Comparing Composers

[JoshLilly]

There is a Mozart I like who I think was adventurous way beyond his time, Wolfgang's father Leopold!  Especially Musical Sleigh Ride and the Toy Symphony.  Listen to sound samples Both works use sound effects, in addition to actual toys and wind machine in the Toy Symphony.   However there is doubt that Leopold actually composed either work.  IMHO both works are easily 100 years ahead of their time.

I love me some Leopold Mozart (and his grandson FX Mozart, also!).  I have to point out that the semi-famous "Toy Symphony" (Berchtoldsgaden Musick) looks to have been composed by Edmund Angerer.  That seems to be the most likely candidate based on all the information available as of now.  However, Leopold left a fair number of pieces that have hit recording, some of which heavily strike my fancy. His Die Bauernhochzeit Symphony sounds like exactly what you're talking about, if you haven't heard it already. He was probably more off the beaten track than his more famous son, and put out some really tremendous orchestral works. I love a few of his un-nicknamed symphonies, as well. And if you haven't heard his grandson F.X. Mozart's truly epic and tension-intense Piano Concerto #2's first movement orchestral opening, you're missing something really spectacular!

And Sforzando, I'm not really back. I read some stuff on this board fairly frequently. I just don't really have much to add that would be of interest to anyone else, I just read what those more knowledgeable say and benefit from it (even regarding composers that I normally dislike or hate). Actually, I haven't had anything of substance to add today for that matter, so I'm not sure what came over me!


All dissonance is relative...

[Scarpia]

Thanks for providing the example that is clearly an A# and a B# sounding at the same time, however I have not heard this piece, so I guess I should avoid it.   

I clearly said "I OWN all of Rachmaninov's works for orchestra and piano and orchestra and I have NEVER heard hard dissonance in a single work."  The only solo piano work I have heard by Rachmaninov is the Prelude in C sharp minor.  I do not own it, I like orchestral music and that is mostly what I own.  I do not like the UGLY sound of hard dissonance, surely you know what I mean?

Ok, Piano Concerto No. 1.  First movement.  Literally the first page of score I looked at.  In this score the orchestra is reduced to a second piano.

http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/pianoconcertono11.pdf

The first note played by the solo piano is a dissonance.   In both the left hand and the right hand, an A natural and a B natural sound simultaneously.  A minor second, the harshest dissonance.  You will be hard pressed to find a single bar of music by Rachmaninoff that does not contain obvious dissonances.  The unrelenting dissonances are what give Rachmaninoff that uniformly poignant, gloomy sound. 

And you will also find dissonances in almost every bar written by Mozart and Bach, the difference being that for Rachmaninoff they were often thrown in for flavor, while in Mozart and Bach there is normally a scheme for allowing them to resolve to a consonance (or resolve to another dissonance that resolves to a consonant, eventually).

[Teresa]

Ok, Piano Concerto No. 1.  First movement.  Literally the first page of score I looked at.  In this score the orchestra is reduced to a second piano.

http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/pianoconcertono11.pdf

The first note played by the solo piano is a dissonance.   In both the left hand and the right hand, an A natural and a B natural sound simultaneously.  A minor second, the harshest dissonance.  You will be hard pressed to find a single bar of music by Rachmaninoff that does not contain obvious dissonances.  The unrelenting dissonances are what give Rachmaninoff that uniformly poignant, gloomy sound. 

And you will also find dissonances in almost every bar written by Mozart and Bach, the difference being that for Rachmaninoff they were often thrown in for flavor, while in Mozart and Bach there is normally a scheme for allowing them to resolve to a consonance (or resolve to another dissonance that resolves to a consonant, eventually).

Thanks again, the first chord is A-B-D-A in two octaves, since the key is F-sharp minor with F,G and C sharp all are natural.  A to B is a major second as there is a tone in-between (A#) however that does quality as dissonance.  I played it on my guitar and it does not sound too dissonant.  A sharp and B natural played together does sound very dissonant.  So I guess I am opposed to hard dissonance rather than soft dissonance.  But even a major second isn't all that pretty, however I am sure it is effective if it is played quickly as the score shows.

