# Most overrated/underrated traditional western classical music composer?



## ctsai89 (Apr 16, 2017)

This is just for fun, so don't take it too seriously if your favorite composer happens to be on my "overrated" list 


Some of the composers whom I think are the most overrated are:

Way Too overrated:
-Mozart
-Brahms
-John Luther Adams

Quite overrated:
-Schubert
-Mahler

Slightly overrated
-Tchaikovsky
-Shostakovich
-Stravinsky
-Mendelssohn
-Haydn

Some of the composers whom I think are the most underrated are:

-Anatoli Liadov
-Alexander Scriabin
-Myaskovsky
-Frank Bridge
-Kalinnikov
-Hummel (credit: @Flaneurette )

Slightly underrated
-Thomas Tallis
-Ives

Composers whom I think have earned (more than) the eternal fame and respect that they deserve:

Richard WAGNER
Beethoven
Rachmaninoff
BACH
Chopin


Neither Overrated nor Underrated:
Gustav Holst
Schoenberg
Balakirev
Rimsky-Korsakov
Franck
Faure
Debussy
Ravel
Corelli
Vivaldi
Elgar


Who are yours? and if you disagree with some of my the one's on my list (which is my opinion anyways) explain why


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 16, 2017)

Sometimes it's not about how good/complex/toughtful your music can get, but if it brings something new to the table. I'm talking about Individual class here. Calling Mozart overrated? I can't agree.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 16, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> Sometimes it's not about how good/complex/toughtful your music can get, but if it brings something new to the table. I'm talking about Individual class here. Calling Mozart overrated? I can't agree.



I actually made the list not based on how complex/tough music can get. This is all subjective. Mozart is actually very hard to play well on the piano.

In terms of bringing something new to the table, Wagner did a lot of that.


----------



## muk (Apr 17, 2017)

Is this list simply based on whose music you like, and whose you don't? There is nothing wrong with not liking Mozart's music. It doesn't make him overrated, though. Basically I disagree with you on each and every composer you listed as overrated. I like them all, and studied enough of their music to know that they all have written masterpieces of art. Schubert and Brahms being personal favorites of mine (which is a subjective preference. They all were highest rate artists).

Chopin is an interesting case. He is a terribly important figure in the history of piano music, and as important for the development of pianistic techniques as Liszt. But his oeuvre comprises overwhelmingly of piano music. Composers such as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms (with the exception of opera) all wrote important pieces of music in all the most prestigious genres (string quartet, piano sonata, opera, symphony, concerto, other chamber music, art song...). That doesn't make Chopin less important a composer in the history of western classical music, but his direct influence was more focused than that of, say, Beethoven.

A composer whose music I don't enjoy listening to too much would be Wagner. I don't call him overrated, nota bene. His music is masterfully done, and important art without a doubt. I just don't enjoy listening to it as much as I would listening to Schubert's string quintet. Purely subjective preference. I find sitting through five and a half hours of Wagner opera make a good case for recitativi and arias. I just can not foucs for that long on his ever meaningful music. So, in a way it is easier for me to study his scores (which I enjoy tremendously) than actually listening to them end to end.

If it was about bringing something new to the table, Schoenberg should make the list.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 17, 2017)

muk said:


> Is this list simply based on whose music you like, and whose you don't? There is nothing wrong with not liking Mozart's music. It doesn't make him overrated, though. Basically I disagree with you on each and every composer you listed as overrated. I like them all, and studied enough of their music to know that they all have written masterpieces of art. Schubert and Brahms being personal favorites of mine (which is a subjective preference. They all were highest rate artists).
> 
> Chopin is an interesting case. He is a terribly important figure in the history of piano music, and as important for the development of pianistic techniques as Liszt. But his oeuvre comprises overwhelmingly of piano music. Composers such as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms (with the exception of opera) all wrote important pieces of music in all the most prestigious genres (string quartet, piano sonata, opera, symphony, concerto, other chamber music, art song...). That doesn't make Chopin less important a composer in the history of western classical music, but his direct influence was more focused than that of, say, Beethoven.
> 
> ...



