN architecture etc...

3.  That's besides the point.  I know you get it, but you're just trying to be a smartass, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

4.  I don't care where you came from, I didn't come from a musical background either.  Second off, the composers I like are already pretty big in the classical genre, so your whole 'oh yeah you're just trying to be special' doesn't work kid.  And not liking Bach isn't that special either!  I know a lot of people who dislike Bach!

5.  I am pretty mainstream so don't try to pull that 'oh yeah you're not mainstream bulshit'.  There is a correlation of elitests railing on people for not being mainstream, but that's not what makes you an elitist.  What makes you an elitist is thinking you're better than everyone else which is EXACTLY what you're doing.  People are afraid to listen to classical music because if they don't like exactly what you like, then you're gonna hate on their taste.  

[forte88]

I cannot speak for R-4, but you sure do sound like a snob

You know how highly I value your opinion, now I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight

Isn't Rachmaninoff pretty maintream btw?

Probably everyone has heard of him, but how many can actually whistle a tune of his?

Or do you mean mainstream with conservatory pianists?

That statement is FALSE.  Music is NOT universal.  They're considered great because their music is based on WESTERN principals of proportion and harmony, and those principles are found in WESTERN architecture etc.

It's actually ancient knowledge that wasn't just found in Egypt(if you can consider that western) but in South America and Cambodia as well. Universal as in mathematical principals found in nature and in the Universe. Just coz, thanks to Pythagoras, the western world was able to derive these principles into music doesn't mean it isn't universal. The universality refers to how it affects body and mind.


I'm not on this forum very often, but the times I have been I continually see childish threads authored by your highness about blabla I hate Bach blabla childish nonsense. And then another thread with similarly retarded stuff on your hatred of Mozart. Ok, so if it's not to show how special you are what's the point of attacking composers that you probably know yourself a large portion of the music-loving forummembers are fans of?
I'm still confused, is it to show how bad your taste is or is to underline the shitty composers you like?

[outin]

I'm still confused, is it to show how bad your taste is or is to underline the shitty composers you like?

I find it quite strange that anyone who claims to be a music lover would write something like this...Knowing that R-4 likes Beethoven, Scriabin,  Rachmaninoff. Only one of them is dear to me personally, but still, I would not call any of them "shitty"  

I wouldn't call Bach or Mozart shitty either, even if I do share some of R4's views (although I may express mine in a more mature way due to my age).

[pianistaw]

All the above composers, with perhaps the exception of Thalberg coz I've never actually heard anything of his are captivating to watch performed, but to actually listen to...no thanks
It's  a hypothetical statement, he's not and rightly so as I mentioned in my comment to R4ever. And again, the reason many don't like classical is for other than musical reasons. Being different from the norm is a good thing, coz that means you're not influenced by group-think.But say someone who wants to be 'special' goes around places that smell good and starts smearing those places with sh*t, if he said that smelt better would you say the same thing? Hmm, he is kind of special, perhaps he's got a point,  maybe sh*t really does smell good and the smells that 'all those sheep like' are perhaps inferior to his special smelling sensitivity. He's right, dogs like sniffing sh*t too and their sense of smell is far superior to ours.
Ok, I think I'm starting to understand where you guys are coming from, where your love for shitty music comes from
Compromise...you don't have bad taste, you just like shitty music

You talk about sh*t, and how good it smells and you call us childish 

Oh, where have I ever mentioned which music I like? You just shot yourself in your own foot lol, I love Bach. You call Bach shitty music??  Get it on pregnant dog

[kakeithewolf]

This thread certainly took a turn for the worst.

More on the point, though, I'm curious as to why its so specifically Bach. The previous example I had made was to demonstrate that, given a near identical style and no name, it wouldn't exact the same ire. The machine example was a musical form of the Turing test, a way of showing that, given the same formula as the real thing, a point is eventually reached where no distinction can be made.

I also wonder if, given a Bach piece obscure enough to him (chances are that something in the 1000s or first few hundred of the BWV wouldn't be familiar), would Rach hate that piece, if unaware it was Bach? I sincerely doubt it would be very easy to glean the composer by ear.

On a similar vein, I'd assume Rach would like something from the over 1000 works of Bach. Even a tune whistled would be something. I state this because I don't like Mozart, Alkan, and Brahms, yet I like at least one piece from each of them (The Requiem, Comme Le Vent, and Wiegenlied respectively).