To me Rachmaninov is a very tonal sounding composer in sharp contrast to Schoenberg, Stockhausen and other modern atonal composers that sometimes even use tone clusters such as C,C#,D,D#,E,E#,F all played at the same time.   To me their dissonances sound ugly, OTOH Rachmaninov never sounds ugly.  By the same token Mozart nor Bach never sound ugly either.  I will try to use the word "ugly dissonance" in the future to better convey what I hear.

I like minor keys the best which mean I prefer a flatted third, however I did miss the major second in this piece.  If I love the music I do get swept away, I can understand how.   

[Teresa]

I love me some Leopold Mozart (and his grandson FX Mozart, also!).  I have to point out that the semi-famous "Toy Symphony" (Berchtoldsgaden Musick) looks to have been composed by Edmund Angerer.  That seems to be the most likely candidate based on all the information available as of now.  However, Leopold left a fair number of pieces that have hit recording, some of which heavily strike my fancy. His Die Bauernhochzeit Symphony sounds like exactly what you're talking about, if you haven't heard it already. He was probably more off the beaten track than his more famous son, and put out some really tremendous orchestral works. I love a few of his un-nicknamed symphonies, as well. And if you haven't heard his grandson F.X. Mozart's truly epic and tension-intense Piano Concerto #2's first movement orchestral opening, you're missing something really spectacular!

Thanks for the suggestions, I have put them on my Want List for future listening.   

[Scarpia]

Thanks again, the first chord is A-B-D-A in two octaves, since the key is F-sharp minor with F,G and C sharp all are natural.  A to B is a major second as there is a tone in-between (A#) however that does quality as dissonance.  I played it on my guitar and it does not sound too dissonant.  A sharp and B natural played together does sound very dissonant.  So I guess I am opposed to hard dissonance rather than soft dissonance.  But even a major second isn't all that pretty, however I am sure it is effective if it is played quickly as the score shows.

To me Rachmaninov is a very tonal sounding composer in sharp contrast to Schoenberg, Stockhausen and other modern atonal composers that sometimes even use tone clusters such as C,C#,D,D#,E,E#,F all played at the same time.   To me their dissonances sound ugly, OTOH Rachmaninov never sounds ugly.  By the same token Mozart nor Bach never sound ugly either.  I will try to use the word "ugly dissonance" in the future to better convey what I hear.

I like minor keys the best which mean I prefer a flatted third, however I did miss the major second in this piece.  If I love the music I do get swept away, I can understand how.   

That was an oversight, the entry of the piano has a major second dissonance.  There are minor second dissonances elsewhere in the piano part.   My point is that you do not recognize the sound of a dissonance or understand how it used in almost all forms of music beyond Gregorian Chant.  No one has a right to complain if you say you do not like Mozart.  But your claim that you knowledge of music theory or music history qualifies you to make a judgment of the objective quality of Mozart's music is ludicrous.

[Teresa]

That was an oversight, the entry of the piano has a major second dissonance.  There are minor second dissonances elsewhere in the piano part.   My point is that you do not recognize the sound of a dissonance or understand how it used in almost all forms of music beyond Gregorian Chant.  No one has a right to complain if you say you do not like Mozart.  But your claim that you knowledge of music theory or music history qualifies you to make a judgment of the objective quality of Mozart's music is ludicrous.

It is simple I do not like "hard" "ugly" dissonance that SOUNDS dissonant, it is the excellent skill of my favorite composers to use limited dissonance that does not SOUND dissonant.  Great for them, I am sure they use it to increase excitement on a sub-conscience level.

But this has nothing whatsoever to do with my firm conviction of the composition skills of mozart, nothing! 

NO ONE needs to qualify to make a judgment of the objective quality of Mozart's music, all they need is their ears.  To say anything else is ludicrous.

The fact that I have studied music, am a classical composer, play piano and guitar were never used as a qualifier, as I firmly believe ANYONE even if they know absolutely nothing about composition are ALLOWED to have a personal opinion on the skills or greatness on any composer, no matter who they are.

Lighten up, your close-minded attitude regarding personal freedom of opinions is highly offensive. 

Remember their is NO qualifier on anyone to have an opinion on the relative worth or value of any music or any composer. 

Perhaps I will try a limited use of dissonance in my next composition.

[knight66]

Quote from Teresa:

'As I said many, many, many times before GREATNESS is in the ears, eyes and mind of the beholder.  To believe otherwise is anti-freedom as it tries to push personal views on others.'

