Not the greatest, but one of your favorites

[CD]

I realize that some here already know him, but I feel that the music of Charles Koechlin is unfairly overlooked. It's hard to see why – his music is very obviously sensual and (to me, anyway) easy to like. His harmonic language and orchestration are a source of constant surprise and delight to me. There is already a thread on Koechlin, but it's been inactive for some time. I think that anyone listening to Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen or early Schoenberg needs to give Koechlin a chance.

[offbeat]

Bax springs to mind, a skilled composer with a fairly unique style, yet a relatively limited range of expression. (Or perhaps his unique way of expressing things obscures the breadth of what he has to say?) I can imagine his very personal style of orchestration (extremely woodwind heavy, among other things) being a turn-off for some, though it's grown on me. The structural clarity of his larger works, especially the symphonies, is a matter of debate, though with repeated listening, I've been coming around to the view, espoused forcibly by no less an expert than the late Vernon Handley, that these supposedly discursive works are actually tightly structured.  A good starting point for exploration:

or

Both feature some of his best-known works, such as the beautiful, sweeping Tintagel.
(As for the "greatest", this discussion might be more profitable if everyone decided for the sake of argument to leave the generally acknowledged greats like the 3 B's, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Wagner, et al. aside and focus on lesser-known composers.)

Hi Grazioso- re Bax - yes exactly how i feel - i always think with his compositions his main themes are unimportant and in some cases even banal but underneath has a poetic feel even though sometimes the orchestration is overdone - favourite works for me are
November Woods and the third and sixth symphony but as y say can be an acquired taste

[Harpo]

It sounds like "greatness" being defined here as those who win the popularity contest...

I find that some "music experts" (not HERE of course) tout either the really famous or the really obscure. 

[Grazioso]

but as Tchaikovsky said of Glazunov, something held them back.

Yet some of the "lesser" composers really get under my skin and keep me coming back for more when the really big names don't. I certainly enjoy Haydn, for instance, yet I find myself pulling out my Boccherini recordings more often.

[Grazioso]

Einojuhani Rautavaara, acclaimed as one of the great living composers, is another composer I enjoy despite major weaknesses in his music. His output is uneven, with some of his more recent pieces little more than interchangeable New Age mush to my ears, but some of his older works are highly distinctive, well crafted, sonically seductive, and emotionally powerful.

The first piano concerto and Brucknerian symphony 3 are two of the earlier winners:

[Grazioso]

Another big-name contemporary composer is Arvo Pärt, whom I couldn't classify as truly great but who is definitely one of my favorites. Why not great? He broke away radically from the avant-garde (good) to develop a religious minimalist style that is stunningly beautiful but ultimately seems like a creative straitjacket. I'd like to hear him branch out stylistically and spend less time reworking the same material for different forces.

This is a great introduction to his orchestral works:

and choral:

[DavidRoss]

My "lesser" composer of choice (and I shudder using that term), is Copland.  I wouldn't dare call him "second rate" or anything similar but I'm sure even he would have admitted that he was "outranked" by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, and others.

Copland's music for me represents a simplicity and serenity that very few have been able to match.  He blended modernist rhythmic ambiguity and dissonance with accessible melodic content.  As a result he was able to be innovative and yet reach the widest possible audience.  Along with Beethoven and Dvorak, he is the composer who's music I listen to the most.

He would certainly be among my candidates.  "Greatness" is always controversial around here.  To some it apparently means no more than "composers I like a lot" or "composers whose name I recognize."  To me the list of "greats" is short:  Beethoven, Bach, Stravinsky, Mozart, Sibelius, Haydn, Debussy, arguably Brahms, Mahler, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, maybe one or two influential others (i.e. Strauss) who also left very substantial bodies of significant work of remarkable quality and originality in multiple genres.  The number of "near-greats"--those with a lot of great works to their credit but not so consistently first-rate in multiple genres--is considerably larger.  But some of my favorites don't make either cut IMO, yet many of their compositions are simply wonderful to my ears (like Appalachian Spring, or An American in Paris, or Knoxville) and I really don't give a damn how I or anyone else might rank them on the scale of "relative greatness."

