Music you just hate!

[frederic]

I've read all those topics about favourite composers and pieces but what is a piece you just can't stand?
Or which composer is your blind spot,one that you just don't understand?

[dinosaurtales]

Boy!  This post could go on forever from me!  You'd think as a music nut I'd like everything, but I don't.  I have some major pet peeves, including, but not limited to:

Piano sonatas with horrendously Lengthy slow movements - Not only is the audience checking their watches to figure out how long they have to sit there, but the pianist is probably falling asleep playing the thing.  Schubert and Mozart were famous for this.

Most Russian music of the epic sort.  I think the composers were paid based on how *nationalistic* they were thought of, so their compositions were louder, bigger, longer, blah, blah blah, till mercifully the things end.  Yuk.

Modern compositions where they were trying so obviously hard to be *clever* or *brilliant* or *different* or whatever drives those guys, that it's obvious to me they couldn't think of a damned thing, but the deadline was coming up, so they tossed something out there and got their agent to push it.  I think most modern composition falls into this category - not all, though.

Music that's hard to play, but doesn't sound hard when it's done.  The Bach French Suite I am currently working on is like this.  When it's all put together, it'll sound like something you'd have any ten year old crank out.  Makes no sense to me at all.  If it's going to BE hard, it needs to SOUND hard when it's done.  No longer a guideline, it's a rule with me now.

That's about it for this post.  More to come I am sure.

Mindy

[amee]

I don't like contemporary music - especially the discords in them.  I try and avoid playing them if I can because I just can't get into them somehow.

[pskim]

Schumann and Brahms.  and anything serialism.

[tosca1]

I hate "background" music which is either kitsch or bland or both.
I loathe most kinds of pop music which is often crude, vulgar aggressive and loud.  I am very uncool!
Robert.

[ScaryCarphone]

I completely agree!  You took the thoughts right out of my head!  And haven't you heard?  It's cool to be uncool!  

[xenia]

Ha,ha,ha......haa!!

DinosaurTales is very funny!
And ScaryCarphone, I love this: IT'S COOL TO BE UNCOOL!
...ha,ha,ha...

 

[xenia]

 P.S.

pskim, I must say to you that Schumann is not serious !
He can be (even) fanny !Believe me!

 

[Le-ackt]

Such an Uncool to be Cool Quate " It's cool to be uncool "  ~ Hahahaha
well , to me every Genre has gems , but just always the Most mainstream isnt the best . I found Great Quality works from Rock , Pop , Jazz , Techno , anything . And Sure there are worthless piece among classicals ~ same thing round us ~
But for sure I M sick of too minutes killing piece too

[willcowskitz]

You Must Have Forgotten This Looks Pretty Retarded  

[natasha]

i h8 modern pieces 2 bcos i never kno if mi eyesight has failed mi and i am playing the wrong notes!!

[Frizzler]

I'm not a big fan of Schubert or Wagner.  They really don't do anything for me.  I also don't like the earlier classical period.

[Celeste]

BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! BACH! (My fingers are getting tired of typing that horrid name!)

[amee]

I used to really dislike Mozart but now I find it's okay.

[dinosaurtales]

I'm with Celeste.  My teacher as a kid made me do almost nothing but Bach for several years, and now I just hate looking at anything with his name on it.  It's a shame, too, 'cause he did write a lot of cool stuff, I just can't deal with it.

[chopinetta]

I hate pop! I hate AVRIL LAVIGNE and i don't know if i spelled that name right!
My classmates are so into her and I'm the only one who's not! I just hate 21st century music! I'm so uncool which is so cool!

But then I like Josh Groban

And then again, he's Classical-pop!