Sorry Teresa, I have slid this sentiment past me about half a dozen times now; but I can't stomach reading it again without refuting it. It is patent rubbish. I have held off because I am not interested in encouraging anything that can be construed as Teresa-bashing.

I find your use of language and the meanings you attach to concepts to be highly eccentric. All along I have assumed you to be some kind of ingenue; but I read that your music theory teaching was decades ago, so it is all the more of a surprise that the ideas you put forward are from someone of mature years.

As far as I am concerned, this tying up of your declaration that empirical opinions of 'greatness' as being facts are tied to personal freedom of expression is a fallacy, also a kind of passive aggressive method of arguing.

If you happen to like a specific surgeon, his bedside manner gives you confidence to trust in him and he sounds like he knows what he is doing; if he nevertheless loses his patients on the operating table on a regular basis, then any claim that he is a great surgeon clearly does not hold water.

I know I am not comparing like for like at all, but the arguments you put forward are equivalent to you claiming that surgeons who never lose a patient no matter how tricky the operation are complete no hopers....because you don't like them!

You are not moving your arguments along at all, merely restating the same opinions as fact whenever you are pressed to explain your bizarre thinking processes. It would be best if you dropped these topics for now and move onto others. I feel you have argued yourself to a standstill....in a tight corner.

Succinctly: You have freedon of expression of opinion. To claim that opinion as fact is not freedom of expression, it is a deranged line of argument, and at best disingenuous.

By the way, if as you claim, you are 100% honest.....you are a danger to yourself and probably to others. But there again, perhaps your concept of honesty is as eccentric as your defintiion of freedom.

Mike

[Teresa]

Quote from Teresa:

'As I said many, many, many times before GREATNESS is in the ears, eyes and mind of the beholder.  To believe otherwise is anti-freedom as it tries to push personal views on others.'

Sorry Teresa, I have slid this sentiment past me about half a dozen times now; but I can't stomach reading it again without refuting it. It is patent rubbish. I have held off because I am not interested in encouraging anything that can be construed as Teresa-bashing.

I find your use of language and the meanings you attach to concepts to be highly eccentric. All along I have assumed you to be some kind of ingenue; but I read that your music theory teaching was decades ago, so it is all the more of a surprise that the ideas you put forward are from someone of mature years.

As far as I am concerned, this tying up of your declaration that empirical opinions of 'greatness' as being facts are tied to personal freedom of expression is a fallacy, also a kind of passive aggressive method of arguing.

If you happen to like a specific surgeon, his bedside manner gives you confidence to trust in him and he sounds like he knows what he is doing; if he nevertheless loses his patients on the operating table on a regular basis, then any claim that he is a great surgeon clearly does not hold water.

I know I am not comparing like for like at all, but the arguments you put forward are equivalent to you claiming that surgeons who never lose a patient no matter how tricky the operation are complete no hopers....because you don't like them!

You are not moving your arguments along at all, merely restating the same opinions as fact whenever you are pressed to explain your bizarre thinking processes. It would be best if you dropped these topics for now and move onto others. I feel you have argued yourself to a standstill....in a tight corner.

Succinctly: You have freedon of expression of opinion. To claim that opinion as fact is not freedom of expression, it is a deranged line of argument, and at best disingenuous.

By the way, if as you claim, you are 100% honest.....you are a danger to yourself and probably to others. But there again, perhaps your concept of honesty is as eccentric as your defintiion of freedom.

Mike

Mike  denying the freedom of expression to the individual of their feeling of greatness or worthiness of anyone or anything is tyrannical overbearing censorship of the worst kind.   Surely you can see the imposition of greatness by any individual or group is wrong and anti-freedom.   If not I cannot explain personal freedom in any simpler terms.   I wish I could.

Your surgeon analogy confuses competence with greatness. 

Opinions are not fact, opinions are opinions.  Also opinions can never be right, wrong or bizarre as you claim, they are personal opinions nothing more, nothing less.

How am I a danger to myself or others by allowing everyone the God-given freedom to express their own opinions?  And yes I am 100% honest.  However, I can see no logic in your post at all.   

In the end I do recognize your freedom and your right to not believe in the free expression of personal opinions of the greatness or worthiness of anything.  It is your freedom to be as negative as you desire. 

[jowcol]

I've never seen comparing composers bring happiness to anybody.

