Einaudi - his stuff just doesn't work for me but if I have a piano pupil who wants to learn his stuff then I throw my personal opinion out of the way. I'm over fond of Delius either.

But its amazing how tastes change, when I was 16 I couldn't stand Brahms, Wagner or Bruckner, all composers whose music I now love.

Having an interest in musicology there are times I have to say, I don't like this, but I can see its good points.

Nat, I take it you're not specialising in the Baroque!

Jo

Dcmbraton: Do you like any composer?

Beethoven and Malcolm Arnold

Karl Jenkins- have just suffered having performed the Armed Man.

It's all the same! He doesn't deserve to make so much money out of it.

Interesting list. Do you like to break away from liking the "big" named composers just because everyone else seems to like them?

Not saying you don't have big names in your list of course...

That is a very broad and sweeping statement to make David and I think I have to disagree with you on that one.

I disagree too - the very reason some of them are the "big" names is because they had such originality and diversity in their music.

I disagree too .

No it's not!

I don't think it's a case of disliking a composer (and thier works), it's missunderstanding that puts people off. 20th century music for exaple: if someone played you Ives' "Central Park in the Dark" or his "The Unanswered Question" you may well think "what a load of rubbish", but read a few sentances about the meaning behind these peices before pressins play and you might have a different opinion by the end.

All composers have thier "bad" works, even a few "bad" bars, even the "greats".

- I had a feeling you'd reply much like that FC!

That's not always the case either. I've had to study some works by Bach that I don't like. Even had to do a presentation on St Matthews Passion, so I had an understanding of it, though that didn't make me like it.

You seem quite proud to be a liker of all types of music. I think maybe I could respect that if it were true, I just really don't think it is unless you have a very small range of music you have heard. I think it is important to be aware of as many types of music as possible, and at least give them a chance but to be able to like all of them? It just seems a bit indifferent. How do you justify appreciating music for the opposite qualities you appreciate another type of music for?

I think if a composer is placed on a pedestal simply because they are that, then a lack of insight is sure to follow when interpreting their music. All composers are simply human beings! I do not respect popular artists who 'write their own material' if the songs are awful. I respect musical material if I can see something worth listening to in it. I also think that merely because one person is not as accomplished/recognised in a field as much as someone else it does not deny them the right to pass valid judgement on the former's work. Look at sport - it is a culture of the world's lardiest, booziest, most unhealthy human specimens stuffing their faces and roaring abuse at the world's most honed athletes on the telly. (thank you Dylan Moran...) There's nothing wrong with that....well an exaggeratted example maybe. Anyhow, I am sure most of the people who post here have a fair mattering of musical knowledge, enough to be able to form a diserning opinion on what they hear, whether they can write a symphony or not.

Also in keeping with the actual point of this thread I loathe Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance Marches. Like Plenty of his other stuff though. Beethovens larger works seem a bit over the top to me, the ending of his symphonies say - the constant reiteration of V-I cadences for about 5 minutes is I think the classical equivalent of a rock group dragging out that last chord....I still think Beethoven was a musical great though and love plenty of his chamber music.

I love Tchaikovsky, but he does the long and protracted ending thing too! It always makes me laugh because you never quite know when it's about to stop.

I don't like a lot of more modern composers - Lutoslawski and Tippett to name a couple! I find the dissonances feel more for the sake of dissonance than anything else (I adore beautifully placed dissonances though - think parts of 2nd movement, Year of the Dragon ). And I'm another of those people that generally needs tune and harmony to like stuff.

I absolutely love Stravinsky though, and I wouldn't write off serialism. Some of it is horrible, but then I went and wrote part of a serialist composition which I actually really liked, so go figure!

So eclecticism is an impossibilty? Or it is a synonym for ignorance and unculturedness?

Does one have to dislike things to be "human" or to be a "real man" or whatever?



And about "putting composers on a pedestal simply because they are that" - that's not my feckin' point of view!! How many times...??

