I'd probably say in proper classical music, those trills they used to throw in to end a phrase bothers me a lot.

 

What are the most irritating clichés in classical music for you?

For me, it is the use of Javanese gamelan...

Debussy didn't use the gamelan itself, just let the sound influence his piano writing. I'm really not all that perturbed by a well sustained piano sound. I also don't feel that the other people you mentioned really did the same thing, perhaps Messiaen, but if he's doing anything like Debussy it's really just influence of Debussy's piano writing, not writing like a gamelan. (Even if it is the case I'm glad because his Vingt Regards are sublime).

 

I'm just riffing off of your commentary here which I think is nice:

I think that Debussy (in contrast to some other composers) really had some nice insights into what javanese music could bring to the western music tradition. I can't help but feel that Debussy had a keen ear for what it was about this music that was so refreshing and exciting to western ears, in terms of harmonies textures and rhythms.
Feel free to disagree here, but I think by point of contrast Leopold Godowsky's Java suite just totally missed the mark, and (forgive the crass simile) I think has aged like a minstrel show.

At any rate, I suppose all I mean to say is that if having a heavy Javanese influence is a cliche then it is in spite of good old Claude instead of because of him!

 

Maybe cadential 6/4 chords. People who know theory know what that is. It's a kind of chord progression used in cadences of the most academic, proper and erudite, most common in the Baroque to early Romantic eras (Beethoven).

 

I wholeheartedly agree. In general, Baroque and Classical are so dull to listen to since most all of them use these same chord progressions and conventions, that it just goops together.

I, for the life of me, will never understand how one can listen to that music for hours.

 

Tastes differ. If the above post is genuinely representative of yours, you'll find yourself in a very small minority.

 

Major and minor keys

5-1 cadences

Melodies with really simple rhythms

 

Major and minor keys

5-1 cadences

Melodies with really simple rhythms

this is the most try-hard thing ever written on this forum.

 

the words "greatest genius" instead of "the only ones I know" :lol:

 

Pretty much any vibration that travels through the air that's audible to the human ear is cliché.

 

In the music of the lesser composers, practically everything sounds like a cliche: the dominant-tonic cadences, the ornamentation, the sequences, the chromatic flourishes...

Yet these very same features often sound fresh and magical (at least to my ears) in the hands of a great composer. How is this possible? I suppose that it's all in the skillful handling of the conventions, judiciously balanced with some strange moments that keep us on our toes.

 

Yeah. Genius is so elusive. I bought some Spohr Clarinet Concertos and it is all note-spinning. One gets spoiled listening to the greatest composers.

 

I don't think there is any classical music cliché that I dislike. I think it's all mythical, the ever-renewing stream of the basic archetypes of the universe. Clichés are sometimes boring, but boring usually doesn't translate into dislike for me.

Now when it comes to the opposite - innovation - there are several classical music innovations that I dislike. Not all of them, no! But I seem to much easier dislike innovations than clichés. And what I dislike the most is the attitude that an innovation is always good, because it's an innovation. Composers: if you're a genius, please come up with new stuff. If you're not, please don't come up with new stuff, just keep re-hashing the old stuff instead.

Of course, only time separates innovation from cliché, they don't bear intrinsic labels. So what matters to me here is what kind of a feeling I get when listening to the music.

Trying to innovate, result being successful: good!
Trying to mix and match existing elements in an interesting way, result being successful: good!
Trying to mix and match existing elements in an interesting way, result being a failure: it's ok!
Trying to innovate, result being a failure: I hate this music!

 

I'm not sure any musical element in isolation can be called a cliche. They become cliches in context.

 

I think cliche is a contextual term, and I'd certainly have a hard time finding music in isolation!

 

The sound of big string sections in orchestral music gets tiresome after a while.

 

Noooooo, that's so exciting, I like it, the more the better.

 

For me, Mozart used trills a bit much, but who am I to question such greatness?

 

Classical period leading-tone melodies. I don't think Mozart composed a single piece without multiple instances of this cliche.

And the overuse of dominant cadences to signal the end of a movement. Dvorak is particularly guilty of this; his string of dominant cadences at the end of a piece seem almost endless.

 

To you perhaps, and that's fair enough, but I suspect Dvorak's answer to your accusation of "overuse" would be the same as Mozart's to the Kaiser in "Amadeus" when His Majesty ventured the suggestion that "Figaro" contained "too many notes", in other words "only as many as necessary". And I likewise suspect most classical listeners would agree with him.

 

V-I cadences don't have to be a cliche unless they are bolted on out of habit rather than necessity. Best/worst example I know of is at the end of Smetana's Vltava, a rather charming tone-poem that whiffles away to almost nothing at the end as the river, presumably, loses itself in the ocean. Then there's a crashing V-I cadence for no good reason whatsoever. I heard one live performance in which the conductor - I forget who - dealt with it by reducing the cadence to pianissimo. Damage limitation!

 

Pat,

Yes, that is involved with my inference. Nothing wrong with the V-I cadence, but tacking on a string of them leaves me scratching my head. If you've watched old movies, many of them end with a big "THE END" title on screen. For me, a string of V-Is at the end of a piece is akin to seeing at the end of a movie: THE END! the end! The End. THE! END! END! END! THE END! THHHHEEEEEEE..... END! THEENDTHEENDTHEEND THE END! Yes, after one "the end," I get it. Extraneous "the ends" seem to detract rather than add. Dvorak, I'm looking in your direction.

Again... this is yet again the opinion of just one listener.

 

Most anything parodied in this brilliant performance

 

Neopolitan sixths.

 

Here's Satie's parody of a clichéd, overblown ending (skip to 6:14):