And your favorite composer is...

Antonio Lucio Vivaldi

Beethoven of course :)

:wub:

Antonio Lucio Vivaldi

GAGH! DIE VIVALDI! **heart attack** yea i know he's already dead.

I despise vivaldi for the same reason I hate Danzi and Hummel-multiple concerti and chamber music for the bassoon that all sound EXACTLY THE SAME. I also can't stand the Mozart Concerto for the fact its so overplayed.

But on a lighter note, anyone else a fan of Edward Elgar? Love his cello concerto with a passion-one piece of cello literature i refuse to try on the bassoon (it would butcher it).

Personally, I really love Vivaldi too. It's one of my earliest musical loves, which may be part of the reason his music has always remained something special to me. You may be right that he wrote lots of pieces that sound somehow similar, but that's what mass production of a certain musical form automatically brings along. This guy wrote more than 500 concertos. (Also many operas, sonatas, etc.)

Bach chorals sound quite similar too, as do many Haydn symphonies. Before Beethoven the concept of writing "big, unique, important" pieces simply was less important (with exceptions of course).

In that huge mass of Vivaldi concertos there are some true gems however. There are particularly some bassoon concertos I really adore. Vivaldi's music always has this constant forward moving stream, these steady pulses under ornamental sequences, which manage to keep the music flowing with a minimum amount of effort. It's certainly not an overly complex music, but it contains innovative elements and a great sense of form nontheless.

I'm more of a fan of 20th century classical, and I'm not sure I can pick a favorite. Shostakovich, Penderecki, Simpson, Dubois and Creston would all be right up there. But I also like Pettersson, Holmboe, Stravinsky, Berg, Schoenberg, Ligeti, Webern, Bax, Francaix, Prokofiev, Ravel, Debussy and Rouse.

But then again, I also like Mahler, Beethoven, Mussorgsky, Richard Strauss, and some Bach, Brahms and Haydn.

It's just too hard to choose a favorite!

Hmm, I listen to a lot of composers and musicians but I guess I could limit my list of most favorite composers as follows:

J. S. Bach

Georg Philip Telemann

Franz Liszt

Claude Debussy

Igor Stravinsky

Bela Bartok

Iannis Xenakis

Edgard Varese

Hmm, I listen to a lot of composers and musicians but I guess I could limit my list of most favorite composers as follows:

.... Georg Philip Telemann. . . .

I'd be really interested to know why you chose Telemann, considering you've also put down Bach. I despise Telemann, not because his music sounds 'samey' or anything like that (Bach's music sounds samey, but I think that's great!), but simply because my limited experience of his music has been negative. His basslines frequently double the treble lines, his tunes seem uninteresting and forgettable, and his gift for counterpoint seems subordinate to his claim to be the era's most prolific composer.

What should I be listening to to change my opinion? What's his greatest work?

I'd be really interested to know why you chose Telemann, considering you've also put down Bach. I despise Telemann, not because his music sounds 'samey' or anything like that (Bach's music sounds samey, but I think that's great!), but simply because my limited experience of his music has been negative. His basslines frequently double the treble lines, his tunes seem uninteresting and forgettable, and his gift for counterpoint seems subordinate to his claim to be the era's most prolific composer.

What should I be listening to to change my opinion? What's his greatest work?

Well, for one I respect your opinion regarding Telemann so I will not try to dissuade you from it. Of course, Bach is hands down superior to Telemann (Mass in B minor and St. Matthew's Passion seals the deal). In a manner of speaking, I could comment on how unfair it must have been for Bach who was less famous during their time but more talented. You might say that both of them sound "samey" so to speak and compared to Bach, I agree that his music is forgettable but I happen to enjoy some of his chamber works (sorry I forgot the titles of the ones I really like) and his horn concertos plus I have a lot of admiration for the largely "unschooled" composers such as him, most of the Russian 5, Xenakis, and Takemitsu for example. I also happen to think that he is a lot less boring that you might say Vivaldi perhaps.

This is just a matter of my personal subjective preference so, as said, I respect your opinion and I won't try to convince you otherwise. :D

Oh, and since this is a spot for a favorite composer forum, I'll include Fr. Antonio Soler as well since I love his fandanggos for harpsichord.