* wanders off shaking head sadly *

My piano teacher hates Mozart

Well that's how that first quote above could come off, Manek - "they're better than you so you're just jealous". Which, considering that few of the posters on this thread aspire to be composers, is a bit of a weird thing to come out with... It may not be how you intended it to come off, but it's not clear either way from your two posts...

It also (as I said above) smacks of "well you couldn't do any better!" - which is a redundant viewpoint, because if that meant one could not criticise anything one could not do better, than I couldn't criticise a pianist who played a piece I loved in a way I thought didn't do it any justice - even though I have the musical knowledge to be able to level fair criticism of it - just because basically I'm not a very good pianist. Or if I can't criticise someone because they have been professionally recorded and therefore "must" be good, I can't criticise one of the versions of Syrinx that I have on my PC. And I definitely have the knowledge and ability to tell you exactly what I think is wrong with it (and another flautist I just played it to agrees) despite the fact that I'm unlikely ever to record it professionally for a CD. Same with compositions, just because something has been recorded doesn't mean that 1) I have to like it or even 2) I have to assume it has musical or creative merit. I have ears and I have a brain and, along with most people, use them to decide that, sometimes, no, I can't stand this piece of music or that recording, or that I think such-and-such a composer is a bit of a one trick pony.

And by the way, I'm all for being eclectic. It's an adjective that's been applied to my musical tastes and CD collection. (Others might say "just plain weird/schizophrenic - but hey! )

However, there is a difference between having eclectic tastes, and just having accepting anything without criticism no matter how good or bad it is (especially on the basis of "they have done a concert/been recorded/been played professionally). I'm not saying that you do that - I don't know you well enough to know. But from your comment about people basically just being jealous of those who are more successful than they are, your viewpoint is easily interpreted that way.

Apologies if I am repeating what others have said, I havn't read much of this thread.

So what is your view of composers? I got the distinct impression you were saying any creativity was good creativity, and those who are not in the same business do not have a right to comment on said creativity negatively. Does it also render their praise worthless?
Eclecticism is to be commended, it is only through a wide range of experiences that it is achievable, but everybody has their likes and dislikes. I would have thought both of these would grow when searching out new things to listen to, (although most probably the dislikes less so) I'm sure it is quite possible to like hundreds of different genres, but to like all artists you have ever listened to?

So yes, a complete lack of dislikes does indeed suggest to me a certain lack of human-ness. I'm quite sure you are a real human though, I just don't understand why you must flatline all music. Is it the same with other things such as books you have read or films you have seen? If everything is great then surely you are just drifting along in a sea of mediocrity where nothing really sticks out at you ? How do you know you like it if that is the case?

okiloveyoubyebyebyebye

Yes, compare Beethoven's last four piano sonatas to his first. Or Mozart's Jupiter to his first symphony. I don't think one could reasonably claim that all of those sonatas or both of those symphonies all sound the same. On the other hand, Rutter is on the list of 'likes', I don't think the depth or variety in his music even touches that of the greats.

There's nothing big or clever about liking little-known composers for the sake of it - good music is good music, no matter who wrote it.

Would this be Amy Beach by any chance?



So did he. And Tchaikovsky hated the 1812 Overture and Ravel said the one thing he forgot to put into Bolero was any music.

So there are cases of composers not being able to stand their own works, never mind anyone else's.

I didn't think I was that predictable!

YAP, I agree 100%. Not liking certain composers is fair enough, but to say Beethoven "all sounds the same" seems more likely to suggest woeful ignorance of said composer than superior taste.

If you read your post carefully you'll notice you said:



Hence, I went on to say that good music was good music no matter who wrote it.

Let's assume for a second that a little-known composer, a one-hit wonder, had written Beethoven's 'Hammerklavier' sonata; rather than Beethoven himself. Would you then find the work more enjoyable to listen to...?

True, but you are the only one who listed about 6/7 composers that almost anyone would consider 'big' name composers, and you cannot surely expect no-one to genuinely ask why?