Why can't people take the modern gift of having access to tons of whatever music they want almost whenever they want, and be happy enough? It's a good thing. 130 years ago, we couldn't have heard most of this stuff. Even hardcore concertgoers heard only a tiny fraction of what any one of us has gotten to experience. You couldn't print out scores and look over them while listening, rewinding, playing over one passage 20 times to deeply explore and uncover some delightful nuance. Not that I can do that myself; I lack the ability to do anything but read music at the most rudimentary level. But for many here, it's true; and from what I understand, deeply rewarding.

Nobody can change anyone's opinion or taste like this, simply because there's nothing factually wrong with opinion or taste. (Note: I'm not touching onto anything about someone making incorrect statements about technical musical issues.) I hate everything I've ever heard by Shostakovich, and as far as I can tell, Sibelius' only worthwhile music over his entire life was the closing seconds of his Symphony #7. Who cares?  Even I don't. Why would anybody else? It doesn't hurt anybody for me to say that, but it doesn't help either; I don't think I've ever said anything negative about Shostakovich on this board before, simply because I don't see anything useful or enjoyable for anybody coming out of it.

I guess what I just said doesn't add anything either. I try not to post negative stuff about composers. I posted in a Jean Sibelius thread because I was interested in his life, and wanted more information about him and his music, but I didn't go into how I disliked his stuff. If I even mentioned my dislike at all, I wish I hadn't, and didn't mean to bring any negativity by it. It's not wrong to dislike something, but it's kind of a negative, and inserting negative vibes into a faceless text-only discussion (with emoticon pictures!) is hard to pull off in any way that will lead to anything positive. Just my rambling take, not trying to tell anybody what to do or anything.

I think W.A. Mozart was the greatest artist in any artistic field in all of history, but it doesn't take one iota of pleasure away from me to know that lots of people hate or are indifferent to his stuff. I guess I've always been bothered by folks telling others that they're wrong to dislike something a relative majority classifies as "great". Not sure why those folks would get much out of going around telling others about their hatred, but not sure why people would give them too much of a hard time about it, either.

Geez, I sound like such a hippy. Peace, love, and positive vibes, man.

Excellent post-- very well put!

[knight66]

How interesting Teresa. I detect a shift from one foot to the other in your stance on the subject. It is also fascinating to see that anyone disagreeing with you is apparently negative; which is another classic passive/aggressive technique of arguing, as can be a claim to 100% honesty.

I have made clear to most here that everyone is entitled to opinion
Hithertoo you have tied to your opinion a claim that if you like someone's music, it follows that it is great music, if you detest it, the composer is at fault.

Now the weight of argument has moved to your other foot...suddenly, opinion is just that...opinion. It is about a FEELING of greatness. You say opinions are not facts: a truth that seems just to have dawned on you. This is the nub of the issue most of the posters who have been responding to you have been hammering home. Perhaps their banging on the drum of logical thinking bore fruit after all.

BTW, I am not the one confused between greatness and competence; I believe that is exactly the confusion you evince in your discussions on Mozart.

[knight66]

JoshLilly, I do agree with a lot of what you say, though I have learned a great deal over the years from people here; specifically for example, to value Boulez. When I joined I was loud, though sparing, in my negative opinion of him and all he did. But people were patient and opened my ears.

I see nothing wrong with entering a thread to coment negatively on any composer. If everyone just went on about how lovely the music was, it would make for a very bland discussion. But the difference comes when we are told that someone is technically incompetent. People who do that can be expected to be pressed pretty hard to justify themselves, as they have shifted from an opinion onto making factual claims.

The other kind of post that gets hackles up is when people basicly come and spew, that is fine once or twice, but when the emetic process is repeated ad nausium, it becomes trolling and has to be curtailed.

Mike

[Luke]

...But the difference comes when we are told that someone is technically incompetent. People who do that can be expected to be pressed pretty hard to justify themselves, as they have shifted from an opinion onto making factual claims.