I have a few favorites, although I can't pick one. The list is almost constantly changing, but my current favorites are Sibelius, Mahler, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, and Walton.

Oh god, I hate Telemann because his name is too futuristic. I mean, it's halfway there to TELEPORT, or TELEVISION, or TELEKINESIS. Come on! Well, I like his music just fine, but damn it, why that name. It's as if Bach was named "Johann Sebastian Radio Bach" or "Johann Sebastian Automobile Bach"

... hahahaha.

I hate Elgar for the same reason I hate Mahler - they are composers of dreadful music that makes me want to pull my eyes out of their sockets.

Honestly, you can really say that it is "dreadful" music?

How exactly do you define "dreadful"?

Is it badly constructed?

Poorly orchestrated?

I find that sort of comment... dishonest.

Why don't you just say "I don't like Elgar for the same reason that I don't like Mahler... his music doesn't appeal to me".

As much as Mahler's music is the antithesis of my own musical aesthetic, and as little as his music speaks to me personally, I AM capable of appreciating the immense genius that went into his oeuvre.

In other words, I don't like Mahler - but through no fault of his own.

Most people who accuse a composer of writing "dreadful music" (or any other such negative description) generally are demonstrating nothing more than ignorance about craft.

I can see accusing art that lacks craft of being "dreadful". This isn't the case here.

I make a MAJOR distinction between "disliking a composer who lacks craft" and "disliking a composer whose music is of an aesthetic that displeases me".

For example:

I despise Hans Zimmer

The music of Mahler does not appeal to me.

See the difference?

:cool: And now I just KNOW some zimmer-fanboy is gonna chime in.

lol! He's the future man! >_>

In reply to Qcc: Personally, I don't think I've ever despised a composer for a "lack of craft". Maybe they couldn't bring down to paper their artistic ideas as well as someone who has mastered the "craft" (which is already almost impossible to define), maybe their music sounds clumsy or whatever, but that's no reason to despise it, as much as there's no reason to despise a clumsy watchmaker. You simply don't buy his watches if they don't work well enough for you.

If anything, I find aesthethic reasons more appropriate to not appreciate a composer, as this is the actual core of composition. If an aesthetic stand goes completely against my own musical thinking, I have a much greater trouble accepting it than if the just the orchestration sucks. Of course it's not as "objective" as technical considerations, but it touches me more personally, and thus it's logical that it creates a stronger emotional response from me.

Also, composers who get complacent with their technical abilities and do nothing but show off what they are able to do annoy me much more than composers who "lack in craft". I'm getting tired of all these composers who continuously have to show me what amazing palette of orchestral colours they can control, everything perfect and round throughout, without any roughness or edges where you could possibly attack them, and without a trace of original thought.

I think either I poorly worded my thoughts or you misread them.

I'm not advocating "despising a composer BECAUSE of his lack of craft".

My comments were in regard to the accusation of "dreadful music".

Is music "dreadful" because you don't like it? (in other words, the simple fact that it does not please you somehow defines an absolute quality: dreadfullness)

Or do you not like it because "it is dreadful"? (some external defining characteristic defines what aspect of the music in question is lacking, thus making it "dreadful music")

They are not absolute consequences one of the other.

And rely heavily upon a clear definition of "dreadful".

I can dislike music that is dreadful (my definition of dreadful music is music that is badly written = poorly crafted).

I can also dislike music that is not "dreadful". It just does not please me / communicate to me.

Funny thing, I HAVE been known to enjoy some pieces of music that I consider "poorly crafted".

I will disagree with you that "craft" is "almost impossible to define". Craft encompasses a great number of variables, and while there is a great deal of flexibility in what constitutes "craft", we can agree that a solid mastery of harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, and other tools of musical creation, are good indicators of "craft".

I suspect that you and I are discussing two completely different issues.

I understand perfectly your reference to a composer whose craft is meticulous but whose music is empty. However, that's not really what I am discussing here.

I am purely responding to the above-quoted inference that Mahler is a "dreadful" composer, and encouraging the original poster to justify that assertion.

"I like / dislike this music" is rarely a reflection of the actual quality of the music being discussed.

Whether one likes or dislikes a composer as a personal issue is irrelevant if one is discussing that composer's abilities.

