Top 10 favourite VS. top 10 greatest composers

[jlaurson]

Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Verdi, Wagner, Mahler, Schoenberg

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner, Wagner, Schubert, Stravinsky, Mahler, Handel, Brahms

Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Wagner, Schoenberg, Sibelius, Stravinsky

Beethoven, Schubert, Schoenberg, Wagner, Verdi, Mozart, Haydn, Liszt, Brahms, Johan Strauss II

Bach, Beethoven, Debussy, Haydn, Janáček, Ligeti, Mozart, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Wagner

J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Dvorak, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Shostakovich, Wagner

Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, Sibelius, Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, Debussy, Haydn, Schubert

Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, Wagner, Schönberg, Stravinsky

Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Stravinsky, Wagner

Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky

The definition of "greatest", boiled down to to its absolutely shortest form: "Greatest = Those composers whose absence would leave the greatest hole in the (history of) classical music."

By common consent (not because of the consent, but because it happens to be on-target   ), let's keep:

1, 2, 3

Bach, Beethoven, Schoenberg

Bach for being the Ur-Composer, even though he wasn't the first, wasn't the most original, wasn't at the forefront of composition, and wasn't all that influential for quite some time after his lifetime and death.  Bach transcends these consideration with a purity... with, as classical music expert Charles Bukowski put it, fewer spiritual mistakes than anyone else?! An island unto himself?
Beethoven for taking music almost single handedly into a new direction and leaving a path dotted with greatness in his wake. Just as with Bach, we ignore the fact that he didn't write operas... and that the one he did write is troubled-greatness, rather than outright brilliance.
Schoenberg, because he has changed music like none other since Beethoven... he's in. And in a way I suppose he is the place-holder or stand-in for many 20th century composers that would follow. Certainly his schoolboys AW & AB.

That leaves us with seven spots.

By elimination, let's get rid of:

Handel (merely doubling where Bach has been greater... and whether his contribution to Opera merits Top10, well, it's just too darn questionable for me.
Mahler. Much as I love him, he has no business being in the top-10. He may be a contemporary fad (one I am wholly beholden to, of course!) but is too limited in scope. The arguments for him might be "Gate to Modernity". It's the one I can least deny. But in a way that can be translated: influential on SCHOENBERG. And so why not just include Schoenberg? And if the argument is: extra-compositional influence on classical music... I'd be very appreciative of that... except that would DEMAND the inclusion of Mendelssohn... and his inclusion would push Mahler right back out again.
Bruckner. What for? Love, love, love Bruckner, of course. But only symphonies (and those covering a very limited spectrum) and with a very limited influence on classical music... and not particularly groundbreaking, either. Again... greatest isn't 'most wonderful'. If it were, I might also agree with the inclusion of
Sibelius, but I cannot. Basically the same case as Bruckner... if Sibelius, why not Richard Strauss or Rachmaninoff? No... 10-most-wonderful? In my book probably yes. But not Top-10 'greatest'. Edit: DavidRoss makes a passionate case for Sibelius. Certainly he's more than "just" a great symphonist. Unlike Bruckner, his work covers many genres, and many of them very successfully. I'm not quite convinced *yet*, though...
Schubert: Oh, this pains me greatly. If Schubert had composed two, three, four more years at the level (pure speculation, of course, since he might well have composed as he did because he *knew* he was dying), I think we would put Schubert at the top of the list ("top" being: below Bach  ), and not even argue about it. "Music has here buried great riches, but far fairer hopes". Alas, we're ranking "IS-es", not hopes.
Chopin: too limited in repertoire... perhaps the greatest Kleinmeister...
Johan Strauss: I couldn't possibly make the case for his inclusion... which makes it almost impossible to argue cohesively why he shouldn't be included. All the above composers I can see myself wanting to include... this one would not have crossed my mind. Perhaps that's our taking 'light music' for granted? Light = not great? I suppose that's unfair. But that still doesn't give him a spot in this imaginary pantheon.
Dvorak: Dvorak? Really? As a Symphonist? Not at the expense of Brahms, surely. As a chamber music writer? Surely not at the expense of Brahms, surely? :-) What's his greater meaningfulness in music? The "American Composer", perhaps? (Which is a myth, but a good one.) As the first authentically pre-Czech [that is to say: Bohemian-Moravian, not merely flavored Austrian, voice?
Verdi: Is this just my anti-Italian opera bias speaking? Haven't we got him covered by including Wagner? Is it enough just to take music (in this case: opera) firmly into a new direction... or does it also matter if it is the right direction?  Wasn't Verdi at his best when he stopped just creating greatness in the narrow confines of the conventions of Italian Opera of his time and went further... into, frankly, Wagnerian directions--thanks to the help of Boito? Are Otello, Falstaff, and the revised Simon not signs that so much of Verdi--however great--was 'stationary genius'? Much like Mozart... except more confined?
Schumann: The reasons for his inclusion would be the way piano music was never to be the same after he was finished with it? Or because he was the poster boy of romanticism? Including insanity and a reasonably early death? I don't, however, see him influential... or epitomal enough for inclusion.  It kind of hurts having Liszt in purple and Schumann in red... but if I stick to the attempt of a guideline I've given this process, I suppose that's fair enough?!
Debussy: Is Debussy perhaps that elusive 'soft-leap' into the 20th century? Would that be the reason for his inclusion? Or because he is the principle of "Impressionism" and, frankly, the more meaningful composer than Ravel? The latter would make a pretty good grounds for inclusion... I don't see anyone else in that list (or potentially in that list) picking that hat up. The former I would argue is more than covered by other composers more likely to make the cut... including Wagner, Liszt, and Stravinsky. Heck, I'd see that role equally well covered in Richard Strauss. After all, Salome and Elektra came out well ahead of 1902's Pelléas et Mélisande. But no one has even mentioned Richard Strauss yet... presumably because his later works make him seem musicologically unimportant? It means I don't have to dis-include him here... but it also means that Debussy doesn't get in. Sorry, études. Sorry, Sunken Cathedral.

