Music you never want to hear again

anything by vivaldi, corelli, teleman, handel

I'm not sure why people always hate the classics so much. I could sit and listen to Vivaldi for HOURS and never get bored.

I guess I am just more easily pleased. ;) And, the same goes for the music I write.

This Vivaldi opera...I can't remember the name. It's been done 2 times, once 300 years ago and once a few years ago by my father and production.. he hated it. everyone hated it. except for the person running the show! UGH. I was sick that day so I slept through some of it, but what a terrible opera!

-sigh-

I'll never understand. haha.

montezuma?

edit: hm... after a quick google i found this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operas_by_Vivaldi

appearantly 94 operas.

Ottone in villa - just remembered. It's probably been done more than twice, but only outside of North America - It's really not my cup of tea...

If it was tea at all.. I'm sure it would be a terribly boring opera.

I can't stand:

a) avant-gardism done just for the sake of being "original" (aka uninteligible).

b) over-pretentious jazz-pop.

c) the worthless Puerto Rican-Dominican deformation of hip-hop.

EDIT: d) anything 'sung' by Shakira, Ricky Martin, Enrique Iglesias, Janet Jackson, Justin Bieber or others of their kind.

All of the above are surefire ways for me to detonate a headache or nausea.

Can you give an example of b? I'm curious.

Can you give an example of b? I'm curious.

I can't point out a "shining example" of these (I not only absolutely avoid listening to that, but also to investigate who actually produces it). The closest I can come to a precise description is... the kind of music played in certain radio stations when not playing the Chariots of Fire theme, Yanni, Richard Clayderman and Kenny G as if these were the non plus ultra of class and sophystication.

How has no one said Bolero yet?

Yep - Definitely go along with Bolero!

Yep - Definitely go along with Bolero!

Bolero is AWESOME!!!!!

True. But, too much of anything...

Example? I've never heard of any composer of "avant gardism" who has stated that they have written music "just for the sake of being original". Also, who are some avant garde composers who haven't made such compromises?

Of course they'll never actively claim they are doing it. But didn't Boulez say that anyone who didn't feel the need of composing atonally or serially was worthless and un-original as a composer? Is avant-gardism a prerrequisite for originality, at least for him? Do I really need to compose this way to prove my worth - even if I hate my own work? I'd rather be true to myself, and I respect composers who are true to themselves as well, regardless of their works being in a style I'm not passionate about (actually including the single work by you I have heard here). That's why I think Lutoslawski's and Messiaen's works will most likely survive the test of time. I really doubt Boulez's or Cage's will.

Also: calling modern music unintelligble is an uneducated response. (...) I don't think you really know what the word means.

Alright. 'Modern' music. A fallacious generalization. Non-atonal music composed today is not 'modern' but 'outdated'? The bulk of Schoenberg's works are 90-100 years old - but still classed as 'modern'? Now you can tell me I misuse words. There are valuable modern works, and also works by crackpots pretending to be highly-intellectual and sophisticated musicians who can call the rest of us 'ignorants'. But I don't think I have to feign liking a certain music style to appear 'educated', 'intelligent' or 'in fashion'. If I actually have to, there's something very rotten.

I hope John Co is among those names. Mannheim Rocket is awesome.

a) avant-gardism done just for the sake of being "original" (aka uninteligible).

That can't be said without giving some examples on composers/pieces, you think represent this rather harsh accusation.

That can't be said without giving some examples on composers/pieces, you think represent this rather harsh accusation.

I made sort of an explanation when Composer Phil singled out this very line. I always knew my word choice would be shocking. But hey, Boulez was even harsher in denouncing composers as 'worthless' unless they went atonal and serialist. I've also read Leonard Bernstein's comments about composition students who were kind of 'forced' to embrace these tendencies by their influential teachers/critiques/whatever as the only road towards earning their grades.

And right now you can find 'tone row generators' online. What would you think of the resulting work? I think you would agree with me.

What I find most outrageous is the intellectual snobbery that sometimes stands as the main phillosophy behind some tendencies of avant-gardism. As Bernstein put it, 'people feel very in when feigning they like it'. What's wrong with composing anything that does not require 'advanced pseudo-intellectual and abstract skills' (or perhaps a PhD. in Astrophysics) to be understood by an audience? Is it 'worthless' or 'outdated' by default? Not even Schoenberg dared calling tonalism "dead" - "There's still plenty of good music to be composed in the tonality of C major".

My bottom line is: as long as I can tell a composer is being artistically honest, I respect whatever style he wants to develop, whether it pleases me or not. But when a composer is just following a fashion, looking for notoriety or just being an arrogant, loud and pretentious crackpot, I won't be a fan of him. As I pointed out to Phil, I place my bets on Lutoslawski and Messiaen, among a few others, to survive the test of time. On the other hand, I'd never put my money behind Boulez or John Cage.

