# Classical Composers that you dislike.



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

It's all very well using such forums as these to discuss and laud the various composers that you do like. But what about the ones that you don't. 

It's generally accepted to imagine that any composer to have reached a certain amount of textbook fame must be good in their own way, but it doesn't mean that you have to like them.

I personally do not like Rachmaninov. I find his music horrendously overbearing with romantic indulgence, and unsubtle. There's no dryness there. It's all thick glutinous treacle, to _my_ ears. 

However, I will readily accept that he was a very skilled craftsman who could also tickle the ivories and his improvisation skills were second to none, so I expect to be contradicted about my taste in music.

Is there anybody who's music you really can't bear for no other reason that you just don't like it, yet you respect their talent and artistry?


----------



## bryla (Mar 20, 2009)

I love Rachmaninov. I never would say that I dislike somebody. I would rather say that it hasn't got me yet. But in that category is Messiaen


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2009)

I'm not touching this one with a 10-foot pole...don't want to upset Jay!


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

bryla @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> I love Rachmaninov. I never would say that I dislike somebody. I would rather say that it hasn't got me yet. But in that category is Messiaen



I adore Messiaen. But don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Rachmaninov per se, I'm sure he was a thoroughly charming fellow. It's just his music that I don't particularly go for. Maybe I stressed the word 'dislike' a bit strongly.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

midphase @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> I'm not touching this one with a 10-foot pole...don't want to upset Jay!



Are you referring to the Bob Dylan conversation with Kid-surf by any chance.

Surely, we're all entitled to an opinion.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2009)

I am actually referring to this thread:

http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11699


----------



## c0mp0ser (Mar 20, 2009)

As a pianist, I think Rachmaninoff freaking rocks. He's a piano-player's composer.

You guys NEED to take a listen to my buddy Mike Barry's performance of the Rachmaninoff Piano Concert #2 here: http://www.cinesamples.com/about/

As far as composers I dislike: Hindemith is up there. I've played the flute and the clarinet sonatas of his, and I'm so sick of them. I think it's all very unmusical and pretentious. It's like "hey, I'm awesome, I use fourths and fifths... thirds are for pansies.. I'm smarter than YOU".

I appreciate Webern and Shoenberg, for their music on PAPER... but, eh... can't listen for long. Especially their vocal music. Again, it oozes this "i'm super awesome" vibe. Losers. 

MP


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

midphase @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> I am actually referring to this thread:
> 
> http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11699



Oooh, they've got a bit of a history, haven't they? Those two.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

c0mp0ser @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> As a pianist, I think Rachmaninoff freaking rocks. He's a piano-player's composer.
> 
> You guys NEED to take a listen to my buddy Mike Barry's performance of the Rachmaninoff Piano Concert #2 here: http://www.cinesamples.com/about/
> 
> ...



I'm not overly convinced that Hindemith had the 'I'm smarter than you' mentality. But he was really anti-atonality, so he went out of his way to make tonality sound even wierder.

As for Schoenberg and Webern, well.... I'd say that Schoenberg had his reasons for inventing the 12-tone method, and it wasn't to push the dissonant trend forward. I believe that he was trying to slow it down by isolating it. What he was saying to all the experimental composers of his age was "Hey guys, if you REALLY are intent on writing music without a key, here's how to do it properly." I don't even think he liked it much. Once he had emigrated to the US, he refused to teach serialism, claiming that it was always a mis-nomer anyway. Whether he thought he was 'super-awesome' or not, I've no idea.

Webern just wrote in the style that he was taught. I do like the music of Berg to listen to though. At least he was trying to make his keyless music a bit more accessible.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

midphase @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> I'm not touching this one with a 10-foot pole...don't want to upset Jay!



I have less of a charge on it with dead renowned composers as their reputation is established and cannot be easily sullied by detractors.

I am not a huge Romantic period lover, but I do like Rachmaninoff. I played a couple of his easier piano pieces when I was at Boston Conservatory and even those were wicked hard.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

c0mp0ser @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> As a pianist, I think Rachmaninoff freaking rocks. He's a piano-player's composer.
> 
> You guys NEED to take a listen to my buddy Mike Barry's performance of the Rachmaninoff Piano Concert #2 here: http://www.cinesamples.com/about/
> 
> ...



But Hindemith WAS smarter than we are


----------



## Illuminati (Mar 20, 2009)

Off the top of my head, didn't get:
Shostakovitch
Bella Bartok
Hayden
Schoenberg


----------



## Niah (Mar 20, 2009)

can't say I could ever get into western classical music

so I guess ...all of them? :lol:


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> midphase @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not touching this one with a 10-foot pole...don't want to upset Jay!
> ...



Harder than the really challenging ones by Liszt and Chopin?


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sat 21 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > midphase @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> ...



No, those are wicked hard also.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

josejherring @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Tomorrow night I'm gonna check out the Philadelphia Orchestra.
> ...



Whoa! It's just a light hearted convo thread. Fine, name your favourite composers if you like, but hey, it's hardly childish to talk about composers whose music you can't really get into. What's more, opinions can be swayed.. for example:

Post-maker 1: I can't really say I'm into Shostakovich.

Post-maker 2: Really? Why's that then?

Post-maker 1: Dunno, really. He changes key too much. Can't really settle down, his melodies are a bit angular for me.

Post-maker 2: Hmm, I see your point, but have you heard his 2nd Piano Concerto. It really knocks your socks off. Especially the first movement.

Post-maker 3: Ahh yes, now you're talking. Shozzy's 2nd Piano concerto. Ah man.... now that really makes the hair on my neck stick out.

Post-maker 1: Hell, is it really that good? I wouldn't have thought it was _your_ scene, postmaker 3. I heard that opera "Lady Macbeth of Mtensk". It was horrible.

Post-maker 2 and 3 (together): Ahh, no wonder. Listen to his 2nd Piano Concerto.

Post-maker 1: Ok, I will.

(next day)

Post-maker 1: Hey, you were right. It's brilliant.

Post-maker 2: Told you.

Post-maker 1: What else did he write?

Post-maker 2: Gotta pen?

You see, the like of such threads can expand peoples repertoire. There's nothing immature about that, is there?


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 20, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> I personally do not like Rachmaninov. I find his music horrendously overbearing with romantic indulgence, and unsubtle. There's no dryness there. It's all thick glutinous treacle, to _my_ ears.



Rachmaninov may not be one's cup of tea but he is a very serious practitioner of the art of composition. I have numerous scores of his and find him to be brilliantly insightful and original particularly in his symphonies. When I see someone with a totally unique vocabulary and commanding execution of it I'm always very impressed because it seems to spring only from them and nowhere else. Keep in mind his symphonies are quite different from his piano concertos and for more abstract in musical and emotional content. I don't like sugery sweet stuff either and don't think his symphonies fall into that categorie at all.

Which Rachmaninov works are you talking about and are you familiar with most of his repertoire?


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Mar 21, 2009)

Huge Rachmaninoff fan

His twentieth century stuff before he left Russia flat out rocks.

Personally, I've always leaned to the Romantic stuff, Baroque always made me kinda gag
Playing it was even worse


----------



## bryla (Mar 21, 2009)

Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> Let's turn this negative thread into a celebration of outstanding talent!!



See that's why I wanted people to say, which composers they didn't get yet, so we could have conversations that alphabetgreen is demonstrating. Just saying what you dislike IS counterproductive.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 21, 2009)

Can't say I enjoy the music of Vivaldi or Mendelshon. 

Not sure what the point of the question is, btw... ???


----------



## lux (Mar 21, 2009)

Bach.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 21, 2009)

nikolas @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> Not sure what the point of the question is, btw... ???



Let me have a go at answering that.
Some people like to discuss differences rather than what is agreeable.
History is full of such examples where discussion becomes argument which turns to war!

It's so sad.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 21, 2009)

> nikolas @ Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:37 am wrote:
> 
> Not sure what the point of the question is, btw... ???
> 
> ...



There is nothing wrong with arguing for the sake of discussion. It can refine your own ideas and since ancient times it has been an excellent tool for intellectual development.

It should not necessarily lead to fall-out or "war" as you put it. People in debating societies don't end their proceeding with a pub brawl - they have taken part in a civil debate which starts and ends on those terms. 

They exaggerate their own stance (as I have done with Bob Dylan) for the sake of argument. 

Those are the rules of engagement - so let the (intellectual only) battle commence...


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 21, 2009)

adrianallan @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> > nikolas @ Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:37 am wrote:
> >
> > Not sure what the point of the question is, btw... ???
> >
> ...



Adrian,

Intellectual hogwash!

Division in music usually creates chords
Division in humans nearly always creates discord.

If you're telling me the reason for your Dylan thread was not to learn from other's point of view but simply to promote your own, quite frankly you are an asshole.

Yours Sincerely

Ray


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 21, 2009)

Sorry, I should have said to refine my own ideas in the light of what others say.

I may now appreciate certain aspects of Dylan through the replies.

This is how debate works - the stronger I express my views, the stronger people come to Dylan's defence - and after the debate, both sides benefit from this strength of argument. 

The very reason we have the government we have now is because people are too passive and incapable/ unable to debate things rationally. They don't learn these skills at school, either - they just eat everything they are told off a plate and lap it up.

Your formula for happiness about everybody agreeing to get on is a recipe for dictatorship by consent.

I enjoy argument for its own sake, and will continue to do, whilst you can't separate that from arguing and falling out.


----------



## lee (Mar 21, 2009)

For me, Mozart really moves me with his Requiem. But alot of his staccato-happy no surprise-earcandy I just cant seem to enjoy. It´s too easy to predict, I think.

Sometimes music that´s not too simple to understand (where I couldnt directly "see" the notes/harmonies/intervals in my head while listening) is the music I find myself being attracted to. Or perhaps in my case, I appretiate music that has a good balance of "easy listening elements" and harmonic/other surprises, beyond *my* imagination. Then it becomes a challenge for my brain to listen and analyze/be overwhelmed by the structures, harmonies, melodies, sounds, etc.

A nice blend of easy listening and harmonic beauty IMO is Faurés Requiem. Here is Sanctus and Agnus Dei from it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha2zuih1iIE I mean, at 6:05... I LOVE IT! And that´s just listening to it. Another quality is trying to play it, figure out what he did, on your piano, and... be inspired! 

Then there´s music that is not easy listening at all, BUT can be inspiring, enjoyable, and really give me an emotional WOW-feeling. Like Penderecki:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfBVYhyXU8o Penderecki may not make everyone say "that sounds nice", but maybe "now that sounds interesting"!

Edit: And adrianallan: Nice pic! Haha
/Johnny


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 21, 2009)

Mahler makes me want to barf, I can't listen to that crap.

Wagner sucks too.


----------



## IvanP (Mar 21, 2009)

lux @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> Bach.



Huh?


----------



## lux (Mar 21, 2009)

IvanP @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> lux @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Bach.
> ...



yeah, it gets me heavily annoyed, no matter what i do to convince myself.Respect is another matter, but thats not what we're treatening here i guess.


----------



## c0mp0ser (Mar 21, 2009)

>8o Yeah, you're not allowed to say you dislike Bach. That's a no-no. That's holy ground right there.

:wink:


----------



## lux (Mar 21, 2009)

well, in this case Ivan is a friend so i think he was just wondering why, while probably he's a good fan.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 21, 2009)

mikebarry @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> Mahler makes me want to barf, I can't listen to that crap.
> 
> Wagner sucks too.



You are entitled to disliking Mahler's music but calling it crap only says something about yourself.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 21, 2009)

mikebarry @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> Mahler makes me want to barf, I can't listen to that crap.
> 
> Wagner sucks too.



I think this comment brings this board to an all time low point. I think I need to take a leave before the stupidity gets infectious.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 21, 2009)

josejherring @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> mikebarry @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Mahler makes me want to barf, I can't listen to that crap.
> ...




you said it Jose


----------



## TheoKrueger (Mar 22, 2009)

I like all composers, I think that you can learn something from everyone.