As you say, there is a difference between expressing a dislike and stating that the music is incompetent. Incompetence is a much more a measurable factor, by the usual generally accepted standards of assessing such things anyway - it's essentially as close as one can get to a musical fact, and completely distinct from individual opinion. So if one makes such a 'musicological' statement as 'Mozart is incompetent', which is of course contrary to the vastly overwhelming majority of musicological thought, one needs to be able to back it up, and that's something Teresa hasn't even begun to be able to do.*

One thing Teresa has my admiration for - she is not slow to recognise errors in her statements of musicological/historical fact. In the past 48 hours or so she has admited that, no, in fact Rachmaninov does use dissonance in his works, and that perhaps she was using the term wrongly; that maybe a II V I cadence was not the shatteringly new harmonic phenomenon which shocked listeners to the Surprise Symphony; and that Respighi was not, in fact, the founder of the neo-classical school and thus the pre-eminent composer in the anti-Schoenberg camp. I genuinely admire her ability to say 'sorry, I got that one wrong' - it's something Saul never, never is able to do, for a start. And usually, I wouldn't even comment on someone making errors of this sort - this isn't a school where member's posts are marked for acuracy, and I'm well aware that saying 'no, you're wrong' can easily seem patronising and mean-spirited. But if one is going to make facutal claims about compositional capability, and one wants one's views to be given credence, one needs the factual knowledge of musical theory to back them up convincingly. That's all. And of course this has no bearings at all on Teresa's right to dislike Mozart or anyone else - that's a totally unrelated matter.

* there's nothing wrong with a bit of incompetence anyway, provided it is incompetence of the right sort and handled in the right way. Berlioz, Mussorgsky, my own favourite Janacek, Satie, others besides, they all had areas in which they were less competent, but their inherent artistic genius (pace JDP) and their fully integrated styles meant that these areas (Berlioz's harmony, Janacek's orchestration etc) became, in the end, positive strengths in their writing.

[Teresa]

How interesting Teresa. I detect a shift from one foot to the other in your stance on the subject.

In 30 years my stance has never changed, I never believed any "group" can impose their opinions as fact on any other group of people.  You can read this in my earliest writings.

It is also fascinating to see that anyone disagreeing with you is apparently negative; which is another classic passive/aggressive technique of arguing, as can be a claim to 100% honesty.

I was only saying you are free to be negative by believing that personal opinions of greatness are invalid.  I believe they are valid and talk directly to personal freedom.  Which is what you are arguing against.  I do not believe anyone should curtail personal freedom of opinions.

I have made clear to most here that everyone is entitled to opinion Hithertoo you have tied to your opinion a claim that if you like someone's music, it follows that it is great music, if you detest it, the composer is at fault.

You misunderstand completely, not all music I like is great (to me) some is good and some is even not well written but I enjoy it anyway.  I do not like music that is bad (to me).  As I have explained the musical compositions and composers one feels is great or bad will vary from person to person.  To deny this is to deny logic and personal freedom.  There are composers I do not like that are good composers and composers I do not like that are bad composers.  And my OPINION of their abilities is my OPINION alone, no one sees greatness the same as another single individual.

Now the weight of argument has moved to your other foot...suddenly, opinion is just that...opinion. It is about a FEELING of greatness. You say opinions are not facts: a truth that seems just to have dawned on you. This is the nub of the issue most of the posters who have been responding to you have been hammering home. Perhaps their banging on the drum of logical thinking bore fruit after all.

There is no other foot, my OPINION has always been my own OPINION and I have said this loudly and clearly since I began writing about Classical music over thirty years ago, it did not just dawn on me as you claim. 

BTW, I am not the one confused between greatness and competence; I believe that is exactly the confusion you evince in your discussions on Mozart.

I have no confusions whatsoever between greatness and competence and I would never DARE to speak for you as you have attempted to speak for me because I FIRMLY believe in the freedom of personal expression in all walks of life.  This is a belief that no one will change as it is one of my highest ideals.

[Teresa]

Perhaps this might clear up this misunderstanding. 

Let's say one of you feels Rachmaninov is the worst composer who ever lived, I would believe he is to you and DEFEND your God-given right to believe so.  Why?  Because it is your honest personal opinion of the writings of Rachmaninov.  Personally I believe Rachmaninov is one of the ten greatest composers of all time.

So some of you may be wondering how can Rachmaninov be one of the 10 best composers and the worst composer at the same time.  It is simple, because it is the perception of two different individual free music lovers who value different abilities of composers and the end result "the music" they produce.  It is all individual opinions, nothing more.   

[knight66]

Teresa, I am not remotely convinced.

If you think I am arguing against people being allowed musical opinions, or that I have tried to speak for you; you simply can't comprehend what you read.