[outin]

This thread certainly took a turn for the worst.

More on the point, though, I'm curious as to why its so specifically Bach. The previous example I had made was to demonstrate that, given a near identical style and no name, it wouldn't exact the same ire. The machine example was a musical form of the Turing test, a way of showing that, given the same formula as the real thing, a point is eventually reached where no distinction can be made.

I also wonder if, given a Bach piece obscure enough to him (chances are that something in the 1000s or first few hundred of the BWV wouldn't be familiar), would Rach hate that piece, if unaware it was Bach? I sincerely doubt it would be very easy to glean the composer by ear.

On a similar vein, I'd assume Rach would like something from the over 1000 works of Bach. Even a tune whistled would be something. I state this because I don't like Mozart, Alkan, and Brahms, yet I like at least one piece from each of them (The Requiem, Comme Le Vent, and Wiegenlied respectively).

I tend to think statistically. I do like at least one piece by Bach very much. Also there may be a few that I have not heard that I might like, but that's not very significant. I've heard enough to have a general opinion.
I also dislike some pieces of Chopin even though I would rank him among my favorite composers.

I do not listen to pieces thinking about the composer. Often I only figure that out later. I genuinely listen to the music and it either appeals to me or not. Some pieces require time, but if something leaves me completely cold I won't give it too many chances.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

This thread certainly took a turn for the worst.

More on the point, though, I'm curious as to why its so specifically Bach. The previous example I had made was to demonstrate that, given a near identical style and no name, it wouldn't exact the same ire. The machine example was a musical form of the Turing test, a way of showing that, given the same formula as the real thing, a point is eventually reached where no distinction can be made.

I also wonder if, given a Bach piece obscure enough to him (chances are that something in the 1000s or first few hundred of the BWV wouldn't be familiar), would Rach hate that piece, if unaware it was Bach? I sincerely doubt it would be very easy to glean the composer by ear.

On a similar vein, I'd assume Rach would like something from the over 1000 works of Bach. Even a tune whistled would be something. I state this because I don't like Mozart, Alkan, and Brahms, yet I like at least one piece from each of them (The Requiem, Comme Le Vent, and Wiegenlied respectively).

The Bach that I did for auditions and the one that I'm doing for jury are the ones I like.

Whenever I'm assigned a piece by Bach, I only play the stuff that I like from him.  No actually, it's the stuff that doesn't hurt the most to play.

But I'm running out of stuff to like!

Actually though, I don't care how overplayed it is, the Tocatta and fugue in D minor is freaking awesome!  That thing is something else man.

There's no such thing as overplayed if it's actually good.  

[outin]

This thread certainly took a turn for the worst.

It's a pity, since it would be interesting sometimes to actually discuss the reasons behind people's preferences. If we forget Bach for a while...Any open minded discussion about the worth of composers or their music is difficult because of the long tradition of canonization of certain "great" composers (which seem to come exclusively from the Germanic region of Europe). This in Western art music has worked  as effectively as marketing does in pop music. It guides the tastes of the masses.

How do we evaluate the worth of a piece of music? Can it even be done objectively? By how well the music continues or advances the tradition that it was born from? What about the worth of breaking traditions by exploration or inventing something completely novel? Is a piece that is difficult to perform worth more? 

Is the composer's worth dependant by the volume of his successful or respected works? If someone composed a few priceless works, do we care whether he also wrote less interesting stuff? The name of the composer certainly can have an effect for a listener in several ways, making one more or less interested to listen.

How important is the enjoyment of a listener or the one preparing and performing the work? The latter is obviously important for R-4. Is one supposed to change one's listening to fit the music that has been predetermined to be "good", or should the music fit the listener? Is a performer obliged to learn (or at least pretend) to enjoy "great works" to be worth anything or is it as valuable to search for diversity and rare gems?

[Bob]

How do we evaluate the worth of a piece of music? Can it even be done objectively?

It can.  Fairly objectively.  It can't get too precise though -- For two pieces that are close in quality you can't say one is a little better than the other.

I had a professor who had a list of criteria. It's things like balance, development of an idea, interest from a new idea in the work, etc.  Technical aspects.... Like writing for the instrument(s) in a way that might be challenging but not impossible.  It does assume some things by using ideas like unity and balance, but... If you start a piece in one key and end in another, is that bad?  Or if the style changes radically?  Or if it's written in a way that's impossible to play... Isn't that lower quality composing?