I see no one argued for Tchaikovsky. Very good. Saves me some breath. :-) Edit: Ah, blast. There comes Mirror Image and includes him. 
Tchaikovsky: Does prettiness count for greatness? Or count against it? Need the medicine be bitter to work? Is it a remnant of protestant thinking that that, which is too pretty, can not be taken seriously? Is that what doomed poor Johan Strauss? (It didn't hurt Mozart, did it? Though I suppose no one would argue that Don Giovanni is "just" pretty.) Tchaikovsky certainly has the breadth: Symphonies. Operas. Orchestral/Ballet. A bit thin on piano music and truly successful chamber music... but that alone hasn't kept Wagner (see below) out. Or, as regards opera, Bach and Beethoven and Schoenberg. Is there something somehow not 'unique' about his work? A "Russian Mozart of Romantic proportions"? Turns out it's much easier to just exclude Tchaikovsky than to make the case against his inclusion. What is the coherent argument against him? There must be one (or more)... it's not forgetfulness, after all, that only one (so far) of us has included him?!


Liszt: A very strong case could be made for Liszt. Perhaps we transfer much of his importance for classical music unto Wagner? Perhaps he is rarely considered because he ranks (on average) so awfully low on our "most favorite" lists? Ultimately that'd be my argument against inclusion (although I'm not sure about exclusion, actually)... he's just not a good enough composer. And yet he's being recorded more often than most composers. Include Schoenberg rather than Liszt? No matter what qualms we may have with Liszt's music, surely it's more often listened to and performed than Schoenberg's. Where's that double standard coming from? This is one to ponder. Certainly this new recording of Annees de pelerinage has opened my ears considerably to the wonderful beauty and harmony of Liszt and his acute capability of greatness.

Shostakovich: Although much a more varied composer (by output, if not style) than Mahler, Bruckner, Chopin, Wagner, Verdi, and Sibelius... although he has created core 20th Ct. repertoire in Symphonic and Chamber music... although his attempts at opera (Lady, not Nose) has been extraordinarily successful... ah, hell... I'm already seeing myself making the case for, not against DSCH. I don't think he will make the cut, but it will take better arguments than I can muster off the top of my head to exclude him. [/i]

Brahms: He stands for a whole strand of Romantic Music... His inclusion would take care of a whole lot... including Schumann, wouldn't it? I find it difficult to make the argument against him... and not easy to make it for him, either.  [/i]

Mendelssohn: http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=476 The question is not so much: "why should he be included" but "can we leave him out"?[/i] How can this man, whose music was hardly trail-blazing (though he may have been the forefather of the tone poem, as I try to suggest in the above essay), have been so incredibly important to classical music? Shaping everything from the idea of "concert" to the idea of "repertoire" to the role of "conductor" to the function of academies and orchestras... Is this all too extra-musical to include him? Despite the Scottish Symphony? Edit: Lethe furthers his case below, mentioning among other pertinent facts the oratorios. Again, they didn't create a style (the credit could more easily be given to Handel, as far as the UK are concerned), but it certainly injected that genre with new life.

