Who is, in your opinion, the world's worst reputable composer?

While there will always be people who hate 12 tone music, how is maths random? :huh:

I'm sorry, and I have a feeling that many of you going to start throwing oversized boulders and flaming torches at me for this, but I can't stand mozart. Or glass for that matter.

Math isn't random on it's own... but the way the Schoenberg used it was to create randomness. He was purposely trying to avoid any sort of tonal structure, and avoid all conventional forms of music, essentially being "as random as possible."

Also... I hate Mozart as well. He's far to frilly for my tastes. The only work of his that I like, the Requiem Mass in D Minor, wasn't even completed by him...

I suppose you hate fugues?

No. I do not hate fugues at all. There is sense and order in fugues. There is nothing but purposely flouting all standard senses of music in 12-tone theory.

Right then... I feel that certain things said here about my knowledge and views on film music require some defending, and I happily oblige...

First off, I would like to clear an apparent misconception. I have a huge amount of respect for the skill and craft film composers can demonstrate in their works. I would agree with rob1984 that they can show flexibility and versatility (though generally not originality in this). More on this later though...

To me, the genre of film music is a slightly shoddy one. I would consider around 5% of scores to be genuinely original. Film music is music made to the dictates of the mass-markets and can be said to have crowd-pleasing as a requirement. Artistic vision is limited, and the music must not be too stimulating so as to distract from the film, rather it must support it. Furthermore, as copyright for each score is owned by the production companies, a composer must produce a score for each film that sounds completely unique.

Film scoring is an incredibly complex process and film composers are probably the most versatile composers in the world; a good film composer can write music in almost all styles without losing their own sound. John Williams, for example, is a master of his trade; it might not be the most original music but there are few better than him at getting the atmosphere exactly right at the right moment. And technically his music is well composed. In short he knows what he's doing and that's why he's been at the top for so long.

Film scoring isn't about revolutionary music (although it can be). By comparing film scores with concert music you're comparing apples with oranges and that's not fair. They're composed for different purposes and one is not inherently worse than the other because of this.

In order to fit with these demands, a film composer must inevitably compose in a style different from his own, borrowing from others to best fit his desires. John Williams may "get the atmosphere exactly right", but this (like other film composers) is all too often done by essentially rewriting an existing piece of music to make it sound similar, but original enough to avoid copyright (a task commercial composers are often commissioned to perform). This is completely understandable.

The fact remains that film music may be a different medium to concert music, but to me it is clearly an inferior one, and one that gives a lot less intellectual satisfaction to the listener (though it can admittedly be quite fun). Certainly, I would prefer to hear the original vision of a composer.

Despite this, it is for film music that composers choosing to write orchestral music receive the most accolades and respect from the general public. This annoys me because I feel it is being unjust to genuine concert music that is so much more so about the artistic vision and intellectual stimulation of a composer. It also annoys me because often it is giving them all the credit for music often half written by someone else, long diseased and unable to protest.

This is why, despite the respect I hold for film composers, I feel the need to nominate them here, as their music simply cannot hold up, as music, against concert music.

As a side note, I am nominating composers who write mainly film music (NOT Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, Copland, Shostakovich, Glass, Walton, Bernstein and Arnold etc...!!! - though I've never viewed their film scores as their greatest works, far from it), because while others write film scores as necessities when they need financial support, or where they find an opportunity to genuinely follow their artistic vision, these composers actively choose to specialise in the area of film music (so I guess you can exclude Korngold from my grouping of nominees).

Furthermore, would you not regard film scores by the likes of Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, Copland, Shostokovich, Glass, Walton, Bernstein and Arnold as geniune compositions?

- walkingwikipedia

P.S. to Qccowboy...

I question the need to reply to my opinions not with rebuttal/opposing opinions but rather with statements suggesting I don't know what I'm talking about. To me this is mildly offensive and I respectfully ask for you to offer healthy debate (even briefly)/constructive comments, or stay silent.

If we are going for proper composers however, I would definitely nominate Pachabel.

Of the posts in this thread this is perhaps the one that intrigues me the most (assuming you do mean Pachelbel). What, besides the canon, would you suggest that I listen to in order to understand your point? What, besides the canon, have you actually heard?

Although I suspect the background here is simple (you've heard that good old canon, didn't like it, and assume Pachelbel sucked), this is pretty surreal to me. Pachelbel is just one of those people who were really good at what they did, and are not controversial in any way. I could foresee Mozart, Cage, Sch

ME!

