Not the greatest, but one of your favorites

[Elgarian]

hardly anyone plays Vivaldi's vocal music

?

But who is 'hardly anyone'? I don't play anything of Vivaldi's except his vocal music....

[DavidW]

?

But who is 'hardly anyone'? I don't play anything of Vivaldi's except his vocal music....

I meant as in "perform" not "spin a cd"!   The major orchestras don't perform and don't record Vivaldi's vocal works that often.

[Elgarian]

I meant as in "perform" not "spin a cd"!   The major orchestras don't perform and don't record Vivaldi's vocal works that often.

I could pretend I was being deliberately perverse, but actually I was just being plain dim.

[Grazioso]

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

Certainly it makes sense. You're presented with multiple artistic avenues. Do you have the drive and capability and vision to master all of them, or do you stick with one? Sorry, but a Renaissance man who excels in multiple fields is always more impressive to me than someone who just excels in one. I certainly enjoy the art of Chopin and Wagner, but I'm more deeply awed by composers such as LvB and Mozart who could and did tackle and master just about any form of classical music they encountered. Which isn't to say I necessarily like their music more, but rather that I have a greater appreciation in the abstract for their mental and creative prowess.

What doesn't make sense is you saying that hardly anyone performs Vivaldi's vocal music now, and that a lack of contemporary performances somehow lessens his achievement in that genre. Whether a bunch of people read a book doesn't alter its quality, only its exposure and potential influence.

[DavidW]

What doesn't make sense is you saying that hardly anyone performs Vivaldi's vocal music now, and that a lack of contemporary performances somehow lessens his achievement in that genre. Whether a bunch of people read a book doesn't alter its quality, only its exposure and potential influence.

It's a sign that the musical community doesn't consider them (as a whole) worth playing or worth listening to.  If you reject that as a simple gauge of interest, then all you've done is set yourself up as sole arbiter of taste in classical music.  I reject your judgment, I reject your rationale.  You can assess the quality of a composer by your criterion, just don't necessarily expect too many others to join in.

[Grazioso]

This is where you are so wrong in your thinking, they all excel in one field (music) not multiple fields.

An opera and string quartet are so far removed they may as well be different fields.

[Bulldog]

An opera and string quartet are so far removed they may as well be different fields.

I'm confident there are operas where a passage is played by a string quartet.

[Grazioso]

Right, in your mind they are - you're 100% wrong though.

To imply that a composer who can write a good string quartet will somehow automatically be able to write a masterful opera is illogical. That's like saying all science is one field, so someone who understands astrophysics will necessarily master genetics, or that someone who can draw can necessarily paint with equal facility because they're both forms of visual art, or that a stellar fielder can become a great batter because, hey, it's all baseball. Not every classical composer has the ability, creativity, and willingness to tackle all the different classical genres, but the ones who can and have certainly earn my admiration.

It's a sign that the musical community doesn't consider them (as a whole) worth playing or worth listening to. 

Recall that some "major" composers were under-appreciated in their day only to enjoy greater status well after their deaths, or vice versa.

[DavidW]

Recall that some "major" composers were under-appreciated in their day only to enjoy greater status well after their deaths, or vice versa.

Now you're venturing into the territory of romanticized rewriting of history, the struggling, aspiring, underappreciated artist is more appealing than the truth.  These stories are highly inflated more often than not.  The real reason that some composers were forgotten is because until recently we did not care for "ancient music", and they wouldn't be played often.  We now care and at this point in time pretty much everything worth hearing has been recorded several times over.

[jowcol]

I'll sidestep the definition of any objective notion of "greatness" and toss out a couple composers I adore who I tend to view as guilty pleasures. 
Both of them I would call "groove" composers-- they stuck to a given sound, and did not explore the widest range of styles, some of their works may even seem interchangeable, but I listen to them a lot.

One is Vivaldi-- I can wallow in his works for hours, even it, as some have claimed, he wrote the same concerto 600 times.  (I think that is a bit extreme).  His melodic and rhythmic invention really draw me in.

The other is Steve Reich-- particularly his work starting in the 70s.  He keeps reusing the same elements from work to work, and there is a sameness to a lot of his writing, but there is a clarity and sense of proportion I REALLY like. 

Personally, I'd call both of them great, but I would say that both of them spent more time perfecting a given style than exploring new ones.  (Which, may be some peoples definition of greatness-- your mileage may vary. )

[Guido]

One is Vivaldi-- I can wallow in his works for hours, even it, as some have claimed, he wrote the same concerto 600 times.

It's just not though. There is always something surprising and original in every one... Of the 27 cello concertos there are only a very small number that do not impress me.

[not edward]

The composers that fall into this category for me are often those whose work is not unflawed, yet has an extremely strong personality of its own. I'm thinking of people like Alkan, Berwald, Busoni, Martinu, Schmidt, Schnittke and Tippett here; almost everything they wrote couldn't be by anyone else.

Note for Luke: I was tempted to include Janacek in this list, but honestly I can't list him under "not the greatest."

[jowcol]

It's just not though. There is always something surprising and original in every one... Of the 27 cello concertos there are only a very small number that do not impress me.

His cello concerti are HIGHLY underrated.  I've been listening to them a LOT lately. In some ways  I think the Vivaldi "formula" works better with Cello than lead violin.

[Grazioso]

And for those who unjustly lambaste Vivaldi as prosaically formulaic based on their listening to his concerti, try some of his chamber music.