[ThEmUsIcMaNBJ]

Oh MAN!  I LOVE JOSH GROBAN!  Man he's so good it bugs...  Anyways yeah I thought this thread was mostly talking about classical pieces...  But I dislike pretty much anything popular.  R&B stuff etc..... RAP!  EWE!  Anyways but in the classical sense, piano wise at least, I really don't like the 20th century contemperary peices!  But on the other side of the coin I don't absolutely love Bach either.  So really old stuff and really new stuff I just can't get into!  I think I don't like Bach beacuse I can't play it...  I dunno why stupid mental blocks...  And then like someone else said you finish a peice and it doesn't sound hard!  so sad...  It's all about the romantic composers for me!  Can anyone say CHOPIN!?

[S.Peterson]

I love Josh Groban as well. He has an INCREDIBLE voice!
Now for music I hate, I definately don't like the modern music where it sounds like you're reading the music upside down. I'm also not a huge fan of music like pop,rap,etc., but at the same time I realize that it's their way of expressing themselves through that kind of music just like piano is our way. I just wish sometimes they would do it silently.  
Sara

[PoSeiDoN]

Debussy takes the cake in this category with the God-awful Clair de Lune.  The piece is depressing, boring, and it really doesn't improve any aspects of the pianist's playing.

[S.Peterson]

Hehe, I have some friends who call Clair de Lune "Clear the Room".
Sara

[dinosaurtales]

I have a theory that Claire de Lune was one of the original versions of *easy listenin'* music before there was such a thing.  Same can probably be said for Haydn's Surprise Symphony and Beethoven's Contra Dances.

just a hunch..........

Min

[ballade]

hehehe. i do find bach a little annoying (especially horrendously long slow bits but then you have to admit that he was some sort of genius and he has composed some beautiful music. even if i dont appreciate it
On a different type of music, I can't stand So Solid Crew...or Blazing Squad. I read an interview with "the squad" and it said: "These cuties aren't just great at music alone either. They have six GCSE's between them!"
Er, how many of them are there? 14?
Ranting over:P back to classical music! I dont like modern music that tries to represent something political or deep cos it usually just ends up being shallow and annoying...what do u guys think?

[chopinetta]

yes I think you're right!!! sometimes, (or maybe often) modern music tries to get deep meaning into them, but remains noisy and irritating!!!


wait a minute!!! This topic should have been:


NOISE YOU JUST HATE!!! besides, don't we just consider music we hate as noise?

but modern music is pure noise! --except some of them, like josh groban--it's just pure music!

[amee]

Something I just can't stand is modern music with lots of discords and syncopation!  Also heavy rock or rap with so much bass it makes my ears throb...

[lea]

hey amee!!!

rap rox!!!

im serious


and all u have to do is wear a hoodie and baggy jeans, and mumble sum ***** words into the microphone

and u make millions!!!!


well, music i hate

i wud say that it wud have to be music thats just not me, cos then my mind goes wandering

[Chiyo]

I like classical music, but I hate sonatas...even Chopin's
It's just that I learned too much of them when I was young.
But on the other hand, I can stand Hanon and Czerny....

[Yoad]

Britney Spears?

Chopins Ops. 10 No. 10

[chopinetta]

yeah! votes down for britney.

but i don't understand why you hate chopin's etude no10 op10, Yoad. it sounds really cute!

[amee]

Well I'm not a big fan of opera, but I don't hate it.  I guess I'm just neutral with it.

[dschoenenberger]

i hate bach, mozart, wagner, and all these old boring guys before 1890, all their *noise* is the same. nothing unique. perhaps piano technique was still not very evolved at their epoch, but tahts no excuse! shame on them for always repeating the same patterns!

[GodScriabin]

I tend to Dislike Meloncholy classical era movements (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.)

I also hate some of the more Atonal contemporary crap like prokofiev. I love some of his works, but others i just can't stand.

[eddie92099]

I also hate some of the more Atonal contemporary crap like prokofiev. I love some of his works, but others i just can't stand.

Such as? By the way, Prokofiev never wrote atonal music,
Ed

[Noah]

i hate bach, mozart, wagner, and all these old boring guys before 1890, all their *noise* is the same. nothing unique. perhaps piano technique was still not very evolved at their epoch, but tahts no excuse! shame on them for always repeating the same patterns!