I like the good composers because they sound good and the mediocre ones teach me what to avoid in my own music. "Good" and "mediocre" in my oppinion ofcourse.

Cheers,
Theo.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

tobyond @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> Brahms gets stuck in my head in the wrong way and drives me crazy, and Hayden is too light and fairy floss for me (cotton candy for you yanks).



I tend to agree with you about those two composers. But I challenge you to listen to the middle section of the 2nd movement of Haydn's 96th symphony. It's pure musical genius.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

IvanP @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> lux @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Bach.
> ...



LMAO !!!!!


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> alphabetgreen @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally do not like Rachmaninov. I find his music horrendously overbearing with romantic indulgence, and unsubtle. There's no dryness there. It's all thick glutinous treacle, to _my_ ears.
> ...



It was actually his piano concertos I was referring to, and his Paganini variations. But fair play, I shall endeavour to listen to his symphonies. Many thanks for the referral.


----------



## billval3 (Mar 22, 2009)

TheoKrueger @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> I like all composers, I think that you can learn something from everyone.
> 
> I like the good composers because they sound good and the mediocre ones teach me what to avoid in my own music. "Good" and "mediocre" in my oppinion ofcourse.
> 
> ...



Guys, maybe we should be mature enough to appreciate all of the "greats," but why should we have to LIKE them? We shouldn't have to pretend to enjoy something that we don't and no, I don't think we should be expected to enjoy every one of the classics. I don't really care to listen to pre-Romantic music in general. That's not to say that I never appreciate it and it's certainly not to say that I can't learn from it. But I don't generally choose to listen to it in my leisure time.

War? I think conversation like this CAN cause tension, but there's no reason why we can't discuss our dislikes without flaming anybody.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

billval3 @ Sun 22 Mar said:


> TheoKrueger @ Sun Mar 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I like all composers, I think that you can learn something from everyone.
> ...



+ 1 (I take it, that means 'I agree with you')


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 22, 2009)

There is a big difference between not liking a composer's music and not respecting it.

For instance, I am not fond of listening to Tchaikovsky. Part of it is no doubt that he is the most performed composer and over-exposed but a lot of it is that the music is based from an aesthetic that does not appeal to me.

But I certainly can concede that he was an important composer, who wrote memorable melodies, orchestrated brilliantly, etc.

So while we do not owe them affection, we owe them respect.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 22, 2009)

Amen Jay. That was what I was talking about (in a cryptic way) in my response post to the "Mahler is crap" proclamation.


----------



## bryla (Mar 22, 2009)

But while we can respect their work and appreciate what they've done to influence the music, we can ask ourselfes: If the guy was/is great and many people like his work, maybe I'm missing something then.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Mar 22, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> billval3 @ Sun 22 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > TheoKrueger @ Sun Mar 22 said:
> ...



Perhaps "Appreciate" is a better word than "Like".
On the other hand, i can't really think of any composer i dislike. And i won't bias my way of listening to music only so that i can dislike someone for this thread.

Cheers,
Theo.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 22, 2009)

No i was being really serious I hate Mahler, he seems to meander ad meander. Since this is all about opinions I am just being honest, no need to flame, just my opinion. But yes i would almost rather listen to any other composer then to sit through a Mahler symphony.

I hate Wagner mostly for political reasons, especially after reading a recent Hitler biography. This man was pure scum and was Hitler's greatest hero.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 22, 2009)

mikebarry @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> No i was being really serious I hate Mahler, he seems to meander ad meander. Since this is all about opinions I am just being honest, no need to flame, just my opinion. But yes i would almost rather listen to any other composer then to sit through a Mahler symphony.
> 
> I hate Wagner mostly for political reasons, especially after reading a recent Hitler biography. This man was pure scum and was Hitler's greatest hero.



Not all Mahler is that way. Listen to the 4th Symphony. Bruckner OTOH......

Wagner was indeed a terrible person but history is full of great artists who were bad human beings. His importance in musical history is nonetheless undeniable. In his time, I would not have done anything that put money in his pocket but he is long gone.
 
Hey, I know people who will not by VWs because they were in bed with Hitler or Porsches, because Dr. Ferry Porsche was apparently a Nazi sympathizer.

I guess the question is, is there a stature of limitations on these things?

Oh dear, I have probably started a new thread.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Mar 22, 2009)

I think that the important thing to remember is that we are musicians, and as such we should remain more impartial towards the character of the composer and focus more on the music and the composition thereof.


----------



## IvanP (Mar 22, 2009)

Don't want to start a flame either, but if it wasn't for Mahler or Wagner Star Wars music would have sounded quite different...its imprenta is more than obvious IMO, no matter how far Williams goes beyond it, so there might be something in it that's worth learning from...

As berg told Gershwin, Music is music...and you don't have to love the man, only the music...if Baremboim managed to be at peace with Wagner's music, not necessarily with the man, why shouldn't you be able to acheive the same? 

Qualifying music that has its place in history as total crap, vomiting and things like that is a bit rudimentary for any Julliard music graduate IMHO.

Same with Bach, you are more than allowed to express your dislike in this forum, I'm still bored with some of his works, but trashing the man for the sake of it...dunno...

I don't think I'd be able to do it better than him ever in what would be today's baroque equivalent, but maybe you guys do...
in any case, it doesn't mean those composers don't deserve some "musical" respect. 

end of line


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 22, 2009)

If you really dislike a composer, why hold it back. Just support it with your opinions and to me that seems legit.

I am pretty sure it would have been better for history as a whole if Wagner never existed. 

Anyway my favorite composers of the hour are Beethoven and Elgar.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Sun 22 Mar said:


> There is a big difference between not liking a composer's music and not respecting it.
> 
> For instance, I am not fond of listening to Tchaikovsky. Part of it is no doubt that he is the most performed composer and over-exposed but a lot of it is that the music is based from an aesthetic that does not appeal to me.
> 
> ...



Nice one Jay. I would classify Tchaikovsky my least liked composer (after Rachmaninov) too. For the same reason, sugary glut. But respect where it's due, he was a brilliant orchestrator and tunesmith as you say.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 22, 2009)

lee @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> For me, Mozart really moves me with his Requiem. But alot of his staccato-happy no surprise-earcandy I just cant seem to enjoy. It´s too easy to predict, I think.
> 
> Sometimes music that´s not too simple to understand (where I couldnt directly "see" the notes/harmonies/intervals in my head while listening) is the music I find myself being attracted to. Or perhaps in my case, I appretiate music that has a good balance of "easy listening elements" and harmonic/other surprises, beyond *my* imagination. Then it becomes a challenge for my brain to listen and analyze/be overwhelmed by the structures, harmonies, melodies, sounds, etc.
> 
> ...



Nice!

The second one? Well it helps a lot to know what it's about. :wink: And it works!.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

mikebarry @ Sun 22 Mar said:


> No i was being really serious I hate Mahler, he seems to meander ad meander. Since this is all about opinions I am just being honest, no need to flame, just my opinion. But yes i would almost rather listen to any other composer then to sit through a Mahler symphony.
> 
> I hate Wagner mostly for political reasons, especially after reading a recent Hitler biography. This man was pure scum and was Hitler's greatest hero.



Yep, Wagner was a racist, nationalist scumbag! But even jews (Mahler and Schoenberg) are unable to ignore his musical output. A lot of visual artists were paedophiles. Welcome to the artworld.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

TheoKrueger @ Sun 22 Mar said:


> I think that the important thing to remember is that we are musicians, and as such we should remain more impartial towards the character of the composer and focus more on the music and the composition thereof.



+ 1 (does this mean I agree with you? I hope so, because I do).


----------



## lee (Mar 22, 2009)

Fernando Warez @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> lee @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Then there´s music that is not easy listening at all, BUT can be inspiring, enjoyable, and really give me an emotional WOW-feeling. Like Penderecki:
> ...



Yes, just hearing that piece not knowing the title might not impress people as much as when you understand what the composer is trying to "tell".

/Johnny


----------



## TheoKrueger (Mar 22, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> TheoKrueger @ Sun 22 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the important thing to remember is that we are musicians, and as such we should remain more impartial towards the character of the composer and focus more on the music and the composition thereof.
> ...



Hehe, yeap 

Thanks,
Theo.


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 22, 2009)

The folks who admire 'everything' are the same folks who create terrible art and don't recognize it as such. They are also the folks who work the least...or not at all, and complain the most about society not recognizing their genius (whether outwardly or internally).

The greats absolutely recognize(d) 'terrible', what THEY believed to be terrible. Yes, subjective. This is what allowed them to move beyond it in their own work.

The threshold must be set by first calibrating the internal barometer as to what is GREAT but also as to what is TERRIBLE. The more at odds the two are, the more room one deciphers in which growth may be pursued objectively. 

If the greats did NOT have an extremely high threshold as to where 'terrible' resides, they would have been satisfied with their own work much earlier on in their careers, whereby they would have plateaued never reaching the heights they did. Clearly.

One can respect an individual's efforts without admiring the results. At the same time, it really is only about the results...which, clearly, yes...it's subjective. That much is blatantly obvious. Having said that, there has got to be an Ultimate Truth out there in the universe about art that we've yet to decipher. This illusiveness is what (I believe) allows the majority of mankind to agree, or not, as to the creative value a work intrinsically possesses.

I've heard far too many phenomenal artists say to me, "one can learn far more from the art they consider to be terrible than the art they consider to be genius".

It's always clear why something is GREAT, it's not always clear why something is terrible, or mediocre, or just ok, etc. The irony is perhaps that even when we recognize greatness we sure as hell have a hard time matching it. Obviously that is not the only sort of lesson to seek out. 

Agreed, grow up! Or not.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 22, 2009)

mikebarry @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> If you really dislike a composer, why hold it back. Just support it with your opinions and to me that seems legit.
> 
> I am pretty sure it would have been better for history as a whole if Wagner never existed.
> 
> Anyway my favorite composers of the hour are Beethoven and Elgar.



Mike I was not trying to flame you, but the way your expressed your opinion seemed more like a proclamation which is a little one dimensional. I don't care for any Stravinsky much prefering Prokofiev but I would never dismiss Igor's importance in the development of orchestral music, just like Mahler's expanded sense of harmony originated by Wagner helped usher in the modern era with Schoenberg, Webern and Berg (not counting zemlinsky who was more of a contemporary). Mahler's adagios are some of the most beautiful works I have ever heard. And his Song of the Earth has a definite structure to it. It may sound as though it is meandering but it isn't.

As for Elgar, I also think he's written some of the most beautiful works in history. The Nimbrod mvmt from his Enigma Variations is moving beyond words as is his Cello Concerto.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 22, 2009)

Well let's see...

Schoenberg
Boulez
Matias Pintcher (some good orchestration techniques though)
Milton Babbit (love him as a person though)
Stockhausen
most Schnittke but i like alot of his gestures
Most Carter

Anything in that realm.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 22, 2009)

dcoscina @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> I don't care for any Stravinsky



da fuck?!


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

Evan Gamble @ Sun 22 Mar said:


> Well let's see...
> 
> Schoenberg
> Boulez
> ...



Yeah, I forgot about him. Elliot Carter's absolute poo, isn't he?


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 22, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> Evan Gamble @ Sun 22 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > Well let's see...
> ...



I LOVE Elliot Carter. But my favorite of the so-called "avant garde" composers is Luciano Berio. His piece "Circles", based on a poem by E.E. Cummings is one of the most memorable pieces I have ever heard, with its wonderful use of percussion, harp, and sprect-spiel. (sp?)


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

Gerhard Stabler is the king of avant-garde. I would have poo-pooed him as well, until I did a workshop with him and found him to be a genius in the making. An amazing character. Stockhausen's had his moments as well, unlike John Cage. What a twit he was.


----------



## kgdrum (Mar 24, 2009)

dcoscina @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> 
> 
> > mikebarry @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> ...




