Which composers and conductors didn't dislike the work of several leading composers?

[Lat-Literal]

Whenever I read up on the life and work of leading composers and conductors in the past and present, it always seems to me that there's a list of well-known and well-liked composers about whom each was frequently critical. Is this something that should just naturally be expected rather than being seen as surprising - and are there any exceptions? I suppose there is a slight radio dimension to this. What it suggests is that most if they had ever had access to R3 or CFM would be dipping in and out of these stations rather than having them on for most of the time. Consequently, are we to assume that audiences are expected to be more open minded and/or full of praise for most music relayed by broadcast or in performance?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If they said they liked everything, they would probably not be telling the truth.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If they said they liked everything, they would probably not be telling the truth.

I can't really follow the trail of negatives in Lat's question - it seems to be asking "which composers and conductors liked the work of several leading composers?"? In which case, the answer is probably "all of them".

[Serial_Apologist]

Whenever I read up on the life and work of leading composers and conductors in the past and present, it always seems to me that there's a list of well-known and well-liked composers about whom each was frequently critical. Is this something that should just naturally be expected rather than being seen as surprising - and are there any exceptions? I suppose there is a slight radio dimension to this. What it suggests is that most if they had ever had access to R3 or CFM would be dipping in and out of these stations rather than having them on for most of the time. Consequently, are we to assume that audiences are expected to be more open minded and/or full of praise for most music relayed by broadcast or in performance?

Composers pick their way through various influences which can inform their own music well into its finding its own identity, so I think it's not unsurprising if their tastes will be in sympathy with some while rejecting others. The history of music is littered with aesthetic factionalism - think of the hostility of Saint-Saens towards Franck, or the rivalry which was more than merely personal animosity between Stravinsky and Schoenberg when both were living a few blocks apart in California. Serious composers certain of their own contribution to how music evolves may look askance at others pursuing different objectives, especially if they deem these to be false or not fulfilling some cherished ideal or the received inheritance of the ages. The "historical weight" with which the string quartet is endowed by some major figures of both past and present is an example that for some presents near-insuperable problems of creativity and "living up to (name favourite string quartet composer(s))". Others shrug such inhibitions aside as superfluous cultural baggage obstructing alternative viewpoints which may not be as incompatible with current thinking as assumed; indeed, with the widespread questioning in aesthetic quarters of cultural hierarchies of the past (qv Kenneth Clarke's "Civilisation" with its unquestioned post-Renaissance assumptions) there are many who now reject the old high art-low art order of taste justification according to privileged exposure as elitism, borne of a sense of exclusivity that was not altogether separable from commissioning from on high. No doubt there have been composers who went along with this vestige of patronage, but not many left today.

We mere listeners are privileged in being able to be open to an eclection of likes (and dislikes too of course) without the expectation of putting our heads over the barricades.

[Lat-Literal]

I can't really follow the trail of negatives in Lat's question - it seems to be asking "which composers and conductors liked the work of several leading composers?"? In which case, the answer is probably "all of them".

Now I am confused.

Not that this is a first.

I think my question, rephrased, is "which composers and conductors liked all of the leading composers?"

Which is probably not the same as your interpretation.

Additionally, it would be fair to expect that questions might be raised on the definition of "leading".

But I think we all know approximately who we mean.

[Lat-Literal]

Composers pick their way through various influences which can inform their own music well into its finding its own identity, so I think it's not unsurprising if their tastes will be in sympathy with some while rejecting others. The history of music is littered with aesthetic factionalism - think of the hostility of Saint-Saens towards Franck, or the rivalry which was more than merely personal animosity between Stravinsky and Schoenberg when both were living a few blocks apart in California. Serious composers certain of their own contribution to how music evolves may look askance at others pursuing different objectives, especially if they deem these to be false or not fulfilling some cherished ideal or the received inheritance of the ages. The "historical weight" with which the string quartet is endowed by some major figures of both past and present is an example that for some presents near-insuperable problems of creativity and "living up to (name favourite string quartet composer(s))". Others shrug such inhibitions aside as superfluous cultural baggage obstructing alternative viewpoints which may not be as incompatible with current thinking as assumed; indeed, with the widespread questioning in aesthetic quarters of cultural hierarchies of the past (qv Kenneth Clarke's "Civilisation" with its unquestioned post-Renaissance assumptions) there are many who now reject the old high art-low art order of taste justification according to privileged exposure as elitism, borne of a sense of exclusivity that was not altogether separable from commissioning from on high. No doubt there have been composers who went along with this vestige of patronage, but not many left today.