Then you should have admitted in that very post that you making a sweeping generalistation and that you didn't mean it literally.

This is probably a crime to say I really dislike Mozart's music.

David, I was not making a judgement on your choice of composers. I was making a judgement on the suggestion that they "all sound the same" - or even that those composers' works "all sound the same" within the works of one composer. One only has to listen to a few Beethoven symphonies or piano sonatas, to pick one example, to hear vast differences in style, to hear the changes from more classical to more romantic styles... etc etc.

If you (or indeed anyone else) don't like 'em, fine - no skin off my nose. We're all individuals and we have differing tastes. I disagree heartily with some of the dislikes posted in this thread (and indeed don't agree very much with some of the likes) - but I absolutely accept that people will like and dislike various composers, and others will have quite opposite opinions and totally different dislikes.

However:


Saying that (to justify your dislike) about several composers whose greatness and longevity is in part because of their enormous diversity and creativity, makes it sound like you don't know what you're talking about. You didn't mean it literally? Well... I'm at a loss to know how you DID mean it; or indeed why you said it, if you didn't actually mean it.

I don't dislike one composer completely. But I'm not fond of Haydn's earlier works. Or a fair amount of stuff from the classical period really.

I prefer 20th century music, more styles.

I can't help thinking partly it's what you're doing - listening/performing for example. For instance, a lot of Hadyn symphonies, to listen to, aren't that exciting, BUT to play they are often rather fun and just right for an amateur orchestra - whereas more complex and interesting music might be fabulous to listen to but playing it in an orchestra can be really hard work. (Though of course it doesn't mean you'll always end up hating it - I remember doing the Hindemith Metamorphoses in GYO and we all loathed it at first - it was so hard, and lots of counting, and just really awkward - but by the time we could actually play the thing, I really loved it and bought a CD of it)

I wish I'd never read any of this thread.

i don't know why i just don't find much interest in chopin and beethoven and find their music annoying sometimes

My tastes do certainly change as time goes on but, sorry folks who are addicted to same, at present I struggle to find anything I like with Einaudi or Philip Glass.

Have never been a great fan of Beethoven except his piano concertos which I do like.

For a while I went off Mozart but then rediscovered him in my "mature years" . I think, in part, preferences reflect where you are at in life's journey.

Ah the tasks music students have to do! At least Nat having done the presentation on the St Matt and still not liking it means you've tried. I disagree with you on that one being a Bach fan, but I'm not about to say you're wrong fro disliking it. You've studied the work and still it doesn't do it for you.


No its not a crime. Many would disagree with you, but if it doesn't do anything for you, its your opinion stick to it.

i quite like minimalism stuff like John Adams and some of the Philip Glass(been listening to Metamorphosis)
but i think Einaudi is boring, i got a piano book of his, didn't like it and gave it to someone.

Im a fan of John Adams too (he's just one month older than me)
Of the other 'modern' composers I like James MacMillan

I loathe Wagner, and most of Mussourgsky.

The thing Nat said about the Bach demonstrates the difference between personal taste and the intrinsic merit of a composers work. There is a reason that the Great Composers are considered Great, which once you engage in a musicological dissemination of their output becomes clear. This does not mean you have to like their music.

As a first year I hated the Rite of Spring. However after studying it not only could I see why it is a great piece of music, it had actually grown on me too. The Xenakis Ionisation for 13 percussion instruments personally leves me feeling physically sick when I listen to it (naturally its not something I do that often). Thats because it gives me tinnitus. However I can see why people like it it's just not for me. Pendereski's Threnody of the Victims of Hiroshima I find extremely moving. However it leaves my mother wanting to leave the room as it disturbs her soo much. Does this detract from the piece... no of course it does not.

Einaudi does nothing for me, and dare I say it is poor music. This is because it has little structure and is quite frankly banal, but there'll be Einaudi fans on the forum who will be up in arms with a statement like that. It has little intrinsic worth, but that does not stop people from liking it.

