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

Originally Posted by MattGSX

I know I'll meet a lot of crap for this, but I don't like Pierre Boulez.

I like electro-acoustic music. When well used, I'm all for serial music. However, there's something about Boulez that just doesn't do it for me. Which is strange, since he has to be one of my favorite conductors of all time. His analytical abilities amaze me, but his music just doesn't do anything for me. I don't think he's a bad composer, however.

I'm not a fan of Boulez either, aside from his Piano sonata and this piece he wrote for orchestra, soprano soloist and chorus that's quite good. You can find it on Youtube, I forget the name of it unfortunately. I doubt you'll meet crap for having a well put together opinion.

i dislike this thread.

I would have to say Prokofiev or Philip Glass. I think both showed a certain lack of depth.

Mozart is quite inconsistent for me. Sometimes he's alright, but other times he's just boring (more often than not, actually)...

I think all composers are inconsistent. Some pieces they write are really good, and some I don't like as much. WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THAT!?

I don't think there's any way to judge this topic evenly. There are too many variables to consider.

That said, I think the least musical pieces of their time were the earliest haydn sonatas for piano. They're great beginner's pieces though.

Yep this is a very subjective topic, but having different opinions is what makes life some interesting. Personally, I think that if everyone liked the same music, for the same reasons, everyone would write in almost exactly the same style. And that would be.... boring.

So.. the most incompetent composer for me is.. John Cage.
However, in my opinion he isn't a composer.
So... the award has to go to... (too much to choose from, I can't pick just one!)

Originally Posted by flint-wwrr

Focusing on the white or the black is a trait of the immature, the pedantic, or the desperate. Stop it! For your own sakes.

Disagree entirely!
If you are a composer, you have to have a very strong opinion of what you think is good, and what you think is bad. Essentially, the ultimate goal of the composer, is to pick out the good notes from the bad ones, and make music. If you don't know what the 'bad notes' are, how can you know what the 'good notes' are?

If you dislike a piece, there's always a reason for it. It's very important to know the reasons why you don't personally enjoy something, so that you DON'T incorporate it into your own music. E.G If you listen to say, Rachmaninov and hate it (I love it!), you must discern why you don't like it, otherwise the only thing you have learned is that you don't like Rachmaninov.

Yes, music is subjective, but the composer must be arrogantly objective!

Originally Posted by almacg

Disagree entirely!
If you are a composer, you have to have a very strong opinion of what you think is good, and what you think is bad. Essentially, the ultimate goal of the composer, is to pick out the good notes from the bad ones, and make music. If you don't know what the 'bad notes' are, how can you know what the 'good notes' are?

If you dislike a piece, there's always a reason for it. It's very important to know the reasons why you don't personally enjoy something, so that you DON'T incorporate it into your own music. E.G If you listen to say, Rachmaninov and hate it (I love it!), you must discern why you don't like it, otherwise the only thing you have learned is that you don't like Rachmaninov.

Yes, music is subjective, but the composer must be arrogantly objective!

Or you could appreciate good music in all periods and genres, and not have that "magnetic pull" towards the bad music in period or genre because of stylistic preferences and lack of similarity between your voice and the composer's voice. Music is subjective and it is the composer's job to be open, always learning, and intelligently "objective."

Sorry, if that didn't come across properly. I didn't mean we should be objective in that we go around telling everyone that their work is rubbish if we don't like it, that would be rude. When I said arrogantly objective, I mean that you have to believe in yourself, and the only way to do that is to like your music. (whether that's the music you see yourself eventually writing or the music you've written.)

I meant that you shouldn't be too open, in the sense that you always need to differentiate in your mind, between what you perceive as good and what you perceive as bad. Many great composers have had severe dislikes of particular music. Wagner disliked Mendellsohn and Brahms, and went in a different direction, eventually leading to the Tristan Chord which in some people's eyes kickstarted modern music, or at least set forth the foundations. If Wagner had been less of a stubborn git, chances are his music would have been completely different. Maybe it would have been better, maybe it would have been worse, but his 'arrogance' certainly helped him succeed in fulfilling his goals.

What I'm trying to say is, in order to recognise what is good (as a composer) you need to recognise what you think is bad. If you don't know what 'bad' is, then you can't possibly know how not to write 'bad' music.