+1 you might not like Wagner ,Mahler,or Bach but they are *GREAT COMPOSERS*

the subject is kind of silly,we are talking about talents that are listened to and studied in every conservatory in the western world.
each of these composers have their own style and originality.
They have had more recordings and performances of their music than all of the posters on this board collectively will probably ever have and someone has the audacity to say these guys suck ? :roll: 
not trying to start a flame war but,lets hear some compositions that put Bach,Mahler or Wagner to shame from one of these internet pundits who think only they know quality. :shock:


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 24, 2009)

kgdrum @ Tue 24 Mar said:


> dcoscina @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> ...



Ouch! Hit me baby!


----------



## lux (Mar 24, 2009)

i think this is a thread about what you like or dislike to listen to. It makes perfectly sense to me.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 24, 2009)

lux @ Tue 24 Mar said:


> i think this is a thread about what you like or dislike to listen to. It makes perfectly sense to me.



+1 _*And*_ ........... Cliff Richard has had more recordings, releases and no 1s than any of us put together, and most other recording artists, come to think of it.

So I'm going to stick my neck out and boldly declare that, I am more musically talented than he is.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 24, 2009)

I can never concentrate on Berlioz. I have friends who count him among their favourites, but whenever I start to listen to him, I start to think about whether the brush in the back of the house needs trimming...

I sometimes feel like a Philistine when this happens, but having been boiled and sauteed through Symphonie Fantastique at A-level in excruciating detail, it's hard to say I don't get it because of ignorance.

And I am afraid that there are many composers held in reverence by the canon whose exalted position baffles me, or, by contrast, whose reputation seems built on material -- like the serial work of Schoenberg -- that I don't enjoy at all, even as a maths excercise, but whose other works (in this case, Verklärte Nacht) I find absolutely ravishing. I love Berg, but don't really enjoy much of Webern or Schoenberg, whose musical compatriots I am told he is.

So, without denigrating them, I'd say I just don't enjoy them very much. 

Enjoyment, I think, is an interesting question in this context. It's possible to argue that a composer is "good" in some absolute sense, even if appreciated only by a small, elite coterie. In the long run, however voluminous the arguments may be for a composer's place in history or his / her greatness, if people simply don't enjoy hearing the music, it seems that it gradually will slip away and lie forgotten and dead. Milton, in contemplating the composition of Paradise Lost, wrote, "I wanted to leave something so written to aftertimes, as they should not willingly let it die." 

So, if a poet as potent as Milton can imply that a historic legacy was important to him, I don't mind saying that I agree -- I think if a work is so unloved by and abstruse to the concert-going public that nobody much wants to hear it then maybe it's not so "great" after all, even recognising that this may, to some extent, eliminate works arguably intellectually great or, on the other hand, mean that pop singers of no particular intellectual gift could for a time gain a patina of "greatness" based on at least this single criterion.

But anyway, perhaps what makes a work of art great might be a nice secondary topic.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 24, 2009)

I agree with what Lux said, history has proven who is a composer to be remembered and who is to be forgotten. The rest is just our opinions. I have never understood the argument of you can't criticize unless you are as good or better them someone at something. It's easy enough to admit that Marty Broduer is a better netminder then Dan Cloutier without playing hockey, even though both are WAY better then me.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 24, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> Marty Broduer is a better netminder then Dan Cloutier without playing hockey, even though both are WAY better then me.



Don't sell yourself short Mike... Dan's nickname was "Beach Ball" in LA.... that was one of the worst trades in our history... Watch out for the Kings next year :wink: :twisted:


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 24, 2009)

JohnG @ Tue 24 Mar said:


> I can never concentrate on Berlioz. I have friends who count him among their favourites, but whenever I start to listen to him, I start to think about whether the brush in the back of the house needs trimming...
> 
> I sometimes feel like a Philistine when this happens, but having been boiled and sauteed through Symphonie Fantastique at A-level in excruciating detail, it's hard to say I don't get it because of ignorance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 24, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> I agree with what Lux said, history has proven who is a composer to be remembered and who is to be forgotten. The rest is just our opinions. I have never understood the argument of you can't criticize unless you are as good or better them someone at something. It's easy enough to admit that Marty Broduer is a better netminder then Dan Cloutier without playing hockey, even though both are WAY better then me.



Maybe so, but I will take the opinion on a goalie from someone who has played hockey a lot more seriously than one who just watches it on TV.

And there is a big difference between saying one goalie is better than another than listing a specific successful goalie and saying he sucks.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 24, 2009)

Jay,

Obviously you have never seen Cloutier play.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 24, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> (...)I have never understood the argument of you can't criticize unless you are as good or better them someone at something. (...)



I fully agree, but your attempt at criticizing - or expressing an opinion - would be waaaaaay more impressive if, at the very least, you know what you are talking about. I mean, it's nigh impossible to talk more musical nonsense than saying that Wagner makes you vomit and, in the same breath, claiming that Elgar is among your favourite composers. Such sillyness only shows that you don't understand the first thing about either composer. Unless, of course, you only like Elgar for purely emotional reasons - which, although understandable, is as superficial as it gets.
Wagner may have been an unpleasant human being, yes, but he is unquestionnably the most important composer of late 19th century - no less an intelligence than W.H. Auden described Richard Wagner as "perhaps the greatest genius that ever lived" - and, as such, equally as important in any subsequent century (and not just for purely musical reasons). And Elgar, Elgar is Wagner Englishized. Elgar without Wagner is simply unthinkable.

In all seriousness, read a bit about Wagner first (and try to listen respectfully and unbiased to his music) before amplifying narrowminded views. You'll find that the 'fascist scumbag' charicature which is always drawn of him, is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge and terribly unjust simplification - possibly more wrong and equally fascistoid in fact as the target of its accusation.

_


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 24, 2009)

I just want to add to further prove my point.

Using that logic how do you explain coaches who have never played but excel in judging players? How do yo explain maestros who don't compose? etc... etc.. You can still get it without doing it. 

But none of this matters since this thread is all about opinions.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 24, 2009)

Please... I didn't say Wagner makes me barf I said Mahler does.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 24, 2009)

You said, and I quote, that _"Wagner sucks"_ and that you're pretty sure _"it would have been better for history as a whole if Wagner never existed"_.

You know, without Wagner, filmmusic as we know it, wouldn't exist. It just wouldn't. Nor would this forum. (But maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing judging by all the depressingly moronic drivel that's recently been posted on these pages.) 
Without Wagner, no CineSamples. Think about it. You owe the man. In more ways than you can imagine.

Wagner, almost singlehandedly, created (or paved the way for) ALL of 20th century music. It really is quite difficult to overestimate the man's importance.

_


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 24, 2009)

> I hate Wagner purely for social and humane reasons.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 24, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> *Strauss'* "_Blue Danube_" ... very little emotional content



_What_?



> and hardly any intellectual content.



By far more than anything that I have ever heard from you, my friend. You are crawling on a very thin twig here.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 24, 2009)

mike, I know it looks like we're ganging up on you here but the problem is not so much your right to your music preferences- it's how you are articulating it. It's disrespectful to music itself not to mention the composers in question.


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Mar 24, 2009)

Well, the same thing could be said for the Nazi's making major advancements in recording technology so Hitler's speeches could be clearly heard by the masses.

Do we owe the Nazi's a single ounce of gratitude for making 'our' world better?

For social and humane reasons - I would without a doubt say no
Who on earth is going to tell me I owe them respect?

I don't see Wagner as being any different.
Any time I think of Wagner's operas, I think of all the horrible pain, suffering, and hardship it represents. All the people who were forced to listen to it while standing in line to die.

This is just my opinion, people can love his stuff all they want, doesn't mean I have to either.

Besides, he didn't make any contribution for piano, and that's what floats my boat from the greats anyways


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 24, 2009)

JohnG @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> I can never concentrate on Berlioz.



You're not alone. Mendelssohn thought he had no talent at all. I tend to agree. Berlioz was untrained as a composer and unlike _say_ Elgar, it really shows.


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 24, 2009)

I'm getting as much satisfaction from reading this thread as I do watching a fashion show. 

With so much to be done musically.....this topic is...uh...frustratingly difficult to stomach.

But I suppose it's as inevitable as "the meaning of Life" question. But ,for me personally, I've always had the uneasy feeling that one isnt living if that question needs to be asked.

I will say though, It's never too late to be disgusted by anti-semitism .

Thank heaven, God or whatever-music can take care of itself and ultimately can be separated from mankinds massive failures.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 24, 2009)

dcoscina @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> mike, I know it looks like we're ganging up on you here but the problem is not so much your right to your music preferences- it's how you are articulating it. It's disrespectful to music itself not to mention the composers in question.



How do I disrespect someone by not liking their music? People are mentioning Bach and Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky as composers they dislike. I am not insulted by this. Surely any musician would agree that Bach has had a greater impact then nearly any other musician in history. I love their music but I can see where they come from. 

I think I have proven my point with Wagner, but I just dislike Mahler - and it's not from lack of study or listening. I have given him His equal share but the music doesn't click with me, in fact it sounds bad to me. I dislike him, as the thread goes.

Ps for the people who don't like Rachmaninoff try the vespers mass.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 24, 2009)

Symphonic Dances was one of the last things Rachmaninoff wrote and is quite aggressive (and cool).

Mike, disliking a composer's music was never the issue. 

Bach was a pivotal figure in the history of western music. So was Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Mahler, Debussy, Bartok, Brahms, and Wagner.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 24, 2009)

This is like the angriest VI thread ever. Lol.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 24, 2009)

JonFairhurst @ Tue 24 Mar said:


> mikebarry @ Tue Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> > ...but I just dislike Mahler - and it's not from lack of study or listening. I have given him His equal share but the music doesn't click with me, in fact it sounds bad to me.
> ...



How come there are people on this forum that can say that 'Wagner sucks', 'Mahler makes me vomit' and worst of all, that 'Sibelius' music is simple and predictable'? And when I just happen to mention that the "Blue Danube" has little emotional and intelligent content (in comparison to the music of his contemporaries), then I get warned of 'treading on a very thin twig'? I wasn't even talking about the composer himself, I was talking about one of his pieces.

Jon, by the way, if you think Sibelius is simple and predictable, that's fair enough if that is your opinion, but have a listen to his sixth symphony. It might change your mind. I find Sibelius very relaxing and atmospheric (what you probably call simplistic), but his sixth symphony is a different beast. Anyway, he can't be that predictable. He changes tempo every 7 or 8 bars or so. It's a living hell for conductors. It's well known, that is.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 24, 2009)

Maybe it's because you can dish it out but can't take it?

You don't seem to have any problem insinuating that those who don't like Sibelius do so in ignorance of his sixth symphony and its well-known, frequent tempo changes, but you bristle at a riposte to your bagging one of the best-loved pieces of all time, viz. Blue Danube lacking emotional or intellectual content.


