IMSLP Forums

Why do classical music listeners ridicule Samuel Barber for being too traditional? I personally find him to be modern at times but then at little bit laid back in his other works. If you listen to his Second Symphony (one of my personal favorites) you will know what I am talking when I say he can be modern.

Another thing that is mind-bottling is when critics say he has no particular style. I believe he has a very unique, uniform sound in all of his compositions.

Sincerely,
huge Barber fan

In response to the first part of your post, I would agree that Barber is a "modern" composer. The reason I say this is that compared to Richard Strauss and Hans Pfitzner, he is not traditional in any way.

As for the second part, I would have to say that Barber's style is so unique, that you wouldn't be able to classify it. Even though his music is similiar to John Cage and Menotti, you would never confuse him with them.

Especially in the US, the concept of uniqueness was held in extremely high regard (and still is in Australia). Cage, Schoenberg, Boulez, etc. all epitomise this obsession with being wildly different from everyone else. I'm not saying this is bad or good (clarifying some words I have used which may seem derogatory).

Being a neoclassical composer put him in a field that builds on the past (rather than marches into the future).

I do not see any part of his works that sound remotely like the majority of Cage.

I am obtaining this information from a quote Samuel Barber himself said where he mentions that critics criticize him for having no personal style.

Nice analysis Yagan. You seem pretty awesome.

I may be in the vast minority on this, but I happen to love ANTHONY AND CLEOPATRA. It's a pity Barber has fallen into disfavour, particularly for his operatic works, because it's some seriously gorgeous music.

Yeah, like A Hand of Bridge.

I've noticed general dislike against Barber, as well. I, however, love his Violin Concerto, even the third movement.

My theory about the dislike of Barber is that he'd *too* accessible, at least in the considered opinion of music critics who like their modern melodic line more primitive-sounding. I've found that a lot of the current crop of "modern" composers leave me cold; throwing around notes like rice at a Presbyterian wedding and then standing there waiting for accolades for their musical messiness. Then you get Barber, who's one of the few that still holds to the old-fashioned notion of a long melodic line and a rich sound — and even though he may be popular with the unwashed masses, he's not "avant" enough to satisfy the so-called intellectual needs of the critics who emphatically tell us they know what they're talking about.

Well, y'know, I see the same thing in pop music: pre-packaged albums that have been written (if you can call them that) to sound a very particular way, because that's what's expected... even though the final result is essentially interchangable with the last pop album released. And yet the rock critics will go on and on (and on) about how "wonderful" the music is... when in fact it sounds exactly like every other song out there, the same three chords, the same bass pattern, the same percussive line. And yet somehow, this similar-and-yet-not-quite work will be hailed as "groundbreaking" and "an important social statement!"

Right.

Dont get me wrong; I love me some John Adams every now and then. But Adams gets old because he gets repetitive: NIXON IN CHINA sounds much like I WAS LOOKING AT THE CEILING, even though the two are separated by two decades. If that's "personal style", so be it. It's just a pity that we cant look at Barber and see that, yes, he too has a personal style, but it's slightly deeper and more complex than your run of the mill "contemporary composer"...

I've personally never heard of a general dislike of Barber either among scholars or musicians. I myself have played most of his orchestral works and cherish every rehearsal; his works are tinged with a singular type of dissonance while still being rhapsodic and sumptuous. Of all his works, I have to give it up mainly to Knoxville: Summer of 1915 as being my favorite. Having performed this several times, it never gets old and I continually find a different angle from which to view Barber's influences and creations. I highly recommend the Atlanta Symphony recording of this with Sylvia McNair and Maestro Levi as I don't think you could ask for any better musicianship than this group.

From my personal experience from reading, it is cleary evident that there is a great deal of criticism aimed at Barber for reasons Sean Martin mentioned. I have even heard people complain about his Capricorn Concerto for being too dry. I think it is such a sublime piece and I am almost sure that Daphnis et Chloe (the oboe player) would think the same.

Absolutely.

Isn't the title of this thread rather overwrought?

C'mon, we're talking about music here. *Everything* is over-wrought.

Yes the title is pretty presumptuous not not all that explanatory.