However to quote you......'I FIRMLY believe in the freedom of personal expression in all walks of life.' Really? Another thing that makes you dangerous. Here we would censor anyone who, for instance, expressed hatred of a minority. So, on music we welcome opinions generally, but if it is untrammeled freedom you require, we don't supply it and we are not ashamed to state that.

Your ideals are like communism....great in theory, but a disaster in practice.

A discussion with you has all the quaint charm of attempting to nail a jelly to the wall. However the charm wears off, it just has, so, I will leave it for others to form their own opinions here about this brief duologue.

Over and out.

[Teresa]

Teresa, I am not remotely convinced.

This is perfectly fine with me, and I will defend your right to disagree with me to my dying days.  I truly believe in personal freedom, yours included. 

The only thing I strongly disagree with is presenting personal opinions as facts, including the greatness or worthiness of a classical composer.

[Luke]

Perhaps this might clear up this misunderstanding. 

Let's say one of you feels Rachmaninov is the worst composer who ever lived, I would believe he is to you and DEFEND your God-given right to believe so.  Why?  Because it is your honest personal opinion of the writings of Rachmaninov.  Personally I believe Rachmaninov is one of the ten greatest composers of all time.

So some of you may be wondering how can Rachmaninov be one of the 10 best composers and the worst composer at the same time.  It is simple, because it is the perception of two different individual free music lovers who value different abilities of composers and the end result "the music" they produce.  It is all individual opinions, nothing more.   

Gaaaah, Teresa, it's just the difference between 'unliked' and 'worst' that is the problem.

If someone says they don't like Rachmaninov, or any other composer, no one here has a problem with it. It's an opinion, and no one here, despite what you think, is arguing against the right to hold any opinion in matters of musical taste.

But if someone says they think Rachmaninov (or any other composer) is the worst composer ever, then that ceases to be (only) a matter of opinion and starts to become a matter of fact. Because 'the worst composer', and especially 'the most incompetent composer' (which is approximately the phrase you used about Mozart) are not phrases which just mean the opposite of 'great', as I think you think they are. 'Incompetent' means something like 'unable to put notes together in a coherent way'; 'worst' means something similar - the composer least good at the mechanics of composing.

So, Rachmaninov could easily be my least favourite composer (he's not, but in theory he could be) but even if he was I would never dream of saying he was the worst, because he clearly has immense skill, evident in almost every page he wrote. And if some one did say that about him, I would argue against them passionately, even if Rachmaninov's music left me feeling as physically sick as some music does! No, the worst composer, the most incompetent composer, would be someone who actually has no musical skill, no ability to generate interesting or attractive musical ideas, no idea about harmony, counterpoint, technique, no sense of formal balance or scale or trajectory, no idea about context, gesture, topic, no understanding of how instruments actually function in the real world, etc. etc. Rachmaninov doesn't come close to this. Neither does Mozart. That much is as plain as anything. There are composers like that however, and not too far away either....

I think the answer to all this lies in your choice of words, Teresa. When you said Rachmaninov has no dissonance in him, in fact you seem to have meant something different. (Rachmaninov has plenty of dissonance in him; what you meant, I think, is that Rachmaninov is not atonal). In a similar way, you have called Mozart an incompetent composer but also, IIRC, at one point said that he was perfectly OK at actually getting the notes on paper, you just don't like the way they sound. Well, getting the notes on paper coherently is exactly what competence is, and so if you really mean that, it turns out that you don't think Mozart is an incompetent composer either, you are just using the words in a misleading way, as you did with the word 'dissonance'. 

[Teresa]

Gaaaah, Teresa, it's just the difference between 'unliked' and 'worst' that is the problem.

If someone says they don't like Rachmaninov, or any other composer, no one here has a problem with it. It's an opinion, and no one here, despite what you think, is arguing against the right to hold any opinion in matters of musical taste.

But if someone says they think Rachmaninov (or any other composer) is the worst composer ever, then that ceases to be (only) a matter of opinion and starts to become a matter of fact. Because 'the worst composer', and especially 'the most incompetent composer' (which is approximately the phrase you used about Mozart) are not phrases which just mean the opposite of 'great', as I think you think they are. 'Incompetent' means something like 'unable to put notes together in a coherent way'; 'worst' means something similar - the composer least good at the mechanics of composing.