Anyhow, I can see your question as a sign of interest in my views - for which I must thank you very much.

I made sort of an explanation when Composer Phil singled out this very line. I always knew my word choice would be shocking. But hey, Boulez was even harsher in denouncing composers as 'worthless' unless they went atonal and serialist. I've also read Leonard Bernstein's comments about composition students who were kind of 'forced' to embrace these tendencies by their influential teachers/critiques/whatever as the only road towards earning their grades.

Well first of all, I think we both know that you worded it exactly as harsh as you intended to, because you knew it would create a reaction from those who disagree with you, or who just finds it offensive. I don't mind that, I just mean, there's no reason to try and justify how you worded it, just stand by it if you mean it. I like people with clear opinions.

And right now you can find 'tone row generators' online. What would you think of the resulting work? I think you would agree with me.

Then you think wrong. Because I don't think you can judge a piece based on how it was written. You criticize tone row generators, probably because you think they do they work for you when writing 12-tone music, which I can assure you they don't, but I just think it's a strange opinion to have that it's bad when there's a structure behind the music that has already been chosen by someone else. In my classes i have to write a 4-voiced harmonization of a given melody, and there are so many rules that it's hard to come up with more than a few different versions, without one not being clearly better than the others, judging from the rules and the aesthetics dictated by it.

A bit more free, yet still very bound assignment would be writing a 3-voice bach fuga exposition, in which there are also a lot of rules you need to follow. Does this make the pieces that are written following these systems less interesting. I don't think so. And I don't see why a tone row generator is bad, but a specific rule-set for harmonizing a melody in a certain style is not bad. Of course you might dislike all kinds of systems, but I can hardly imagine that's the case guessing on your preference in music.

What I find most outrageous is the intellectual snobbery that sometimes stands as the main phillosophy behind some tendencies of avant-gardism. As Bernstein put it, 'people feel very in when feigning they like it'. What's wrong with composing anything that does not require 'advanced pseudo-intellectual and abstract skills' (or perhaps a PhD. in Astrophysics) to be understood by an audience? Is it 'worthless' or 'outdated' by default? Not even Schoenberg dared calling tonalism "dead" - "There's still plenty of good music to be composed in the tonality of C major".

My bottom line is: as long as I can tell a composer is being artistically honest, I respect whatever style he wants to develop, whether it pleases me or not. But when a composer is just following a fashion, looking for notoriety or just being an arrogant, loud and pretentious crackpot, I won't be a fan of him. As I pointed out to Phil, I place my bets on Lutoslawski and Messiaen, among a few others, to survive the test of time. On the other hand, I'd never put my money behind Boulez or John Cage.

Honestly, why so much preparation before getting to the good part. You say there's intellectual snobbery, yet you give no examples on where, you give examples that I can only agree with. I'm not saying one genre is better than the other, I do think some genres are more interesting, but that's just from a personal point of view. Show me where you think it exists, instead of skipping that part and going right to defending neo-classicism etc.

Then you predict that Messiaen and Lutoslawski will stand the test of time, but Boulez and Cage will not, but once again: Why??? Come on let's get to the good part. Which specific genres, composers, pieces, do you find pretentious and snobbish, and why. Why don't you like John Cage or Boulez for instance. So many unanswered questions, can't wait for the answers.

Anyhow, I can see your question as a sign of interest in my views - for which I must thank you very much.

As I said, I like people with clear opinions, just trying to pull yours out of you :D

I think we both know that you worded it exactly as harsh as you intended to, because you knew it would create a reaction from those who disagree with you, or who just finds it offensive.

This is what this topic is about - music that you don't want to hear again. Chances are that the sole fact of answering - and doing so honestly - will create a reaction, intended or not. I just explained a kind of music that I personally dislike, and of course I knew it would have its supporters as well.

Now, to point out more precisely...

1) The "intellectual snobbery" has been actually a prevailing attitude among modernists since the 1920s at least: they thought of themselves as a small vanguard leading the way, and that their arts needed to be only accessible to a select cadre of the enlightened. This way of thinking was exemplified by the early Aaron Copland (who later changed his mind) and the early Boulez (who didn't entirely).

2) Boulez's works on 'total serialism'. Ligeti himself described them as 'akin to compulsion neurosis'. And I tend to agree with him - I've been left with a positively stormy headache after every of the few times I've listened to them.

3) As for Cage's works... Come on, what did he actually compose? I think of 4'33"... (where's the composition? Any 4'33" can be classed (and copyrighted!) as a Cage work?)... And the 0'00" of "performing any disciplined action"... (that means I'm performing it by writing this sentence). Call that a philosophical statement or whatever, but not 'composing'. 'Musicircus' is fine as a joke, but can one take it seriously? Same goes for Boulez's aleatoric experiments, although at least he attempted to control some aspects.

4) As for 'rules' (I prefer to call them 'guidelines'), they are great as exercises to assimilate a particular style. But I expect to develop my own voice, whether I embrace the sonata form or the 12-tone technique (or both!)...

