Handel, Messiah.
J. Strauss II, Everything.

 

J. Strauss II, Everything.

What, do you have something against fun?

 

Someone is going to say Shostakovich, someone else is going to say Schoenberg, this is not going to end happily. Prove me wrong, TalkClassical!

I'm going to come out of left field and say Palestrina. A great composer, to be sure, but doesn't deserve to be virtually synonymous with 16th century polyphony at the expense of so many other equally great composers.

 

I'm going to come out of left field and say Palestrina. A great composer, to be sure, but doesn't deserve to be virtually synonymous with 16th century polyphony at the expense of so many other equally great composers.

Interesting. Even Ludwig van B, commenting on his researches while working on the Missa, mentioned only Palestrina by name. Why?

 

Mozart. I have him rated a 94.7/100 while the consensus average seems to be he's around 95.5 or even 96. So he's overrated.

 

Puccini. 15 Characters.

 

Verdi. 15 Characters.

 

I might have to sleep on it to come up with something, but off the top of my head, I'd say there is no such thing as overrated music. Some pieces are very, very popular and have remained so for decades, even centuries, likely with good reason. While I don't care to hear only those works, I do want to hear them. For those of you in the music business, they may just about make you ill, but for a fairly informed hobby listener like me, enjoyable music is enjoyable music. A good number of the composers/pieces mentioned so far are ones I have never heard or heard only a few times, while some so-called underrated music (oops! KenOC ) gets played an awful lot at my place.

 

Richard Strauss. Interestingly, he didn't overrate himself ("I may not be a first-rate composer, but I am a first-class second-rate composer").

But Johann Strauss? Overrated? Who even worries about rating him? Just put your arms around her and dance, for heaven's sake.

 

But Johann Strauss? Overrated? Who even worries about rating him? Just put your arms around her and dance, for heaven's sake.

You seem confused about his/her gender.

Gender of Johann Strauss, that is.

 

Bruckner symphonies are epic in scale but a touch overrated.

 

Except by the numerous people who don't like them. Those who do have to restore the balance.

 

How about Beethoven, in his late works? "Hey Schindler! I've found an easy way to sound really profound! You just take some diminished seventh chords, like these, and..." The rest is history.

 

Well at last someone has the courage to say it!

If you'd been there to advise him that fugue might have been a lot less gross.

 

Off the top of my head, Mendelssohn. Oh yes he was prodigy. Yes his Octet composed when he was 16 is amazing on paper. I just seldom want to hear it. With a few prominent exceptions (Hebrides, some of Midsummer Night's Dream and the Songs Without Words), much of his work is so frenetic I feel my blood pressure rise, and I don't need that. The guy should have cut back on the coffee or something.

 

Do you like the Symphony #3, the "Scottish"? Passionate and energetic, but not frenetic at all compared to that madly bubbly "Italian." Also try the String Quartet in A-minor, op. 13. Two of his most glorious masterpieces. You might even stop thinking he's overrated!

:tiphat:

 

I am not a huge fan of Rachmaninov. Overrated? I don't think so. But I do find his music to be a bit generic, or too trite for the era. Again, though, I just don't listen to his music. I don't enjoy it enough. So I am unsure if that means he is overrated. I know he is played live all the time and many people are aware of his music. Thus, I figure he may fit the bill.

But if thinking purely on popularity and whether that fact is justified: Tchaikovsky. Some great stuff, but way to overplayed. So many other works sound like his (Russian or beyond) AND other composers do exactly what he did, but better! P.T has some amazing material, but he is far too overplayed in concert halls, on recordings, and radio. Let us go beyond!

Also -- ah! -- I would say Shostakovich, simply because I do not enjoy his music as much as (it seems) many others do.

Edit: I do not hate Russians! Seriously, yo.

 

The appalling elephantiasis of Wagner comes to mind.

If he could smarm down a bit from trying to write music for the latest Mad Max film perphaps he could write something as ineffably elegant as Der Rosenkavalier.

Then again, perhaps not.