Stravinsky: Stravinsky stands for the 20th century... perhaps even for the transition into the 20th century. In a much broader way than Wagner (or Liszt or Mahler), who lead to the gates of it. He took all that and ran with it. He didn't break things, like Schoenberg... he modified, doctored, experimented... a cauldron, a laboratory of 20th century music in the making, and us in the first row to listen.[/i] Neo-classical. Done it. Rhythmic invention. Been there. Combination of popularity, influence, and academic acclaim: Got it. Ballet. Opera. Symphonic works (this perhaps his great weakness?). Choral works. Certainly the breadth is all there. And his influences include those who cannot be considered direct or even indirect disciples of the Schoenberg school. If the latter's influence was much more immediate and encompassing (incl. Stravinsky himself), Stravinsky's influence has 'longer fingers' and still reaches composers today.

Bartok: We cannot, me thinks, include Bartok, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich. How important is the enthno-musicological aspect of Bartok? Can't we just create a Bartkovinsky?

Monteverdi: Can we properly assess just how important that man was for music? Was he not the Wagner of his time? The NYT article this is all based on makes a good case for him and does, in the end, include Monteverdi. I've always included him in my imaginary lists of "most important composers". What are the arguments pro & con?

4, 5, 6

There are other composers unanimously or near-unanimously mentioned. Haydn. Mozart. Wagner. Yet I've not given them the automatic slip, because I think they deserve (or need) an argument. Not from me, incidentally, because I think they absolutely should be included... but others might make a good point why not. Well,

Mozart didn't really push music into new directions, he 'merely' perfected that which was. Right? Well, kind-of, except not quite. Surely he left the piano concerto form in a wholly different shape after being finished with that genre? The push in symphonies perhaps more subtle... but by the end of Jupiter, are we not left with something that enabled LvB 1 & 2? More so, perhaps, than Haydn's London Symphonies? Most of all, he did wonders for opera. That perfection achieved here... that union of text and music and drama... the possibilities therein... this makes his operatic output just as important as that of Gluck... and of course with a more direct effect on that which would come thereafter. His Singspiel was also raised to a new level and did some of the groundwork for 'proper' German opera courtesy Weber & LvB.

Haydn... underrated because Mozart seems to overshadow him? But goddarnit, he *was* a trailblazer... and if you can't call the shaper of the Symphony and the String Quartet and the Piano Trio and the modern Keyboard Sonata... in a word: the codifier of "The Classical Style" among the Top Ten, then whom???? Exclude him at the expense of Schubert? That is, for all my love of Schubert, ridiculous. (See Tony T., NYT)

Wagner: If we have non-opera composers enter this list with ease... why not (de facto) opera-only composers? Wagner needs not to be liked... he needs only to be acknowledged for how he found classical music... and how he left it. If Mendelssohn is the origin of Concerts as we know them, Wagner is the origin of Opera as we know it. For better and worse... because this means that we nowadays treat everything from L'incoronazione to Il Turco like it was Parsifal (to our own, and those opera's detriment), but that can't make Wagner budge from the Top-Ten list, can it? Surely his work in harmony (even if we have to refer to Liszt on that note), his treatment of voice & language... (Debussy would build on that), and finally his treatment and complete merging of drama & music... why... it's really revolutionary. He invented irony in music, and so much more... he added a vocabulary to music that no one had thought of in those terms.  I say: Inclusion is a must.

Which leaves us with four more spots... there are (currently) seven composers in the purple... of which I would on instinct exclude Bartok and Shostakovich.


Might it be fair to suggest if we increase our emphasis on non-musical matter, that this means the inclusion of Monteverdi, Mendelssohn, Liszt and Stravinsky?? And if we were to give musical considerations equal weight, would definitely include Brahms and possibly DSCH after all? (And what would be the argument of Bartok vs. DSCH?

