Steven Schwartz wrote:

>Peter Varley:
>
>>I find Messiaen's music boring.
>
>That's your privilege.  I find some of it boring, some of it very exciting
>indeed.

Which are the pieces you find exciting? It is possible that I may not have
heard them.

And are they numerous enough, or exciting enough, to justify Messiaen's
reputation? According to the Collins Encyclopaedia of Music, "Messiaen is
one of the most original and influential of modern composers".  The Concise
Grove gives him more space than Sibelius, and six times as much space as
Rubbra, which says more about their opinion than mere words could.  It
takes more than one or two pieces, however exciting, to back up that sort
of assessment.

>>The music I find especially boring is the Catalogue des Oiseaux (sp?).
>
>Really? I friend of mine - a concert pianist - worked himself almost to the
>point of injury in the process of learning that piece.  Obviously, the
>music didn't bore him.

Obviously not.  However, it is possible that pieces may be interesting to
play but not interesting to listen to.  What did his audience think?

>>Objectively, I would also question whether, given the availability of
>>tape-recorders, transcriptions of birdsong can properly be called
>>compositions and have any value as music.
>
>That's like saying, given the availability of cameras, representational
>portrait painting has no value as art.

This is a point of view I've heard expressed.  I'm not sure whether I agree
with it or not.

IMO, a better analogy would be with an illustration for an ornithology
journal.

Still, rivals for "most overrated composer" keep appearing.  Another
nomination?

Peter Varley
[log in to unmask]