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

I, on the other hand, am tempted to scream whenever somebody judges art by how hard it was to create.

Nonsensical generalisations also tend to have a similar effect on me. (The only thing all aleatoric music has in common is that it contains elements of chance. Apart from that it can by vastly different, both in sound and in how it was created. Saying that all of it is "hard" or "easy" to compose is like saying "all music is in 4/4 time").

Well about 99.98% of music is in 4/4. At least according to the record companies.

Even if that were true for every music ever made anywhere on this planet (most of which never made it on a record), those remaining .02% are still thousands of pieces. ;)

It was a satirical jab at the record company music producing machine that is pop music.

:)

Karlheinz Stockhausen. I hope he's enjoying his afterlife on the star Sirius!

Beethoven - utterly incompetant.

Excuse me? I think it is acceptable to not favor the works of Beethoven, but utterly incompetent? Have you never heard his third or ninth symphonies, or the inexplicably transcendental, introspective op. 132 quartets?

Originally Posted by Mark View Post

Beethoven - utterly incompetant.

Excuse me? I think it is acceptable to not favor the works of Beethoven, but utterly incompetent? Have you never heard his third or ninth symphonies, or the inexplicably transcendental, introspective op. 132 quartets?

No no, he's right utterly incontinent, couldn't stray more than a couple hundred feet from a rest room...

Mendolssohn and Mozart and Haydn and Brahms all F@#$ING SUCK

THEY SUCK

God, Dan Gilbert and FPSchubert are so much better than them

I hardly see a valid point or substantiating claim in this, and as to the "better" composers, they learned from the advances of the priors.

YouTube - Bartok: Piano Sonata (Part 1) <-- I particularly like this one.

YouTube - Bartok - Piano Concerto No. 3 (Part 1)

YES! His piano sonata is one of my all-time favorite pieces. Though, it's not recomended for those who don't like a fair amout of dissonance. ;)

If you want to go in a different direction Sakvaka, there's his For Children suite (which is completely and utterly tonal) or Mikrokosmos (a series of 153 very short etudes,some of which are quite great).

Then there's his Out of Doors suite which I find to be one of his most under-rated pieces but again, expect heavy dissonance.

EDIT: Like Corbin said, Bartok is incredibly diverse. Don't think you've figured out his style after just a few pieces.

John Cage, he was definitely one of the most important musical philosophers, but if I have to listen to someone argue that chance music is just as difficult to compose as traditional composing, I may scream.

I like that, musical philosopher. I tend to think of him as a performance artist. He definitely created art but it seems like his biggest achievement was really getting people to think about music in different ways. Couldn't listen to 'em myself, but definitely respect the guy.

Karlheinz Stockhausen. I hope he's enjoying his afterlife on the star Sirius!

I look at him the same way as I look at John Cage. Same with people like Xenakis. Their music seems so scientific and philosophical that it's hard for me to enjoy them purely on what I get from the sound. If I'm going to listen to a piece from any of these guys I have to first read about the piece then listen to it while keeping in mind what I read. That's not to say that we're not better for having them though.

YES! His piano sonata is one of my all-time favorite pieces. Though, it's not recomended for those who don't like a fair amout of dissonance.

That was the first Bartok piece I ever heard and really won me over. The part I love is that it's so dissonant yet still feels very melodious to me. Usually dissonance feels like it's thrown in so haphazardly but when I listen to that piece it seems completely natural. I'd venture to say that it could be enjoyed by even those who don't like dissonance in their music.

I don't really understand the question...

to be reputable is a positive term, it means that someone is honorable, in good repute....

anyway, I guess you mean which composer has the worst reputation/is the worst, in our opinion?

I'd say cage. 4'33 or whatever it was kinda put me over the edge with him into my "no" category. The fact that it was arranged for full orchestra makes me giggle.

To blithely dismiss "most other film composers" in this way is... ill-advised.

(I feel like this quote should be followed by narration)

Joe Normalguy knew he had said something awful. He winced at his own stupidity and had just enough time for a very deflated "Sorry-" before he was struck by several lightning bolts that seemed to come from nowhere.

