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

Originally Posted by brianwalker

The list is an approximation, and it changes ever so slightly as I listen more, but the key phrase is ever so slightly.

My current list looks something like this.

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Mozart
5. Stravinsky
6. Verdi
7. Schubert
8. Brahms
9. Haydn
10. Debussy
11. Bartok
12. Mahler
13. Strauss, Richard
14. Ravel
15. Chopin
16. Handel
17. Bruckner
18. Puccini
19. Schumann
20. Sibelius
21. Alban Berg
22. Scriabin
23. Rimsky Korsakov
24. Prokofiev
25. Dvorak
26. Janacek
27. Bizet
......

The point is that Berlioz and Liszt and Tchaikovsky don't even make the top 17; the point is that it's a fact, as far as facts go, that Tchaikovsky isn't top ten, and that any list where he shows up as 10 ten is indicative of his overrated-ness.

For the three to make the top 27 they'd have to dethrone one of the names on that list.

I'm willing to debate to the death anyone who tries to argue that any of the three is better or even equal to anyone that that list of 27.

Some of the composers on there (like Janacek) I don't know well enough to really argue about, and some, while I disagree, i'm fine with being put above Liszt. That being said...

Liszt - Bizet, Scriabin, Debussy, Chopin...GO.

You're delusional. If I put Listz over Bizet you'd seriously freak out and debate to your death? That's extremely sad. I know plenty of people who think Debussy is overrated and wouldn't put him in the top 27. I'm not going to accept what you say as fact because you say it is. You don't say anything beyond you are wrong and I am right and then use a few links to attempt to support your argument instead of actually making the case yourself. I have no reason to believe that the links you said are pertinent to your argument. You could just be abstracting it to do so. Also, the fact that you link me to books expecting me to buy or read the entirety of them is a cop out on your part. Just because there are books written on the subject doesn't make them fact just because they exist. Maybe you should try arguing yourself if you want me to believe you. Besides, God hates music and God is right and you're WRONG and that is a FACT. David Noebel states so in his books. Go read them.

You're delusional.
My psychologist tells me I'm fine.

If I put Listz over Bizet you'd seriously freak out and debate to your death? That's extremely sad.
Hey buddy, ever heard of figurative language?

I know plenty of people who think Debussy is overrated and wouldn't put him in the top 27.
I know plenty of people who only listen to rap and would put Tupac over Beethoven.

I'm not going to accept what you say as fact because you say it is. You don't say anything beyond you are wrong and I am right and then use a few links to attempt to support your argument instead of actually making the case yourself. I have no reason to believe that the links you said are pertinent to your argument.
You can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make you any less wrong or any less ignorant.

Also, the fact that you link me to books expecting me to buy or read the entirety of them is a cop out on your part.
The fact/value distinction has been dead for decades. Do you expect me to spoon-feed elementary philosophy to you?

Just because there are books written on the subject doesn't make them fact just because they exist.
No, but the communal consensus of the intellectual community is meaningful.

Maybe you should try arguing yourself if you want me to believe you. Besides, God hates music and God is right and you're WRONG and that is a FACT. David Noebel states so in his books. Go read them.
Show me this book.

====

Lisztian give me some time to prepare my "case". I'm not fond of short impromptu posts.

Originally Posted by brianwalker

Do you think Berlioz better than any in my top 27, jalex?

I only think of composers in tiers of excellence rather than the (somewhat absurd) precise rankings you use. The only composers I would say Berlioz is in a different league to on your list are Bizet (though given more time I am sure this would not be the case) and Rimsky Korsakov (presuming his operas are not significantly better than the rest of his music; I've never seen any of them). I might argue also that he was better than Scriabin and also Bruckner, whose faults were surely worse than Berlioz's but whose height's were no higher. I think of him as about equal to Schumann, Berg etc.

I like Berlioz a lot more than many of the composers on the list though (Schubert, Strauss, Ravel, Handel....)

