Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
You should be able to see, intellectually, why the major composers are great. This is part of recognizing quality music and craftsmanship. On the other hand, your individual emotional response doesn't have to be involved in that recognition, and you may respond emotionally to things of lower quality. In a way, it's like romantic relationships. You need to be able to recognize an interesting, high-quality person. You also need to recognize when you feel emotionally drawn to a person. In romance, where monogamy is the norm, you ideally need to find a partner who has both of those things. In appreciating music, your love can and should be as wide-ranging as possible, but you should be aware of what good qualities each composer or work possesses.
I don't like Debussy, Ravel or Brahms very much. They're potential partners who "have great personalities", but I just don't feel that spark. Maybe as life continues, that will change for me, but I've continually given them chances for the last 20 years, and not particularly found much excitement, except in a few select pieces
I don't like Debussy, Ravel or Brahms very much. They're potential partners who "have great personalities", but I just don't feel that spark. Maybe as life continues, that will change for me, but I've continually given them chances for the last 20 years, and not particularly found much excitement, except in a few select pieces
I don't hate any particular composer (- I'm of course excluding pop, rock, jazz etc from this discussion), but I don't particularly care for Papa H. Heck, I don't even particularly care for Joseph himself. Apart from his Nelson Mass, his Trumpet Concerto, his D major piano concerto and a few piano sonatas, he is, IMO, utterly surplus to requirements (sorry, Papa ).
I had the misfortune to play his Hob XVI 50 for my ABRSM Grade 8 exam, which reminded me never to play any more of his piano music......
But in the grand scheme of things, of the big-name composers, it's poor old (bearded) Brahms who's the most frequent object of villification among fellow composers, and probably classical music lovers too, even today.
For instance, one said that he sometimes listened to Brahms to remind himself just how bad a composer Brahms was. Yet Schoenberg, of all people, called 'Brahms the Progressive'. There's just no accounting for weird tastes........
Good ol' Wolfie, however, is probably the one composer who's the most revered among fellow composers, from Papa H to Chopin to Tchaikovsky to Ravel to Britten to....
I own and have listened many times to Alsop conducting all of Brahms' orchestral works. Thanks for reminding me about the performance and that piece. I'm listening to it now, since you brought it to my attention. The performance is on my calendar, and I'll plan on going, but I can't promise that I won't enjoy the Egmont overture dramatically more
Or shouldn't you? There have got to be some major composers that you don't like. Not everyone likes everybody. Well?
I hesitate to hate only because I've found that some of the more famous works of certain composers aren't really indicative of their best work. That being said, of the style of music that I prefer, I like Schumann the least.
Or shouldn't you? There have got to be some major composers that you don't like. Not everyone likes everybody. Well?
I try to learn what I can from all of them.
Best answer on the thread-- I predict it.
-J
That was my prediction as well, when I read that. And I feel exactly the same way - that being said, there are some major composers that I haven't bothered with too much so far, Wagner being one example, but I guess I'll find time sooner or later.
But the main issue for me nowadays is that I'm much more heavily involved in repertoire from the start of the 20th century up until today, and I there are some composers I consider 'major' in their fields but who haven't gotten enough attention. I agree there should be a 'canon' to have under consideration, but it's also interesting to challenge that canon, and bring to light voices that perhaps have meant less for music history than their 'canon counterparts' yet still have something valid to say in their art.
i hate Schoenberg, Wagner, Brahms, Ligeti, Stravinsky, Ravel, Xenakis, Cage, Haydn, Berg, Hindemith, Penderecki, Prokofiev ...
That's what makes the world go round. I'm working on pieces by three on your list right now.
Larry.
...and I have been performing about half of the mentioned composers recently...I'm not so fond of Penderecki either, however - saw him with my own eyes last summer at a festival and had a slight urge to say, in Polish: 'thank you for some pieces you wrote in the 70's', but then I realized it wasn't a very flattering thing to say.
Or shouldn't you? There have got to be some major composers that you don't like. Not everyone likes everybody. Well?
Maybe one must if one wants to be a professional performer. Would be a bit hard to be forced to learn so much stuff that one really dislikes. But for us amateurs we have the luxury to choose and let our natural reaction quide our tastes. It is possible to learn to like something, but is it worth it if there's so much to like anyway? Why would an acquired taste be more valuable than a naturally developed one? I don't need to like something immediately, but I must have at least some interest towards it and if no such interest has surfaced after a couple of listens, then I will make my judgement to put the thing into the dislike category.
There are plenty of major composers that I really don't like at all or only like a few single pieces, either because I find their output boring (Beethoven and much of Bach) or annoying (Mozart and Tchaikovsky). That someone has been labelled great in the canon while others aren't is not objective knowledge. It all depneds on how greatness is defined and by whom. I am much more interested in individuality than the ability to create a vast output following a complex set of rules, even if I do admire such craftmanship. But that admiration doesn't mean I want to listen to or play the resulted stuff.
I feel a little more "meh" about some composers than others, but the meh ones are not really in the major-composer category. Like maybe Rheinberger, or Dittersdorf. Not much to excite me there, at least not that I've heard. Johann Strauss maybe (is he a major composer or not?) but I can think of lots of occasions where a little J. Strauss would be just the ticket.
I like all the major composers, but I also like a lot of composers who aren't considered "great" and think they have a great deal to offer. I spent last Sunday listening to the piano works of Rodrigo, Ginastera, and Turina. (Ginastera is well-respected in some circles, but even then, people often only know the Argentine Dances and 1st sonata.)
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
For some composers, I dislike their piano works but admire their contributions to other genres. Schumann falls into this category - I've never particularly enjoyed his piano works but love his song cycles. The same is true of Schubert, to an extent (although his sonatas don't grab me, I enjoy his shorter works more).
For instance, one said that he sometimes listened to Brahms to remind himself just how bad a composer Brahms was.
Who said that?? Every time I listen I am astonished by his setting of "For all flesh, it is as grass" in the Requiem. It is such a difficult text, and he puts it so well that I can almost feel my own flesh withering away as I listen.
Then How Lovely is Thy Dwelling Place is like a peek into heaven itself, giving you the feeling of longing to be there.
There is one part of Brahms I really don't understand from the German Requiem, when he portrays the dead being raised. The music is full of energy (dare I say, anger?). I jokingly interpreted it as the dead being raised as zombies, but I can't find any way to understand that Brahms considers the Resurrection to be a happy thing. Check here at 3:10
The English translation is "For the trombone will sound, and the dead shall rise again, immortal, and we will be transformed."
).
