I have been listening to classical music since I was a teenager, about 40 years. My specialty is in the Romantic and Classic eras, but I try to expose myself to all kinds of Classical.
I know what I am about to say is tantamount to blasphemy on these forums, but I just don't like Johann Sebastian Bach. There, I said it. Outside of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor I can honestly say there is one piece of his that doesn't either put me to sleep or make me nervous or give me a headache, or all three of the above.
I know, I know. I've studied enough to know that Bach is one of the greatest of all the gods in the Classical spectrum. I know how extremely influential he was. I know most Classical fans adore him. I have given him chance after chance. I feel that there must be something in me that is somehow deficient to not appreciate his genius.
I am not looking for anyone to contradict my views, I fear they are set in concrete. I was wondering if anyone else has a virulent dislike to one of the acknowledged geniuses of Classical composition?
I am still very new to the forums and I was wondering what you think!
To answer the original question: I don't think so. I'm sure there is something I like from just about any composer and any time period. But in general anything pre-romantic, as great as it may be, starts to bore me a lot quicker than romantic music. Romantic, late romantic and some modernish music is what I like to listen to most of the time.
I have difficulty getting into Britten. I can't find a work of his that I can say I thoroughly enjoy; I've come to the realization that I merely tolerate his work.
I just find his music to just be really static (and I think that was intentional). Thus, I don't blame you. I guess Part's music is similar, but I just like his orchestration better, so the stasis bothers me less.
I count among my dislikes, Mendelsshon, Wagner and Ricard Strauss. I have no idea why I dislike Mendelsshon but Strauss and Wagner I just find bloated.
Not a fan of any of the atonal composers, though I wish I were. Also, I can't stand Fur Elise...I think it's from hearing so many 10-year-olds stumble through it in music class in grade school. And the McDonalds commercial that reiterated this point didn't help:
For a long time mine have been Bruckner and R. Strauss, but at this point I think I probably have to remove Bruckner from my list. The last half-dozen or so times I've heard a Bruckner symphony, I've liked it.
I'll probably ride this for awhile, sinking my teeth into Bruckner's music, and then I'll work harder on R. Strauss again.
Ravel and Tchaikovsky. And Brahms (well only his symphonies) Tchaikovsky is just so easy and doesn't offer very much to think about. I prefer Bruckner, who is much deeper. I use to like Tchaikovsky, but only in Manfred and francecsa da Rimini, which are his most powerful compositions. Tchaikovsky oscilliates between sugarplum Wagner and semi-quotation of some russian plain-chant. I'm sorry but this doesn't make him a great composer.
Ravel, is I think underrated, but I just don't get it. We see him criticize Strauss for putting too much notes, and he composes pieces with no purpose. plus, he completely denies Wagner. It's always the same thing with Ravel, even if it's great, it's a little bit superficial.
And as an accomplished (sort of) violinist, i can tell you that I hate all virtuoso composers of the 19th century. Wieniawsky, Paganini (maybe not him), Sarasate, Ernst, it's not interesting at all. it's not even music anymore! it's violin stunts and useless monkey tricks! Music should give the audience something to think about. Who could give them something to think about otherwise?
morality: praise Wagner and Bach.
I don't hate him as a composer, because I've heard other things by him I like, but I've never been able to connect with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. I have quite a few versions on LP and CD, but none of them do anything for me. I seem to have a bind spot for Symphonie Fantastique too.
If I would totally adore just a single piece by a certain composer while I hated everything else he composed, then I still wouldn't mention that composer here.
And since I haven't heard all compositions of any composer (yet), it would be unfair to mention any composer.
I think Liszt's transcriptions are very sympathetic to the music he's adapting. It's clear that he fully understood the music he was adapting, and wasn't just going for effect. In today's world, there may not be as much need for piano transcriptions, but that doesn't take away from Liszt's unique ability to transcribe for piano.
Vivaldi, Strvinsky was right about him.
Haydn, a country bumpkin version of Mozart
A great deal of Beethoven.
Most of Schubert
Schuman
Huge chunks of Berlioz
Brahms, deadly dull.
Verdi. Worlds best oompah master. No one better at mindless bombast.
Debusy
Mahler
Berg
Schonberg
Brukner
Most of Hindemith
Most of Prokofiev
Bernstein
Glass
Delius. Flacid version of Vaughn Williams.
Durafle
Well if I don't like them, I don't think they're particularly great :3
Personally, I'm not terribly fond of Philip Glass. I'm not a huge fan of the minimalist aesthetic as a whole, but his music in particular just tends to bore me, more-so than that of Mozart. Perhaps one day I'll wind up enjoying it, but for now, most of his music is just not particularly interesting to me. I'll take Reich any day over Glass.
Personally, I'm not terribly fond of Philip Glass. I'm not a huge fan of the minimalist aesthetic as a whole, but his music in particular just tends to bore me, more-so than that of Mozart. Perhaps one day I'll wind up enjoying it, but for now, most of his music is just not particularly interesting to me. I'll take Reich any day over Glass.
Reich is definitely the best upbeat/pulse minimalist for my money, if only for The Desert Music, but on the whole I'd much rather go with Feldman when I want to listen to the sound of nothing much happening.
No, he wasn't. Stravinsky was judging Vivaldi based upon the limited range of his works then known... and available exclusively in performances that were far from being HIP. Vivaldi's sacred choral/vocal works, operas, and sonatas have a wealth of marvelous music in them. By the same token... if you invest some real effort in the exploration of the Baroque repertoire you will find that Vivaldi's (or Telemann's, etc...) concertos are no more "all alike" than the average Romantic concert.
Haydn, a country bumpkin version of Mozart
Absolute blasphemy! Haydn was the father of the modern symphony and string quartet. His best works in this genre are equal to all but one of two of Mozart's absolute finest... and there are far more of them. His choral oeuvre is every bit equal... if not superior to Mozart. As much as I love Mozart's Requiem, I would probably take Haydn's Creation over it.
A great deal of Beethoven.
Most of Schubert
Schuman
Accck!
Huge chunks of Berlioz
Brahms, deadly dull.
Double Accck!
Verdi. Worlds best oompah master. No one better at mindless bombast.
Except that his oompah and bombast are far from mindless, but serve the drama of his operas perfectly.
Debusy
Mahler
Berg
Schonberg
Brukner
Most of Hindemith
Most of Prokofiev
Bernstein
Glass
Delius. Flacid version of Vaughn Williams.
Durafle
Depends on what you mean by great. According to some definitions, Rossini was apparently pretty great whether you like his music or not.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Classical Music Forum
2.6M posts
40.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to classical music for musicians and other enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about composers, compositions, arrangements, collections, recordings, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!