A lot of composers from the likes of Schoenberg though, were first deeply influenced by wagner's tremendously ambiguous harmony that led them to bring something even more new to the the table. Yes I agree with you that Schoenberg should have made it to the list but I think the whole twelve tone thing is something that someoen would've thought of sooner or later, it wasn't too special to me personally.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 17, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> the whole twelve tone thing is something that someoen would've thought of sooner or later,


Ives (another for the underrated column) actually thought of it about 20 years before Schoenberg-
but he only used the concept for one composition- "Chromatimelodtune". Then moved on.
It languished in his desk drawer for years after his death.

k


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 17, 2017)

KEnK said:


> Ives (another for the underrated column) actually thought of it about 20 years before Schoenberg-
> but he only used the concept for one composition- "Chromatimelodtune". Then moved on.
> It languished in his desk drawer for years after his death.
> 
> k



I think the requirement (at least in my opinion) for making it to the "underrated list" has to be someone that people often have not heard of. There are far too many times that when I mentioned the names of Scriabin, Myaskovsky, Kalinnikov, and Frank Bridge to an (experienced musician), they have no idea who they are. Some may have heard of the name Scriabin, but have never heard a piece written by him.


----------



## Flaneurette (Apr 17, 2017)

I think Johann Nepomuk Hummel is one of the most underrated composers and Pianists. If you like Chopin, listen to Hummel to see where Chopin got inspired.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 17, 2017)

muk said:


> Is this list simply based on whose music you like, and whose you don't? There is nothing wrong with not liking Mozart's music. It doesn't make him overrated, though. Basically I disagree with you on each and every composer you listed as overrated. I like them all, and studied enough of their music to know that they all have written masterpieces of art. Schubert and Brahms being personal favorites of mine (which is a subjective preference. They all were highest rate artists).
> 
> Chopin is an interesting case. He is a terribly important figure in the history of piano music, and as important for the development of pianistic techniques as Liszt. But his oeuvre comprises overwhelmingly of piano music. Composers such as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms (with the exception of opera) all wrote important pieces of music in all the most prestigious genres (string quartet, piano sonata, opera, symphony, concerto, other chamber music, art song...). That doesn't make Chopin less important a composer in the history of western classical music, but his direct influence was more focused than that of, say, Beethoven.
> 
> ...





^ Wagner > Brahms. Just kidding, just my opinion.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 17, 2017)

Flaneurette said:


> I think Johann Nepomuk Hummel is one of the most underrated composers and Pianists. If you like Chopin, listen to Hummel to see where Chopin got inspired.




thank you! let me add that to the list.


----------



## Flaneurette (Apr 18, 2017)

I am also a huge fan of J.S. Bach's son: C.P.E. Bach. Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart called C.P.E. Bach the father of the classical era. That says enough. I think he's underrated and well hidden in the shadow of his dad for far too long.

Cello Concerto in A minor is one of my favourites. You can clearly hear where Hayden, Mozart (and to some extend even Beethoven in the use of dynamics) is coming from. Beethoven taught his pupils C.P.E. Bach.



Can you believe this piece was composed 20 years before Beethoven was born? Would love to see the reaction from the establishment when they heard this. It's ferocity and speed would have boggled many minds back then. It almost sounds like a protest, rebelling, making fun of baroque while at the same time developing the classical (maybe even the romantic) era with pioneering genius.

Then almost 60 years later, Beethoven composed this:


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 18, 2017)

muk said:


> If it was about bringing something new to the table, Schoenberg should make the list.


That's not what I meant. Altough the 12 notes rotation is indeed something new, it's IMO just "Spielerei".

What i mean with bringing something new to the table is context/usage: Chopins Funeral March, Shostakovich's Waltz Nr. 2, Beethoven's 5th, Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik, the list goes on and on. And yes, Hans Zimmer's Time is up there too.

Composers dig too deep into the matter. Normal people just pick what makes sense to them. And that's the secret. They decide.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 18, 2017)

Strange list, Ghost. None of those works broke new ground.