That last bit wasn't actually serious. If you want to read the mans books go look them up. I don't support such rubbish. Also, I agree that opinions of the intellectual community are more meaningful than other groups, however, there are more than one "intellectual community". There is an intellectual community centered around religion, which I find to be complete rubbish and I would not take what they had to say seriously because of this. Also, I'm pretty sure the fact/value distinction isn't "dead". The point is I'm pretty sure if you drew a poll for the top 27 composers in your mysterious undefined intellectual community that the consensus would not come up with your list. Does this negate your list then? Why is your list so definitive? Also, those people who think Debussy are overrated may agree with your whole list but instead swap Debussy out with Listz, which then apparently would invalidate their opinion? The point is you've yet to defend your list or your opinion in any way.

Originally Posted by jalex

I only think of composers in tiers of excellence rather than the (somewhat absurd) precise rankings you use. The only composers I would say Berlioz is in a different league to on your list are Bizet (though given more time I am sure this would not be the case) and Rimsky Korsakov (presuming his operas are not significantly better than the rest of his music; I've never seen any of them). I might argue also that he was better than Scriabin and also Bruckner, whose faults were surely worse than Berlioz's but whose height's were no higher. I think of him as about equal to Schumann.

I like Berlioz a lot more than many of the composers on the list though (Schubert, Strauss, Ravel, Handel....)

I'd like to hear about why he's better than Bruckner. Give me all you've got. The others I don't care enough to dispute.

Every scrutinizing detail, every personal reaction and sentiment, down to the specific recording. I want names, places, the minute of the movement etc.

Originally Posted by Cnote11

That last bit wasn't actually serious. If you want to read the mans books go look them up. I don't support such rubbish. Also, I agree that opinions of the intellectual community are more meaningful than other groups, however, there are more than one "intellectual community". There is an intellectual community centered around religion, which I find to be complete rubbish and I would not take what they had to say seriously because of this. Also, I'm pretty sure the fact/value distinction isn't "dead". The point is I'm pretty sure if you drew a poll for the top 27 composers in your mysterious undefined intellectual community that the consensus would not come up with your list. Does this negate your list then? Why is your list so definitive? Also, those people who think Debussy are overrated may agree with your whole list but instead swap Debussy out with Listz, which then apparently would invalidate their opinion? The point is you've yet to defend your list or your opinion in any way.

You've yet to challenge my list in any meaningful way apart from proffering thrice-chewed-and-vomited relativism as argument.

Originally Posted by brianwalker

I'd like to hear about why he's better than Bruckner. Give me all you've got.



You've yet to challenge my list in any meaningful way apart from offering thrice-chewed-and-vomited relativism as argument.

Well for starters he was pretty much the pioneer of the "progressive romantic" movement.

I don't think that weight is mine to bear. If I made up magical ponies I wouldn't ask you to prove they existed. You should have to validate your assertion; others shouldn't have to invalidate it. You apparently refuse to do so in any manner so I will just let you be in your fantasy land of superiority where everything you say is the only way and everybody else is clearly wrong.

Originally Posted by violadude

Well for starters he was pretty much the pioneer of the "progressive romantic" movement.

And Bach was not the pioneer of Baroque, and Mozart was not the pioneer of Classical, and Mahler was not the pioneer of the Wagner-infused symphony (do you think Bruckner and Dvorak are better than Mahler?).

Originally Posted by Cnote11

I don't think that weight is mine to bear. If I made up magical ponies I wouldn't ask you to prove they existed. You should have to validate your assertion; others shouldn't have to invalidate it. You apparently refuse to do so in any manner so I will just let you be in your fantasy land of superiority where everything you say is the only way and everybody else is clearly wrong.

I've offered links; you've offered nothing but snotty platitudes of "facts" and "opinions".

Originally Posted by martijn

I am well aware of the meaning of the words pretentious and ironic, don't worry about that.

I recognize the revolutionary aspect of Liszt, and he's not always flashy. But I will continue to feel he is too much technique and too little inspiration, and he doesn't appeal to me much.

As for Berlioz, I wouldn't deny his skill in orchestrations, though unequalled would be too much honour (there are so many great orchestrators, in different periods, from Händel, Mozart and Mendelssohn to Rimsky-Korsakov, Richard Strauss and Ravel). For me the problem with Berlioz is that he's not so much outside his skill in orchestration. This is by the way a view that has been shared by many great composers.

Again, I do not hate him, but compared to the very greats, I find him lacking in skill.