The interesting part was enjoyment wasn't part of that list.  (I don't think it was.  It wasn't the most important part of the list if it was.) Accessibility is from having a nice melody and a steady beat.  If the piece isn't about those things, that doesn't make a it a bad piece, esp when that's purposely *not* the goal.  That was a long time ago when I saw that list. I may have posted something about it before, years ago.

[forte88]

I find it quite strange that anyone who claims to be a music lover would write something like this...Knowing that R-4 likes Beethoven, Scriabin,  Rachmaninoff. Only one of them is dear to me personally, but still, I would not call any of them "shitty"  

I wouldn't call Bach or Mozart shitty either, even if I do share some of R4's views (although I may express mine in a more mature way due to my age).

No they ' suck ' right? And it's not due to your age, but perhaps coz youre too snobby?
Looking forward to your thread with 'Chopin sucks' or some other great composer coz that's after all what you're defending. I don't come here very often, for obvious reasons it appears(my 'kind' apparently don't belong here). And you and your buddies have a lot of sucking to do.

[forte88]

Oh, where have I ever mentioned which music I like? You just shot yourself in your own foot lol, I love Bach. You call Bach shitty music??   Get it on pregnant dog

I'm glad you've got some taste at least, maybe you can teach your friend R4?

[theholygideons]

No they ' suck ' right? And it's not due to your age, but perhaps coz youre too snobby?
Looking forward to your thread with 'Chopin sucks' or some other great composer coz that's after all what you're defending. I don't come here very often, for obvious reasons it appears(my 'kind' apparently don't belong here). And you and your buddies have a lot of sucking to do.

forte88 you're as opinionated as the person you're arguing against.. maybe you should suck up the fact that not everyone likes Bach, or Chopin.

[thalbergmad]

Actually though, I don't care how overplayed it is, the Tocatta and fugue in D minor is freaking awesome!  That thing is something else man.

I have read that Bach did not compose it, so that might explain why you think it is freaking awesome.

Thal

[rachmaninoff_forever]

forte88 you're as opinionated as the person you're arguing against.. maybe you should suck up the fact that not everyone likes Bach, or Chopin.

Hey I'm not arrogant! 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I have read that Bach did not compose it, so that might explain why you think it is freaking awesome.

Thal

That explains a lot then.

[kakeithewolf]

I have read that Bach did not compose it, so that might explain why you think it is freaking awesome.

Thal

The theory is only widely held for the toccata. The fugue is fairly characteristic of Bach, however.

The toccata was pointed out in the 1960s and 1970s to have elements more consistent with a later style, more often employing composition characteristics either rare or unique for Bach and Baroque music as a whole. But that's where it becomes a bit of a grey area, because as much as Bach was one for adhering to strict form, he was also known for his skill in improvisation and innovation, so he very well could have made the toccata as well.

It is also speculated that Bach made the toccata as a transcription of a lost violin piece that was in A minor. That piece has been reconstructed and made proper for violin in recent years.

Another theory I have read was Christian Wolff's theory that the cause for oddities such as the parallel octaves in the beginning were caused by Bach having to adapt and form his pieces around the deficiencies of his Arnstadt organ.

So, it's not quite certain whether or not Bach wrote it.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

You know how highly I value your opinion, now I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight

Probably everyone has heard of him, but how many can actually whistle a tune of his?

Or do you mean mainstream with conservatory pianists?

It's actually ancient knowledge that wasn't just found in Egypt(if you can consider that western) but in South America and Cambodia as well. Universal as in mathematical principals found in nature and in the Universe. Just coz, thanks to Pythagoras, the western world was able to derive these principles into music doesn't mean it isn't universal. The universality refers to how it affects body and mind.


I'm not on this forum very often, but the times I have been I continually see childish threads authored by your highness about blabla I hate Bach blabla childish nonsense. And then another thread with similarly retarded stuff on your hatred of Mozart. Ok, so if it's not to show how special you are what's the point of attacking composers that you probably know yourself a large portion of the music-loving forummembers are fans of?
I'm still confused, is it to show how bad your taste is or is to underline the shitty composers you like?