After the amazing (and truly new) 3rd and the equally amazing 4th (and several other non-symphonic works), Beethoven’s 5th — masterpiece though it is — is, basically, a very inspired continuation on ground already conquered, except maybe for its cyclical rhythms (which, strictly speaking, wasn’t new either).
Same with Mozart’s serenade: exceptionnaly inspired, sure, but certainly not a seminal, pioneering corner-stone, neither in Mozart’s career nor in the history of music.
And Shostakovitch Waltz nr. 2 … seriously? If you were to ask me to gather evidence to illustrate the perplexingly uneven output of this composer — from the divine (his first Piano Concerto) to the banal —, the first piece I would pick as an example of the latter would be this waltz. Nothing wrong with it, but hardly a candidate for 'music which moved the goalposts'.
And, finally, Chopin’s “Funeral March” is part of a sonata which, more than anything, looks _back_ to Beethoven’s piano sonatas.

All this music may have a strong appeal and be very important to you (and countless other people), but that doesn’t mean that it brought “something new to the table”.

Calling serialism ‘just Spielerei’, however, is ... well ... You really shouldn't say these things.

_


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 18, 2017)

Interesting. The only piece I mentioned that you didn't try to grade down re.pete was Hans' Time, which btw precisely explains my point here.

To clarify: It's neither Hans first popular work, as it's also not his most original one. (If you've watched the thin red line you'll get what I mean). Think of music that reminds you of a funeral, which piece comes to your mind if you're an average person?

OH and btw: Opinion for 400. "Things that I really shouldn't say" ? I know: "What's part of my own business?" Ding ding ding! Let's play Twister. Right foot on green.


----------



## Flaneurette (Apr 18, 2017)

Thomas Tallis, also underrated. But the list will be endless... I haven't even mentioned Heinrich Schütz, who more or less put Germany on the map a century before J.S. Bach.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 18, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> Interesting. The only (...)


I’m not familiar enough with Mr. Zimmer’s work, I’m afraid, which is why it remained unmentioned in my previous post.
Oh, and I didn’t grade down any of those other pieces - except that waltz, a bit.
As for what is, or should be, part of one’s own business: well, I would think that not making a complete fool of oneself qualifies. No?

_


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 18, 2017)

Flaneurette said:


> Thomas Tallis, also underrated. But the list will be endless... I haven't even mentioned Heinrich Schütz, who more or less put Germany on the map a century before J.S. Bach.




He is a name that isn't heard too rarely though. It's not often but not rare. Same goes for Ives so maybe I'll make another section called "slightly underrated"


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 18, 2017)

re-peat said:


> No?


Let's not head in that direction, I know you enjoy that a bit too much.

If you got the impression that I was refering to "Entartete Kunst" with my statement, you're wrong and I have to apologize for the misunderstanding. I absoluetely didn't mean that in that way, neither I sympathize with any of them and their ideas.

But if you're argueing with your ordinary music elitism thing again, because I've been disliking and questioning the 12 tone rotation is finicky of you. It's my subjective opinion and that was what the author of this thread wanted to hear. Which makes someone else a fool argueing over taste.

I agree however that the term "bringing something new to the table" was not the best way to describe which composer is under or overrated. What I was refering to was that some pieces might not be technically demanding or highly innovative, yet they contributed tremendously to their zeitgeist.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 18, 2017)

Here are the criteria for "most underrated". I believe at least a few (maybe at least 2, but depends) of these should be met before they are on the underrated list.

1. He is a composer that you love and want to talk about with other musicians but the other musicians more often times than not, have never heard of the composer or at least dont love any of the composer's master pieces, but you know he is an important composer to the history of music (see point 2)
2. He has inspired one of the composers that everyone knows (i.e. Mozart) and for example Scriabin had hugely influenced Stravinsky yet 90% of the times, many people won't care much about Scriabin but Stravinsky.
3. He has composed masterful works (many of which are about as masterful or more, than some of the "overrated composers" and many of them but due to (for example) Germano-Romano-centrism, his works have been overlooked when musicologists tend to focus on the composers that are from western Europe.
4. His fame has been overshadowed by the fact that his life ended prematurely
5. There was a stigma around his music being i.e. "evil" and etc so orchestras/radios will choose not to play his music, thus further damaging the respect and eternal fame that he would've other wise deserved.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 21, 2017)

I don't think it's possible to overate Mozart. He is mine blowing good. He does everything on and extraordinarily high level. He is also easily the most versatile and great in every form he wrote for. Symphonies, piano (and other) concerto's, opera, chamber music and even church music show him at the very top as a composer with only Bach and Beethoven as peers.

