Most Overrated Composers......

So, after stating I don't care much for Bach several times in the shoutbox over the course of a year, I have decided to lay my case for why I dislike Bach.

Personal Taste:

To start, I will look point to my own subjective tastes. I find Bach's ideas to be highly annoying. In all his work, I can only think of a small handful (3 or 4) ideas which I really admire. The rest seem overtaxed, overused, and highly ridiculous. I don't care for his particular brand of the Baroque aesthetic.

Use of Ideas:

In being forced to look through Bach's scores many times in my life... I have found that his use and expansion of idea is severely lacking in relation to that of other composers from before, during, and after his time period. Many times, he doesn't necessarily develop as he intentionally repeats his ideas in different registers, etc. I can find more interesting developmental passages in the work of Handel, Buxtehude, and other contemporaries AND even in works far before his time that present a much better picture on how to develop than that which Bach provides.

Harmonic Usage:

Perhaps the most annoying thing to me is the result of Bach's conservative view of Harmony. Many composers during his time explored harmony to a far greater extent then him. Bach, on the other hand, sticks mainly due to the fact that his music was extremely perfect in voice leading - largely, I feel, the reason his style of voice leading became (and in many ways still is) the system taught today.

For those reasons... and many more... I feel Bach is one of the MOST overrated composers of all time.

You're well within your rights to disagree. Many of the things you pointed out (and that I pointed out) are subjective assessments.

Rachmaninoff and Bach!!?!?1!?!?! Wow, you lost me there!

Rach)

I would definitely say, try practicing his concerto's! Especially No.2! Quite difficult but yet, fulfilling to play. Theme on a Paganini is AWESOME!!!!!!!

Bach)

Well....Once upon a time, I agreed with this. However, by the time I finished undergrad I had a different outlook on Bach. The teachings of Bach are so important to theory and composition pedagogy that it effects every genre of music including even gospel.

As far as harmony, I can understand that also but we must look at time about that. I'll say this: give it by the time you graduate, you might change your mind.

Ok, I agree with Jason. I think that Handel is much more interesting and satisfying than Bach. I don't really completely agree with his reasoning, but I don't really hold the same amount of enthusiasm for Bach as most people do. Handel on the other hand can make me cry or feel elated or high on life.

Now Johnny John, I completely disagree with your assessment of Rachmaninoff. Not many other composers write better melodies and more beautiful music than Rachmaninoff even if it is not your favorite style. He is a powerhouse.

My vote for most overrated composers goes to a few. I really cannot stand most of Mahler and yet he is a god to many. Same goes for Elgar. I am not a fan of long windedness with lack of substance. I think Vivaldi is overrated. I like his Gloria, but it seems that nearly everything he wrote is stuck in the same rhythmical pattern. It is just one big life full of bouncing from one note to the same note in the next octave and then back again. Haydn is another one. I just really think his music is boring and unimaginative.

If I had to pick an overall most overrated it would go to Mahler.

Mahler is historically respected because of his skills as a conductor which hereby made his music accessible to the public. His ninth is soothing. Have you listened to all nine symphonies?

Jason, do cite some examples of this "non-development" and "conservatism" you speak of. Then I'll give you five that aren't like that.

Well, I'm not sure I would say that Bach was a total master at writing melodies similar to that of Rachmaninoff or other composers of a later date - the evolution of melody was at an earlier stage in his lifetime. Bach filtered all the currents of his day and synthesized them into a style that was transmutable to later generations. For that, he is an amazing composer - Happy Justin? However, Bach's style isn't quite my favorite. Thus, when I view Bach from a stylistic sense.. I'm dissatisfied. That's NOT because I don't find his work to be highly structured, the material being fully explored, or the harmony being sound. Truth is, his work does do all three of these things. This is why this thread was started really.. to present an argument such as this (and what I liked in your comment johnbucket.) We can't really argue over things like these that can be measured in one's music. Rachmaninoff, Mahler, Bach, Mozart, etc ALL filled these things masterfully. It is our tastes, however, that determine which of these composers we appreciate more and which we feel are 'overrated'.

So yeah, I started this thread to draw that point home. Thanks for helping in that john.

Most overrated? Mozart, in my opinion. I find most of his music predictable and slightly boring. That's why I like Haydn and Bach (!) better.

No wonder Mozart wrote lullabies!

Tchaikovsky & Rimsky Korsakov, are for me, Fake Feelings, Soap Opera acting, I don't swallow that.

Most overrated? Mozart, in my opinion. I find most of his music predictable and slightly boring. That's why I like Haydn and Bach (!) better.

No wonder Mozart wrote lullabies!

I completely agree. Beethoven was MUCH more amazing! :)

I think this is the first time I've heard Berg called overrated.

Berg was simply adopting Schoenberg's systems without successfully taking them anywhere further. Schoenberg's other prized student, Webern, was able to justify his inclusion as a prominent composer of the Second Viennese School, as he himself accomplished what Schoenberg initially set out for.

Was he really adopting Schoenberg's system? Schoenberg was his mentor, but Berg hardly went for strict serialism. And I think this is his contribution: he moved away from the rigidity of Schoenberg and created his own melodic style that borrowed some dodecaphonic techniques but invoked aspects of tonality more so than other composers of his time. Berg and Dallapiccola really stand out to me as early innovators of 12-tone technique/serialism for the way that they often ignored and went beyond obvious tendencies of a series. Plus, I can't deny that If I'm going to listen to serial music I would much rather hear Berg and Dallapiccola than Schoenberg and Webern.

I'm not sure I would list Schoenberg, Berg, or Webern as overrated. If anything, given that the vast majority of composers after them can trace their stylistic traits back to one of these three men (much as composers after Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart can trace back to one of these three men) is a mark in and of itself. But go on... let the discussion continue.