Not quite reputable really, or famous, but hey can't I have a bash at infamous-y?

I even have hate mail!

subject: Your music... it's sooooo great!

subject: Your music... it's sooooo great!

Hi Nikolas' date='

Just kidding. I'd be mad at the world if I were you too. Why don't you do the world a favor and stop polluting it with your ugly, tired and uninspired music? Find another career. Thank you.

Have a nice day!

-Joe[/quote']

__________________________

What an awfully sad thread this is... :(

Schoenberg, Glass, Cage, Berlioz, Chopin, Schumann.

No particular order.

wow, I understand that some of you may not like Mozart but can anyone here really call him the world's worst reputable composer? I mean, like him or not, he is generally considered one of the best composers who ever lived. That has to count for something!

To me, the genre of film music is a slightly shoddy one. I would consider around 5% of scores to be genuinely original. Film music is music made to the dictates of the mass-markets and can be said to have crowd-pleasing as a requirement. Artistic vision is limited, and the music must not be too stimulating so as to distract from the film, rather it must support it.

Why does that make artistic vision limited? These kind of contrainsts can require more artistic vision than just putting together a piece of music that'll be performed in the concert hall.

Furthermore, it takes just as much skill to compose a very good film score as it does to compose a very good symphony and it could be argued just as easily that only 5% of symphonies ever composed are genuinly original with many based on old styles, tried and tested techniques, understood orchestrations etc. (see, I can pick numbers out of the air as well, fun isn't it?!)

And as for being crowd-pleasing, what on earth is wrong with that? I personally think a well-composed piece of music, whether for film or for the concert hall, that captures an audience's imagination is more successful than a well-composed piece of music that doesn't. But then I'm weird like that.

:whistling:

In order to fit with these demands, a film composer must inevitably compose in a style different from his own, borrowing from others to best fit his desires. John Williams may "get the atmosphere exactly right", but this (like other film composers) is all too often done by essentially rewriting an existing piece of music to make it sound similar, but original enough to avoid copyright

Tosh. So are you telling me that if you hear a piece of John Williams' music you're unfamiliar with you won't recognise it as John Williams. I think he has a very distinctive style. As for rewriting existing pieces of music; Williams is one of the best composers of a melody there is and you're doing him a huge injustice with your claims.

The fact remains that film music may be a different medium to concert music, but to me it is clearly an inferior one, and one that gives a lot less intellectual satisfaction to the listener

Again, you're trying to compare apples with oranges and missng the point entirely! Film music isn't meant to give intellectual stimulation, it doesn't pretent to and it is therefore not failing in its function.

You'd be mightily peeved if a film composer tried to be too clever by writing music that gave intellectual stimulation and ended up writing a score that ruined the film.

Again, please don't compare film and concert music; they're written for such completely different audiences and purposes that it does your point no good to continue comparing them.

Despite this, it is for film music that composers choosing to write orchestral music receive the most accolades and respect from the general public. This annoys me because I feel it is being unjust to genuine concert music that is so much more so about the artistic vision and intellectual stimulation of a composer. It also annoys me because often it is giving them all the credit for music often half written by someone else, long diseased and unable to protest.

Again, I disagree with you on this point. You're making film composers out to be little more than plagarists and that really bugs me, especially since borrowing of ideas isn't unique to the field of film composition. I know you don't like me saying this but it does strike me that you don't know what you're talking about when you say things like that.

As for the accolades, well that's only natural. As long as top concert composers write music that will only appeal to niche audiences (music that is very intellectually stimulating), then they can't expect to gain mass recognition. They can't have it both ways and I don't suppose they'd want to becuase part of the appeal of "difficult" concert music is that it isn't mainstream.

Furthermore, the lack of accolades for concert composers isn't film composers fault in the slightest. Do you honestly think if John Williams wasn't writing blockbuster film scores, there'd be a mass of people going out buying CDs of Ferneyhough?

Your bitterness on behalf of concert composers isn't helping your point in the slightest.

This is why, despite the respect I hold for film composers, I feel the need to nominate them here, as their music simply cannot hold up, as music, against concert music.

A Shostokovich Symphony would make a shite film score. An Elfman film score wouldn't work on stage without being rewritten becuase of structural problems. Again you're comparing apples and oranges and I'd urge you not to.