----------



## IvanP (Mar 24, 2009)

JohnG @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> Dave Connor @ 24th March 2009 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



They told me in school that Bach influenced his son, CPE, also known as "the great Bach", who spawned in the empfindsamkeit era a batch of the next generation of classical composers, amongst them, Haydn and Mozart (who also studied with another Bach's son, Johann Christian, in London). Haydn influenced Mozart and Beethoven. All three had scores from JS Bach and it is documented that once in a while they teemed up with other composers to play some scores, amongst them the well tempered Clavier. Mozart's wife, Constance, told him to compose some fugues after he kept playing The well tempered Clavier. Mozart himself told that " this (JS Bach) is at last! a composer we can learn something from!" Beethoven also used Bach's fugues to learn for his own...the "school fugue" wasn't invented until some years later, after analyzing tons of fugues from composers like Haendel and, of course, Bach. 
Bartok and Ligeti are known to be heavily influenced by Bach's knowledge of counterpoint and they are considered later followers of Bach's school. 
Hindemith's Ludus Tonalis and Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues drink directly from Bach's works. You will also find Bach's imprint in Argentina's own Piazzolla.
JS Bach also influenced a huge set of musicians and theoricians, among them Theodor Adorno, Alan Forte, and others. 
If you have read Schoenberg's preliminary exercices in counterpoint, you will find how much he owes to JS Bach's own works. In fact he uses a lot of Bach's techniques of motive development for his serial works. Same as Berg, Webern, or Milton Babitt, to name a few. 
JS Bach was also known by his ability to tune in an equal tempered custom scale. He encoded it in his drawings in the Well Tempered Clavier and has been recently discovered how he got the mathematics within. He showed a very intelligent understanding of acoustic principles and the acoustic series which have been later used by spectralists composers.
Bach also composed with numbers; it is no secret that his name is encoded in some of his works, you can read an analysis of his last work, a chorale, which he composed blind and hours before his death.
You will find Bach's name in some Schumann's countermotives in piano pieces...
If you ever get married, it is very likely that one of the pieces that will be played will by by Bach. Yes, that Gounod's Ave Maria is 90 %'s Bach's 1st prelude. If you have earned money by playing that in a casiotone keyboard, you also owe to Bach  


One of the reasons that JS Bach's works got "lost" is because his older son, Friedemann lost a good part of his work, and also because at that time, in what was supposed to be Germany, a composer didn't make a living of the scores he sold to publishers...that was probably started by Telemann (Tafelmusik, 1733) so probably Bach wasn't as interested in that as in developping his craft

well, I could go on for hours with each of the composers who survived history...


----------



## IvanP (Mar 24, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> This is like the angriest VI thread ever. Lol.



LOL o-[][]-o


----------



## JohnG (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi Ivan,

I didn't say that Bach had _no_ influence. However, I had never heard anyone say, as Mike did, that: 

"Surely any musician would agree that Bach has had a greater impact then [sic] nearly any other musician in history." 

If, by qualifying his statement by saying "nearly any other" Mike means that, in the pantheon of "most influential," Bach ranks right behind, say, Beethoven and Wagner (and maybe there are some other guys in the running, like Palestrina) then ok. Otherwise, I guess I guess I'd say that Bach has been _among_ the influences of a great many composers. No doubt. He's big!

Moreover, if one is extending the argument about the "Bach influence" to second order influences -- in other words, arguing that those influenced by Beethoven were indirectly influenced by Bach (because Bach influenced Beethoven in the first place) -- that might be viewed as a long reach, but I'm not sure there's much point in disputing it. Either way -- I love Bach and am happy that he's considered one of the greats by most lovers of Western music.

However, thanks for reminding me of some of those threads of influence via CPE. Haven't been through some of those since A-level!


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 24, 2009)

JohnG @ Tue 24 Mar said:


> Maybe it's because you can dish it out but can't take it?
> 
> You don't seem to have any problem insinuating that those who don't like Sibelius do so in ignorance of his sixth symphony and its well-known, frequent tempo changes, but you bristle at a riposte to your bagging one of the best-loved pieces of all time, viz. Blue Danube lacking emotional or intellectual content.



I actually think that there is more to it than that, John. As I'm sure you're well aware. Sad, but true.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 24, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> ...I find Sibelius very relaxing and atmospheric (what you probably call simplistic), but his sixth symphony is a different beast. Anyway, he can't be that predictable. He changes tempo every 7 or 8 bars or so. It's a living hell for conductors. It's well known, that is.


I'll check it out. Like I wrote, I *want* to like Sibelius, but I have yet to make a positive connection with his music. 

In fact, one day at lunch I was listening to our local classical station. They played a piece that I hadn't heard before, but disliked, and I said to myself, "I bet it's Sibelius", and I was right! But it might be that the local DJ picks Sibelius works liking exactly the characteristics that I dislike.

Still, I feel bad not caring for Finland's national treasure...


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 24, 2009)

Thonex @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> "You don't need to be a farmer to know when a strawberry is rotten."
> 
> :mrgreen:
> 
> Speaking of Cloutier... did you hear he tried to kill himself? He stepped in front of a bus but it went between his legs. 0oD



Now THAT was fuck'n funny... :lol: 

I'll have to pick up this thread later...


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 24, 2009)

JonFairhurst @ Wed 25 Mar said:


> alphabetgreen @ Tue Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> > ...I find Sibelius very relaxing and atmospheric (what you probably call simplistic), but his sixth symphony is a different beast. Anyway, he can't be that predictable. He changes tempo every 7 or 8 bars or so. It's a living hell for conductors. It's well known, that is.
> ...



I really hope you enjoy it. But it will be understandable if you don't, which is the reason I started this thread (although some are complaining about it, it's still going strong...lol). Arthur Butterworth (famous English composer), was very universal and cosmopolitan in his taste for western classical music (I know that sounds contradictory: 'cosmopolitan' and 'western' but bear with me). He had to be, as a composition tutor, he had to cope with the various styles that he would assess from composers that were taught by him (including me). However, he had one extreme dislike and one almost obsessional favourite (he named his house and pets after the composer's works). And they were Mahler and Sibelius (respectively).


----------



## IvanP (Mar 25, 2009)

JohnG @ Wed Mar 25 said:


> Hi Ivan,
> 
> I didn't say that Bach had _no_ influence. However, I had never heard anyone say, as Mike did, that:
> 
> ...



No problem  If you like CPE, you might want to check his Magnificat.... WOW think Bach + Haydn and you'll get and idea

Btw, I forgot mentioning that JS Bach was probably a sexual maniac since he had the time to do around 30 children or so =o


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2009)

I think it would be helpful if people named specific works. Stravinsky for example has three very distinct periods. His middle period Neo- Classical has lots of incredible stuff that is miles from his early famous ballets.


Elliot Carter has a wide range as well. His 1st symphony is very Copeland-esque and his Variations for Orchestra very modern. Both are just great and quite different from each other as well as far different from his later works.


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 25, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Wed Mar 25 said:


> I think it would be helpful if people named specific works. Stravinsky for example has three very distinct periods. His middle period Neo- Classical has lots of incredible stuff that is miles from his early famous ballets.
> 
> 
> Elliot Carter has a wide range as well. His 1st symphony is very Copeland-esque and his Variations for Orchestra very modern. Both are just great and quite different from each other as well as far different from his later works.



right. I like where this is going-how a composer grows and changes over a lifetime.

Quote Ivan"Btw, I forgot mentioning that JS Bach was probably a sexual maniac since he had the time to do around 30 children or so "

I think you mean he _fathered_ 30 children. Saying someone is a sex maniac that "did" 30 children makes him ...well... a...uh....priest? ; )


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2009)

PDQ Bach from the really low baroque period is also great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Q._Bach

http://www.schickele.com/pdqbio.htm


----------



## bryla (Mar 25, 2009)

Saying someone is a sex maniac because we know he had sex at least 30 times in his life is...... a virgin...


----------



## IvanP (Mar 25, 2009)

bryla @ Wed Mar 25 said:


> Saying someone is a sex maniac because we know he had sex at least 30 times in his life is...... a virgin...



wow! you had more??


----------



## IvanP (Mar 25, 2009)

artsoundz @ Wed Mar 25 said:


> I think you mean he _fathered_ 30 children. Saying someone is a sex maniac that "did" 30 children makes him ...well... a...uh....priest? ; )



Well...he spent all day in the church teaching the boys.... o


----------



## lux (Mar 25, 2009)

To me listening to bach is an exercise of discipline, not a fun experience at all. Sometimes i'm just not disciplined enough. I have a very istinctive and fun approach to music. Every time i have a disciplined approach is when i'm trying to learn something. In this last case i dont choose to listen, but i need to. Thats the case with Bach. No fun, big respect. 

But i'm still convinced that music never neeeds to become a painful experience. Thats one of the reasons so many teenagers are out of orchestral music. Too many people gets them classical music as a form of punishment, avoiding them to choose, judge, like or dislike.

I remember when i was taken on a very important classical guitar teacher. I was about eight. I remember him telling my parents that he wouldnt have us touching a guitar for two years because we needed just theory for that time. After five lessons i was expelled because i was having all boys laughin out loud all the time. I still think it as a very funny experience. I still have a smile on my face when dealing with music, always.

Not being able to distinguish between fun to listen and respect is, in my very honest opinion, a big cultural mistake, and leads usually to the worst results.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2009)

Regarding Bach's influence, it is indeed huge.

It's a misnomer that he was ever forgotten. Only that he went out of style in a way when his sons and Mozart brought forth the _Gallant_ style of the Classical period.

It is not very well known that when Mozart encountered J.S. Bach's music he was fairly undone as a composer and completely reevaluated his own music. A sort of creative crisis if you will, brought on by encountering a level of genius in composition that seemed to dwarf his own abilities. His later works show tons of contrapuntal textures due to Bach's influence.

Beethoven's early works show Mozart and Haydn's influence followed by his own style in which he expanded both form and content (and music itself.) However in his late works he too turns to Bach with fugues and other highly contrapuntal textures.

Keep in mind that all counterpoint after Bach sounds like a simplified version of the great master's profound insight into the essence and nature of music.

Few people are up for _greatest musician that ever lived_. It's probably either Bach or Beethoven or maybe Mozart. You wouldn't want to be in a keyboard improvisation contest with any of those guys. The content, playing ability and execution (criteria for evaluation) would melt even the best. You would hear great music composed and performed perfectly out of thin air.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2009)

I just don't have that compartment - the one that makes listening to Bach not fun.


----------



## lux (Mar 25, 2009)

whats a compartment?


----------



## CFDG (Mar 25, 2009)

http://marcelrouste.com/Ferrier.mp3

If there's something wrong about Malher, it's obviously not coming from the source. 

Christian


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 25, 2009)

lux @ Wed Mar 25 said:


> To me listening to bach is an exercise of discipline, not a fun experience at all. Sometimes i'm just not disciplined enough. I have a very istinctive and fun approach to music. Every time i have a disciplined approach is when i'm trying to learn something. In this last case i dont choose to listen, but i need to. Thats the case with Bach. No fun, big respect.
> 
> But i'm still convinced that music never neeeds to become a painful experience. Thats one of the reasons so many teenagers are out of orchestral music. Too many people gets them classical music as a form of punishment, avoiding them to choose, judge, like or dislike.
> 
> ...



right on. 

what a TERRIBLE teacher and you were lucky to get away from him. as if theory came first...what a noob......

btw=compartment refers to compartmentalizing a thought- having a box to put a thought/subject in which sort of suggests the "box" prevents one from letting that thought grow and change. 

I suspect you had someone or an experience that "taught" you to take Bach too seriously-Your teacher for example- the "rules" screwed you in this case.SO common in music and my biggest pet peeve.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 25, 2009)

Mahler is a huge influence on both modern film and classical music. 

Do you like the closing phrase in the Raiders of the Lost Ark trumpet theme? (da da dah da, da dah da, da dah da...) That's pretty much note for note from Mahler's 3rd.

Like Goldsmith's gorgeous haunting music when they're at Yellowstone (or wherever) when Kirk is climbing the rocks in Star Trek V? That is pure Mahler.

Like Shostakovich? Very heavily criticized for suffering from _Mahleria._

Like Prokoviev's cool sus chords so cleverly orchestrated and highly distinctive? That's Mahler.

Mahler even perhaps more than Ravel or Rimsky Korsakov is the father of modern harmony and orchestration. The first truly modern composer. Strauss heavily influenced the very early film guys like Steiner and Korngold but you don't hear that kind of music in film today. Mahler's sound is still everywhere.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 25, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Thu 26 Mar said:


> Mahler is a huge influence on both modern film and classical music.
> 
> Do you like the closing phrase in the Raiders of the Lost Ark trumpet theme? (da da dah da, da dah da, da dah da...) That's pretty much note for note from Mahler's 3rd.
> 
> ...



All true. Plus, the second Viennese school all took up where Mahler left off.

Besides, how can anyone not listen to the final fifteen minutes of the 'Resurrection' symphony and be completely knocked out by the guy?


----------



## re-peat (Mar 26, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> Mahler even perhaps more than Ravel or Rimsky Korsakov is the father of modern harmony and orchestration.