1.  First off, yes you can.  Second off, I don't care whether or not I can whistle his music.  That's completely irrelevant.  If I think it sounds good, I think it sounds good, period.  YOU might think that whether or not you can whistle it constitutes good music, but I don't.  

2.  That second statement is utterly ridiculous.  Don't give me that stupid 'oh yeah the universality refers to how it effects the body and mind' bullshit.  The fact that we have different tastes prove that it's not universal.  Music effects everyone differently which is PRECISELY the reason why we have different music!

3.  This is you...

Hi guys, I'm forte88 and I like Bach!  Everyone who doesn't like Bach has bad taste, and I am better than everyone because I have good taste and I get to dictate what's good and what's bad because I'm better than everyone else.

And you try to justify this by spouting stupid bullshit that makes no sense.  And it's not that it makes no sense, it makes no type of sense!  You're done dude, just get outta here.

[j_menz]

The Bach that I did for auditions and the one that I'm doing for jury are the ones I like.

Whenever I'm assigned a piece by Bach, I only play the stuff that I like from him.  No actually, it's the stuff that doesn't hurt the most to play.

So, If I read that correctly, you do like a piece by Bach once you have played it up to sufficient standard to get a grip on it. You just don't like the ones you haven't done that with.

I'd suggest you don't actually hate Bach at all, you're just a bit slow on the uptake.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

No they ' suck ' right? And it's not due to your age, but perhaps coz youre too snobby?
Looking forward to your thread with 'Chopin sucks' or some other great composer coz that's after all what you're defending. I don't come here very often, for obvious reasons it appears(my 'kind' apparently don't belong here). And you and your buddies have a lot of sucking to do.

Stop trying to flip the table loser, you're the only one who's being snobby here.  

You think you're better than everyone else because not everyone has the same taste as you.  That's a prime example of what being snobbish is.  

And yes, YOUR KIND doesn't belong in the classical music scene.  As a matter of fact, it doesn't belong in any music scene.  Everyone hates snobs.  

Yeah she hates Chopin.  SO???  Sure Chopin is considered a "great" composer, but it's not a big deal!  It doesn't mean she has bad taste, it means that she just doesn't like Chopin, period.  

[rachmaninoff_forever]

So, If I read that correctly, you do like a piece by Bach once you have played it up to sufficient standard to get a grip on it. You just don't like the ones you haven't done that with.

I'd suggest you don't actually hate Bach at all, you're just a bit slow on the uptake.

No, I only play the ones that I like.

Actually my hatred for Bach is growing stronger than ever!

[j_menz]

No, I only play the ones that I like.

[kakeithewolf]

To whomever asked who could whistle a tune of Rachmaninoff's, I find myself whistling the beginning to his third concerto often, as well as his prelude in C-Sharp Minor.

[outin]

 

Yeah she hates Chopin.  SO???  Sure Chopin is considered a "great" composer, but it's not a big deal!  It doesn't mean she has bad taste, it means that she just doesn't like Chopin, period.  

I DO NOT HATE CHOPIN 

He's one of my favorite composers...I just don't like everything he wrote (the walzes and mazurkas mainly), because I don't like that style of music.

I apologize for not being able to express myself more clearly. I do have the excuse of writing on a foreign language though...

[j_menz]

the walzes and mazurkas mainly, because I don't like that style of music.

Things in 3/4 time?   

[outin]

It can.  Fairly objectively.  It can't get too precise though -- For two pieces that are close in quality you can't say one is a little better than the other.

I had a professor who had a list of criteria. It's things like balance, development of an idea, interest from a new idea in the work, etc.  Technical aspects.... Like writing for the instrument(s) in a way that might be challenging but not impossible.  It does assume some things by using ideas like unity and balance, but... If you start a piece in one key and end in another, is that bad?  Or if the style changes radically?  Or if it's written in a way that's impossible to play... Isn't that lower quality composing?

The interesting part was enjoyment wasn't part of that list.  (I don't think it was.  It wasn't the most important part of the list if it was.) Accessibility is from having a nice melody and a steady beat.  If the piece isn't about those things, that doesn't make a it a bad piece, esp when that's purposely *not* the goal.  That was a long time ago when I saw that list. I may have posted something about it before, years ago.

What you are talking about here is composition skills (and defined from a rather narrow perspective), I don't think it is what constitutes the worth of music. It's only one part of the equation.