This pretty much sums up my views. Of course nobody's bounded by them - this are just my views :) ...

1) The "intellectual snobbery" has been actually a prevailing attitude among modernists since the 1920s at least: they thought of themselves as a small vanguard leading the way, and that their arts needed to be only accessible to a select cadre of the enlightened. This way of thinking was exemplified by the early Aaron Copland (who later changed his mind) and the early Boulez (who didn't entirely).

To be frank, I don't know anything about this. But I'd love to see some proof :) Perhaps some interviews, articles etc. I'm hopelessly lost in my ignorance :(

2) Boulez's works on 'total serialism'. Ligeti himself described them as 'akin to compulsion neurosis'. And I tend to agree with him - I've been left with a positively stormy headache after every of the few times I've listened to them.

So you don't like the pieces, I get that. But I'm more interested in why you think of Boulez when I ask you about this quote: "avant-gardism done just for the sake of being "original" (aka uninteligible)."

Is it because he's so narrow-minded about which music is good and which is not? I don't see why that should mean he only writes his music for the sake of being "original." I'm certain he thinks he's very original though, and that all new music should be, but what does that have to do with anything, other than why you dislike him in general.

3) As for Cage's works... Come on, what did he actually compose? I think of 4'33"... (where's the composition? Any 4'33" can be classed (and copyrighted!) as a Cage work?)... And the 0'00" of "performing any disciplined action"... (that means I'm performing it by writing this sentence). Call that a philosophical statement or whatever, but not 'composing'. 'Musicircus' is fine as a joke, but can one take it seriously? Same goes for Boulez's aleatoric experiments, although at least he attempted to control some aspects.

I agree with you that Cage is more of a philosopher on music, than a composer, however you can't say he's not a composer, he's actually a very creative one. Take the idea of a prepared piano. The man is faced with a solo piano, but wants the sound of other instruments, so what does he do, he revolutionizes the approach to the instrument. I think the problem is that people take him too seriously. He's a silly guy. To him everything is music, and he wants to share that. Look at a piece like

.if that doesn't convince you he's a silly-head hearing music everywhere, check out this. Please tell me why you're offended by his childish approach to music?.Also just to share a few great pieces of his:

Dream

In A Landscape

Nocturne

4) As for 'rules' (I prefer to call them 'guidelines'), they are great as exercises to assimilate a particular style. But I expect to develop my own voice, whether I embrace the sonata form or the 12-tone technique (or both!)...

So you don't have a problem with row generators after all, as long as the composers use them as a guideline, and not as an answer?

anything by vivaldi, corelli, teleman, handel

haha, I understand about Teleman, Geminiani, Corelli, Torelli, Locatelli, Boringelli all those guys but Vivaldi, that's in another list, I do like it.

To be frank, I don't know anything about this. But I'd love to see some proof :) Perhaps some interviews, articles etc. I'm hopelessly lost in my ignorance :(

Boy, are you squeezing me into a courthouse-like trial :toothygrin: ...! Anyway, I was quoting a Copland biography by Arthur Berger, as well as a paper by Stanley Cavell ("it now seems necessary to composers to (...) themselves insure that their work will not be comprehensible to an audience"), among others.

But I'm more interested in why you think of Boulez when I ask you about this quote: "avant-gardism done just for the sake of being "original" (aka uninteligible)."

Is it because he's so narrow-minded about which music is good and which is not? I don't see why that should mean he only writes his music for the sake of being "original." I'm certain he thinks he's very original though, and that all new music should be, but what does that have to do with anything, other than why you dislike him in general.

It's because he seems to define originality in terms of atonalism, and branding everything else as "useless" and "irrelevant" to the needs of the era (the implication being that atonalism defines by itself what 'modern' music must be about). Thus, you're either atonal or irrelevant. A false dilemma for composers: to show their 'originallity' by embracing avant-gardism, or be banished into 'irrelevance'. It's at the very core of Boulez's philosophy, which I absolutely reject (and I actually respect Boulez very much - as a conductor).

I agree with you that Cage is more of a philosopher on music, than a composer, however you can't say he's not a composer, he's actually a very creative one. (...) I think the problem is that people take him too seriously. He's a silly guy.

The main difference between Cage and Boulez is that Boulez attempts to be taken seriously. As for Cage, I'm not 'offended' by his 'childish approach'. It's only that I find it nonsensical at times - and actually does nothing for the credibility of today's composers, despite being a capable musician himself.

So you don't have a problem with row generators after all, as long as the composers use them as a guideline, and not as an answer?

If I could only find a 'Tchaikovskian melody generator' or a 'Mahler motif generator'... :w00t:

Oddly enough, Schumann's Kinderszenen.

I don't like Sibelius's 2nd Symphony...I'll be doing my variations soon!

I don't want to hear any music ever again.

Ever.