As for whether it holds up "as music", that's such a ridiculously subjective argument it's hardly worth getting into. I can quickly get bored listening to an overly-long Handel aria, but could listen to the textures and sounds of, for example, Bernard Hermann all day long.

As a side note, I am nominating composers who write mainly film music (NOT Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, Copland, Shostakovich, Glass, Walton, Bernstein and Arnold etc...!!! - though I've never viewed their film scores as their greatest works, far from it), because while others write film scores as necessities when they need financial support, or where they find an opportunity to genuinely follow their artistic vision, these composers actively choose to specialise in the area of film music (so I guess you can exclude Korngold from my grouping of nominees).

That doesn't really answer my question. Do you consider film scores by the afforementioned composers as genuine compositions or not?

What about VW's film score to Scott of the Antarctic which later became his Symphony Antarctica? Is that score not a genuine composition? Becuase you did say, along with regarding film composers as the world's worst repuable composers that you "don't regard film scores as genuine composition".

Tosh. So are you telling me that if you hear a piece of John Williams' music you're unfamiliar with you won't recognise it as John Williams. I think he has a very distinctive style. As for rewriting existing pieces of music; Williams is one of the best composers of a melody there is and you're doing him a huge injustice with your claims.

Even though the music for the sand people had Stravinsky Rite as a substitute (By Lucas), it's total coincidence that Williams music is almost the same.

Strange how Dvorak 9 (scherzo) has the same Motif as Duel of the Fates.

Weird how the first 5 notes of Mussorgsky's Pictures appears as the first 5 notes of a SW track.

Has no resemblance of Prokofiev at all either.

Ooh, I just checked wiki:

Star Wars music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they say the same.

The fact remains that film music may be a different medium to concert music, but to me it is clearly an inferior one, and one that gives a lot less intellectual satisfaction to the listener

A Shostokovich Symphony would make a shite film score.

Film music is music made to the dictates of the mass-markets and can be said to have crowd-pleasing as a requirement.

Furthermore, it takes just as much skill to compose a very good film score as it does to compose a very good symphony and it could be argued just as easily that only 5% of symphonies ever composed are genuinly original with many based on old styles, tried and tested techniques, understood orchestrations etc. (see, I can pick numbers out of the air as well, fun isn't it?!)

*can't edit*

oh, Gershwin - he make poor "jazz"/broadway, whatever he wants to call that.

And is not classical music by a long* shot.

*I mean loooong shot.

Film music is music made to the dictates of the mass-markets and can be said to have crowd-pleasing as a requirement.

You mean like opera or church music?

P.S. to Qccowboy...

I question the need to reply to my opinions not with rebuttal/opposing opinions but rather with statements suggesting I don't know what I'm talking about. To me this is mildly offensive and I respectfully ask for you to offer healthy debate (even briefly)/constructive comments, or stay silent.

if you had somethig to rebutt or oppose other than your banal statement regarding John Williams, then I might have.

I didn't say you were wrong about FILM music, I said you were limited in your assessment of John Williams as a composer, who HAS composed concert works (concerti, etc...).

I happen to have the highest regard for many of his concert works (and I don't mean "olympic fanfares" and his other incidental concert works, which bear more likeness to his filmscores than to his true concert works).

I DID say that it was "ill advised" to simply dismiss film composers in the manner you did. It isn't all second rate music. I wouldn't give it to any of my students to study; however, it suits its purpose effectively. I liken (good) filmscores in many ways to opera and ballet.

No. I do not hate fugues at all. There is sense and order in fugues. There is nothing but purposely flouting all standard senses of music in 12-tone theory.

If you can't hear sense and order in pieces by, say, Webern you obviously have never really listened to them... And it's not about "purposely floating all standard senses of music" (aside from the fact that the term "standard senses of music" is highly dubitable). Contrary to popular belief the 12-tone system wasn't just "made up out of the blue", but is merely an attempt to formalise a kind of very expressive music that had developed for quite some time, to structurize it.

The point why I brought up fugues, is that they are clearly much more "mathematical" than dodecaphonic music. The compositional freedoms in 12-tone music are generally greater than the freedoms in a fugue, which is very much determined by strict rules. Both are highly structured systems, both only serve the music in the end. It (partly) is the beauty of the structure we enjoy, both in a Bach fugue and a piece by Webern.