In keeping with the "less-well-known treasures" theme, I'd like also to recommend Zelenka's trio sonatas, Wm. Schuman's violin concerto, Albeniz's Suite Española, and Bridge's The Sea--among others. 

[springrite]

I would say Josef Suk. Admittedly, 20 years ago I bought a few SUPRAPHON CDs of his music because of the CD cover. But then I discovered the wonderful music. From Asrael to the Serenade for Strings, everything I have heard have been nothing less than marvelous. I still regret letting my ex-girlfriend borrow Under the Apple Tree and a couple of other CDs just before our breakup.

[Cato]

Alexander Zemlinsky: I consider him a great, but knowing that most do not, he would seem at home here.

Listen to The Mermaid, The Six Songs for Orchestra, and of course the Lyric Symphony and make your decision!  The two early symphonies are also worthwhile (beware the Marco Polo version: it lacks the Finale to #1.  Get the EMI version with James Conlon conducting one of the Cologne orchestras (Guerzench, I believe).

[Sorin Eushayson]

Edvard Grieg embodies this for me.  He's obvious no Beethoven or Mozart, but I adore his music!  Expanding on this idea, his Symphony in C Minor - rarely performed and recorded - is a personal favourite of mine, though it certainly won't rank amongst Mozart's 41st or Beethoven's 5th any time soon!

[schweitzeralan]

I disagree-- Brahms is on par with Mozart and Beethoven.  I also strongly disagree with your sentiment that Faure is not a profound composer.  His chamber works are some of the absolute greatest.  I wouldn't even compare a romantic era composer to a classical era either, it doesn't even make sense.

Faure is indeed a wonderfull composer. I'm more familiar with his piano  works. The "Requiem" is an exception. No second rates there.

[schweitzeralan]

I would say Josef Suk. Admittedly, 20 years ago I bought a few SUPRAPHON CDs of his music because of the CD cover. But then I discovered the wonderful music. From Asrael to the Serenade for Strings, everything I have heard have been nothing less than marvelous. I still regret letting my ex-girlfriend borrow Under the Apple Tree and a couple of other CDs just before our breakup.

The "Asrael" is a superb wrk.  Right up there with the maestros.

[Sergeant Rock]

To me the list of "greats" is short:  Beethoven, Bach, Stravinsky, Mozart, Sibelius, Haydn, Debussy, arguably Brahms, Mahler, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, maybe one or two influential others (i.e. Strauss) who also left very substantial bodies of significant work of remarkable quality and originality in multiple genres.  The number of "near-greats"--those with a lot of great works to their credit but not so consistently first-rate in multiple genres

Producing a body of work in multiple genres is, in your opinion, a crucial criterion for greatness? Really? So none of the composers who wrote much or primarily vocal and operatic music are among the greats? Not Handel, Verdi, Wagner, Monteverdi, Schubert? I think you'll get some serious argument if you took this to the opera thread 


As for my own favoite second tier composers: many of the post-Romantics: Zemlinsky, Magnard, Korngold, Suk, Stenhammar, Franz Schmidt, Richard Wetz plus a whole slew of 20th century Brits who aren't Elgar or Vaughan Willliams (first tier composers both) led by Havergal Brian.

Sarge

[DavidW]

Sarge, I don't think he thought it through.  Dave lists Mahler, when Mahler was a symphonist.  Sibelius might have contributed to multiple genres, but he's only known for his orchestral music.  So not only his is definition absurd, but he immediately contradicts it!   Well we know what it really is, a thinly veiled attempt to discredit Wagner.

Oh well Wagner's legacy will survive.

[Grazioso]

Producing a body of work in multiple genres is, in your opinion, a crucial criterion for greatness? Really? So none of the composers who wrote much or primarily vocal and operatic music are among the greats? Not Handel, Verdi, Wagner, Monteverdi, Schubert? I think you'll get some serious argument if you took this to the opera thread 

It seems reasonable to me to include versatility as a prerequisite for composing greatness. Since classical music is built on a variety of markedly different genres with their own expectations and histories and challenges, why would not a composer who mastered or at least excelled in a number of them be considered "better" than one who merely excelled in one genre? That's why Verdi or Puccini are great opera composers but not great classical composers in the broader sense like LvB or Mozart, who produced operatic masterpieces and a whole lot more.