I would like to argue that the foundation of 'modern orchestration' was laid by Berlioz. Megalomaniac, erratic and troubled composer he may have been, with an ego the size of Greenland, but he's nonetheless responsible for what may well be the biggest leap forward when it comes to enriching the orchestral palette and introducing loads of completely new orchestral colours.
It never ceases to amaze me that there's only a five year gap between Beethoven's last symphony and Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. The difference in orchestral texture between these two works is simply baffling - as if not just 5 years, but many decades had passed in between. Just imagine the shock that must have gone through the Symphonie's first audience - an audience raised on the relatively restrained sounds of the classic composers - upon hearing the stunningly new, truly mad and bizarre sonics of the Witches' Sabbath. 
No matter what the verdict is on the merits of Berlioz the composer, I really do consider that fourth movement of his Symphonie Fantastique to be a key moment in the history and development of Western music.

_


----------



## lux (Mar 26, 2009)

artsoundz @ Wed Mar 25 said:


> right on.
> 
> what a TERRIBLE teacher and you were lucky to get away from him. as if theory came first...what a noob......
> 
> ...



thanks for the explaination 

well, probably my example was a bit misleading, i intended it as related to the fact i "should" like bach at every cost. In the specific with Bach perhaps is a matter of lnguage spoken, the formal quality of music that era just doesnt fit my "fun" compartment. I have a few exceptions strangely, one of those being Pergolesi which i'm a good fan of. 

in general i would say i'm not the perfect listener for classical music.


----------



## paoling (Mar 26, 2009)

Well, let's see if I can make you like Bach a bit more... 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVODxskoHFQ
Leonard Bernstein with Glenn Gould
(two terrific musicians 

For me in some cases, well written Baroque music it's like progressive rock music, but written better and for different instruments. But there's all the same enjoyment.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 26, 2009)

josejherring @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> Now if you want dull and lifeless french music, Cesar Franck is my least favorite of the master composers.



José, do yourself a BIG favour and try to pick up Franck's 'Variations Symphoniques'. Here's a true work of genius, seriously. Sparkling with invention, gorgeous melodies and without a single boring bar - flawless from start to finish. It really is an amazing and quite unique work.
And another very satisfying one, in my opinion anyway, is 'Les Djinns', a slightly more conventional symphonic poem perhaps, and thus showcasing some of that genre's less appealing features, but still containing many, many moments of beauty and remarkable inspiration. Really, there's nothing dull or lifeless about either of these works. In fact, I always believed that, if Franck had combined both works - they're both for piano and orchestra - and added a complementary middle movement, he would have had one of the major pianoconcertos of the 19th century on his hands, certainly one of the most beautiful.

_


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 26, 2009)

lux @ Thu 26 Mar said:


> artsoundz @ Wed Mar 25 said:
> 
> 
> > right on.
> ...



If you're not the perfect listener for classical music, and you would like to give Bach another try, there's always Jacques Louissier.


----------



## lux (Mar 26, 2009)

paoling @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> Well, let's see if I can make you like Bach a bit more...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVODxskoHFQ
> Leonard Bernstein with Glenn Gould
> (two terrific musicians
> ...



This is nice Paolo, thanks for pointing me to it.

Hi Simon, thanks, I didnt know about Jacques Louissier, i'll be listening to it

Luca


----------



## CFDG (Mar 26, 2009)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Mar 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Now if you want dull and lifeless french music, Cesar Franck is my least favorite of the master composers.
> ...


You also need to listen to Frank's _sonata for violin in A_, a truly joyful, expressive piece. Perlman/Ashkenazy version is excellent (polygram).

Christian


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 26, 2009)

As I remember, I always found Hugo Wolf and his sodding Leider a bit trying. I had to analyse his harmony at university. I wasn't impressed, to be honest. I can't say that he'd like mine either.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 26, 2009)

Edited because of OT -> PM


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 26, 2009)

This thread reminds me on principal of who is a better composer thread: Goldsmith or Williams.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 26, 2009)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Mahler even perhaps more than Ravel or Rimsky Korsakov is the father of modern harmony and orchestration.
> ...



I don't have a problem with Berlioz having laid a _foundation_ for a larger orchestra and even new school of orchestration. History is pretty clear on that.

My point is that the Mahler orchestra is almost interchangeable with the big Hollywood orchestra both with instrumentation and very often harmony and style.

Berlioz to me is actually the father of cartoon music with all his special effects and simulation of nature. I not only don't mean that as a put down but in fact high praise because I love that genre' and those guys stoled a ton from Berlioz.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 26, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Thu 26 Mar said:


> re-peat @ Thu Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Thu Mar 26 said:
> ...



I was always fascinated by the 'Symphonie Fantastique'. Not just the programmatic tricks and lush orchestration, but most of all, the strength of the 'idee fixe'. I've never known a tune like it. It's one of those I wish that I had written. 8)


----------



## re-peat (Mar 26, 2009)

Still not entirely with you, Dave, I'm affraid. I still believe that the modern kodachrome and ultra-dynamic orchestra was put on the map by Berlioz. I mean, after Berlioz had had his way with the orchestra, simply anything became possible and all subsequent advances seem much more superficial to me than the revolutionary changes which he brought about.
To me, the Symphonie Fantastique (especially its 4th movement) really is the Sgt. Pepper's of classical music: the work that in one great unprecedented swoop opened all the doors - in this case: to the orchestra's near infinite sonic riches - for others to step through and discover whatever their talents allowed them to discover. What Mahler, Richard Strauss, Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy, Ravel, Respighi or Stravinsky have contributed since to the art of orchestration, might be described as plucking the fruits of the trees which Berlioz had planted.

_


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 26, 2009)

lux @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> paoling @ Thu Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let's see if I can make you like Bach a bit more...
> ...



Hey Luca- So what about this-remember "Switched on Bach"? Walter Carlos(now wendy). I LOVE that record and think it's actually a very important recording considering what we do.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 26, 2009)

[


























quote="Dave Connor @ Thu 26 Mar, 2009 18:47"]


Ashermusic @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> I think Ravel's "Daphnis and Chloe" is pretty much the primer on Hollywood orchestration.



Sure, that gets referenced a lot. It premiered a year after Mahler's death. You could really go back and forth between those two composers as far as influence both in jazz/pop arranging and film.[/quote]

Don't Stravinsky and Shostakovich get a look in? I mean, Stravinsky was a champion of the jazz idiom, and Shostakovich wrote for countless films, his most famous one being "The Gadfly", a great piece with some very memorable tunes. (One of them was actually plagiarised years later).


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 26, 2009)

re-peat @ Thu 26 Mar said:


> Still not entirely with you, Dave, I'm affraid. I still believe that the modern kodachrome and ultra-dynamic orchestra was put on the map by Berlioz. I mean, after Berlioz had had his way with the orchestra, simply anything became possible and all subsequent advances seem much more superficial to me than the revolutionary changes which he brought about.
> To me, the Symphonie Fantastique (especially its 4th movement) really is the Sgt. Pepper's of classical music: the work that in one great unprecedented swoop opened all the doors - in this case: to the orchestra's near infinite sonic riches - for others to step through and discover whatever their talents allowed them to discover. What Mahler, Richard Strauss, Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy, Ravel, Respighi or Stravinsky have contributed since to the art of orchestration, might be described as plucking the fruits of the trees which Berlioz had planted.
> 
> _



Re-peat, that's the second time you've mentioned the fourth movement in all its splendour now, but if I remember correctly, the 4th movement was very short and just illustrated the 'March au le Supplice' (or something like that 'march to the scaffold'). I think you are referring to the fifth movement, 'The Witches Sabbath', dancing on his grave. After all, one astronomical introduction that he made (and was copied very successfully by Holst on Mars, The Planets) was 'Col Legno Bastute', hitting the violin strings with one's bow.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 26, 2009)

The fifth, yes. Sorry about that and thanks for the correction.

_


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 26, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> Don't Stravinsky and Shostakovich get a look in?



Yes to be sure. What's interesting is that Ravel heavily influenced Stravinsky (Igor calls Ravel is _musical uncle_ and Debussey his _musical father._) While Shostakovich probably Mahler's biggest admirer and emulator. Though both Stravinsky and Shostakovich have their own very clear voice and are singular composers.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 26, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Thu 26 Mar said:


> Well as I said I think you have it right that Berlioz got things going. My point is that if you look at the instrumentation of "Witches" you still have winds in pairs except for Bassoons (4.) He does expand the brass and percussion. But this is not the orchestra of say Star Wars et. al. As far as harmonic language in film in the 20th century it doesn't seem to me like it's Berlioz all over the place but Mahler, Copeland, Ravel, Debussy and Stravinsky. Which is my main point. Nonetheless the Dies Irae in the French horns from Fantastique shows up to great effect in JW's Close Encounters so your point is well taken.



Big orchestration is not just about quantity in numbers. It's also about technique and combination. Berlioz may not have used 90 or so musicians, but the few that he did use were given tasks that nobody had heard of. Col legno, anyone? A single bell reverbating on it's own. No other composer would have dared do what he did in those days.

As far as harmonic language goes, Mahler, Copeland, Ravel, Debussy and Stravinsky had a distinct chronological advantage over Berlioz. The 20th century was the perfect setting for polytonality, expressionism and irregular metres. Berlioz's intention was to make the music of his time evolve. He didn't want to be admitted into a lunatic asylum, which is probably what would have happened to him, had he started composing with tone rows and aleatoric gestures. Besides, the above composers were only able to take their harmonic language further as a result of Berlioz's progressions. It wasn't a question of how far you went, as much as it was about the fact that you could in the first place.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 26, 2009)

Don't get me started on Beethoven. He is the Colossus of all music. It's true the Romantic period begins with him but he really is sort of his own category and has remained modern with his timeless music. Everybody since has something of his in their music it seems.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 26, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Fri 27 Mar said:


> Don't get me started on Beethoven. He is the Colossus of all music. It's true the Romantic period begins with him but he really is sort of his own category and has remained modern with his timeless music. Everybody since has something of his in their music it seems.



It is true that the Romantic period began with his music, but he isn't a Romantic composer, nor a Classical Composer. He's in a league of his own. There should be a Beethoven period.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 26, 2009)

Anyone who barfs at Song of the Earth really worries me. It's one of the most evolved, relevant musical works in the history of music. And Mahler's command of the orchestra is second to none. I have studied the full score to this magnum opus for years and the detail and sonic complexity floor me. 

It does not meander at all either. Structurally, Mahler worked in broad strokes. By todays ADD populace, yeah, his pieces were long. But they had an architecture to them most certainly. And if one wants to hear Mahler in more succinct mode, try Kindertotenleider. Moving, direct, memorable.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 26, 2009)

I ask my self this often:

Why listen to any symphony at all when I could be listening to the Beethoven 9th? 
Why listen to any piano concerto when I have Beethoven 4 and Mozart 23.
Why listen to any mass when I have the C minor Mozart?
etc... 
I will never get sick of hearing these pieces and they give me greater enjoyment then any other piece in there class.

Mozart Bach and Beethoven are just so far ahead of everyone else, its kind of silly.


And of course Berlioz did not invent the dies irea, JW did not steal it from him lol. That's from the days of Gregorian Chant. 


Thanks for trying to convince me to like Mahler.....but it's not working, I never will. 
And for the record I actually fell asleep during a performance of the symphony fantastique and I dont like Sibellius. All of these composers lack something natural, it feels as if they are trying to hard. When Beethoven writes and or mozart or listz or chopin or shostakovitch or bartok or lutoswalski or paganinni etc.. it sounds as me as if they have something to say and a means to say it. 

But I had a professor at Eastmann who told me the Brahms of all people was the most overated composer of mankind - so I guess whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Mar 26, 2009)

> No Mihkel, there was another prehistoric guy, whooping up a tree. He was much better.



You should study the score of his Op. 187 for a hollow branch, two rocks and voice. The orchestration is outstanding.