(True serialist music, as it appeared in the fifties is of course a slightly different matter, as it is much more goverened by strict rules than Schoenbergs 12-tone music. However, even there deciding on the musical rules is a highly individual process.)

And your example of why Schoenberg's music is random astounds me: Purposefully evading tonality is random? How can a purpose be random? If Schoenberg had wanted to write random sounding music he clearly would have used dice, right? I have several times listened to actual random music (written with dice, computer algorithms etc.), and I assure you, it sounds nothing like Schoenberg.

Walkingwikipedia; What do you mean by "rewriting pieces"? Can you give me examples of this?

If you can't hear sense and order in pieces by, say, Webern you obviously have never really listened to them... And it's not about "purposely floating all standard senses of music" (aside from the fact that the term "standard senses of music" is highly dubitable). Contrary to popular belief the 12-tone system wasn't just "made up out of the blue", but is merely an attempt to formalise a kind of very expressive music that had developed for quite some time, to structurize it.

The point why I brought up fugues, is that they are clearly much more "mathematical" than dodecaphonic music. The compositional freedoms in 12-tone music are generally greater than the freedoms in a fugue, which is very much determined by strict rules. Both are highly structured systems, both only serve the music in the end. It (partly) is the beauty of the structure we enjoy, both in a Bach fugue and a piece by Webern.

(True serialist music, as it appeared in the fifties is of course a slightly different matter, as it is much more goverened by strict rules than Schoenbergs 12-tone music. However, even there deciding on the musical rules is a highly individual process.)

And your example of why Schoenberg's music is random astounds me: Purposefully evading tonality is random? How can a purpose be random? If Schoenberg had wanted to write random sounding music he clearly would have used dice, right? I have several times listened to actual random music (written with dice, computer algorithms etc.), and I assure you, it sounds nothing like Schoenberg.

First of all: I never said that the 12-tone system was made up out of the blue. However, it's ultimate purpose was to use mathmatical forumlae to ensure that the music produced had absolutly no leaning into one tonality. Thus, it is trying to keep the music random, by avoiding all tonalities and making sure all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are used in equal distribution. At least, that's what true 12-tone theory states. Some have obviously modified it to their own needs. Also, I have no issues with atonailty. My favorite composer is Scriabin, and I like his late atonal works the best.

Regarding fugues: They do have strict rules. However, if you abide strictly by those rules with no freedom of expression, you get the crap that 19th century composers turned out in fugues. You need to have some freedom to it. That's what makes Bach the ultimate master of the fugue. He knew how to control it to his advantage, taking the rules and bending them to his needs.

To have a purpose is not random. However, that purpose can be random. Making sure that all 12 notes are used equally, to avoid any standard views on tonality is trying to be as random as possible. It might not be random in the sense that it's very structured, but the purpose of it is to make the music as random as possible, to the ears of the listener.

Film music is music made to the dictates of the mass-markets and can be said to have crowd-pleasing as a requirement.

The important thing here, is "can be said...".

An effective filmscore does not cater to a public, but rather serves the purpose of underlining and supporting the film for which it is written.

I can name a number of filmscores that I would be hard-pressed to describe as "crowd-pleasing":

Goldsmith's Alien? Planet of the Apes? Outland?

Goldenthal's Sphere? Alien 3?

Williams' (large parts of) A.I.?

Young's Bless the Child?

I get the impression your attitude vis-a-vis filmscores is based solely on "block-buster" excerpts and opening-title "marches" and fanfares.

Some scores, while clothed in more accessible harmonic language, remain seminal works:

Broughton's Silverado

Copland's The Red Pony

Goldsmith's Legend

Gordon's on the beach

Vaughan-Williams' Scott of the Antarctic

And while I may not personally feel that Howard Shore's score to Lord of the Rings makes a successful transition from screen to concert hall, the fact remains that it is a monumental work that demonstrates an astute and brilliantly thought-out thematic development and leitmotif plan.

However, it's ultimate purpose was to use mathmatical forumlae to ensure that the music produced had absolutly no leaning into one tonality.