The Cowboy King sat down again, and spoke to the assembled company: "Let that be a warning for the rest of you."

John Cage, he was definitely one of the most important musical philosophers, but if I have to listen to someone argue that chance music is just as difficult to compose as traditional composing, I may scream.

Well, it's certainly as time-consuming. I don't know about difficult. Maybe the difficulty comes in allowing yourself to spend so much time in throwing dice.

Which composer who is reputable is the worst? What's so hard about that :huh:?

Worst doesn't always mean bad, it just means not as good as the rest ;).

I'd say cage. 4'33 or whatever it was kinda put me over the edge with him into my "no" category. The fact that it was arranged for full orchestra makes me giggle.

Since it can be played by any assortment of instruments in the first place it couldn't have been "arranged for full orchestra".

Well, it's certainly as time-consuming. I don't know about difficult. Maybe the difficulty comes in allowing yourself to spend so much time in throwing dice.

I find it useless to discuss difficulty, however, the main task about chance music is not throwing the dice, but deciding what parameters they influence and in which way, what parameters they don't influence and how to determine those, how to connect all musical parameters in a way that makes musically sense to you as a composer and so on. Just throwing a die won't magically create music. Just like a computer, algorithm, or any compositorial technique doesn't just create music out of nothing. All those things need to be musically conceived and applied in certain carefully thought-out ways. Ultimately, no matter what technique you use, the musical responsibility stays with human minds.

Since it can be played by any assortment of instruments in the first place it couldn't have been "arranged for full orchestra".

Must suck having this as your cellphone ringtone, eh?

Yeah :(

Hmmm...Stockhausen, Penderecki (listen to the Capriccio for Oboe and Orchestra), and Schubert. I also strongly dislike Paganini and Sarasate.

Hmmm...Stockhausen, Penderecki (listen to the Capriccio for Oboe and Orchestra), and Schubert. I also strongly dislike Paganini and Sarasate.

actually, the thread wasn't entitled "what music don't I understand or like".

it was (whether the question is actually valid or not is another issue completely) entitled "who is, in you opinion, the worst reputatble composer?"

and being a mod, and sometimes feeling huffy and scallopy, I figure, if you participate in this thread, you need to be able to at least answer what, in your opinion, makes your choice of composer "the worst" among reputable composers.

and please, "I don't like his music" is actually NOT a valid answer.

If your answer is in any way or form related to "I don't like his music", then honestly, don't bother responding to this (already HIGHLY disreputable) thread.

and being a mod, and sometimes feeling huffy and scallopy, I figure, if you participate in this thread, you need to be able to at least answer what, in your opinion, makes your choice of composer "the worst" among reputable composers.

Schubert, because with the exception of a few pieces, everything he wrote sounds the same, which means that to me it seems that it didn't require much original thought or creativity, even if it did require skill to compose. I don't know if this feeling is unique to me or is shared by others, but I don't really care, because this thread is at least to some extent about opinion. He was a good composer in that he was good at composition and his pieces are "nice" if a little boring, but they aren't creative, or at least I don't see the creativity. Of course, I don't mean to suggest that I could do better at this stage, but I don't pretend to think I'm a good composer.

As for Penderecki, just like Schubert, some of his music is quite good (especially his later works), but as for the rest, I don't really see how that really requires skill to compose. It seems to rely on the idea that all sounds are "equal", and also seems to have a lot of extended technique and dissonance for its own sake. Maybe I do just fail to understand him, but I guess I have a fundamental disagreement with his style.

As for Stockhausen, I think you're right there - I just don't get his music (and I probably don't have enough experience with it). I appreciate that Penderecki is at least more straightforward.

I'm going to get shot down, I just know it...such is the way of Internet forums.

Schoenberg, Glass, Cage, Berlioz, Chopin, Schumann.

No particular order.

i cant believe you included Chopin and Schumann. :(

i dont wanna insult any composers, but seriously, i cant stand Wagner......

Why does this thread never die? ;(

Gubaidulina.

actually, I think that most composers' reputations are ruined through mass hysteria and over-performance of their 'most popular' works.

Not in her case. I've heard a few of her works, I've tried to get to grips with her. I know people who idolize her. But many who don't.