----------



## IvanP (Mar 27, 2009)

Mihkel @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> > No Mihkel, there was another prehistoric guy, whooping up a tree. He was much better.
> 
> 
> 
> You should study the score of his Op. 187 for a hollow branch, two rocks and voice. The orchestration is outstanding.



Specially when the theme B, "the hungry tiger" comes in...the fugue that follows is impressive


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 27, 2009)

IvanP @ Fri 27 Mar said:


> Mihkel @ Fri Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > > No Mihkel, there was another prehistoric guy, whooping up a tree. He was much better.
> ...



I actually preferred opus 122. The decision to include his wife's fartiòå¤   šÊå¤   šÊå¤   šÊå¤   šÊå¤   šÊå¤


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Mar 27, 2009)

There. Thread turned from angry and serious to completely silly.

My work here is done.


----------



## IvanP (Mar 27, 2009)

Mihkel @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> There. Thread turned from angry and serious to completely silly.
> .



Oh... that's because we should think of your prehistoric quote as belonging to the serious side, shouldn't we? /\~O 

Btw, We just showed how to compose a three movement sonata. 

Or if this third part was the scherzo, we could go on for another allegro and do a symphony


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 27, 2009)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> Still not entirely with you, Dave, I'm affraid. I still believe that the modern kodachrome and ultra-dynamic orchestra was put on the map by Berlioz. I mean, after Berlioz had had his way with the orchestra, simply anything became possible and all subsequent advances seem much more superficial to me than the revolutionary changes which he brought about.
> To me, the Symphonie Fantastique (especially its 4th movement) really is the Sgt. Pepper's of classical music: the work that in one great unprecedented swoop opened all the doors - in this case: to the orchestra's near infinite sonic riches - for others to step through and discover whatever their talents allowed them to discover. What Mahler, Richard Strauss, Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy, Ravel, Respighi or Stravinsky have contributed since to the art of orchestration, might be described as plucking the fruits of the trees which Berlioz had planted.
> 
> _



I think there is a strong argument that the modern orchestra and orchestration is ushered in with "Symphony Fantastique" and so it is the progenitor, but the late great orchestrator (and teacher) Albert Harris, who orchestrated for EVERYBODY, told me that guys like him,Herbert Spencer, Alexander Corage, etc. used to get together when they were just starting out and ultimately they would always be talking about Ravel.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 27, 2009)

[quote:c74f803aa4="mikebarry @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:21 pm"]I ask my self this often:

Why listen to any symphony at all when I could be listening to the Beethoven 9th? 
Why listen to any piano concerto when I have Beethoven 4 and Mozart 23.
Why listen to any mass when I have the C minor Mozart?
etc... 
I will never get sick of hearing these pieces and they give me greater enjoyment then any other piece in there class.

Mozart Bach and Beethoven are just so far ahead of everyone else, its kind of silly.


And of course Berlioz did not invent the dies irea, JW did notòåº   šÍžåº   šÍŸåº   šÍ åº   šÍ¡åº   šÍ¢åº   šÍ£åº   šÍ¤åº   šÍ¥åº   šÍ¦åº   šÍ§åº   šÍ¨åº   šÍ©åº   šÍªåº   šÍ«åº   šÍ¬åº   šÍ­åº   šÍ®åº   šÍ¯åº   šÍ°åº   šÍ±åº   šÍ²åº   šÍ³åº   šÍ´åº   šÍµåº   šÍ¶åº   šÍ·åº   šÍ¸åº   šÍ¹åº   šÍºåº   šÍ»åº   šÍ¼å»   šÍ½å»   šÍ¾å»   šÍ¿å»   šÍÀå»   šÍÁå»   šÍÂå»   šÍÃå»   šÍÄå»   šÍÅå»   šÍÆå»   šÍÇå»   šÍÈå»   šÍÉå»   šÍÊå»   šÍËå»   šÍÌå»   šÍÍå»   šÍÎå»   šÍÏå»   šÍÐå»   šÍÑå»   šÍÒå»   šÍÓå»   šÍÔå»   šÍÕå»   šÍÖå»   šÍ×å»   šÍØå»   šÍÙå»   šÍÚå»   šÍÛå»   šÍÜå»   šÍÝå»   šÍÞå»   šÍßå»   šÍàå»   šÍáå»   šÍâå»   šÍãå»   šÍäå»   šÍåå»   šÍæå»   šÍçå»   šÍèå»   šÍéå»   šÍêå»   šÍëå»   šÍìå»   šÍíå»   šÍîå»   šÍïå»   šÍðå»   šÍñå»   šÍòå»   šÍóå»   šÍôå»   šÍõå»   šÍöå»   šÍ÷å»   šÍøå»   šÍùå»   šÍúå»   šÍûå»   šÍüå»   šÍýå»   šÍþå»   šÍÿå»   šÎ å»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎ	å»   šÎ
å»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎ               òå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎå»   šÎ å»   šÎ!å»   šÎ"å»   šÎ#å»   šÎ$å»   šÎ%å»   šÎ&å»   šÎ'å»   šÎ(å»   šÎ)å»   šÎ*å»   šÎ+å»   šÎ,å»   šÎ-å»   šÎ.å»   šÎ/å»   šÎ0å»   šÎ1å»   šÎ2å»   šÎ3å»   šÎ4å»   šÎ5å»   šÎ6å


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 27, 2009)

mikebarry @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> And of course Berlioz did not invent the dies irea, JW did not steal it from him lol. That's from the days of Gregorian Chant.



you don't say? so I guess that's why it's a Latin term? (I actually never heard of the dies _irea_ you mention so please tell us all about it.)

JW's rendition of the most quoted few notes in all of music, the _dies irae _is virtually identical to the Berlioz orchestration of it.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 27, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> _


... but the late great orchestrator (and teacher) Albert Harris, who orchestrated for EVERYBODY, told me that guys like him,Herbert Spencer, Alexander Corage, etc. used to get together when they were just starting out and ultimately they would always be talking about Ravel.[/quote]

Yes, but it was Stravinsky's picture he had by his piano. Alexander Courage said regarding study _For musical development, the Germans; for film musical development, the Russians._


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 27, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > _
> ...



Yes, but it was Stravinsky's picture he had by his piano. Alexander Courage said regarding study _For musical development, the Germans; for film musical development, the Russians._[/quote]

Dave, I think, the "film music development" was referring to motivic development, not orchestration.

I miss Al. I think I will call Ira Hearshen, who probably was the most talented orchestration student Al had, and get his take on this.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 27, 2009)

1) I don't subscribe to the I must like everything idea, just having things that I dislike makes the things I like so much better. So in fact I am happy I don't like some classical composers - not that it is by choice. I can spend that time listening to stuff I enjoy.

2) Jay, i think earlier you said you don't like Tchiakovksy or Rachmaninoff. I have spent most of my time as a pianist learning as much as I could of Rachmaninoff's repetiore as I could. That's fine with me, I don't look down upon you for this - in fact I can understand where you are coming from. If you don't enjoy blatant Russian Nationalism then no biggie. I happen to love it, it's just a matter of taste. Why not extend me the same courtesy.

3) Mr. Connor due to the vagueness of the internet it was unclear if you mean the idea of the dies irea (making fun of spelling is pretty low) or the adaptation/orchestration that Williams stole. Each could be assumed equally.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 27, 2009)

mikebarry @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> 1)
> 2) Jay, i think earlier you said you don't like Tchiakovksy or Rachmaninoff. I have spent most of my time as a pianist learning as much as I could of Rachmaninoff's repetiore as I could. That's fine with me, I don't look down upon you for this - in fact I can understand where you are coming from. If you don't enjoy blatant Russian Nationalism then no biggie. I happen to love it, it's just a matter of taste. Why not extend me the same courtesy.



No, I said I do not enjoy Tchaikovsky and late Romantics in general as much as other eras but I do like a lot of Rachmaninoff. 

But either way, I certainly would not fall asleep in a performance of their work. I do not respect that.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 27, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> Dave, I think, the "film music development" was referring to motivic development, not orchestration.
> 
> I miss Al. I think I will call Ira Hearshen, who probably was the most talented orchestration student Al had, and get his take on this.



Actually Jay, what he was saying was that if you are going to develop a motive or idea musically, do it like Beethoven where the actual material is changed i.e. developed. If you have a motive or theme in film you don't develop it in the traditional sense but change the coloration through orchestration.

I had a few lessons with Albert Harris and found him to be just the greatest guy. Once he was telling me of the supremacy of Stravinsky over Shostakovich saying that originality trumps all when evaluating composers. It was in that same conversation that Mr. Harris told me that Shostakovich suffered from _Mahleria_. His words.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 27, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave, I think, the "film music development" was referring to motivic development, not orchestration.
> ...



Yeah that sounds like Al  He was not a big Shosty fan (nor am I, though I respect him, especially considering the Soviet system he had to deal with.)

He LOVED Stravinsky and Ravel. As do I. Coincidence? Could I be under Harris arrest?


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 27, 2009)

mikebarry @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> Mr. Connor due to the vagueness of the internet it was unclear if you mean the idea of the dies irea (making fun of spelling is pretty low) or the adaptation/orchestration that Williams stole. Each could be assumed equally.



I assumed most musicians with any background would know what the dies irae is. You laughed at the notion that I thought Berlioz invented it. I don't see how you made that leap since you apparently do know it's origin. If you insult someone that way, they might point out an actual error on your point which I did in your miss-spelling.

But hey no big deal, I have no issue with you - it's all good. Just having a bit of fun in the end. Cheers!


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 27, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> Yeah that sounds like Al  He was not a big Shosty fan (nor am I, though I respect him, especially considering the Soviet system he had to deal with.)
> 
> He LOVED Stravinsky and Ravel. As do I. Coincidence? Could I be under Harris arrest?



Well, we do fall under the spell of out teachers. Certainly cannot argue about those two giants Al favored so much.

My piano teacher who played at Carnegie Hall with Rostropovich from a Shostakovich manuscript of a piano trio (don't know who the violinist was) sold me on that composer long ago. But he can be a little dry and take too long to get things going. I like some of his symphonies and love some of is opera stuff. The suite from Lady Macbeth of Minsk has some very serious music in there. I listen to Stravinsky far more though and study Ravel religiously.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 27, 2009)

Mihkel @ Thu Mar 26 said:


> And end my rant I vote "Prehistoric Guy grunting in a cave" to be the most influential composer ever, film or otherwise.



Well, that's actually true. You have to limit any topic to certain parameters or else you'll end up going back to the Big Bang for the roots of any subject.

The point I was making was that someone can say they don't like Mahler but really like Shostakovich. The latter composer's music is so heavily laced with Mahler that they probably don't realize it's Mahler they're often hearing in a very real way. No question Shostakovich had his own voice but he so often uses Mahler's language that it's unmistakable. I don't know how one can reconcile that fact. If you like one you are really liking the other but maybe don't know it.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 28, 2009)

Just to be clear, giant or no giant, it is certainly permissible not to enjoy a composer's work. The reverse is also true. There are composers I love beyond what I believe are their merits. I enjoy Poulenc far more than Shostakovich or Tchaikovsky, but that does make him a more important or better composer.

What is NOT OK IMHO, is to disrespect these guys by saying that they suck, etc.. Accomplishment should be respected. This also holds true, to a lesser degree, to film composers.

Actually, the OP, Alphabet Green got it right IMHO. He mentioned that he did not enjoy Rachmaninoff, then stressed how much he nonetheless respected him. And never did he demean him.

Expressing public disrespect for people of accomplishment in a field we are planning to pursue is something typically we do in college dorms, and then it is appropriate. When you become an adult, still continuing to do so is childish.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 28, 2009)

I would add that making the call on what is good in music or art takes a certain amount of maturity, knowledge and understanding. When I was young, the last thing I wanted to hear was Mozart or almost any opera. I was into Rock, R+B and the rest. But then I got into Jazz and more sophisticated harmony followed by required listening of Classical music in college. The Jazz background made me listen to Opera as melody and chord changes instead of a warbling singer and bombast. Then after a lot of composition study I listened to Mozart in a whole new way because I could discern the incredible part writing going on within this sort of delicate music - I was floored by the guy and still am.