First, I don't see where you're coming from with these "mathematic formulae". Dodecaphony, in it's basic form, is simply a set of relatively simple rules. Not much calculation going on there. And ensuring that the music had no leaning to tonality was certainly not the purpose of it. Yes, Schoenberg and Webern generally deliberately tried to avoid tonal sounding harmonies, but that has more to do with their personal styles than 12-tone theory. (Remember, Alban Berg wrote some 12-tone stuff that is very close to tonal music.) There is an aesthetic behind 12-tone music, if you believe it or not, and a sense of this aesthetic existed -before- there was 12-tone music. The system was merely an attempt to organise this aesthetic.

Thus, it is trying to keep the music random, by avoiding all tonalities and making sure all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are used in equal distribution. At least, that's what true 12-tone theory states.

The way 12-tone technique is used however, can provide highly different results. -Exactly- like you mentioned it in regard to fugues. The way you order a tone row, the intervals it consists of, the way you let them appear polyphonically, the rhythm, dynamics, timbre, tone repetitions, articulation, and so on all give a dodecaphonic composition a very individual face. If you seriously think this sounds random, you either haven't listened to actual random music, or to 12 tone music. (I could understand it a bit more if you applied it to certain later serialist works, like Boulez' "structures", but Schoenberg/Webern/Berg's music definitely sounds nothing like random.)

Regarding fugues: They do have strict rules. However, if you abide strictly by those rules with no freedom of expression, you get the crap that 19th century composers turned out in fugues. You need to have some freedom to it. That's what makes Bach the ultimate master of the fugue. He knew how to control it to his advantage, taking the rules and bending them to his needs.

The same applies to every 12-tone composition by a good composer.

To have a purpose is not random. However, that purpose can be random. Making sure that all 12 notes are used equally, to avoid any standard views on tonality is trying to be as random as possible. It might not be random in the sense that it's very structured, but the purpose of it is to make the music as random as possible, to the ears of the listener.

:closedeyes: Again: 12 tone music wasn't invented in order to sound as atonal as possible. It was, for the composeres of the second Viennese school, a -necessity-, to bring more structure into their already "established" ideal of atonal, expressive music. And how can you seriously think that an even distribution of all twelve notes in a piece of music is enough to make it sound random? Is there no such thing as intervallic lines, harmonies, rhythm, polyphonic workings etc.? Or do you only listen to the statistic distribution of notes in a piece?

(And before you say that this distribution, again, is the actual purpose of 12 tone theory: No. Of course Schoenberg said something about making "all notes equal". This doesn't mean distribution though, but trying to write music in which the expressive quality, or beauty if you want, of every single note can shine at its best. This had the 12-tone system with an even distribution of pitches as a -result-, not as a musical cause.)

I can accept if somebody doesn't like this music. But calling something like Weberns music random just shows me that the person has never seriously listened to this music.

Schoenberg, Glass, Cage, Berlioz, Chopin, Schumann.

No particular order.

Hi Yagan,

I'm new here so you may have already gone into this in the past, but could you elaborate a little on Chopin? I actually agree with you, but I'm just curious to read your reasons. Thanks.

First off, I don't really understand OP's question, and second from what I deduce from it it's pretty pointless. I can't understand why it's so popular to engage in "CAGE IS AN IDIOT" "NO HE'S NOT, MOZART IS." "LOL BEETHOVEN PEES ON EVERYONE!!!!!" "VERDI CAN BEAT THEM ALL IN A WRESTLING MATCH!" nonsense. I suppose it's like when children fight over whether Chuck Norris could really beat up Bruce Lee or whatever. Come on.

As for the question, to me composers aren't the ones doing nonsense. To me the worst reputable peoples are those who shove a Mozart string quartet in between Avant Garde(istic?) music so people will go to the concert.

Or shoving 2 Beethoven pieces before something modern, again, so people will go. That scraggy drives me insane.

I mean I have nothing against Mr. Beethoven or Mozart (other than they bore me to death generally), but their popularity makes me want to punch people. It's not just them really, but they stand out as monoliths that you're supposed to compete with in terms of attention when it comes to this type (...classical music?) of music, and that just don't happen.

But I'm not a fan of living in the past. Schoenberg should be put in a museum just like Mozart or Beethoven, but the difference being that I don't see Schoenberg's music, as influential as it may be, asphyxiating everyone with the weight of preference. Preference which has absolutely nothing to do with the work itself, but rather tradition, culture and mental conditioning.