We mere listeners are privileged in being able to be open to an eclection of likes (and dislikes too of course) without the expectation of putting our heads over the barricades.

Yes - thank you. I suppose that the way in which many can like Stravinsky and Schoenberg, to refer to two of the names you mention, must say something but I am not sure quite what it says. Perhaps one of the key things it says is that such audiences are able, willing and/or prepared to have the music but not the writers' own conflict that was around it at the time.

[Pabmusic]

I can't really follow the trail of negatives in Lat's question - it seems to be asking "which composers and conductors liked the work of several leading composers?"? In which case, the answer is probably "all of them".

The question could be rewritten indeed, but if it means anything like "were there any composers or conductors who made no (or few) disparaging remarks about others?" then I'd say several of my favourites. Boult for instance had what he called "blind spots" - Delius being one - but said it was his own loss. Then there were composers such as Parry, Elgar, RVW and Butterworth who don't seem to have made a habit of rudeness about others - in fact often showed interest in very different music (Parry listening to Schoenberg's 5 Orchestral Pieces, Elgar owning records of the Rite of Spring, and Butterworth's admiring Nijinsky's dancing in it ay Covent Garden).

[Lat-Literal]

The question could be rewritten indeed, but if it means anything like "were there any composers or conductors who made no (or few) disparaging remarks about others?" then I'd say several of my favourites. Boult for instance had what he called "blind spors" - Delius being one - but said it was his own loss. Then there were composers such as Parry, Elgar, RVW and Butterworth wh don't seem to have made a habit of rudeness about others - in fact often showed interest in very different music (Parry listening to Schoenberg's 5 Orchestral Pieces, Elgar owning records of the Rite of Spring, and Butterworth's admiring Nijinsky's dancing in it ay Covent Garden). Of

Yes - this is precisely it and thank you - (although I thought RVW did have a few issues with some composers?). There is another question underpinning it. It isn't simply "who are the people who didn't criticise other people?". I'm struggling with it but it is along the lines "if audiences are open to the concept of classical music, as presented by classical music radio stations, are composers and conductors more inclined to "be" in just parts of it? That they wouldn't really think in terms of classical music in that sense but rather selected areas of music of a serious nature? Consequently, that their discrimination might well lend itself to greater critique? This would only be knocked down by large numbers being deemed uncritical?

[Richard Barrett]

Composers and conductors don't belong to some separate species with different kinds of musical taste from other people. They listen to music and have their preferences just like everyone else. The phenomenon noted in the OP seems to me merely the result of composers and conductors (and no doubt not only these) articulating their preferences more articulately than most people ever feel the compulsion to do. When one reacts well or badly to some music, as a creative musician oneself, it's incumbent to work out why that is, for reasons I think are obvious, rather than be content with just thinking "I like/don't like it". But there are no strict dividing lines between people who spend their lives making music and people who don't, in this regard - listening is (or can be) a creative act too, as performing clearly is (or can be).

On the other hand: for (say) a composer to take up a radical and uncompromising stylistic stance in their work implies a rejection of the more pragmatic values many of their contemporaries might subscribe to. A composer who likes everything probably has little in the way of individuality in their own work.

[Lat-Literal]

Composers and conductors don't belong to some separate species with different kinds of musical taste from other people. They listen to music and have their preferences just like everyone else. The phenomenon noted in the OP seems to me merely the result of composers and conductors (and no doubt not only these) articulating their preferences more articulately than most people ever feel the compulsion to do. When one reacts well or badly to some music, as a creative musician oneself, it's incumbent to work out why that is, for reasons I think are obvious, rather than be content with just thinking "I like/don't like it". But there are no strict dividing lines between people who spend their lives making music and people who don't, in this regard - listening is (or can be) a creative act too, as performing clearly is (or can be).

On the other hand: for (say) a composer to take up a radical and uncompromising stylistic stance in their work implies a rejection of the more pragmatic values many of their contemporaries might subscribe to. A composer who likes everything probably has little in the way of individuality in their own work.