Jod

Very true, I think...

Are you saying that for music to be considered "good", it has to have structure, and everything else? Whilst that is pretty important in earlier styles, for me, good music is something I enjoy listening to, whether that be a Mozart Piano Sonata which has more structure than a brick building, or Einaudi, which you think has no structure. I shall analyse it for my Masters and get back to you on that.

As much as I'd dislike Bach, I'd never say his music was "poor" in a sense that it's a set in stone statement. I might think it's bad, but that's personal taste, not a definite statement.

Varese, not Xenakis.

With the exception of Density 21.5 for solo flute, most of Varese's music has been described as sounding like a train crash, so I can see how it would give you tinnitus. Personally I'm quite a fan of train-crash music

Do! How familiar are you with the Scrutton and Dalhaus books on Aesthetics? Nat! finally someone who I can have a musicological arguement with! In the brief aural and off-copy anaylses I've done of Einaudi, unlike Philip Glass that I think is quite clever, The Einaudi shows limited scope for developing the minimal material he is using. Now a harmonic or reductive analytical technique IMHO would be the wrong tools to use, but comparing him with Glass, the material is not as cleverly handled. Take L'onde for example it used standard minimalist techniques and is fairly structured, but Einaudi does very little with it, the result it banal. Now proove me wrong if you want to (and I'd love you to) but its not the greatest example of the genre. I can not deny (given the record sales) that Einaudi is not popular!

Oh and I'm glad someone pointed out that it was Varese who wrote the ionisation for 13 percussion instruments! Still doesn't stop it giving me tinnitus!

Interesting read...

I have to say I haven't got any composers that I rule out completely on name alone. It's the music and I haven't got anyone I've found with no merit whatsoever (but maybe I'm not sufficiently widely-listening - yet).
I'm not a fan of opera - I can appreciate the technicalities, etc, but actually listening to it does nothing for me. Mind you, the same goes for dance music (as in the modern stuff with a tinny beat, not as in gavottes!)

I do like Philip Glass, Steve Reich too. Though I've not listened to any of Glass's operas, as I'm pretty sure they will do nothing for me. Perhaps one day they might allow me to discover opera, but at the moment not even the thought appeals

Some Michael Nyman I find a bit weird, but only where suddenly you find yourself listening to a familiar tune in the middle of something incongruous; if I wanted to listen to the Righteous Brothers, I'd listen to that, not to you string quartet or whatever it was...

Fans of Glass - do you enjoy doing scales and arpeggios? I love the latter and it just makes me wonder if they are at all connected

Never read the book in my life. Einaudi is not the greatest example of which genre? Minimalism? From what I've heard he doesn't really like the label of a minimalist composer. Why compare him with Glass? What's the point in that? I take his music how it comes to me and enjoy it for what it is. I don't sit there playing a Mozart Sonata thinking 'hmm this really isn't as good as such and such'. If we're constantly trying to pick holes in music we're not fond of, well, personally I'd go insane.

Why does Einaudi have to use Le Onde material in millions of different ways to make music that people like to hear? I'm sure if given the time I could name pieces that I found 'banal', and everyone would be up in arms about it, and how dare I suggest such a thing.

No of course he isn't popular, I mean popular artists never have tours in the UK in amazing venues with every seat full, or the audience giving a standing ovation, or the audience really showing their appreciation. Perhaps you need to go to one of his concerts to understand what I mean. Or perhaps you never will. Maybe this is what it's all about, some music touching us which would never mean anything to someone else. So many big named composers now were never really popular in their time, so maybe in years to come Einaudi will be the popular artist/composer that you seem to think he's not.

As much as it might seem I'm attempting to make you like his music; I'm not. I appreciate that everyone likes different things, but everything you say, and its the same for me, is your opinion, and your opinion only. I'd totally disagree that it's banal, and there is no music dictionary I've seen with that as a definition of Einaudi. Therefore - it's your opinion, I think there'd be others that agree with you, but there'd also be others that agree with me.