Stravinsky is often viewed from his early famous ballets and The Rite is quite a bursting out of conventional music. But his writing in his far more prolific middle period is absolutely stellar beautiful stuff. Great, great, writing in every way and always with his unique rhythmic sense. The fact that he is a huge influence on film to this day also says a lot about him.

Ives, maybe under rated by the public but most composers are in absolute awe of the guy including people like Stravinsky.

Shubert, Haydn and Mahler may not be your cup of tea but these are also truly great composers. Haydn as gifted as a composer can be and a huge influence on Mozart and Beethoven who no doubt would never consider him "overrated."

I'm glad you have Frank Bridge in the underrated column. I think he is yet to have his day. Certainly a favorite of mine.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 21, 2017)

Dave Connor said:


> I don't think it's possible to overate Mozart. He is mine blowing good. He does everything on and extraordinarily high level. He is also easily the most versatile and great in every form he wrote for. Symphonies, piano (and other) concerto's, opera, chamber music and even church music show him at the very top as a composer with only Bach and Beethoven as peers.
> 
> Stravinsky is often viewed from his early famous ballets and The Rite is quite a bursting out of conventional music. But his writing in his far more prolific middle period is absolutely stellar beautiful stuff. Great, great, writing in every way and always with his unique rhythmic sense. The fact that he is a huge influence on film to this day also says a lot about him.
> 
> ...



I have never ever been mind blown by Mozart. His music was just never able to give the natural dopamine push for me. And I grew up listening/playing Mozart/Bach/Beethoven but Back and Beethoven's music (especially Bach) are more often times mind blowingly good to me.

Regarding Haydn being on my list: I think you stated it quite fairly, I'll take him off on that spot because I think he does deserve to be where people look at him at as part the music history today.

Mahler: There were plenty of other composers during his time that made music that were equally strikingly good but because of the fact that musicologist/ music conosseurs have mainly focused on Mahler, other composers (like Alexander Scriabin) are often ignored. So I will still leave him there. Mahler's actually my cup of tea as well. But it doesn't taste as good as Scriabin does to me, personally. It's close though.

By the way @Dave Connor I am string player from sound cloud and I am a big fan of your music. As you know I've left a few comments on your pieces praising them over the last few months. I can't suffer even 30 seconds of (boring) Brahms/Mozart. But I can listen to your music 24/7 I wouldn't mind.  I'm just surprised you would find Mozart's music mind blowingly good when your music is that much better. But then we live in different period of time than Mozart's time so let's just say I'm biased... But I like to believe I am relatively not biased regarding my opinion on Mozart because most of the poeple who aren't into classical music (which is about 95% of the population nowadays) think that Mozart is the face of all classical music. And seems like they haven't tried the other kinds of classical music that I listen to which are more rapturous sounding.

Actually it might be because we both like Frank Bridge!

I feel like I like your song Quantum so much that I have already memorized it. And I did I can totally basically sing it from beginning to the end.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 21, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> I have never ever been mind blown by Mozart. His music was just never able to give the natural dopamine push for me. And I grew up listening/playing Mozart/Bach/Beethoven but Back and Beethoven's music (especially Bach) are more often times mind blowingly good to me.
> 
> Regarding Haydn being on my list: I think you stated it quite fairly, I'll take him off on that spot because I think he does deserve to be where people look at him at as part the music history today.
> 
> ...


It took me a while to warm to Mozart's music actually because on the surface it can sound like redundant non-descript Classical (that we've all heard a million times growing up.) I think his Piano Concerto 23, Clarinet Concerto and Symphonies 35 and 41 have the sublime characteristics I'm talking about so maybe revisit and see if you aren't more convinced : ) The 23 pro cto a good place to start since you probably know those other pieces (or even that piano orchestral work.)