So, Rachmaninov could easily be my least favourite composer (he's not, but in theory he could be) but even if he was I would never dream of saying he was the worst, because he clearly has immense skill, evident in almost every page he wrote. And if some one did say that about him, I would argue against them passionately, even if Rachmaninov's music left me feeling as physically sick as some music does! No, the worst composer, the most incompetent composer, would be someone who actually has no musical skill, no ability to generate interesting or attractive musical ideas, no idea about harmony, counterpoint, technique, no sense of formal balance or scale or trajectory, no idea about context, gesture, topic, no understanding of how instruments actually function in the real world, etc. etc. Rachmaninov doesn't come close to this. Neither does Mozart. That much is as plain as anything. There are composers like that however, and not too far away either....

I think the answer to all this lies in your choice of words, Teresa. When you said Rachmaninov has no dissonance in him, in fact you seem to have meant something different. (Rachmaninov has plenty of dissonance in him; what you meant, I think, is that Rachmaninov is not atonal). In a similar way, you have called Mozart an incompetent composer but also, IIRC, at one point said that he was perfectly OK at actually getting the notes on paper, you just don't like the way they sound. Well, getting the notes on paper coherently is exactly what competence is, and so if you really mean that, it turns out that you don't think Mozart is an incompetent composer either, you are just using the words in a misleading way, as you did with the word 'dissonance'. 

Luke it is NOT a problem for me if anyone not only hates Rachmaninov's music but ALSO considers him the worst composer of all time.  Because that is their personal opinion of his compositional abilities.  I HONOR THAT, TOTALLY!  Without reserve, anyone no matter who they are can hold any opinions about any composers abilities.  Unlike you I would not fight them but defend them for freely expressing their personal opinions on said composers talents.  And since I know they are a different person than me, I know their assessment does not apply to me, it is uniquely their own.

I strongly and firmly believe that "like and dislike" and "great and bad" are different aspects of a composer's music.  Both are valid, both are personal opinions.  NEITHER ARE FACTS.  Every famous composer has famous public people who say they are the best and who say they are the worst.  PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE NEVER FACTS.  Compositional abilities are HIGHLY personal opinions, they can NEVER EVER be more than that ---- PERSONAL OPINIONS!  Those personal opinions can be held by a majority but they are still personal opinions and do not invalidate the personal opinions of the minority.  NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!

[Luke]

Teresa, do you think anything is a fact, or is everything just a matter of opinion? If I said, ooh, I don't know, 'it's my opinion that Usain Bolt is not actually the holder of the 100 metres world record', would you say, 'that's OK, Luke, it's your opinion and I know it is true for you'? I'd rather you didn't, I'd rather you said to me, 'look, Luke, here are the facts, you are wrong'. OTOH if I said, 'Bolt may be the fastest, but I prefer to watch Asafa Powell', well, you could say that your tastes were not the same, but no more. Facts are not the same as opinions, and there are facts in music, like it or not.

So, though we may agree or disagree about the artistic merits of a composer, some things are not open to dispute, because they are measurable and down on paper - provided, of course, that you accept that to a certain degree musical competence can be measured, as an aspect of pure Craft rather than as the more ellusive and indefinable Art. Most people do accept this. By those purely technical, craft-based criteria, could Rachmaninov write music better than Saul, technically speaking? Of course he could, it's provable, demonstrable fact. And a gazillion posts on youtube proclaiming Saul as the new Bach would never alter the fact that he can't compose as well as Rachmaninov, even if we can't say that the gazillion posters' artistic tastes are wrong*

(*we can't, but we should!  )

[(poco) Sforzando]

And since I know they are a different person than me, I know their assessment . . . is uniquely their own.

But it is not. Over the centuries an extraordinary amount of agreement has developed over what music has been most esteemed. No one is an island, and even your stance as an independent gadfly is nothing more than a time-honored pose as The Freethinker or The Rebel, a cliché we've seen ad infinitum on these boards in persons like Iago, 72dB, Paul Best, Josh Lilly, and many others - most of them (not all) proudly thumbing their noses at standard opinion in an effort to glorify their own right to freedom. You at least do not condemn others as brainwashed sheep, which is usually a component of the Rebel syndrome, but your stance that we are all independent thinkers does not convince when the reality is that many of us think with a considerable degree of agreement. And when that means coming to accept that Mozart and Beethoven are very great composers, I don't see that as a bad thing at all, nor in any way a restriction on my personal "freedom."