Yes - I do accept that point entirely. It is in line with my thinking elsewhere. I have often put forward the argument that no one is really young or middle aged or elderly as if such categories exist on distinct planets but rather we are all each of these things albeit not in our immediate experience. Ditto able bodied and disabled - and also even re civil servants and the general public. Not that it pleased everyone when I insisted in the times when it all became "us and them" that we were members of the public too. There are presumably some composers who prefer not to listen to any other music, just as there are writers who don't read others' books, on the grounds that to do so would pollute individual style? It is logical, therefore, that the vast majority of people who compose and do listen to other people's music would wish to self-define by being in sync or in opposition with what they listen to.

[Pabmusic]

Yes - this is precisely it and thank you - (although I thought RVW did have a few issues with some composers?). There is another question underpinning it. It isn't simply "who are the people who didn't criticise other people?". I'm struggling with it but it is along the lines "if audiences are open to the concept of classical music, as presented by classical music radio stations, are composers and conductors more inclined to "be" in just parts of it? That they wouldn't really think in terms of classical music in that sense but rather selected areas of music of a serious nature? Consequently, that their discrimination might well lend itself to greater critique? This would only be knocked down by large numbers being deemed uncritical?

On reflection, I think you're right about RVW.

I'll have to think about the rest of what you say.

[gradus]

Wagner could be rude about almost everyone but Mendelssohn, Schumann and Meyerbeer spring to mind. Stravinsky made some tart remarks about Rachmaninov I think and Tchaikovsky called Brahms a talentless B*****d I believe. Don't think Britten was famous for his love of Brahms either.

[Lat-Literal]

On reflection, I think you're right about RVW.

I'll have to think about the rest of what you say.

Wagner could be rude about almost everyone but Mendelssohn, Schumann and Meyerbeer spring to mind. Stravinsky made some tart remarks about Rachmaninov I think and Tchaikovsky called Brahms a talentless B*****d I believe. Don't think Britten was famous for his love of Brahms either.

This is this sort of thing that prompted my question. It isn't just the people you mention. It seems to happen a lot. I suppose there is a further distinction to be made between criticism of a contemporary and criticism of someone in the past. The former as already indicated could mean various things. The latter seems unequivocal in indicating genuine musical dislike.

There is yet another point. To take your Britten and Brahms example, a composer of Britten's stature can probably think "I know about these things - Brahms is overrated". Whereas a classical music audience which doesn't compose will be left to wonder "why is it that we can't take to Brahms? - there's something very wrong with us". Personally, I quite like Brahms.

[Serial_Apologist]

This is this sort of thing that prompted my question. It isn't just the people you mention. It seems to happen a lot. I suppose there is a further distinction to be made between criticism of a contemporary and criticism of someone in the past. The former as already indicated could mean various things. The latter seems unequivocal in indicating genuine musical dislike.

There is yet another point. To take your Britten and Brahms example, a composer of Britten's stature can probably think "I know about these things - Brahms is overrated". Whereas a classical music audience which doesn't compose will be left to wonder "why is it that I can't take to Brahms - there's something wrong with me".

If you're suggesting that a composer's view of another confers greater reliability on that viewpoint, negative or positive, the answer depends on whether you yourself happen to like or at least respect that composer and/or his or her music. Reviewing a specific recording, say Recording A, I try and enter the artist's mind and way of thinking, so as to bring about some degree of identification. I may then go on to evaluate Recording B, but it is by an artist who thinks entirely different from Artist A and doesn't even think much of him or her. It has happened. You get into the mind and the thinking of each if you believe disseminating the right kinds of music intelligibly enrich the world, or you keep your views to yourself. I think we're hardwired to want to share, music being one of life's intermediaries to enrichment not at the expense of anyone (apart from disturbing the neighbours). While we are lucky here to enjoy the privilege (which I think it is) of exchanging views and experiences with wonderful generously creative and valuable people, there is the question of what brings about an informed person, and even if a truly, comprehensively informed person can actually ever be said to exist, or have ever existed; who judges that attribution, and from what standpoint/reason.

[Bryn]

Yes - thank you. I suppose that the way in which many can like Stravinsky and Schoenberg, to refer to two of the names you mention, must say something but I am not sure quite what it says. Perhaps one of the key things it says is that such audiences are able, willing and/or prepared to have the music but not the writers' own conflict that was around it at the time.

Stravinsky's widely quoted disdain for Schoenberg's muse was not without its exceptions. He regarded the latter's violin concerto as the finest of the 20th Century, his own notwithstanding, IIRC. He was more generous to Beethoven than was Cage, strongly attacking LvB's violin concerto but not dismissing him as "wrong", as Cage did. Poor deluded me holds for all three's violin concertos in high regard.