Mahler's 6th (Bernstein with NY Phil) is enough for me to hold him at the top of his era. Certainly more than Strauss.

I am a huge Scriabin fan and consider him the rightful heir to Chopin.

Yes I am aware of you and your wonderful comments on my music on sound cloud. I recognize your avatar as well. Well you are far too generous with your praise to which I am truly humbled and also thrilled. You seem to resonate to the same sort of musical ideas and textures that I do. One writes what they like and I'm no different from any other composer I suppose that way. But thank you so very much! You have made my day my week and what may prove to be my entire year with your sincere and enthusiastic appreciation of my writing! I shall write some more in your honor!


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 21, 2017)

Dave Connor said:


> It took me a while to warm to Mozart's music actually because on the surface it can sound like redundant non-descript Classical (that we've all heard a million times growing up.) I think his Piano Concerto 23, Clarinet Concerto and Symphonies 35 and 41 have the sublime characteristics I'm talking about so maybe revisit and see if you aren't more convinced : ) The 23 pro cto a good place to start since you probably know those other pieces (or even that piano orchestral work.)
> 
> Mahler's 6th (Bernstein with NY Phil) is enough for me to hold him at the top of his era. Certainly more than Strauss.
> 
> ...



I must say I was quite reluctant to check out the Mozart pieces you listed but I just checked out piano concerto 23 because I felt like there might be a chance I will like it since it's what you recommended but... I couldn't play it anymore starting the first few bars when I heard that first dominant 7th chord. My ears bled. That harmony used in that context just sounded so offensive to me. 

I know he intends (or not) his music to be in such way that it's meant to be joking-like and so I just can't really hear any soul or any quality of some serious art work in his music. 

For quantum for example there are many emotional parts and often leads to climaxes but Mozart has none of that in his music (but Beethoven and Haydn does), it could not speak to me at all. And all of his music whether it's in minor mode for funeral or major all sounds like a joke to me. Again I'm completely biased. I dig real good art in all kinds of music no matter what genre it is but I just cant consider Mozart into that category


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 21, 2017)

I'm not critical of people's taste for the most part and tend to understand it more than not. I know a very talented composer who doesn't think Bach did much for music at all and doesn't listen to him (unless he watches a Scorsese movie I suppose.) In my case, it is my scientific nature as well as artistic side that marvels at the way certain composers are able to say what's on their musical mind. Or even see how well they execute a difficult form and try to dominate it with their personality. Mozart's fugue in the final movement of his last symphony is a prime example where he is doing just that. Having studied so much counterpoint and therefore appreciating it, that's where my mind get's blown by him. But how can I argue with your taste since you seem to like my music so much : )

I shall think of other composers to add to one of your lists.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 22, 2017)

Yes please add some  I'm really interested in What you can bring to the list 

The problem for me for people who like Mozart who are Musicians is that they focus too much on the technical and theoretical side of it. And for non musicians, they often like it because they feel like mozart's music has their class boosted from ghetto to classy (just kidding by the way) but you know what I mean. I oppose to the idea of liking certain music when the person liking it likes it for reasons other than just organically feeling the ecstasy that music can create. 

I for example listened to your music when you posted on this forum. I didn't care who composed it I just wanted to listen and found myself getting lost feeling the rapture your music is inducing I didn't need to think of counter point or anything


----------



## mwarsell (Apr 22, 2017)

The most underrated composers are the quiet geniuses somewhere out there who don't make noise about themselves, don't promote, don't write to forums. Who just do their thing. Therw must be hundreds of them around. Thousands.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 22, 2017)

mwarsell said:


> The most underrated composers are the quiet geniuses somewhere out there who don't make noise about themselves, don't promote, don't write to forums. Who just do their thing. Therw must be hundreds of them around. Thousands.



sure why not.


----------



## Flaneurette (Apr 22, 2017)

Mozart is just overplayed. But fact is, he definitely belongs up there... whether or not he wrote at the age of 3 is debatable. I like to think that his Father gave him a couple of hints here and there. But my, his symphonies are great.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 23, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> Yes please add some  I'm really interested in What you can bring to the list
> 
> The problem for me for people who like Mozart who are Musicians is that they focus too much on the technical and theoretical side of it. And for non musicians, they often like it because they feel like mozart's music has their class boosted from ghetto to classy (just kidding by the way) but you know what I mean. I oppose to the idea of liking certain music when the person liking it likes it for reasons other than just organically feeling the ecstasy that music can create.