This has to be stupidest piano-related comment I've seen on this board. What do you actually like then ?

[eddie92099]

i hate bach, mozart, wagner, and all these old boring guys before 1890, all their *noise* is the same. nothing unique. perhaps piano technique was still not very evolved at their epoch, but tahts no excuse! shame on them for always repeating the same patterns!

I agree with Noah. That really is the most ignorant comment vis-a-vis music I have ever seen,
Ed

[dinosaurtales]

Boy!  Ed is right.  If Prokofiev is *atonal* (which it isn't) then he'd REALLY hate Schoenberg and some of his pals.  I am guessing this person would love Haydn.  And maybe JUST that.

[guven]

Beethoven Sonata Hammerklavier makes me sick .
and yes, Clair de lune too - elevator music - .

[dinosaurtales]

Right on!  Hammerklavier is a putrid piece to listen to!  wow

[eddie92099]

Right on!  Hammerklavier is a putrid piece to listen to!  wow

I know!
Ed

[dschoenenberger]

***

[eddie92099]

May I introduce you to some brilliant pianists that you obviously dont know: Rachmaninov, Ravel, Liszt, Gershwin, Wild.        

You avoid "all those old boring guys before 1890". Have you any idea whatsoever what Franz Liszt's dates were? Obviously not. That is an example of your ignorance. It is also fortuitous how your list of composers includes 3 of my favourite 4 (Rachmaninov, Ravel and Liszt, Prokofiev being the other one of mine). Clearly I do know them.

Bach pieces repeat ALWAYS THE SAME. That boy develops simple patterns and then sticks to them forever. This is not evolutionary pianism, this is practising.

I admit I am not Bach's greatest fan, but at least I can recognise the genius of his work.

This post is about taste. As you may now realize, music is a matter of taste. Only taste can overcome the musical simplicity of Bach.    

There is a difference between taste and fact. You said Wagner was nothing unique. This is a matter of pure ignorance on your behalf.

Let me guess that you just like Bach because that kind of rudimentary music is so easy to play.

I don't play Bach. In fact, nor does Vladimir Ashkenazy, for he says he is not good enough.

You just cant perform a Rach Concerto. Your just spending your life warming up and practising simple patterns. Go ahead! You wont ever get the girls lose consciousness with Bach. Go ahead, silly.

Let me give you a sample of what I have played recently:

Ravel: Scarbo from Gaspard de la Nuit
Liszt: La Campanella
Prokofiev: Piano Sonata no.7
Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto no.2
Horowitz: Carmen Variations
Rautavaara: Piano Sonata no.2
Ginastera: Danzas Argentinas

I rest my case,
Ed

[Wired]

Let me guess that you just like Bach because that kind of rudimentary music is so easy to play.

No.

You just cant perform a Rach Concerto.

Before insulting someone, maybe you should read other threads? From what I've read, Ed does like Rachmaninoff. Whether he can play a Rachmaninoff concerto or not is besides the point. This isn't "what pieces can't you stand to play", it's what pieces can't you stand.

Your just spending your life warming up and practising simple patterns.

You obviously haven't listened to enough Mozart or Bach. Why do I say that? Because Mozart is good for the mind, and it should've been "you're" and "practicing."

Go ahead! You wont ever get the girls lose consciousness with Bach. Go ahead, silly.

I don't want girls to lose consciousness. But, there are pieces that women I've talked to that just love Mozart and Bach.

Horowitz quote:

"One of the most important facts that comes to light is Mozart's emphasis on feeling and expression in music-making. He continually criticized his contemporaries for mechanical, meaningless virtuosity and a lack of feeling and sensitivity. We can see in his letters that he was a sensuous, earthy man with a wide range of emotions. He expressed them all in his music, and in that sense he was really a Romantic composer. To approach him as if he were a pretty, rococo porcelain figurine on a pedestal is to rob his music of its essential, universal character, its power to evoke joy as well as tears. Pablo Casals once told me that Mozart should be played like Chopin and Chopin like Mozart!"