Which great composers? If you want a composer who is empty outside his orchestration as you put it, look no further you've mentioned him -- Rimsky- Korsakov.
Incidentally I cribbed the "unequalled in the art of orchestration " from Leonard Bernstein, obviously he's not one of Berlioz' detractors as a composer himself.

You should put your argument into context of your list. I'm not going to a read a book and then think about how it pertains, if at all, to your list being definitive. I imagine if we polled 2 billion and only 5 people had the same exact list as you, then only those 5 are part of your undefined intellectual community? Your arguments are seriously worthless if you present them in such an ambiguous way and I'm not about to put in work to try to make sense of them, no more than I would have someone profess that God hates music and then hands me The Bible or a bunch of commentaries written on The Bible and tell me to read them.

Originally Posted by brianwalker

And Bach was not the pioneer of Baroque, and Mozart was not the pioneer of Classical, and Mahler was not the pioneer of the Wagner-infused symphony (do you think Bruckner and Dvorak are better than Mahler?).

You don't have to be so aggressive. I am pretty much a relativist anyway. I don't really buy into ranking composers like you do. But I am just saying why Berlioz could be considered greater than Bruckner as Bruckner was a part of the progressive romantic music while Berlioz was it's founder. It's just an thought.

Originally Posted by Cnote11

You should put your argument into context of your list. I'm not going to a read a book and then think about how it pertains, if at all, to your list being definitive. I imagine if we polled 2 billion and only 5 people had the same exact list as you, then only those 5 are part of your undefined intellectual community? Your arguments are seriously worthless if you present them in such an ambiguous way and I'm not about to put in work to try to make sense of them, no more than I would have someone profess that God hates music and then hands me The Bible or a bunch of commentaries written on The Bible and tell me to read them.

Your entire argument rests on the fact/value distinct, which I've told you multiple time has been dead for decades.

Originally Posted by violadude

You don't have to be so aggressive. I am pretty much a relativist anyway. I don't really buy into ranking composers like you do. But I am just saying why Berlioz could be considered greater than Bruckner as Bruckner was a part of the progressive romantic music while Berlioz was it's founder. It's just an thought.

I know. My argument is that such a criterion would lead to absurd conclusions, such as Vivaldi being better than Bach, J.C. Bach being better than Mozart, and Dvorak being better than Mahler. My parallelism is also "just a though". All my forum posts are also "just a thought".

Come on guys, this is an internet forum.

Actually, you're assuming that it relies on the fact/value distinction. In fact, I happen to reject it myself. It is only your interpretation that has led you to believe this. This brings me to another point. You act like if I accept -- which I do -- the "death" of fact/value distinction, that I'll somehow understand how your list is definitive. That book you linked to doesn't state how your list is definitive. You realise that you're hiding behind this and insulting my argument based on your own invalid interpretation of something I said, simply because you enjoy being polarizing, and you don't bother to actually put forth an argument.

Originally Posted by brianwalker

The list is an approximation, and it changes ever so slightly as I listen more, but the key phrase is ever so slightly.

My current list looks something like this.

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Mozart
5. Stravinsky
6. Verdi
7. Schubert
8. Brahms
9. Haydn
10. Debussy
11. Bartok
12. Mahler
13. Strauss, Richard
14. Ravel
15. Chopin
16. Handel
17. Bruckner
18. Puccini
19. Schumann
20. Sibelius
21. Alban Berg
22. Scriabin
23. Rimsky Korsakov
24. Prokofiev
25. Dvorak
26. Janacek
27. Bizet
......

The point is that Berlioz and Liszt and Tchaikovsky don't even make the top 27; the point is that it's a fact, as far as facts go, that Tchaikovsky isn't top ten, and that any list where he shows up as 10 ten is indicative of his overrated-ness.

For the three to make the top 27 they'd have to dethrone one of the names on that list.

I'm willing to debate to the death anyone who tries to argue that any of the three is better or even equal to anyone that that list of 27.

Forget Tchaikovsky. Why are Bach and Beethoven above Wagner? Is it a nod to custom? Bach, the counterpoint is nice, but the games dissolve the true expression. Beethoven, aside from the Late works, is mere rudiments. Surely Wagner is #1.