 I understand and of course am attracted to a piece of music only if it has genuine appeal. I don't respond to technique alone. The music has to have something of beauty even if it's bent or strange. So something can be the simplest idea in the world with bare bones instrumentation (Stevie Wonder and Piano) and I'll love it and conversely something that's some sort of technical marvel that has no soul and I'm left cold.

Mozart in my thinking writes beautiful stuff and that's why I like him. The fact is that he achieves that beauty with such command of the art and science of composition is an _added_ thrill for me but not what brings me to the table. Also it's not lost on me that his command is what is summoning that beauty and I'm unable to separate the component parts ultimately, from a singular creative act. It always comes down to creativity.

I'm quite a fan of French composer Albert Roussel whom I think is underrated. His 2nd and 3rd symphonies favorites but also his other work. Also Americans Walter Piston and William Schuman.


----------



## sherief83 (Apr 24, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> This is just for fun, so don't take it too seriously if your favorite composer happens to be on my "overrated" list
> 
> 
> Some of the composers whom I think are the most overrated are:
> ...



I honestly find joy in the works of every composer you posted (both overrated and underrated). I used to have preferences but I've come to appreciate every single one for them the more I live. In fact, I find every composer today to be overrated compared to these masters of the past. The more you study these master's works, the more you realize how unoriginal our current generation is. That is IMHO of course and might be another level of discussion. A true examination of if our living generation is actually progressing or falling apart.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 24, 2017)

sherief83 said:


> I honestly find joy in the works of every composer you posted (both overrated and underrated). I used to have preferences but I've come to appreciate every single one for them the more I live. In fact, I find every composer today to be overrated compared to these masters of the past. The more you study these master's works, the more you realize how unoriginal our current generation is. That is IMHO of course and might be another level of discussion. A true examination of if our living generation is actually progressing or falling apart.



oh thanks for reminding me. Let me add John Luther Adams to become one of the most overrated


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 25, 2017)

I have another criteria for most overrated/underrated

For every 10 times 1 of the most overrated composer's piece gets played, 1 of the underrated composers pieces gets played once or less. 

With this criteria in mind, Mozart is undoubtedly the most overrated composer ever.

Also, here's an amazing piece by the very underrated composer Myaskovsky:


----------



## Sebastianmu (May 20, 2017)

While I can appreciate Mozart's standing in music history from a merely theoretical standpoint, I just absolutely can't listen to his stuff. What he does, musically, annoys me greatly! Same goes for Richard Strauss, and partially for the same reasons. I can't stand the sound of some of these distinctly austrian chord progressions, they have something incredibly rancid. I'm aware of this being a merely subjective idiosyncrasy, so in public I wouldn't call Mozart overrated. Privately I do, of course.


----------



## Dear Villain (May 20, 2017)

Sebastianmu said:


> While I can appreciate Mozart's standing in music history from a merely theoretical standpoint, I just absolutely can't listen to his stuff. What he does, musically, annoys me greatly! Same goes for Richard Strauss, and partially for the same reasons. I can't stand the sound of some of these distinctly austrian chord progressions, they have something incredibly rancid. I'm aware of this being a merely subjective idiosyncrasy, so in public I wouldn't call Mozart overrated. Privately I do, of course.



Could you provide a link to some of your music, Sebastianmu, so we could have an opportunity to see how your own musical tastes/sensibilities differ from those of Mozart?