If Mozart wrote the music TODAY he'd be called a silly scallop for doing style imitations and go nowhere compared to what his music means now to a lot of people, and simply put it is the case of many other composers. The things they wrote are fossils of different eras which remain up to now, most of the times in dubious authenticity (Ie, Bach.) when you go past a certain date.

It shouldn't be the case that to me the best idea would be to burn the museums (futurism!), so to speak, so that at least there's a chance to appreciate what's going on in the present. Shake things up a little, get rid of so much cultural and traditional baggage that buries modern art so deep that a lot of people never even know it exists beyond what they hear from others that it sounds "terrible", ETC ETC.

In fact it's been the case for me that inviting people to a concert with contemporary and otherwise modern pieces has been usually a frustrating experience. It's like people were afraid to hear a single note before actually even listening to it at all. Anyone who has organized a concert knows to just bite the bullet when it comes to attendance, even when there is an audience for this type of music.

Then there's the people who say the reason modern music never "caught on" with the mainstream is because traditional western harmony math and junk is some sort of universal principle. That's insane, and worse are those who say that the avant-garde failed when it became a museum piece. Lots of talk, not a lot of music to back it up in my opinion.

Anyways, roar, etc. I'm done.

Probably Richard Wagner. Not for his music, but for his antisemitism.

SSC, the reason people have to put these so-called "fossils" in their programmes is because people enjoy them. They generally do not, however, enjoy avant garde hogwash, as it lacks science and usually lacks any emotion besides sprawling lack-thereof, and is usually insufferably nerdy. What bothers you isn't the classical music, it's the comparison of your less-appreciated medium with a more successfully alluring era. Note, people enjoy period films and plays. Composers do write classical "imitations" very successfully and will continue to do so in the future, in my opinion more successfully than those who abandon tradition and craftsmanship just for the sake of being original, or rather, non-derivative, or whose vanity insists they appear to be beyond the influence of anyone else's ideas. In fact, I predict a new wave of composers who will follow their hearts and favor the more scientific classical styles, and be able to find their own voices within these styles successfully.

I found your comments to be especially asinine, and those of a pedantic, sneering modernist whose music has no allure whatsoever to those who have an appreciation for music that has withstood the test of time.

I found your comments to be especially asinine, and those of a pedantic, sneering modernist whose music has no allure whatsoever to those who have an appreciation for music that has withstood the test of time.

LOL. Sory, ur music is bettar, i em wrogn. go scintgific music!1!!!11

And, also? I wasn't talking to you, nor did I insult you. If you have a problem with my opinion, too bad, but just saying those mean things won't work any better than calling me silly-boots.

If we are going for proper composers however, I would definitely nominate Pachabel.

Of the posts in this thread this is perhaps the one that intrigues me the most (assuming you do mean Pachelbel). What, besides the canon, would you suggest that I listen to in order to understand your point? What, besides the canon, have you actually heard?

Although I suspect the background here is simple (you've heard that good old canon, didn't like it, and assume Pachelbel sucked), this is pretty surreal to me. Pachelbel is just one of those people who were really good at what they did, and are not controversial in any way. I could foresee Mozart, Cage, Sch

Probably Richard Wagner. Not for his music, but for his antisemitism.

SSC, the reason people have to put these so-called "fossils" in their programmes is because people enjoy them. They generally do not, however, enjoy avant garde hogwash, as it lacks science and usually lacks any emotion besides sprawling lack-thereof, and is usually insufferably nerdy. What bothers you isn't the classical music, it's the comparison of your less-appreciated medium with a more successfully alluring era. Note, people enjoy period films and plays. Composers do write classical "imitations" very successfully and will continue to do so in the future, in my opinion more successfully than those who abandon tradition and craftsmanship just for the sake of being original, or rather, non-derivative, or whose vanity insists they appear to be beyond the influence of anyone else's ideas. In fact, I predict a new wave of composers who will follow their hearts and favor the more scientific classical styles, and be able to find their own voices within these styles successfully.

I found your comments to be especially asinine, and those of a pedantic, sneering modernist whose music has no allure whatsoever to those who have an appreciation for music that has withstood the test of time.

:D:D:D Oh god, you made my day!

Probably Richard Wagner. Not for his music, but for his antisemitism.

...which, pretty obviously, is not the point of the question.

...which, pretty obviously, is not the point of the question.

Abernathy, you may have some other moral or superficial criteria for ill repute, but I did not see any such specifications in the original question posted. You may want to reread it.