Thread: Is There a Great Composer You Plain Just Don't Like

Originally Posted by PetrB

Hip, schmip - too often perfectly made and perfectly boring. A miracle when he wrote every day and about 1300 works that a handful are inspired. Stiff counterpoint like the ticking gears of an 18th century chronometer. I like crossword puzzles, and everything falling neatly and cleverly into place - but I do not consider them 'art.'

Whatever style you call it, it sounds incredibly good to my ears.

I've never understood this idea that "clockwork" music (a very subjective judgement any way) is easier to write or less inspired than "unpredictable" music. Bach and Mozart are the composers usually accused of writing "clockwork" music. But if we look at the compositions of theirs that don't run like clockwork (and there are many, not least Bach's Fantasias and Mozart's Capriccios), they're always the ones that were written with least effort, in the shortest space of time. They're widely recognized as little more than written down improvisations. Or look at Bach's cantatas: most of them were written in a hurry without enthusiasm, and are among the quirkiest, most unpredictable and least "clockwork" of his works.

Bach published none of his cantatas or fantasias. On the other hand, the works Bach did publish (and therefore which he probably worked hardest on, and considered inspired) are the most "clockwork": the Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue, keyboard Partitas, etc. Of course, some composers were different. With Beethoven and Brahms, the compositions they worked hardest on tend to be roughest round the edges (the Hammerklavier Sonata, Brahms's Symphony No. 1, etc.). But the point is it's wrong to think: "This composition sounds perfect. It must be a piece of hackwork." The evidence points the other way.

What makes a piece of music sound "perfect" any way? I think it's caused by a particular harmonic style that was prevalent 18th-century, more than by composers being lazy.

Not too fond of pretension in music, especially when the prentension is bigger than the musical skills, as with Berlioz for example. Despite everything, Liszt ís in general flashy, and as a result not my favorite either. Too much of late-romanticism can become boring too. And everything involving a castrato I avoid.

*cough*Wagner!*cough* *cough*Mahler!*cough*

Wagner's operas are just too short.

Please let someone note that I'm ironic.

Originally Posted by martijn

Please let someone note that I'm ironic.

I noticed lol

Thank god, if no one had responded, I would have added that his operas were so short because Wagner was just a modest man.

Originally Posted by martijn

Not too fond of pretension in music, especially when the prentension is bigger than the musical skills, as with Berlioz for example.

What's pretentious about Berlioz's music?

Mainly his notes.

martijn is on a roll today.

Originally Posted by Webernite

I've never understood this idea that "clockwork" music (a very subjective judgement any way) is easier to write or less inspired than "unpredictable" music. Bach and Mozart are the composers usually accused of writing "clockwork" music. But if we look at the compositions of theirs that don't run like clockwork (and there are many, not least Bach's Fantasias and Mozart's Capriccios), they're always the ones that were written with least effort, in the shortest space of time. They're widely recognized as little more than written down improvisations. Or look at Bach's cantatas: most of them were written in a hurry without enthusiasm, and are among the quirkiest, most unpredictable and least "clockwork" of his works.

Bach published none of his cantatas or fantasias. On the other hand, the works Bach did publish (and therefore which he probably worked hardest on, and considered inspired) are the most "clockwork": the Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue, keyboard Partitas, etc. Of course, some composers were different. With Beethoven and Brahms, the compositions they worked hardest on tend to be roughest round the edges (the Hammerklavier Sonata, Brahms's Symphony No. 1, etc.). But the point is it's wrong to think: "This composition sounds perfect. It must be a piece of hackwork." The evidence points the other way.

What makes a piece of music sound "perfect" any way? I think it's caused by a particular harmonic style that was prevalent 18th-century, more than by composers being lazy.

Where did that comment about Mozart come from, I've never heard it before and whoever said it is a twit.
The problem with Bach and Haydn is this , how do you write 5000 pieces of music and how can anyone call such a factory operation inspired ?

Originally Posted by martijn

Not too fond of pretension in music, especially when the prentension is bigger than the musical skills, as with Berlioz for example. Despite everything, Liszt ís in general flashy, and as a result not my favorite either. Too much of late-romanticism can become boring too. And everything involving a castrato I avoid.

This is extreme pretention and you are in trouble when Lisztian reads this rigmarole.

Originally Posted by Webernite

martijn is on a roll today.

His head might be.

Originally Posted by martijn

Please let someone note that I'm ironic.

You're a what?