I don't understand, btw, why you include Schubert in your list. Yes, he wrote hundreds of songs, but he's best remembered not merely for some of those, but also for chamber pieces, piano works, symphonies, etc. He was an "all-rounder" though admittedly his operas are hardly well known.

[Sergeant Rock]

It seems reasonable to me to include versatility as a prerequisite for composing greatness. Since classical music is built on a variety of markedly different genres with their own expectations and histories and challenges, why would not a composer who mastered or at least excelled in a number of them be considered "better" than one who merely excelled in one genre? That's why Verdi or Puccini are great opera composers but not great classical composers in the broader sense like LvB or Mozart, who produced operatic masterpieces and a whole lot more.

I don't agree. Confining oneself to just one or two genres cannot possibly be a dismissal of greatness; cannot possibly mean you were a lesser composer. Should we ban Mahler and Brahms from the pantheon just because they wrote no operas? If that were the case in other arts, Shakespeare would not be considered a great writer because he produced no novels. Tolstoy would not be a great writer because he produced no plays or poetry. The fact that Wagner and Verdi are commonly listed among the great composers is simple fact which David's prejudice will not change.

I don't understand, btw, why you include Schubert in your list. Yes, he wrote hundreds of songs, but he's best remembered not merely for some of those, but also for chamber pieces, piano works, symphonies, etc. He was an "all-rounder" though admittedly his operas are hardly well known.

I included Schubert because 1) the vast majority of his work is vocal (songs, masses, operas) and 2) David didn't include Schubert among the greats...which is heretical to me

Sarge

[DavidW]

It seems reasonable to me to include versatility as a prerequisite for composing greatness.

Nope, absolutely not!  Why?  It's simple really.  Many composers did not decide what genres to write in.  It was forced upon them by the people that paid them.  You are stuck in the Romantic ideal of composer as artist who works in a vacuum (don't you just love how I attribute things to you that you never said? ).  That is not reality.  Consider this-- Bach wrote a diverse amount of music depending on who he was working for at the time.  If he worked for Prince Leopold at the court of Cothen his whole life, his musical composition would not have been diverse.  Would he have been a lesser composer for it?  Your logic would say yes.  But still his compositions would still be brilliant, and I would be forced to conclude no.

I know so you say that Bach proved himself to be great by rising to the challenge of writing in different genres.  But what about the composers like Handel and Vivaldi that were specialized due to their circumstances (and not by choice)?  Would you consider them potentially great, but not really?  Just some kind of half-baked maybe?

Considering that they are great composers, it seems like an artificial rule (diversity) that the real critics don't bother themselves with.

[Grazioso]

I don't agree. Confining oneself to just one or two genres cannot possibly be a dismissal of greatness; cannot possibly mean you were a lesser

I don't think that it's an automatic dismissal of greatness, but it raises questions of relative ranking.

composer. Should we ban Mahler and Brahms from the pantheon just because they wrote no operas? If that were the case in other arts,

I rank Mahler among the very greatest symphonists, but would I place him beside other composers who excelled in that genre plus many others? Probably not. And Mahler, after all, had broader opportunities available to him: he was hardly unfamiliar with operas, for example Would a Mahler opera have been performed? Who knows, but afaik nothing prevented him from writing one.

Shakespeare would not be considered a great writer because he produced no novels. Tolstoy would not be a great writer because he produced no plays or poetry. The fact that Wagner and Verdi are commonly listed among the great composers is simple fact which David's prejudice will not change.

The novel as we know it barely existed in Shakespeare's day. (Although imagine if he had tried his hand at that inchoate genre!) I think a big part of Wagner's greatness lies in the harmonic advances he made, which spilled over into classical music as a whole with huge impact.

