Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner composers you dislike

I remember the thread made a while back when we all discussed PIECES we despise! but i don't specifically remember talking about "composers" we despise?
sure, i appreciate all the composers, think of their efforts! but surely there are a few that get a little on your nerves?

what do you guys think?
personally...im not sure! one i do question is debussy: its just, mostly all of his pieces sound the same to me!! i LOVE clair de lune....gives me the shivers every time! BUT, other than that, hmmm, im not to sure about a lot of his work
don't get me wrong...a very fine, fine composer!

I look forward to your replies!

I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more about Debussey. I think many people(and I know for a fact that many professional pianists)would consider Debussey and Ravel the two greatest composers for piano in the 20th century. I certainly would place them there.

Claire de Lune does not even represent Debussey's mature style. If that is the only piece of his you are very familiar with or enjoy, I feel you are missing some of the GREATEST AND MOST ORIGINAL PIANO MUSIC ever written!

By the way, what is it that makes you less than enthusiastic about Debussey? To me, virtually all of his pieces have an immediate appeal on many levels.

Well, I'm sure this thread might stir up some controversy, but it is a very valid matter to debate.

I cannot actually place composers into such firmly defined blocks such as those I "like" or "dislike". I can, however, dissect a composer's work in the following way. I often find I will adore a composers' ability to write for a particular instrument (or group of instruments, such as in a concerto or chamber/symphonic piece) and yet dislike the same composer in music for another instrument.

To take Mozart, for example, I've found I love his symphonies and choral works, along with the wind music, but I find the piano sonatas and concertos quite boring.

Conversely, there isn't a single piece for piano/piano with orchestra by Rachmaninov I dislike and yet I'm not all that fond of his symphonies.

There are exceptions: I love ALL of Chopin's music, and ALL of Beethoven's music too.

The general rule for me though is that the larger the composer's output the more I will dislike particular parts of his output. It flows into a dissection of their works which I cannot quite get away from.

Anyway: looking forward to hearing everyone else's viewpoints over this.

Defo

I like Mozart, but I can only handle about a half hour of him...after that I get very sick of it. I'm not saying he was a bad composer, he was a genius, but his music starts to sound the same after a while.
I am NOT a fan of poulenc (spelling?).

I am not a big fan of Ravel. I deslike almost all of his pieces for piano.
And I dont really like Handel, and Teleman.

I could probably listen to Mozart for about an hour or 2!

for me haendel is quite boring, the same with rachmaninoff wich of course has beautifull works for piano but they don't represent much for me

Not a big fan of Stravinsky. All his music has that witty "Stravinsky sound" which I find boring and generated after a while.

Mike

There are very few composers that I actively dislike, except...

Elgar. I simply feel nothing when I hear any of his music.

Other than that, I have to admit there are many works by Beethoven, Chopin and Ravel that simply make me want to vomit (Moonlight Sonata, Grand Polonaise, Bolero, etc.). However, they also wrote many pieces that I find sublime, so I could never say that I despise them.

Oh such taste and wisdom.

Rachmaninov has a nice sound in a lot of places, but most of his pieces fail to attract me; they all seem a bit artificial. Like Rubinstein said, his piano concerto is nice to listen too, but it is just really well written pianistically. It might be that I fail to understand some of his music, but I don't think he is a great composer to compare to the likes of Chopin, Debussy, and all of the others. Scriabin's music is a lot better than Rachmaninov's, he is more realistic and has a lot more energy in his works, while Rachmaninov was really an expert writer of "Romantic" music in the full sense of the word; lacking in some regards.

Wagner is of absolutely no use to me(except of course if I can't get to sleep)

Moi? A given, surely...

I think it is important to like or dislike solely on the basis of the sound, not because of the composer's beliefs or personality and not because somebody we like or dislike passes an opinion. Neither should we allow historical and social opinion to affect our responses. Mental association does have the specious capacity to prevent us from enjoying the music for its own sake. I loathed Bach for years, but when I got rid of certain associations unconnected with the sound I began to enjoy it.

Copland I really don't understand his stuff, to me it's pretty boring.

pianoloverus:
Im afraid you have TOTALLY mis-interperuted (is that how you spell it?) my point!
I LOVE debussy....but i find a lot of his work similar...but i LOVE IT see!
I really didn't mean to set u a-blaze!
Guys, i understand how disrespectful it is to despise a composer...maybe it was the wrong word to use!
Just keep ya' cool guys! (LoL)

My apologies!!!!!!!

The best composer ever? Muzio Clementi. The reason? GRADUS AD PARNASSUM.

I know I will incur the wrath of many forum members here... but I just truly dislike Rachmaninov. His piano concertos... I just don't find them appealing. I'm probably just weird or something.

I also do not find Copland satisfying.

I used to hate Bach. Then... I listened to things other than his inventions, and realized how utterly PERFECT his music was... then I fell in love.

As a big fan of Debussy I have to intervene, excuse me
Are you talking about his piano works only?
If not then buy a recording of Karajan conducting "La Mer". Sit down in a couch with a cup of tea on a cold winter night and listen to that cd when you are by yourself. Trust me you will see what Debussy is.

Now if you were talking about his piano works. Remember he did not write that many. Which is why there doesn't seem to be much variety.
In my opinion Clair de Lune is one of his worst compositions. Yep! The famous Clair de Lune, I hate it! I don't understand why it is his most famous. Maybe because it is a hollow and user-friendly short romantic piece with "airs of grandeur"
His Etudes are great. Listen to his Waltzes, they are parodies. They contain much irony and references to other composers like Chopin.
I also like Six Epigraphes Antiques (very convincing)
and MASQUES a superb piece.
Remember his music is like a delicate silk shroud wrapped around the winds. Do not approach it too close, or it will fall apart!

I don't like Mozart. Everything I can hear from this guy is just some childish tunes. Either I am too narrow-minded or I just didn't listen to the right things. Try me.

The Requiem is nice but that's about it. What am I missing?
Did he write any piano piece that actually sends you to heaven and heck and then makes you come back to earth like most composers did?

I like the Debussy preludes the most. They seem to transport me into the very deep end of my mind and back. As for Mozart, I can listen to him for hours on end (Which have done!). His music can transport one to heck and back. It is in the ear of the listener. Listen to his sonata k.310, or the second movement of his k.330. Truly sublime music, those who prejudge it as simple and childish do not know what they are missing. His symphonies, especially the late ones, have just as much emotion and darkness in them as Beethoven. (Listen to #25,40, and 41 to see what I am talking about.)
When I sit down and listen to a Mozart sonata, the sound completely engulfs me. The melody is spun out and never stops, and it is truly an unique experience.
When I listen to a performance of a high-octane virtuoso piece, (Like many things by Rachmaninoff, and etudes or romantic concerti) I get tired of the mindless technical display that occurs sometimes. I often listen to a piece, and hear runs in scales and arpeggios all over the place, but for what reason? (Mozart's runs were meant to connected melodic motives, and not for mere display). When I listen to Bach, his music captures me in much the same way as Mozart. My attention can never faulter during a well-played Fugue, the different voices are just too magical to not pay attention.