This should be interesting...

We all love Sibelius...but who can't we stand?

Here is my rough list below:

Arnold Schonberg
Antonio Vivaldi
Carl Maria von Weber
Alexander Glazunov
Franz Schubert
Aaron Copland
George Gershwin
Pierre Boulez
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Yup, I saved the best one for last.

Whenever I hear these composers on the radio, I switch to something else. They bore me. And sorry...I know Mozart is God, but I guess that makes me a heretic...a pagan. Thus, I am quite at home in the realm of my pagan god like Tapio, Ukko and Lemminkäinen!

I definitely cannot stand Mozart. He doesn't say anything to me, and he churns out such unimaginative music... most of it in the major, all happy-cheery-bounceful-whatever. It disgusts me. Then I turn on Pohjola's Daughter and bathe in its dark, gloomy tones and rejoice... hehe...

I think we all love sinking into the darkness of Pohjola's Daughter!!!

I could not agree with you more. Mozart is all the same happy stuff. Salon music. Structurally sound with lots of nice melody, but where is the intrugue? What in it can grab you psychologically?

I'm so glad I'm not the only one...

I think the Mozart-haters among us could churn out a long list of composers who they dislike even more; I believe that the important distinction therefore becomes which composers we dislike that are generally acknowledged by another group of people. Whether it be the general concert-going public (in Mozart's case) or academics (in Schoenberg's), I think it is in large part the perceived popularity of certain composers that makes us dislike them.

For me, I abhor Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and their followers. I believe that the dodecaphonic/serialist school of thought has in large part led to the collapse of contemporary music that we witnessed in the 20th century. Very little contemporary music is programmed for performance, with the exception of a string of premieres that no-one remembers. But how many pieces that are 10, 15, or 20 years old receive repeated performances and slowly begin to establish themselves in the consciousness of the general concert-going public? Not many.

That to me is a tragedy, and I blame the serialists.

Their stranglehold on the academic world for the greater part of the 20th Century in effect prevented the development and birth of a sensible and understandable musical language, for instance a continuation of Sibelius' or Stravinsky's. So we were left with a fragmented tradition, overemphasis on originality for originality's sake and necessary counter-measures like minimalism, which for all its "pleasantness" probably isn't the answer either.

So I for one will take Mozart over these 3 and their successors any day.

I, too, would take Mozart over Schonberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, etc. Serialism is little more than a failed experiement, in my opinion. It is absolutely true that works by those (and other) composers are hardly ever programed and for very good reason...nobody wants to hear them.

I remember listening to BBC 3 radio (via the internet) and they were playing a live performance of a serialist work that sounded like a bunch of silly noise to me. I listened not because I enjoyed what I was hearing, but because it was so awful. Then, the piece came to a close and the audience began to applaud. I laughed out loud...THAT deserved applause? People were actually emotionally satisfied by that so much that they are clapping? Yeah right.

So, again, while I find Mozart fairly boring, I would take him any day over so-called Modernist music.

I will willingly listen to Mozart but not (with just a few exceptions) to...
Brahms.
All those eternally stodgy, kapellmeisterish Andante con motos put me straight to sleep. His best quality seems to me to be that he looked like Leif Segerstam.

gosh, i enjoy mozart and some berg.
i confess to not liking a good bit of opera nor zemlinsky.

dj

Brahms is probably a composer I should add to my original list. I find him a little boring. I like the Hungarian Dances, but other than that, I'm not a big fan.

I like Andrew's comment that Leif Segerstam looks like him. Hahahahaha...so true!!

Least favorite composer?
In my case it has got to be Gustav Mahler, God knows I have tried. The first symphony I know best, but I seem to be allergic to the music, which I find overblown, self-indulgent and false.
I have little sympathy with the second Vienese school and Messiaen is not a great love.
As regards Wolfgang, how can anyone not listen to the slow movement of his clarinet concerto without being moved to the core.
Brahms does not seem to popular on this forum--I love his music, the opening of the fourth symphony was surely heaven sent.--kullervopete.

Interesting comment on Mahler, Pete. I used to be indifferent to his music but within the least year or so, I have begun warming up to it quite a bit. I'm actually quite fond of it nowadays.

Yes, there are elements of self-indulgence and over-statement, but perhaps that is one of the reasons I find his music so interesting. Mind you, I think a few of his symphonies could be shaved down a bit to result in a more "to the point" and powerful experience, but it is what it is. I especially love his 2nd Symphony. It ends with some of the most moving music ever dreamt of.

But there is no doubt Mahler is popular. I participate on the classical music forums from time to time on Amazon.com and once posted a topic called "The 20th Century's Greatest Symphonist: Sibelius or Mahler?" (I knew I would be stirring tht pot with that one!) Opinion was about 60% to 40% in favor of Mahler! Of course, I was in favor of Sibelius. There were people who made comments like Sibelius was nothing more than a "regional composer" and Mahler expressed a "more complicated world view" in his symphonies. I couldn't believe these types of comments.