This is why I'm a little curious about the _I don't like this composer_ because you don't hear specific works named. I can talk about the works of composers I'm not crazy about but I can also talk about works of their's I do like and even specific passages (or even their contribution to the art form.) I wouldn't be surprised if some people here change their tune about who it is they like if they penetrate more into the music or just undergo the normal growth of a musician. I also wouldn't dismiss someone who is seasoned and says they flat out don't like this or that guys music.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 28, 2009)

I do NOT respect Wagner, and I feel that if you defend him as a person you are a racist. If you can look past his sins upon his music then you can look beyond what I cannot.

Specifically my problems with Mahler:

1) To me the lengths of his pieces seem unjustified. Also the trying too hard syndrome. His music seems forced upon me, not natural sounding. I feel his sectional transition is weaker then other composers to who I am listen, or that some sections are not needed at all.
2) In general and or in certain moments sound extremely cheesey and schmaltzy like the little dance in the second movement of the sixth symphony
3) I feel like his melodies are over the top, the notes themselves not being good enough for the orchestration. I must draw reference here to Brahms, Tchaikovsky with whom I compare him but I feel like even Benard Hermann has better moments. Like the vertigo love theme.
4) I dont like plenty of his articulations - portamentos, little glisses - to me they take me out of the moment and seem "show off" ish 
5) He makes too much of a big deal out nothing
6) his music sounds very dated to me, where as many composers of his era does not
7) The fillary and embelishments going on behind the scene are not subtle enough as they are with Rachmaninoff and Ravel for me- they subtract from the whole as they draw too much attention to themselves

The few moments I appreciate:

1) The Shostakovitch moments, even though i would rather listen to Dimitri do them
2) There are some brilliant orchestration tricks no doubt

So to me Mahler seems a little bit narcissistic in his writing for me to enjoy. It seems to be about him and not the music. And I strongly dislike that. And if you ever go to see a Mahler piece at the philharmonic you can count on the rest of the program being very lean, so I don't enjoy that either.

PS I draw my observations from the famous Berstein NY Phil Collection of symphonies. I wonder how much that contributes.

Ok there!!' 



I would also be curious to read why others dislike people, kind of interesting to see a list.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 28, 2009)

Mike, thanks for articulating your reasons for disliking Mahler. Have you heard his Song of the Earth though? 

also, Bernstein, though he idolized Mahler, would not be my first conductor as the chief interpreter of his music. I have Von Karajan's Das Leid and it's magical. I must admit that I also do not care for the schizoid manner in which Mahler's music sometimes operates in but music is an extension of our psyches and his was a tortured one. I think he was bi-polar in fact.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 28, 2009)

mikebarry @ Sat Mar 28 said:


> I do NOT respect Wagner, and I feel that if you defend him as a person you are a racist. If you can look past his sins upon his music then you can look beyond what I cannot.
> 
> Specifically my problems with Mahler:
> 
> ...



I do not respect Wagner as a person. I do respect Wagner as a composer. While he was alive, I would not have done anything to contribute to his coffers or attended performances, etc. But to deny his impact is to deny the weather because there are hurricanes.

You are entitled to have creative differences with Mahler and so state. If however you were to state "Mahler sucks", then at that point you would have reduced yourself to a horsefly nipping at champion stallion.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 29, 2009)

dcoscina @ Sat Mar 28 said:


> Mike, (...) I have Von Karajan's Das Lied and it's magical. (...)


You shouldn't be recommending anything conducted by Von Karajan to Mike because, obviously, he'll find it impossible and unacceptable to listen to a conductor who's relation with the Nazi regime was, well, somewhat ambiguous.

But, talking about Von Karajan, it seems that we have him to thank for _the compact disc_. Apparently, it was he who insisted (by pulling a lot of Karajan muscle) that Sony and Phillips work together, combine their respective researches and provide him with a digital carrier on which his musical legacy could be presented in the most pristine way.
Obviously, the compact disc would have appeared on the market sooner or later around that time anyway, but that it did the year it did and in the form that it did, is largely thanks to a very persuasive Herbert Manoeuvre.

_


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 29, 2009)

re-peat @ Tue Mar 24 said:


> In all seriousness, read a bit about Wagner first (and try to listen respectfully and unbiased to his music) before amplifying narrowminded views. You'll find that the 'fascist scumbag' charicature which is always drawn of him, i*s a huuuuuuuuuuuuge and terribly unjust simplification - possibly more wrong and equally fascistoid in fact as the target of its accusation.*
> 
> _



Dude you are the person with your history all wrong, telling me I am wrong. You truly couldn't make more of a falsity with in a statement. then you have above here. I think if you researched more you would understand my inability appreciate anything tainted by that party.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 29, 2009)

mikebarry @ Sun Mar 29 said:


> re-peat @ Tue Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> > In all seriousness, read a bit about Wagner first (and try to listen respectfully and unbiased to his music) before amplifying narrowminded views. You'll find that the 'fascist scumbag' charicature which is always drawn of him, i*s a huuuuuuuuuuuuge and terribly unjust simplification - possibly more wrong and equally fascistoid in fact as the target of its accusation.*
> ...



So Mike, you never answered my question: Then you will never buy a Volkswgen, Audi , or Porsche, correct?

Or read/buy any books by Nietsche, who is unless I am misinformed, the guy who invented the Aryan Superman myth that Hitler peddled.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 29, 2009)

Hi Jay,

That's pretty accurate 
The more I read about all that happened the less I can fathom it happened, ya know?
And just so few years ago. And I didn't have such a hardened stance until the last few years when my grandfather broke the silence of his involvement in WW II and I started researching everything carefully. Since then it's a hobby of mine, I've probably read about 30 books on the subject in the last three years. I also like to read of the American Civil War.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 29, 2009)

Mike,

A couple of things:
(1) Please don't call me 'dude'. I really don't like that. 
(2) I'm not gonna get pushed into defending Wagner. I don't like the man any more than you do, except for the fact that I recognize him as being among the 10 greatest musical and dramaturgical minds that have ever walked this planet.
The reason I got into this discussion in the first place was strictly musical: you simply can't loathe Wagner and simultaneously adore Elgar - on purely musical grounds, I mean. Beyond that, I have absolutely no problems with you detesting him. But ...
(3) ... I firmly stick to my statement that calling òçQ   › 8çQ   › 9çQ   › :çQ   › ;çQ   › <çQ   › =çQ   › >çQ   › ?çQ   › @çQ   › AçQ   › BçQ   › CçQ   › DçQ   › EçQ   › FçQ   › GçQ   › HçQ   › IçQ   › JçQ   › KçQ   › LçR   › MçR   › NçR   › OçR   › PçR   › QçR   › RçR   › SçR   › TçR   › UçR   › VçT   › WçT   › XçT   › YçT   › ZçT   › [çT   › \çT   › ]çT   › ^çT   › _çT   › `çT   › açT   › bçT   › cçT   › dçT   › eçT   › fçT   › gçT   › hçT   › içT   › jçT   › kçT   › lçT   › mçT   › nçT   › oçT   › pçT   › qçT


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 29, 2009)

mikebarry @ Sun Mar 29 said:


> Hi Jay,
> 
> That's pretty accurate
> The more I read about all that happened the less I can fathom it happened, ya know?
> And just so few years ago. And I didn't have such a hardened stance until the last few years when my grandfather broke the silence of his involvement in WW II and I started researching everything carefully. Since then it's a hobby of mine, I've probably read about 30 books on the subject in the last three years. I also like to read of the American Civil War.



OK, Mike, well, you are consistent. I respect that.

Personally, I cannot hold the present German manufacturers responsible for what their grandfathers did, so I drive a VW.

By that token, though you should not buy anything Turkish because of the Armenian genocide, and perhaps nothing American because of the massacre and betrayal of Native Americans, and of course, present Chinese have a terrible record so all our electronics and clothes, etc. 

I think it is time you let Wagner off the hook, conclude that yes, he was a dreadful person, who wrote great music.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 29, 2009)

I agree that Wagner was one of the greatest geniuses ever to write music or a libretto. 

However...

Whether or not you like his music, Wagner published -- twice, first under a pseudonym and later under his own name -- a pamphlet condemning Jews, and made other statements that anyone enlightened today must surely find shocking.

This is not second-hand or hearsay. Given his own publications, there is no question that Wagner expressed ugly views toward Jews and attacked them on multiple grounds -- artistically, linguistically, and "racially." I understand that, in the case of Meyerbeer and other composers, Wagner attacked them as Jews on a personal level. 

Much of his rhetoric was borrowed from, or at least very similar to, that voiced by other pseudo-scientific social philosophers of the time, rhetoric later used by the Nazis as evidence of a "tradition" of anti-Jewish "scholarship" in Germany and Austria (though these writers were by no means confined to those countries). In line with others of the era, Wagner wrote, among other things, that Jewishness is a taint that would ruin any efforts at artistic expression unless the artist / composer in effect divorced himself from his Jewish roots.

Did Hitler and others exaggerate certain of Wagner's statements to make it appear that Wagner would have approved of the Holocaust? Very probably; some would say, "certainly." But even though they may have been exaggerated later, that exaggeration in my view doesn't excuse Wagner's writings, which were those of a brilliant, fully self-aware person. He knew what he was doing, and even if his writings and views later were twisted beyond his original intentions into something he didn't mean, in my view that doesn't exculpate him for what he did, in fact, write, which was bad enough.

For me, among the nastiest interpretations of Wagner's attacks is the possibility that he was motivated at least in part by a desire to further his career by pursuing attacks against rival composers who were Jews. It has been argued that he was latching onto the anti-semitism widespread at the time to promote his career, advancing vendettas against certain Jewish composers, while maintaining friendships with other Jews. If true, this kind of opportunism seems dastardly to me.

Last, while I try to appreciate Wagner's art separately from politics, I find it hard, re-peat, to regard his anti-semitism as a marginal element of his life. Wagner's glorification of his version of German mythology and zeitgeist was integral to his art, and therefore to his music. Is there specific, direct anti-semitism in his art? Some say yes, though I have found some of those arguments rather strained. What is not strained, in my view, is that his philosophical perspective imbues his work and therefore cannot be divorced as neatly as it might for a more "pure" composer (that is, a non-libretto-writing, more theoretical note-writer).

I don't find it proportionate, either, to equate anti-semitism with the "Mozart as a juvenile pervert" comparison you tossed out for sake of argument. A few specific antics that Mozart got up to, or is said to have got up to don't, in my mind, equate with a composer explicitly condemning any group of people. Anti-semitism, religious hatred, and ethnic tribalism have led to many of humanity's most unforgivable sins. By contrast, bedroom hi-jinks to me are harmless fun.

So, fair enough if you think Mike's reaction is overly strong. Calling it unintelligent or uninformed, however, I can't agree with. I view it as a personal judgement, not a provable, objective fact, to decide whether the moral sin outweighs the artistic genius in Wagner's case.

Finally, making fun of someone's position because he isn't willing to honor of all victims of genocide by rejecting the US and all products manufactured by any company that ever built a gun or a bombsight, or who hasn't become a hermit or something, trivialises those victims and the crimes themselves. Plus, I find it rather unsporting.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Mar 29, 2009)

Well I must agree , this lashing out against the composer Wagner in a political\WWII nazi context, is a grave simplification and biased view towards a dark and complex period of human history. 

This is not a defense of Wagner as such, but more a simple reminder that there are no "facts" mentioned here that is generaly seen as the "correct" historical analysiz.
yes yes, you read it in a book. there are many sorts of books...

Reducing the atrocities of WWII down to the scribblings and utterings of Wagner and Nietzsche is unworthy, banal and lacking in every nuance. And also very typical.

It is, like saying every composer that has written religiously motivated music (pretty much all of them) is responsible for the millions of people slaughtered, opressed and persecuted by the roman catholic church. The bodycount is quite considerable...