[outin]

Things in 3/4 time?   

Now that you mention it...I much prefer things in 6/8...

[j_menz]

Now that you mention it...I much prefer things in 6/8...

As long as you can tell the difference.

I have no special preference, though pieces that switch between the two rather take my fancy.

[Bob]

What you are talking about here is composition skills (and defined from a rather narrow perspective), I don't think it is what constitutes the worth of music. It's only one part of the equation.

What's the rest?

[j_menz]

What's the rest?

Gross Revenue (PPP equivalent real dollars) 

[Bob]

True.  Depends on what "quality" you're looking for.

After it's composed, is there anything more than compositional skills?  It's notes on a page until someone performs it.  Then there's the playing ability/actual execution of the piece.

I don't know how much accessibility comes into it though.  There could be "likeability" but I still would wonder about it.  It's subjective.

[outin]

What's the rest?

That's for everyone to discover themselves...

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I DO NOT HATE CHOPIN 

He's one of my favorite composers...I just don't like everything he wrote (the walzes and mazurkas mainly), because I don't like that style of music.

I apologize for not being able to express myself more clearly. I do have the excuse of writing on a foreign language though...

...
...
...
...

You...  Don't hate Chopin...

Hahaha good one you almost had me there!

*wipes tear from my eye*

[chopin2015]

Things in 3/4 time?   

mazurkas have different (off-beat accent? or something, you feel it in 2?) than a valse

[j_menz]

mazurkas have different (off-beat accent? or something, you feel it in 2?) than a valse

They have the accent on the second (or sometimes third) beat. Still 3/4 time, though.

[outin]

Am I the only one who thinks rhythm is a very important part of  enjoyment in music and some rhythms are less enjoyable than others? For some reason I especially dislike waltzes. I can only think of a couple of exceptions.

[j_menz]

Am I the only one who thinks rhythm is a very important part of  enjoyment in music and some rhythms are less enjoyable than others?

Nope.

For some reason I especially dislike waltzes. I can only think of a couple of exceptions.

That's a couple more than I can manage.

[outin]

That's a couple more than I can manage.

I guess Bach didn't write any of those...

[mjames]

Imo, the mazurkas and waltzes are Chopin's "special" gems.

Op. 34, 41, 42, 50, 56, 59, and 63

Though I agree it takes time for them to grow on you (especially the mazurkas), but once they do, they're the greatest things ever. Also, I'm no expert but time signatures determine the pulse for music, and even within simple ones, you can still add great rhythmic variety. Which is pretty common in the mazurkas.

[outin]

Though I agree it takes time for them to grow on you (especially the mazurkas), but once they do, they're the greatest things ever.

Obviously a very long time, if 30 years is not enough 

[chopin2015]

Am I the only one who thinks rhythm is a very important part of  enjoyment in music and some rhythms are less enjoyable than others? For some reason I especially dislike waltzes. I can only think of a couple of exceptions.

completely appalled. I was at a jazz band concert today, at school. I was moving in all sorts of directions with and against the rhythm...point being, rhythm is awesome! Be it 3/4 or 9/8...Bach wrote in 9/8 and stuff, for organ...

[mjames]

Obviously a very long time, if 30 years is not enough  

Lol, fair enough. One of my favorite works by Chopin are mazurkas. I find it odd that you dislike his Mazurkas (well, most), pretty much all of his music in other forms are heavily influenced by Polish folk music. They're like the backbone of his keyboard language.

[outin]

Lol, fair enough. One of my favorite works by Chopin are mazurkas. I find it odd that you dislike his Mazurkas (well, most), pretty much all of his music in other forms are heavily influenced by Polish folk music. They're like the backbone of his keyboard language.

I don't actually dislike the mazurkas the way I dislike waltzes. I just don't really care for them that much, not the way I like his other music. I do agree that some are musically interesting and innovative.

If really think about it, there are few dance forms I do like...minuets are often rather annoying also...but one of my favorite pieces to play is a gigue...

[mjames]

If really think about it, there are few dance forms I do like...minuets are often rather annoying also...but one of my favorite pieces to play is a gigue...

I still haven't gotten around to playing gigues yet, or any other baroque/classical dance forms. ;_; Sigh, at least now I'm not ignoring the baroque guys. Too much romanticism, needed some diversity!