Nope, absolutely not!   Why?  It's simple really.  Many composers did not decide what genres to write in.  It was forced upon them by the people that paid them.  You are stuck in the Romantic ideal of composer as artist who works in a vacuum (don't you just love how I attribute things to you that you never said? ).  That is not reality.  Consider this-- Bach wrote a diverse amount of music depending on who he was working for at the time.  If he worked for Prince Leopold at the court of Cothen his whole life, his musical composition would not have been diverse.  Would he have been a lesser composer for it?  Your logic would say yes.  But still his compositions would still be brilliant, and I would be forced to conclude no.

Point taken, but working for one or two major patrons hardly precludes exploring and mastering (or even inventing) various genres: Haydn is a classic example.

I know so you say that Bach proved himself to be great by rising to the challenge of writing in different genres.  But what about the composers like Handel and Vivaldi that were specialized due to their circumstances (and not by choice)?  Would you consider them potentially great, but not really?  Just some kind of half-baked maybe?

Again, point taken, though I'm not sure either Handel or Vivaldi make your case, both having produced quality works across multiple genres.

If two composers both have the opportunity to excel in a range of classical genres, I would say the one who does so is "greater" than the one who focuses on just one. To contribute notably to multiple streams in classical music seems to denote greater ambition, imagination, and technical mastery than focusing just on one thing, however well.

[Elgarian]

The problem with 'greatness' as a concept is that
(a) there's no agreed way of defining it (this thread is already demonstrating that);
(b) it invites the idea that it's somehow quantifiable; but it's a quality, not a quantity. So trying to rank 'greatness' is, I think, a category error. You can say that this composer has had more influence than that one, or that this composer has composed more operas or more symphonies (or longer symphonies, or more complex symphonies, or more advanced symphonies); but it's not possible to jump from there to some measured value of 'greatness'. At least, not one that everyone is going to agree on.

But usually we know what we mean when we say we're experiencing 'greatness' (or some similar statement). So it's as if there's a ringfenced zone into which we can deposit 'great' composers; and while we might haggle about precisely who is inside and who is outside, there's going to be some measure of broad agreement about a kind of central core. Anything that attempts a more refined sorting is doomed to failure I think.

But to answer the original question. Most people tell me that Elgar is not among the first rank of composers. I have no way of knowing what that means exactly, in any objective sense, though I can see for myself certain limitations in his work. But I'm immensely grateful to Elgar the man, and I love his music like no other; so he is the composer I'd put forward as my favourite in the sense that the OP invited.

[DavidW]

Point taken, but working for one or two major patrons hardly precludes exploring and mastering (or even inventing) various genres: Haydn is a classic example.

The thing with Haydn is that Esterhazy wanted a variety of music.  It's not a legit counterexample.  The composers that ended up with a cushy job where they can sit and compose a wide variety of music were lucky.  Few were as lucky as Haydn and Corelli.  You paint Haydn as mastering several genres despite being employed by one wealthy patron, but that's really wrong.  If Esterhazy wanted nothing but baryton trios, we would know Haydn only for the baryton trios.  That's what I'm saying.  Pre-romantic era, if a composer wanted to make a career in music then it's all about writing what you get paid for.

Again, point taken, though I'm not sure either Handel or Vivaldi make your case, both having produced quality works across multiple genres.

I disagree, hardly anyone plays Vivaldi's vocal music even if they happen to be gmg favorites (which means pretty much nothing anyway).  He's most known for his concertos.  And Handel might have written some concertos and orchestral music a couple of which are great works, but his major output is clearly oratorios and operas.  And the deep flaw in what your saying is exposed-- you were forced to switch from greatest to your personal assessment of quality to say what you did.  And so your assertion falls apart!

Your attempt at ranking composers this way simply does not work.  Whether a composer writes only (or is only known for) piano music or only operas, and another one writes in a variety of genres, you can't say that one is greater than the other.

To contribute notably to multiple streams in classical music seems to denote greater ambition, imagination, and technical mastery than focusing just on one thing, however well.

Greater ambition?  No.  Imagination?  No.  Technical mastery!?  What does that even have to do with specializing vs generalizing?  That really does not make sense.