Who is the greatest living classical musician today?

[escher]

Nikolai Kapustin gets my vote.  Its like Scarlatti meets Bach meets Oscar Peterson. Never been so exited about a composer in a long time.

really? The few pieces i've listened seem to me as gratuitous virtuosism, but if you can suggest some of his works i'm curious. In the classical world i don't know, there are elliott carter, george crumb, boulez, but i can't say that i really like their works at least at this time (especially boulez). If i have to say a musician connected to jazz, i'd say wayne shorter.

[jowcol]

Women can't compose for crap.

In the abstract or physical sense?  See the following...

Weininger suggested that the classification of gender based solely on genitalia is an approximate measure. That we all have something of either sex from a deeper biological point of view. Essentially, none of us is 100% male or 100% female, and human variety relies entire on the proportion of feminine or masculine biological make up we carry within ourselves. The implications are enormous. It would explain many facets of human behavior, including homosexuality, or feminine achievement in fields generally dominated by men.

Even if we were to assume that Composing was "man's work", your statement above (assuming you still subscribe to it)  implies that any woman could be a good composer if she had a sufficiently "butch" aura.  Although, rather than Weininger, perhaps it would be more constructive to look at the theories of Carl Jung and creativity, which lean more towards the idea that creativity comes for the well developed presences of both the male and female aspects in  an artist.   

Of course, this leads us to idea that the ideal artist would be someone of indeterminate gender, such as Pat from Saturday Night Live.




All said and done, the connection between how someone pees and their ability to compose is not clear to  me.

[Superhorn]

  I'm getting tired of these futile and pointless discussions of who is"the greatest".In classical music,whether composer or performer,no is ,ever has been or ever will be "the greatest".
   You can only say of some that they're AMONG THE GREATEST.
  As I've pointed out before, people tend to equate the most famous with the greatest, and often ignore people who may not be quite as famous yet are still as great or even greater than those who happen to be better known to the general public.
  Ranking musicians i so subjective. Person X may think composer A or performer B is greater than the other simply because he or she happens to prefer the other.
  Some people prefer the music of Bach to Beethoven,or vice versa,so they say that Bach is greater than Beethoven or vice versa.
  But with composers this great,it's simply pointless to wonder whether one is greater than another.Apples and oranges.
  Same with Toscanini vs Furtwangler.

[karlhenning]

  I'm getting tired of these futile and pointless discussions of who is"the greatest".In classical music,whether composer or performer,no is ,ever has been or ever will be "the greatest".

Testify!

[Saul]

Testify!

Judge Henning, this aint the people's court...

[some guy]

"Greatness" is an interesting concept, one that I've been thinking about recently, probably because of numerous classical music threads rubbing my nose in it.

Great implies some kind of consensus, that is, a person is deemed great by a group of other people who esteem that person.* So if you're going for "greatness," it seems you're just letting other people's opinions (expert or not doesn't matter, I don't think) substitute for your own.

What do you like? Why do you like it? That should be enough for any listener. Maybe for a musicologist, there would need to be something about the importance of a composer's contribution to musical art generally.

Maybe.

(By the way, Saul, Karl was using "testify" in its religious sense, not its judicial one. So the joke should be--if we need one here --Reverend Henning, this ain't the 700 Club.)

*I haven't seen an argument for "greatness" being an intrinsic quality yet that I've liked.

[jhar26]

  I'm getting tired of these futile and pointless discussions of who is"the greatest".In classical music,whether composer or performer,no is ,ever has been or ever will be "the greatest".
   You can only say of some that they're AMONG THE GREATEST.
  As I've pointed out before, people tend to equate the most famous with the greatest, and often ignore people who may not be quite as famous yet are still as great or even greater than those who happen to be better known to the general public.
  Ranking musicians i so subjective. Person X may think composer A or performer B is greater than the other simply because he or she happens to prefer the other.
  Some people prefer the music of Bach to Beethoven,or vice versa,so they say that Bach is greater than Beethoven or vice versa.
  But with composers this great,it's simply pointless to wonder whether one is greater than another.Apples and oranges.
  Same with Toscanini vs Furtwangler.