I fully agree.

[dschoenenberger]

***

[Wired]

Wired –
I wont read through all the posts before a statement. When I am being insulted myself, this goes all the more. I was setting up a hypothesis about the reason why one likes Bach. It has been rejected. So what.

Well, no offense, but the hypotheses was quite... straightforward and could easily be taken as rude That's the only reason why I was quite frank back at you

I have (involuntarily) listened more than enough to Mozart and Bach to build a negative opinion about them. I do not need music for my brain but for pleasure. Mozart and Bach are no pleasure to me.

I really find the Mozart Piano Concerto in A minor to be quite good. I also haven't listened to much of theirs... I am a big Chopin and Rachmaninoff fan. However, I've recently started listening to more Mozart and playing more Bach (I don't have any Mozart sheet music ). I do think that most pianists have a tendency to enjoy playing (and listening) to dazzling pieces, ones that are dramatic and leave the audience stunned. However, as they progress, I think they realize that the likes of Bach and Mozart aren't really boring, they just require more work to make them sound amazing... but they can be amazing in different ways than Rach can.

I do not mind tapping mistakes.

Eh, I was tired this morning and slightly annoyed Sorry about that.

My music is aimed at the audience that loves being surprised by devilish Scarbos. My experience is that classical performances are attended by the very elderly. You also have to consider the future market of your music supply!

I play music that I love. I don't care about what other people think. While eventually I do play it for people, it's because people want to hear me play (I'm not well known, except for in the few towns surrounding where I grew up). I come home from Texas after not being home for months, and they don't care what I play. They just love hearing me play whatever I play.

I think music's goal shouldn't be to impress mass audiences. It should be to enjoy it. If you truly enjoy it, others will also.

I do not rely on Horowitz. He may be your model but he does not influence my taste. In my opinion romanticism strictly cant be defined just as emotional expression. There’s more to it. More than Mozart Id say.

He isn't my only model. I do admire him. My other role model is my mother, who really enjoys her Bach Concertos (I forget which ones, but I plan to learn one of them one of these days ). Both of my previous piano teachers also liked Bach, but until now, I've refused to play much of his works.

[eddie92099]

You misunderstand me. I do not consider Liszt as “before 1890”. Though he actually lived then, his music anticipated romanticism.    

I'm sorry to say it again but you are lacking the basic knowledge of musical periods. Romanticism is a concept of the 19th century. Liszt did not anticipate Romanticism, he wrote in the style Romanticism. As did many of the pre-1890 composers. Chopin, Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann etc.. Schubert is a composer who I would say anticipated Romanticism. In fact, Liszt anticipated the styles which followed him (atonality in the Bagatelle sans tonalite, for example, or impressionism in Nuages Gris).

When you consider this ignorant, we just don’t share the definition of a term.

Ignorant is lacking knowledge. Clearly, you lack knowledge.

I apologize for Wagner criticism. With “nothing unique”, I was mainly referring to Bach.

This is just as bad. Do you understand the word unique? If you did, you would notice that nothing preceding Bach was anywhere near as sophisticated or as harmonically complex. Therefore, by definition, he gave something unique to music.

I do not mind tapping mistakes. Your = you are, everybody reads that. Sometimes there are several possibilities to write a word such as practising. Ever heard about noble British English? I always decide in favour of London. Besides I don’t want to appear American. It is dangerous

It is fine to correct mistakes (even I may have been known to do this on occasion!), but do not correct Americanisations Wired  .

My music is aimed at the audience that loves being surprised by devilish Scarbos. My experience is that classical performances are attended by the very elderly. You also have to consider the future market of your music supply!

You are suffering from misinformation I'm afraid.