To say that "composer-X is a bad composer" requires substantiation through more than "because I don't like his music" or "because I think his music isn't original". (besides, the latter comment requires a substantial demonstration of musical knowledge, which as yet, I have seen very few people capable of bringing to the table).

I can think of MANY composers whose music I dislike.

I can only think of a handful that I think are "bad composers".

Hmm, favorite composers....Tough question...I'd have to say Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, Debussy, Ravel, Beethoven. Pretty much anything in late -romantic and twentieth century as well as some classical. I'd have to say my least favorite is baroque.

Ok, QcC, I think I understand what you mean, and I agree that there's a great difference between disliking certain music, or calling a composer bad (or dreadful).

I will disagree with you that "craft" is "almost impossible to define". Craft encompasses a great number of variables, and while there is a great deal of flexibility in what constitutes "craft", we can agree that a solid mastery of harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, and other tools of musical creation, are good indicators of "craft".

One problem with this is, how can you see whether a composer has "mastered" harmony, counterpoint and orchestration? A specific kind of orchestration may sound thick, weird, or clumsy, but that may have been the intent of the composer. There aren't any universal guidelines anymore according to which you could easily classify something as "good craft" or "bad craft". (You could argue that something is bad craft if the music doesn't meet with the intention of the composer, but that's also hard to judge without being the composer yourself.)

Of course I agree that you can still very often hear and see if a composer is "fluent" in his techniques, in writing for orchestra, etc. But I think it's much easier to see craft in a composer, than to see with certainty an absence of craft. I have many times heard music, where I constantly asked myself whether it had a deliberate bluntness, or whether it was just "bad craft". Often that was amongst the music that fascinated me most, because it sounded original without giving me a clear answer about its "intentions". (That may also come from a personal liking for music that has a blunt, raw, or even clumsy aspect.)

(Also, there's the question whether it's really better to just stick to what you already know works, or take risks by writing things where you don't know beforehand how they will work out, but which might bring your music forward to something you couldn't have done otherwise. It may sometimes even be considered a virtue in a composer to go "beyond what one is certainly capable of", in order to grow and discover.)

I'm glad we understand each other.

And yes, it is always a bit difficult to distinguish craft or lack of it, if one isn't fluent oneself in that craft as well!

Which is why I always react when people say that "composer-X is a crappy composer". Before making that call, you need to demonstrate that you yourself are capable of recognizing craft.

We see this so often in posts like "I hate the Rite of Spring.. it's just noise".

Yeah.

The Rite of Spring would be noise if it were absolute music.

Yeah.

The Rite of Spring would be noise if it were absolute music.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

In what way would being "absolute music" suddenly make Sacre du Printemps noise rather than music?

At the moment it's Rachmaninoff... but his pieces are SO HARD!!!

I love Samuel Hazo, Clifton Williams, Frank Tichelli , John Williams and Hans Zimmer.

Samuel Hazo's Ride is so much fun to play. I like the way it sounds when all the instruments are put together and the parts just fall together.

Clifton Williams Symphony # 3 Fiesta I believe is the name is also another one of my favorites. It's really faced paced and sounds rough at some times but I like how it goes off into something lighter and then ends hard and powerful.

Tichelli's American Elegy was the first song that got me. It was dedicated to the students, and lossed loved ones of Columbine. It's just really inspiring to me.

John Williams-I love all his work especially the Harry Potter films and Zimmer for the Pirates of the Caribbean and Sprit Stallion of the Crimarron

Also Joe Hisaishi for his works on all of Miyazaki's movies.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

In what way would being "absolute music" suddenly make Sacre du Printemps noise rather than music?

I don't remember what the hell I meant when I made that post, but it was probably a joke that only made sense to me. Meh.

I'm just surprised that there is practically no mention of Wagner in a 24 page thread about favorite composers.

More on topic, I don't have one.

I'm just surprised that there is practically no mention of Wagner in a 24 page thread about favorite composers.

More on topic, I don't have one.

Sorry if I sound rude, but you actually looked through all 24 pages? If so, I have genuine respect for your patience in all our non-Wagnerian might...

Back on topic... Debussy is now one of my favorite composers.

w.a Mozart for creativity,melody,color,form and perfection of music

but a few close seconds Bach,Stravinsky,handel,Wagner, Haydn, Zelenka,