;D

 

No, Wagner could never have done what Strauss did. It would never have occurred to Wagner not to supply actual music throughout an entire opera from beginning to end. With Strauss, a few moments of actual music will typically be preceded and followed by ten or twenty minutes of sound and fury provided by several indistinguishable German sopranos named Elisabeth (they can tell each other apart even if we can't) gabbling tunelessly about vulgar relatives or randy transvestites or being stranded on Greek islands or something, while the musicians in the orchestra play ping pong with bits and fragments of scales and chords and can't decide what key to play in. Perhaps they're rehearsing while the singers chat, or perhaps their contracts require them to remain in their seats and do something to earn their pay (we can rest assured, at least, that they aren't paid by the note, otherwise no theater could afford to mount a Strauss opera). In any case if you're listening at home there's probably time to go to the bathroom and fix a snack before the next ineffably elegant tune appears. But hurry back, or you might miss it and not hear another one until all the Elisabeths get together at the end, stop their effable chitchat, and give us some splendid three-part harmony. Now that's effing fabulous!

Needless to say I am not speaking of the opera which ends in decapitation, necrophilia, and filicide. You don't want a snack during that one.

 

This Haydn guy seems overrated to me
104 attempts at a symphony, come on surely he could have thinned a few out
All those string quartets, piano sonatas. I could could go on, but the Haydn lovers will be calling for blood

 

Albert7 can post until anyone or anything is overrated, y'all.

I swore for a second there that Helen Grime was the *real* "Little Miss Mozart".

 

I'd love to post on this thread as it would pander to my occasional need for what I call therapeutic negativity but I know that once I do I'll probably regret it instantly - I want to avoid the booby-trap of nominating anyone's music as being overrated just because I happen to loathe it.

 

Ummmm I can't think of any music which is overrated. As far as I can tell, there's something to be found in every piece written. Even Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March no. 1 I wouldn't call overrated no matter how much I hate it despite its popularity. It has it's time and place and it is a well constructed piece of music for what it is and for what Elgar intended it to be. Even so, I hate it despite its popularity!

 

Carmina Burana is overrated.

Bolero is overrated.

Mahler's Symphony No. 2 is overrated in the sense that it's far from the best work in his canon.

 

Carmina Burana is overrated.
Bolero is overrated.

Mahler's Symphony No. 2 is overrated in the sense that it's far from the best work in his canon.

I don't think Carmina Burana is overrated - the problem lies mainly with the fact that there are too many recordings of this and not enough of Orff's other fine works, which gives the erroneous impression that CB was the only worthwhile thing he ever composed.

 

There isn't anything which is overrated to me. Even Havergal Brian's legacy is properly assessed to me.

It's all good in the hood as we have expected.

 

what do you mean, that we live in a absolutely perfect meritocracy or that value doesn't exist?

 

Mahler's second symphony.

Because every symphony afterwards is better, in my opinion. Yet for some reason (I have no idea why) people really gravitate towards the second.

 

Well, there are plenty on this thread who appear 'over rated' .... but few, very few, were composers :devil:

 

Karlheinz Stockhausen. I prefer Nono or Dallapiccola

 

I think the spelling for Nono should be No! no!

 

Overrated or over-played. There is a distinction, however fine it is on occasion. Puccini, for instance, is rated, and rightly so, as one of the pinnacles in Italian opera. And yet, some of his operas are not well performed as, say, Tosca or Madama Butterfly. The Girl of the Golden West comes to mind quite readily. There are other instances where some of Shostakovich's works (Fifth, Seventh Symphonies, Piano Concerto no. 1) are over-exposed at the expense of better deserving pieces, like his Eighth Symphony, his First Piano Sonata, or even his Fourth Symphony. Most of Bruckner's symphonies are not as often played as some of Mahler's symphonies, especially in the United States.

Elgars ghosts made a valid point above (re: Orff's Carmina Burana).

 

Wondering if someone was going to mention Puccini. He wrote music to make some good money. That's all. He was the Michael Bay of late-nineteenth century opera. Nothing better than a bunch of gushy arias (Tosca, Madama Butterfly, Turandot,..etc.) to fill the houses. I believe La Boheme is his only creation that actually has some musical merit. Again, my opinion.

 

Joyce Hatto's recordings were a little over-rated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto

Quite the scandal actually. Those of you who don't know the story should definitely read the link.

 

How about P.D.Q. Bach?

 

For me I'm getting to feel that the semantics of the overrated music is similar to asking who are some of the worst composers are. :\

it's like looking at a half empty cup and realizing that being half full is way too optimistic.