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

Originally Posted by walkingwikipedia

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.

Originally Posted by demonic_advent

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Yagan Kiely

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 shit 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 bitch 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.

Originally Posted by johnsamuelpike

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.

Originally Posted by EldKatt

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, Schönberg, Wagner or John Williams cropping up in this list, but Pachelbel? What? It's just totally random.

I'll take this back if you can actually motivate your opinion in an informed manner without mentioning the canon, and in either case I apologize for me little rant here. It's just so weird.

Exactly what I wanted to write, EldKatt! I have never even heard the whole infamous canon, though it can't really be that bad; my best composition is also uses the romanesca ground bass . But whoever nominates Pachelbel probably has never heard Hexachordum Apollinis or the chorale preludes, which are all beautifully written, melodic and expressive. Especially some of Hexachordum Apollinis has an indescribable mystic atmosphere... it's some of my favorite music by any composer.

And this is a sad thread. Listen to what you enjoy, write what you like, and respect everyone.

Originally Posted by johnsamuelpike

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.

Oh god, you made my day!

Originally Posted by johnsamuelpike

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

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

Originally Posted by abernathy

...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.