Oh, and by the way, I am not arguing, I am discussing.

Just goes to show that there is something for everyone doesn't it?

Generally my experience is that the longer the verbal or written explanation before you get to hear the piece, the less likely I am to like it. Some of these descriptions are unintelligible and some of the applause after the performances is IMO applauding the emporer's new clothes. Obviously some people listening think it is sensational.

Nobody yet has mentioned my particularly most hated composer - Messaien. I haven't yet found anything of his I can actually bear to listen to all the way through and I have tried.

Nat int his case to argue with is to engage in an intellectual discussion, rather like one qoes in an arguementative essay. I did not intend to quarrel with you (that seems rather pointless).

Yes I will go as far as to say I find Einaudi's music banal. If I was to apply virtually any standard musicological analytical technique to it it would fare extremely badly. If I was to apply the aesthtic criteria expoused by Dalhaus or Scrutton it would not fare any better. It is on that basis that I am calling it banal. It lacks substance, variety. Its very predictable, but there is very little in the way of surprise. Everything in musicology is subject to personal value judgements. Those are mine. Value and greatness in music was a topic I studied as a third year undergraduate, mainly from the Dalhaus perspective. I'd also go as far as to say its trite. But each to their own. I just find very little intrinsic worth in his music. (personal perspectives cast aside)

So good music to you has to be something you can apply a "standard musicological analytical technique" to and find something amazing or apply that guy's aesthetic technique to and find something equally amazing?

Of course it's predictable. A lot of music is predictable. This is a sweeping generalisation, but look at the Classical period - V - I - V - I - V - I - V - I - V - I - V - I - V - I . I can predict that .

I sometimes get a tad fed up with academics or people with music degrees or whoever really, going on and on about music having to be blah blah (see first sentence), when it is first and foremost something to listen to, so take it as that. I don't analyse every piece of music I like and go "ooh this has no substance, it's repetitive, it cadences every 2 bars, it's the same, he doesn't change the opening motif in 10 different ways so that means I musn't like it".

It's perfectly fine that you don't like it to listen to, but focus solely on you not liking it because of its "lack of substance" from an analytical perspective.

Basically yes, but that does not mean you have to like it or you can't like other music.

Oh and you can be fed up with the way that musicologists think, it takes all types to make a world. Apply a Schenkenerian reduction to its ultimate conculsion and you normally end up with I-V-I its what happens in the interveneing layers that makes the piece interesting.

There has to be a wasy of assessing worth, thats why books on aesthetics are written and that musicologists study them.

I don't know why too!

I'm with Scaramouche on this one - I'm not an Einaudi fan, but people are allowed to like it, and I don't think they're some sort of intellectual delinquent if they do. I think trying to apply musicological techniques to defend whether one likes or doesn't like a piece of music or a composer's output is a little nonsensical - it would be like me saying I don't like 'Surfing USA' by the Beach Boys because it isn't written in sonata form and they repeated a chord weak-strong across a bar line . I'm a scientist by day, and one of the things I like about music is that it isn't black or white - music isn't provably good or bad. Musicology and analysis, of course, have a place, but I don't think it's in this discussion .

Roussel, Karl Amadeus Hartmann Birtwistle
I thought Sir Harry's "Panic" was the most awful thing I've had to suffer in a concert hall (Last Night of the Proms 1995). At least I was in the Gallery that year, not near the front of the Arena!

Perhaps it's not so much that I'm fed up of how all musicologists think. Perhaps it's that I expect responses from "musicology majors" to have some substance and not primarily based on getting a reaction out of people to give others a "giggle read". What is so funny about discussing music I do not know. I defend music I like, merely by asking questions regarding musicology and techniques. Evidently that doesn't seem to be allowed anymore .



And don't I know it.

Also, trying to make reference to 'intellectual musicology and aesthetic' books, really doesn't make you sound intelligent. I prefer people to make their own judgements on music by what they hear, not what a book says.