In my opinion romanticism strictly cant be defined just as emotional expression. There’s more to it.

There is a definition to Romanticism which applies to all art forms (including literature) in the early 19th century.

More than Mozart Id say.

I would not consider Mozart a Romantic,
Ed

[dinosaurtales]

Well, i can't figure out how you guys cut and paste from previous posts.  Darn!  But I love the remark by Dominik about Bach being *simple* and *rudimentary* to play. Can't wait to tell my teacher the expert opinions expounded on this board.

She knows I hate that French Suite I was working on!  OK, I know I don't play like Ed and some of you others, but I'm not THAT bad!  - and I do NOT consider that Bach piece (even though I hate it - have i  mentioned that?) simple or rudimentary.  Most Bach I've heard and seen isn't, so I am definitely looking at different literature.

Mozart, too.

[guven]

Hello, I just have somethings to tell you Dominik Schoenenberger , we don't have to be agree on things of course but there are some serious issues which we must accept first.

You wrote:
Bach pieces repeat ALWAYS THE SAME. That boy develops simple patterns and then sticks to them forever. This is not evolutionary pianism, this is practising.

Bach pieces do NOT repeat always the same, you can hear developing and changing patterns make the piece go into another tone, another rthymic character,another atmosphere (I can tell too many anothers here so I leave the rest to your imagination)  if you listen carefully . Oh and if you examine Bach some more.

Plus, don't you think being a good pianist also means that a  pianist - or musician- who is able to making some impressive changes on repeated themes or in a cyclic form work ? I do . If I was wrong, they don't play B²'s or main themes in Ré-exposition different in Beethoven Sonatas or in any work which I referred to by saying 'cyclic' . There is no 'pianism' if it doesn't have some Bach in it .

If you don't agree with what I'm saying, I'm ready to discuss on it anytime you like .

You wrote:
Let me guess that you just like Bach because that kind of rudimentary music is so easy to play. You just cant perform a Rach Concerto. Your just spending your life warming up and practising simple patterns. Go ahead! You wont ever get the girls lose consciousness with Bach. Go ahead, silly.

Playing a Rachmaninov concerto is not a big deal I guess. Notes are written on the paper, all you should do is reading them and playing the right keys on the piano. But the fact is , being able to reading behind the notes , which is hard, which requires imagination , which makes music a passion ...

And calling Bach's music 'rudimentary' is just amateur.
That shows you cannot see behind the notes yet , all you can see is just some black round notes on the sheet.

In my opinion, you will NOT play a Rachmaninov concerto good if you don't change your view on classical music . That's just not right, not good and not professional . And you're not the one who can decide what is 'simple' music , what is not worth wasting time for since you are not a music authority as great as Bach or the many others. Sure we can tell our opinions anytime , hence we are here on this forum. But you should remember that if there was noone as Bach, there wouldn't be anyone like Schoenberg, Beethoven, Haydn, Rachmaninov, Schostakovich, Boulez, Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, Wagner, any serialists or any whatever . Some respect ... please .

Add something new to music which is never found yet and then people will listen your  ideas with a deep respect .

[Wired]

Well, i can't figure out how you guys cut and paste from previous posts.  Darn!

Use the "Quote" link to the upper-right of the message you want to quote.

Bach is indeed not simple. Every composer has his/her simple pieces (although, now that I think of it, I haven't seen an "easy" Rachmaninoff piece... but I don't own every composition of his either). And then every composer has his/her harder pieces.

Bach is very good at getting both hands to work together, yet separately. That's what I'm finding at least.

[dinosaurtales]

Use the "Quote" link to the upper-right of the message you want to quote.

Hey!  It works!  way cool, Wired!

[dinosaurtales]

Use the "Quote" link to the upper-right of the message you want to quote.

Hey!  It works!  way cool, Wired!

Well, not quite.  I didn't get the little *square* like you guys did.  I'll try another way.......

[dinosaurtales]

Better, eh?