You ARE right of course. But on the other hand I'm always amazed by the fact that people take things so seriously. If I say that Argerich is the greatest pianist I know beforehand that someone else will say that she sucks, or that Richter or Horowitz are better. I don't care. But while arguing over that stuff I may learn something about Richter, Horowitz and Argerich that I didn't know or hadn't noticed before, and that's the whole point it seems to me. The results of of all those "who's the greatest polls" are not important, but they are great things to get a discussion going.

[Saul]

"Greatest" is an interesting concept, one that I've been thinking about recently, probably because of numerous classical music threads rubbing my nose in it.

Great implies some kind of consensus, that is, a person is deemed great by a group of other people who esteem that person.* So if you're going for "greatness," it seems you're just letting other people's opinions (expert or not doesn't matter, I don't think) substitute for your own.

What do you like? Why do you like it? That should be enough for any listener. Maybe for a musicologist, there would need to be something about the importance of a composer's contribution to musical art generally.

Maybe.

(By the way, Saul, Karl was using "testify" in religious sense, not its judicial one. So the joke should be--if we need one here --Reverend Henning, this ain't the 700 Club.)

*I haven't seen an argument for "greatness" being an intrinsic quality yet that I've liked.

I stand corrected...lol 

[Saul]

You ARE right of course. But on the other hand I'm always amazed by the fact that people take things so seriously. If I say that Argerich is the greatest pianist I know beforehand that someone else will say that she sucks, or that Richter or Horowitz are better. I don't care. But while arguing over that stuff I may learn something about Richter, Horowitz and Argerich that I didn't know or hadn't noticed before, and that's the whole point it seems to me. The results of of all those "who's the greatest polls" are not important, but they are great things to get a discussion going.

The question was, I believe ...a 'living classical musician today'... so that leaves Vlad and Rich out of the discussion.. doesnt it?.......

[karlhenning]

Want to get a discussion going? Just purse your lips! : )

[jhar26]

The question was, I believe ...a 'living classical musician today'... so that leaves Vlad and Rich out of the discussion.. doesnt it?.......

My comment wasn't exclusively about this thread, but about "the greatest" this or that threads and polls in general.

[jhar26]

Want to get a discussion going? Just purse your lips! : )

[Bulldog]

The question was, I believe ...a 'living classical musician today'... so that leaves Vlad and Rich out of the discussion.. doesnt it?.......

Not if someone injects them into the conversation.  It's best not to be so literal about these things.

Saul, I just remembered that you injected baroque composers in the thread Mahler vs. Strauss.

[Lethevich]

I find it hard to decide between André Rieu, Richard Clayderman and Sarah Brightman.

[jhar26]

Not if someone injects them into the conversation.  It's best not to be so literal about these things.

Besides, people always say that Richter and Horowitz are immortal.

[Bulldog]

Besides, people always say that Richter and Horowitz are immortal.

Indeed they are.  Just yesterday I saw the two of them loping across my backyard.

[jhar26]

Indeed they are.  Just yesterday I saw the two of them loping across my backyard.

They must have heard the rumours about Elvis mowing your lawn.

[Saul]

Indeed they are.  Just yesterday I saw the two of them loping across my backyard.

The question you should ask is why these two together? 

[karlhenning]

I find it hard to decide between André Rieu, Richard Clayderman and Sarah Brightman.

Have I said already how much I enjoy your sense of humor?

[Brian]

Nikolai Kapustin gets my vote.  Its like Scarlatti meets Bach meets Oscar Peterson. Never been so exited about a composer in a long time.

Whoa, GREAT choice. I'm voting Kapustin too. And Kapustin playing his own music is a terrific experience.