It is a complete populistic and watered out fallacy, that Wagner and Nietzsche were somehow responsible for nazi Germany, not to mention it takes away guildt from where it truly lies, and is not doing anyone any favours quite franly.
You believe in blaming the authors, and composers? 
well, the concept of burning books is not new, so go ahead.

I find it completely tasteless and lacking in knowledge to sit here on a forum and peddle personal views and opinions as if they were historical facts.
It is at best ,still disputed to a great extent ... this alleged influence of Wagner on the WWII era, and...unless you can somehow travel back in time and discover what historians have indeed not agreed upon, i suggest you do not utter things which you clearly know little about.

And this "if you approve of Wagner you are a racist" mentality.... please, that is not for you to decide. I am not a racist, and i enjoy Wagner, Nietzsche,Volkswgen, Audi , and Porsche. I even have a Krupps cofee maker. (kay i dont, but just for the sake of arguement, i do ) And i shall tolorate no label whatsoever.


...and this is a topic about composers anyway, isnt it?
Not their political views.
Which im sure, have been as many and as diverse as the music itself thru the years.


----------



## lux (Mar 29, 2009)

reading this thread i made a very short research, i was just curious and found those:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zR1TjEiH3k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhsQt-PFC2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL1gFw-7SMc

Toscanini, while not jewish, has been one of the proudest oppositor ro nazism and fascism.

While i can see the reasons for evaluations about Wagner's figure, i think many greats before us did play Wagner's amazing music, having way more reasons than me and others to avoid playing it. 

Love for music, i have to guess. Love for music...


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 29, 2009)

Hi again guys. 

Pzy,

I said if you can justify Wagner's actions as a person (and not as a composer) you are a racist, and I hold true to that statement. I think John stated the rest of the argument quite elegantly. And I have to admit that the historical evidence is on the side of my argument, there is documentation to express Wagner's personal views. Further there is a transcript available of Wagner's widow meeting with Hitler way before he was the furher he was which further supports this argument of Wagner's sincere racism. Also imagine Wagner as the top musical celebrity alive at the time, this only magnifies his statements.

Above are the facts, there are other questions about him secretly writing Anti-Semtic tones into his opera (I think there is a book on the subject) and all sorts of things like that. I won't go into those, nor will I draw any opinions on these because I am not researched in them.

Now if you are okay with listening to his music that is fine with me, I simply cannot look past what he did. In my opinion what he believed and broadcast contributed directly (not indirectly) to to the darkest of human times and I see no reason to honor him for this. Especially after reading this most recent biography I was simply dumbfounded over the relationship between Wagner and Hitler. I will not deny that he was a brilliant composer, but I cannot honor him for that or listen to him and enjoy it. I would feel unclean for that, I am not even Jewish and I am of German blood. The thing that truly bothers me is that this man was supremely enlightened and still had those opinions. It seems like such a waste, I mean here we have Beethoven setting to music the Ode to Joy about brotherhood and hopefuleness and we have Wagner doing this. I will never forgive him for that.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 29, 2009)

If you are writing to me, Pzy Clone, there is no need to get so angry, or put words in people's mouths. 

It is an undisputed fact that Wagner was an anti-semite. This is not an opinion -- he published it himself.

Nobody accused anyone of being a racist for liking Wagner and nobody said Wagner and Nietszche were responsible for the holocaust or WWII; those are your words. I stated, narrowly, in support of Mike that, in my view, it's a personal judgement, particularly for an artist whose philosophical musings were integral to his art, as to whether the anti-semitism trumps the art. You don't think so, he does.

Hitler and his tribe trumpeted Wagner and emphasised the points in his art and writings that they liked, but there was, indisputably, some ugly material with which to work -- Wagner's own pamphlet, for a start. And, again, Wagner was not just a composer; he was a writer as well, and his writing and world view are part of his opus.

I like Wagner's music; I have his scores and CDs of his music. I've performed it, probably like many on this forum, and enjoyed it. I don't think that makes any of us intolerant or anti-semitic, and nobody has said so. Nor, by the way, has anyone "reduced" World War II to Wagner, or Wagner and Nietszche. That an is unfair and an inaccurate reading of what's been written on this forum.

Just because someone disagrees with you or opens the possibility of a different point of view does not make that person uninformed, particularly in view of your own admission that it's a controversial subject and others have reached different conclusions. I assume none of us is a professional historian, but that doesn't mean we can't read.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Mar 29, 2009)

Ok, sorry about the unclarity, the comments were offcourse directed towards Mike.

And i assure you i am not offended, or trying to offend anyone .
And i dont mind whatever reson anyone has to dislike someone,... i just a have a problem with personal opinions being stated as if they were FACTS when they are not. I have studied enough history to know, that nothing is as single-faceted as prestented here in this "discussion".

Like this sentence , for instance:

"The guy (Wagner) was pure evil not only for his Hatred of the jews but his feelings that the germans were superior which directly led hitler to invade Czech and Austria to being WWII. "

Is that not a simplification of history, and indeed an accusation.???
And that is NOT my words.

I mean, yes...Wagner was of a perticular conviction, that is no secret at all.
But this must be seen in the context of its time and as a part of a certain politicly infused "thinktank" of artists . And i can offcourse say i do not agree with the ideas and opinions, and indeed consequential actions of this perticular idiology.

But there is a rather vast difference in being of a certian conviction, to that of a crazed power hungry dictator that transforms nightmare into reality.

I just find it completely inconsequent to blame certain prominent cultural figures for ohter peoples actions, if we were to follow that line of rethoric, almost anyone who ever said anything could be blamed for any present or future actions by indeed, anyone. 

that was my point, im a bit bold in my choice of words, lol..old habit.

Anyway...so that makes an interesting dilemma...would you use a Wagner tuba?


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 29, 2009)

Pzy,

Thanks for writing for clarification. I have no problem with providing further clarification. 

As a young man Hitler was not a racist. Yet as a young man Hitler was obsessed with two things architecture and opera. While living in Munich before the start of World War I he would attend an opera usually every other night, living on a pension from the passing of a relative and studying architecture during the day. Of all the opera's he attended he became obsessed with Wagner, and idolized him beyond all other persons. Now Hitler of all people was an obsessive person. And it is my belief that as his life went on Hitler became so obsessed with certain things (his young niece, rebuilding Berlin, the arts, Wagner, etc..) that he would devote all of his resources to accomplishing them. If Wagner had not been so talented a composer, nor such a racist I truly believe things would have become different for Hitler, and thus for the world. 
I can go into further detail but that is the idea.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Mar 29, 2009)

yes, i understood that part quite clearly.
And that is the problem..."I truly believe "...does not equal facts.
Predicting alternate outcomes for history, is perhaps a dangerous path to tread, no?

There is no doubt Hitler appropriated Wagner (and Nietzsche), but there are simply not enough empirical evidence to support the idea that they were somehow responsible for the events that followed. (as you claim)

I think you`re treading on thin ice here, and this kind of arguemtation does not lead anywhere, and certaintly not in this context.

But nevertheless it is your prerogative to say these things, just as it is mine to react.
Im not angry at all, just making conversation :D


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 29, 2009)

Well just so you know I did not compose that argument, but rather adapted it from this Hitler book I just read, which is considered the finest biography on the man. I merely put 2 + 2 together.

When i say Hitler idolized no one above Wagner that is rooted in historical fact and quoted in this book and by the man himself.

It is not only true but by Hitler's own accord that he had no interest in politics whatsoever until attending an opera by Wagner one night his his late teens and having received a message from the Master himself which was composed specifically for him to bring Germany to power all over the world.

The list really goes on and on.

It might hurt you as a fan of Wagner to know these facts but they are facts though. 

I feel that indeed it is your argument which lacks substance with regards to evidence.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 29, 2009)

John,

I would have thought that a man of your distinction would have been able enough to understand the fact that my bringing 'Mozart was a pervert' into this discussion was ONLY intended to illustrate and underline the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong about such 'pars pro toto' simplifications, whether they appy to Wagner, Mozart or whoever. All I was saying is that we're not painting a complete picture with such simplifications and as such I find them unintelligent and unjust.
Assuming that I'm somehow insensitive to the huge difference - morally speaking - between Mozart's and Wagner's peculiarities (if one may call it that), is frankly somewhat insulting. I'm not an idiot, thank you very much. 

Talking about morals though - this is no longer addressed to you exclusively, by the way - but I do find there's something questionnable in our oh so comfortable, so-called 'enlightened' condemnation and indignation with regard to people - in this case Wagner - who have been 'obviously wrong' from where we look at it. It's easy and it makes us feel good, doesn't it, saying that Wagner was a fascist pig. 
All we have to do is look back and pass judgement - how very easy and convenient. And how very enlightened and righteous we can be, being able to judge between right or wrong from the safe distance that we conveniently find ourselves in.

So let's maybe go through a few more examples here. What about Stravinsky, a self-centered avarice who conducted a well-paid concert for Telefunken in Nazi Germany and who counted some known Italian fascists among his circle? A bastard too? (Or less so because he used the Telefunken money for the medical treatment of his ailing daughter? You tell me.) And Fürtwangler? Another sick devil? Percy Grainger? And all the musicians who managed to stay alive under Stalin's genocidal regime? Aim our moral fire-squad at them too? And, taking things a bit broader now, all those musicians who were (or are) either practicing catholics, or at one time or another wrote music for the catholic church - a regime, I'm sure you'll agree, that's been responsible for more misery, atrocities, deaths and crime than any other in the history of mankind. All those musicians - and their number must run well into the several hundreds of thousands, if not millions -, despicable creatures too? If we follow Mike's reasoning, surely we must answer 'yes' to all these questions, mustn't we?

But where do we draw the line? Who are we to judge all these people and/or the times or situations in which they lived? And how can we be complete human beings if we mercilessly condemn all the mistakes, sins, flaws and evils that are an intrinsic part of our very nature.

My point is: I feel we should look with a bit more kindness and forgiveness to the human race, what it is today and what it has been in past centuries. It's terribly flawed and capable of the ugliest things and yet, at the same time, it's also capable of producing goodness and overwhelming beauty - and sometimes these extremes meet in one and the same person even. That is who we are. That's our nature. Wagner is who we are - evil darkness and glorious light in one and the same body. Imperfect, perfectly human.

_


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 29, 2009)

I am sure John will answer this for himself.

But reading over your list, the amount of inequality for the sins you have listed or startling. There is simply no comparison between giving a concert and doing what Wagner did. I feel no need to forgive that scumbag for what he did. Everyone makes mistakes which we can all forgive but people are persist with such hatred are evil, no matter their abilities. 

Lastly, this is not directed specifically at re-peat, but I take offense being called ignorant and or arrogant and being indirectly represented as stupid regarding the Wagner issue when i am indeed the one quoting Wagner and Hitler, and citing references in literature and pointing out other historical FACTS. Truly who is the ignorant one?


----------



## re-peat (Mar 30, 2009)

Mike,

I'm beginning to think that the quality of the English I've produced in my last posts is perhaps not of the clarity required to carry out this delicate and sensitive discussion because we seem to have run into some miscommunication again. I'm sorry for that. 
The point I was trying to make is that I'm not comparing sins or crimes or whatever - as I already explained to John: I do realize the differences in seriousness very well -, I'm merely listing them to be able to ask the question: how do we judge, what (or who) do we condemn and what (or who) do we condone? Cause I don't know, I really don't.
You seem to be pretty sure about Wagner - no problem - but, gradually stepping down the ladder onto increasingly less offensive steps, where do you stop? Like I said, I don't know.

_


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 30, 2009)

I've always considered the Wagner issue to be a very personal one with each allowed to make their own call. He is indeed a model of anti-Semitism so how can you blame someone for not being able to bring themselves to his music? His contribution òçã   ›HWçã   ›HXçã   ›HYçã   ›HZçã   ›H[çã   ›H\çã   ›H]çã   ›H^çã   ›H_çã   ›H`çã   ›Haçã   ›Hb


----------