Oh yes, Olivier Messiaen. I've tried getting into his popular Turangalila Symphony. It's just too scattered and stange.

The Second Viennesse School is just a fancy sounding name for composers who did not know how to write a tune. Whenever you see videos of cats "playing" the piano on YouTube, I guarantee you they are playing works by either Schonberg, Werbern or Berg. Cats really understand serialism.

And finally, I just do not enjoy Mozart. I have no ill will towards the man whatsoever, but I just cannot relate to him.

Thanks Tapkaara for an interesting post.
There is no doubt that just as with the Wagner/Brahms factions of the late 19th century, so too the relative merits of Mahler and Sibelius usually generate serious debate.
Have you seen the topic 'Jean Gustav Mahlerius' which can be found in this general discussion section?

No prize for guessing my stance!--kullervopete.

I love Gustav Mahler and Sibelius. Brahms I used to really like a lot, but now he's really annoying me with all the high violin parts that just stick out like a sore thumb.

I do greatly respect Mozart as a wonderful musician and a brilliant theorist and structural master. He just doesn't mature very much until about the 39th or 40th symphony... not soon enough, as it was to turn out.

I definitely agree with Kurki's stance on the serialists. They destroyed music as it was before the turn of the century. Bernstein said that after the turn of the century, composers have been at a distance from the public. Whereas before, the composers' new works were anticipated like a new Harry Potter book today, afterwards (now) people don't go for the premieres: they go instead for their Beethoven and Mozart and Brahms and so on (not that I have anything wrong with Beethoven!!!).

Though I do like me some Ives every once in a while.

kullervopete wrote:

Have you seen the topic 'Jean Gustav Mahlerius' which can be found in this general discussion section? .

I have looked at it and it is an interesting thread. I should contribute to it at some point since I admire both composers...but I like Sieblius more!!

Tapkaara's very astute summary of Cerealism inspired me to begin

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

thread, take a look!

As for Mozart,

World Violist wrote:

I do greatly respect Mozart as a wonderful musician and a brilliant theorist and structural master. He just doesn't mature very much until about the 39th or 40th symphony... not soon enough, as it was to turn out.

... I would add 35 "Haffner" and 38 "Prague" to that list.

Kurki, I am glad you can appreciate my sense of humor!

By the way, I apologize for the mispelled words in a lot of my posts. In the quote, I say "Vienesse" and "Werbern" which are obviously mispelled. I am a sloppy typist, so bear with me.

In my humble estimation, what seperates sound from music is structure and some form of tonality. I know the composers of the Second Viennese School wanted to push the boundaries of what music is, but you can only push so much before you lie outside of the boundaries and thus what you are producing ceases to try be music.

Music is appreciated as such because it is more complex than random sound. We listen because it is not random...we listen because it is created with intelligence, sensitivity and purpose. The same idea can be applied to architecture: bricks (seemingly) randomly strewn about means nothing; there is no humanity behind it and it means nothing. If the bricks come together to create a structure, it is obviously created with thought and purpose. Would the Pyramids be as impressive if they were just a pile of bricks?

For example, Sibelius's 7th is like a pyramid and towers over the random brick pile that is the Second Viennese school.

I guess that's my attempt at being philosophical and clever!

World Violist wrote:

Whereas before, the composers' new works were anticipated like a new Harry Potter book today, afterwards (now) people don't go for the premieres:

Aha, I get it, previously it was like a new Harry Potter, now it's like a new Jeffrey Archer novel?

Andrew B wrote:

... now it's like a new Jeffrey Archer novel?

rofl.

I have to say I'm amongst the Mozart haters the music seems to have no soul for my taste. I have a blind spot for anything by Vivaldi Corelli Tartini et al. Andrew and I agree on most things but I find his dislike of Brahms amazing. As to favourites other than Sibbe Mahler, Bernstein, Liszt, Bruckner, Wagner and Tubin (his symphonies especially the 4th and 5th are well recommended by me for those that don't know them already). Other favs include Nielsen and Stenhammar and Bax.

But hey if we all liked the same it would be a boring world.

I don't so much "hate" Mozart as much as put him on a lesser tier of listenability. Of the big names, I'd place Berlioz near the top of my list of least favorites along with Telemann, Scarlatti and much of what's considered Baroque other than J.S. Bach and Handel. Lesser light (or non-light) John Cage has to be there, too. I haven't heard much Boulez.

Oh, you can add Arvo Pärt to the list as well; I haven't heard anything by him that I'd listen to more than once...on purpose, that is.

I like Part, Telemann and Berlioz. I enjoy quite a bit of Baroque music, as well.

I'm actually a little shocked that I am not the only one in this forum who is not a Mozart fan. I thought everyone worshipped him but me. Aside from his REQUIEM, I just cannot get into him.