Cage. To me he's like a toddler in a creepy old man body. ;) And when I say toddler, I'm referring to things I would think only an infant would do, like shove junk in pianos, make a "piece" comprised of random noises made in a kitchen, and create a "piece" of total silence (okay the last one I'll say is what a sarcastic, cynical high school teenager would do....as a joke).

The most overrated composer of all time is.......

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

Mozart.

/troll

Probably the most underrated piece of all time is Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe. It is considered good and it is played, but not to the extent it deserves. It is BRILLIANT. It deserves the play time that Beethoven's 5th gets or Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto.

I agree with you, Phil. :)

(p.s I like how a tag is "lame" lol)

(i.e. the fact that I never stated Berg failed at accomplishing any sort of preconceived goal. The fact that I don't consider Schoenberg and Webern greater innovators for better "escaping tradition", but because they took music to new heights: more radical than the combination of existing elements). O

Because all invention isn't essentially the result of combining two things that 'already exist.'

Because Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique in the first place isn't really more than combining the Fugue Mentality (a compositional principle which has pervaded Western art music's thought for hundreds of years) with Late Romanticism's increased emphasis on chromaticism and tonality that no longer functions as such.

Because all Berg ever did was 'combine' serialism with a late-romantic style. It's not as if he both composed the single most late-Wagnerian opera of all time (Wozzeck) as well the complete antithesis which is arguably one of the earliest harbingers of post-modernism (Lulu.) It's not as if Berg was actually the first to tackle the idea of large-scale instrumental form whereas Schoenberg and Webern were cat-footing around with directionless miniatures and explicitly programmatic texts in their 'free atonal' periods. It's not as if Berg demonstrates several post-modern tendencies such as the 'atonal' quartal chord which appears in the piano sonata; a three note triad that eventually builds up to a six note, functionless chord using traditional voice leading techniques (subverting a system by exploiting the flaws and corrupting it from the inside out; a technique that predated neoclassical Stravinsky by about 20 years.) It's not as if Berg was developed rigid numerical structures based on abstract numerology which predates most attempts by any other composer (Messiaen and Bartok being two of the most notorious) which actually became a gigantic fetish in Euroean high Modernism. It's not as if Berg frequently exploited loopholes in 'classical' molds which ultimately end up corrupting the very integrity of the form from the inside out. It's not as if Berg didn't have his own idiosyncratic twelve-tone technique which involved the use of free rotations, welding multiple row permutations together, an almost strict avoidance of any retrograde forms, and the technique of using several interrelated tone rows rather than a single row (techniques which Schoenberg and Webern almost never made use of) nor did he ever have any other innovations such as 'character rhythms' (a rhythmic leitmotif technique which is notable for privileging rhythmic contour rather than pitch as the motive was often treated previously in Western art music which, while rudimentary, predates part of Messiaen's rhythmic techique)

Anyway, you obviously know what you're talking about in dismissing Berg as inferior because he 'only combined two things' rather than actually 'invented' anything. You most certainly aren't full of scraggy.

*facepalm*

I really hope musicians as arrogant and self-righteous as you aren't the norm in the world. Because, if they are, I have real doubts of Classical Music's survival.

*facepalm*

I really hope musicians as arrogant and self-righteous as you aren't the norm in the world. Because, if they are, I have real doubts of Classical Music's survival.

I can't tell if you're talking about me or Composer Phil.

I think he's talking about you :musicwhistle:

I think he's talking about you :musicwhistle:

HECKEL! hahahaha.

eric whitacre and christopher rouse hoollly shitt. and theofanidis too

Theofanidis is awesome. I second the other ones.

Fortunately: most of us see guys like him as the short, tempestuous, needlessly puffing, red-faced people they are. I bet you could see them from a mile away on the street!

....Except Schoenberg created something entirely new out of these two broad ideas being the driving force. Couldn't say the same for Berg: he created a unique language for others to be influenced by, but he didn't shake the approach to composition in Western music by it's very roots.

That's all fine and dandy.

Still doesn't rival what Schoenberg and Webern accomplished, at least, the way I and many others see it. You've quite literally just reiterated everything Magna Carta already said so thanks for making all of us read the same exact points, in a convenient wall of text. :glare:

And for the record: I'm not a Berg-hater nor contemptuous of him. I've already said I was quite fond of him as a composer. This is a thread for opinions and those who'd like to play the devil's advocate, so there is no need for hissy fits. Someone earlier called Bach overrated. I didn't agree: was I outraged? Not really. This is an internet forum....go get some fresh air.

You'd have to define 'the very roots' of the 'approach to composition in Western music' then because it was my point that Schoenberg didn't do that either. Schoenberg still employed traditional forms. Schoenberg still made us of standard motivic development practices. Schoenberg still approached orchestration largely traditionally (the third piece of the Five Piece for Orchestra being a notable exception.) And really, Schoenberg's twelve-tone system as he described it is just a different manifestation of the Fugue Principle which has been around for hundreds of years. There's hardly anything 'entirely new' about Schoenberg's system at all honestly. About the most radical departure was the full rejection of voice-leading tendencies and the consistent saturation of the full chromatic in the macroharmony.

You haven't provided any empirical data to support any of your claims. All you do is hide behind vague, arbitrary criteria that you can just shift at a moment's notice. You accused Berg of not being an innovator and 'not doing anything new with Schoenberg's system' or something to that effect. I provided more than enough provable information (as in things that can be argued over on an empirical level) to prove that statement wrong. Berg was just as 'innovative' as Schoenberg or Webern. And unless you can better define your terms and make claims on an empirical level, then there's no reason I, or anyone else, should take them seriously.

Since when does "empirical data" solve anything in a discussion about composers being better than other composers? I mean, really!