----------



## ctsai89 (May 20, 2017)

Sebastianmu said:


> While I can appreciate Mozart's standing in music history from a merely theoretical standpoint, I just absolutely can't listen to his stuff. What he does, musically, annoys me greatly! Same goes for Richard Strauss, and partially for the same reasons. I can't stand the sound of some of these distinctly austrian chord progressions, they have something incredibly rancid. I'm aware of this being a merely subjective idiosyncrasy, so in public I wouldn't call Mozart overrated. Privately I do, of course.



well you just called Mozart overrated just now. I stand with your opinion 100%. Strauss was at least a bit more interesting only because he was from the late romantic era. But yep, 100%, Mozart's music sounds like nothing but an effortless joke. Annoying. Overrated. Childish. We can be best friends @Sebastianmu 

But my opinion is subjective so please, if anyone likes the joke-like, annoying, monotonous, bouncy, childish quality in Mozart's music and you find it to be good partly because of those qualities, then more power to you guys  However, there should be NO denying that those are the qualities that exist in most of his music. Those qualities are not necessarily "bad". It just depends on how an individual perceives it. Even the one's he wrote that were supposed to be sad didn't sound so sincere to me. But sincerity is pretty much underrated all over the modern world, you want to get a job? you use tact or lie about who your favorite politician/musicians are when you know your boss doens't like any of your favorites. Ah! no wonder most people love Mozart's music! But 85% of the world's population also has an IQ of below 120... Alright I'll stop here.


----------



## Sebastianmu (May 21, 2017)

Dear Villain said:


> Could you provide a link to some of your music, Sebastianmu, so we could have an opportunity to see how your own musical tastes/sensibilities differ from those of Mozart?


Haha, I'm sorry, I didn't want to 'yuk on your yum', David. Of course I don't presume to be a 'better' composer than Mozart, my own music is irrelevant here. And I can look at technical intricacies of Mozart's music and appreciate it's genius, given the historical context - but I _just don't like_ it, and I don't want to listen to it.


ctsai89 said:


> We can be best friends @Sebastianmu


I doubt that, because you put _Mahler_ on the list. And I think some of Mahlers works are the absolute pinnacle of western music and it has been only going downhill since then.. I heard Rattle conduct Mahler's second symphony and now I don't believe there is anything left in this world that could surpass that experience. Kind of sad, in a way..


----------



## Sebastianmu (May 21, 2017)

Also, as a side note, IQs are _defined_ to follow a Gaussian probability distribution, which means even in the most intelligent alien population - with intellectual abilities far beyond what we could dream of - 85% would have an IQ of 120 or lower. It doesn't mean anything.


----------



## ctsai89 (May 21, 2017)

Sebastianmu said:


> Haha, I'm sorry, I didn't want to 'yuk on your yum', David. Of course I don't presume to be a 'better' composer than Mozart, my own music is irrelevant here. And I can look at technical intricacies of Mozart's music and appreciate it's genius, given the historical context - but I _just don't like_ it, and I don't want to listen to it.
> 
> I doubt that, because you put _Mahler_ on the list. And I think some of Mahlers works are the absolute pinnacle of western music and it has been only going downhill since then.. I heard Rattle conduct Mahler's second symphony and now I don't believe there is anything left in this world that could surpass that experience. Kind of sad, in a way..



I think Mahlers a bit overrated because his fame completely puts Scriabin in the shadows. Well in terms of saying mozart is overrated, I really like you for that. Not enough people listen to Scriabin enough but the ones that have listened to it carefully have said the same things you said about Mahler. Many of us even claim to have felt like we were on some kind of crazy drugs only listening to scriabins music and I pretty much experience that for all of his music whether it's his early work or late work. They all sound euphoric to me. Mahler is good too but he has a bit more quantity over quality.


----------



## ctsai89 (May 21, 2017)

Sebastianmu said:


> Also, as a side note, IQs are _defined_ to follow a Gaussian probability distribution, which means even in the most intelligent alien population - with intellectual abilities far beyond what we could dream of - 85% would have an IQ of 120 or lower. It doesn't mean anything.



I think it means something when someone has IQ of 140 + or 90-. One is really smart and able to enjoy music much more sophisticated than just Justin Bieber or mozart, the other one obviously stupid. Anyways that's off topic, sorry for that, I feel like I was sleep typing last night


----------



## ctsai89 (May 21, 2017)

@Sebastianmu Here I am going to post 2 links, I used to listen to Mahler and say the same things you did until I started listening to Scriabin more and discovering more master pieces of his.


----------

