Praise and Vent Thread with clarity

[maestrowick]

Even though this is a public forum, this website is still very educational in its concept.

I understand we all have opinions about who we like and don't like. Since one day we'll all be successful, with success comes a price: Our words are forever watched. Therefore, for the sake of eloquence, state one composer you like and WHY you like him/her and expand on that. In addition, state one composer you don't like and WHY you like him/her. Saying that "Composer A sucks" is not enough. Say WHY you don't like him.

example: I don't like Bach because his use of harmony for me is not artistically fulfilling. As seen in Brandenberg,I dislike his use of chord structures in particularly measures 60-70.

OR

I love Bach. His chordal structures or the way he treats homophony intrigues me every time I hear his music especially in "A Mighty Fortress."

Let the dialogue begin!

[Tokkemon]

I like Bach because of his innovative weaving of harmony with counterpoint. He uses counterpoint in such a way that the harmony is illuminated from it, and vice versa.

I don't like Mozart because I find his melodies (with their accompanying harmony) to be overly simple and repeated far too often. I also find his harmonic foundation to be rather limited compared to someone like Beethoven or (going backwards) Bach.

[jawoodruff]

I don't like Bach because his melodies often tend to share many similarities from piece to piece and his counterpoint from one piece to the next is fairly uniform.

I love Mozart because he made the most of as little material as possible. 1 piece usually is based on 1 (or 2) very short ideas - this is in stark contrast to others at his time (with the exception of Haydn). I also love the fact that Mozart, unlike Bach, looked forward and pushed/created new terrain for composers to work with.

[Tokkemon]

Bach..... didn't look forward? He did the other way of doing it. While his contemporaries were moving on to Rococo and Classical styles, he stayed rigidly in his Baroque style, and took it to new heights that no one ever took it. He was not complacent just staying where he was, rather, he took his ideas that he knew worked (and they still work today) and kept developing them.

[jawoodruff]

Bach..... didn't look forward?

No, he didn't. He stayed where he was at and grew within his closed aesthetic.

He did the other way of doing it. While his contemporaries were moving on to Rococo and Classical styles, he stayed rigidly in his Baroque style, and took it to new heights that no one ever took it.

Personally, I prefer other Baroque composers over Bach... Bach pretty much just summed up everything the Baroque period had to offer. Yes, he's worth studying... but, so many other composers far outshine him, imo.

He was not complacent just staying where he was, rather, he took his ideas that he knew worked (and they still work today) and kept developing them.

One could debate this till their blue in the face. If I used Bach's style as a benchmark and guideline for my music... then 3/4 of my music would never be allowed to be written.Most good that his ideas give today is in preparing music students a strong foundation of rules upon which virtually all of them will break during the first 3 years after they learn them.

[Tokkemon]

What is your problem with "rules"? Can't one just acknowledge the awesome power of one's music and appreciate it? I didn't say compose like him or use him as a guideline or w.e you were trying to say. I'm simply pointing out the fact that Bach is one of the best archetypes of a composer. A guy who takes his material and develops it beyond what is first imaginable, then magically brings it all home back to where it belongs, full circle. Its a very simple and beautiful concept that a lot of composers seem to have forgotten, which is unfortunate.

[froglegs]

Elevator muzak sucks. No explanation needed.

[HeckelphoneNYC]

I didn't know that muzak wasn't just a funny way to make fun of spelling music until a week ago. But...I listened. And I haven't listened since.

[froglegs]

Have you heard any Yanni? I read in a review that his music sounds like it would 'ooze out of the walls of the elevators descending into hell.'

[composerorganist]

Ah Jason, listen to sections of the St John Passion and Art of Fugue and the rhythmic complexity of BWV 682 - his harmonies foreshadow late Romanticism. One could say the same of Mozart - though it is interesting that as Mozart's increasing renewed interest in counterpoint assisted in him getting more and more "progressive".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8s1gSZZD3M&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL8CDD2E8439E81159

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qor1ZFE6uOQ

[maestrowick]

I love Rachmaninoff. His melodies are brilliant and his orchestrations are illustrious.

I dislike Webern. I find his music rather unemotional.

[froglegs]

I LOVE Webern's music. You, maestrowick have obviously not listened to his music properly, because when I listen to it, I can hear an astonishing amount of passion, regret, sorrow joy in those few notes that are played. Every note of his has a meaning to it and that's how I find the beauty of his music.

[froglegs]

In fact, I'm going to add him to my favourite composers on my profile right now.

[maestrowick]

I must say I have listened to an abundance of his <Webern> work since 1995. I don't find it at all. I think sixteen years of intense study might qualify me to state that; however, as Phil has stated, give me some examples that show your aforementioned statements. I am all ears and eager to listen.

[jawoodruff]

Ah Jason, listen to sections of the St John Passion and Art of Fugue and the rhythmic complexity of BWV 682 - his harmonies foreshadow late Romanticism. One could say the same of Mozart - though it is interesting that as Mozart's increasing renewed interest in counterpoint assisted in him getting more and more "progressive".

http://www.youtube.c...CDD2E8439E81159

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Qor1ZFE6uOQ

The great B minor mass also, I feel, foreshadows a lot of what would come after. I think more my problem is that many focus solely on Bach - much to the discreditment of the many awesome contemporaries of his.

[maestrowick]

^^^Understood and I have said the same thing before. What I have been realized is that the rules for voice-leading was taking after the Bach common practices. It's kind of like Muhammed Ali and Frazier. If Frazier would have won, we would be talking about Frazier. Ali won, so we talk about Ali.

[froglegs]

Is that right? Which instrumental works by him do you find express an 'astonishing' amount of passion? What about regret? Sorrow? Joy?

I personally am fond of some of his works, but I've never heard any instrumental works by him that objectively express any of the above emotions so I'd love to hear of your examples.

Bagatelles for string quartet, his symphony and his five pieces for orchestra are the top of my list.

[maestrowick]

I think I'm about to be forced to write a piece in the style of Lutoslawski. I was about to use him, maybe I'll add that next week!

[froglegs]

Why would you write a piece in the style of another composer????

[maestrowick]

Compositional training: the theory is that it adds more tools to your belt!

[froglegs]

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that.

[froglegs]

Okay, except I wasn't asking for your personal favorites of Webern. I was asking for examples of works that objectively express 'an astonishing amount of regret, sorrow and joy'. Which parts of which works express which feeling? I am most interested in works by Webern you perceive to express regret. How one interprets an emotion so complex in musical translation, especially in dodecaphonic music, is very interesting to me. What is your reasoning there?

Well, I'm not actually that fond of his symphony, I wouldn't regard it as one of my favourites, but what you are asking me to tell you all comes down to personal opinion AND interpretation. Different people may interpret his bagatelles differently, therefore giving different emotions through the music. Since I do not own any recordings of these works I have listened to them on the radio and on YouTube and I can't exactly specify what emotions are where because of different interpretations.

[Tokkemon]

It does?

[wayne-scales]

I like Schumann because of the personal, intimate, and emotional nature of his music.

I don't like frogslegs because he's snobbish, arrogant, and an idiot.

[froglegs]

Fair enough. I may be snobbish, I may be arrogant and I may be an idiot, but you have to remember that everything I say is just my opinion. I am not forcing anyone to believe me. You can have your own ideas on what is good and what is bad and I can have mine.