[Lethevich]

Perhaps throw Mendelssohn into the mix if we're leaning more towards influence - he should easily stand with your "purple" choices of Liszt and DSCH.

The oratorios were at the pinnacle of a vibrant tradition, the symphonies and concertos provided templates for hundreds of followers, the octet became the go-to primer for large-scaled chamber music, Midsummer Night's Dream was omnipresent in the concert halls, his prominence as an organist, conductor and reviver of early music was no small thing either.

[DavidRoss]

Influence.  Ah.  Well how do we measure influence?  Is influence always good, can it result in crap pieces as well as good ones?  Is influence merely about fashion, under different circumstances could someone else have become the big musical figure?  And originality...is it really as important as just pure musical achievement? 

So that's based on some other people's judgement or assumed judgement, or some tradition of thinking someone is important which is handed down.  I'd rather just use my own ears.  You know that Spohr was considered a very influential and historically important figure for quite some time?  JS Bach and Handel were considered unimportant and Mozart was thought to be lightweight by many etc.

So you think Wagner is a very good composer but not a great one.

I get my ideas perfectly well.

Huh?  You asked a fairly straightforward question about other people's ideas (not your own).  I and others kindly addressed your question.   In response, you are putting words into my mouth.

Now discussing the merits of influence, taste, originality, etc.--and means of measuring them--might prove interesting.  There are plenty of folks here who are always happy to discuss such things.

Welcome to the forum!

[prémont]

welcome to the forum!

[knight66]

Jens,

So many wonderfully polemical points! Looking at my own list, it is just too much dominated by a narrow German/Austrian bias. But really....10 is too few and I think there are arguments to be constructed about not chucking so many off the podium; for example Handel. I don't agree he just covered the ground of Bach. He more or less invented oratorio and Bach never attempted Opera with the character of the music reflecting the characteristics of the roles. Many of his portraits of people are psychologically acute. Can't a composer be great by virtue of their terrific output; even if they did not influence very many subsequent composers?

Debussy surely ought to be in there as a great, but who to throw out? Disappointing that no one wants to join me with Berlioz as a favourite and my No 11 on that list might well be Elgar.

Liszt; I think that out of roughly 7000 discs I have three devoted to Liszt and I don't think the anniversary will alter that to any great degree. I seem to have a tin ear for his music, though I am open to buying more of his transcriptions.

Mike

[DavidRoss]

Bruckner. What for? Love, love, love Bruckner, of course. But only symphonies (and those covering a very limited spectrum) and with a very limited influence on classical music... and not particularly groundbreaking, either. Again... greatest isn't 'most wonderful'. If it were, I might also agree with the inclusion of
Sibelius, but I cannot. Basically the same case as Bruckner... if Sibelius, why not Richard Strauss or Rachmaninoff? No... 10-most-wonderful? In my book probably yes. But not Top-10 'greatest'.

Wow, Jens, you're really taking this as a serious exercise.  Fodder for a column?

Of course inclusion in your list is a subjective choice (except, of course, that failure to include Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart would indicate incompetence).  And you may have excellent reasons to regard other figures as more worthy candidates than Sibelius.  But I'm surprised by the dismissal above.  "Basically the same as Bruckner?"  Come now!

1) Not just a symphonist (nor was Bruckner, for that matter), but perhaps the most strikingly original symphonist in history, a proto-modernist who went completely against the late Romantic trend of his time--and those it spawned--and who inspired and continues to inspire generations of composers and not just in Scandinavia and Finland.  And one whose consistent originality and quality of output as a symphonist is unmatched...save, perhaps, by Beethoven and Mahler.

2) The tone poems are at the same level of quality and originality as the symphonies.  Tapiola alone is a staggering achievement.

3) His theatre music is unfairly neglected and also of fine quality, as is the string music.

4) The violin concerto.

5) Luonnotar, and other orchestral songs.  And don't forget Kullervo.  And Voces Intimae.

6) Even among the unambitious songs and piano pieces he wrote for the parlor there are many gems like A Diamond in the Snow.

7) Unexcelled craftsmanship in his serious music, progressively revising and trimming away all the fat and fluff, reinventing structure as necessary to serve the musical ideas.

A towering figure in Scandinavian music like Beethoven in Vienna.  Would the vitality of northern music in the latter 20th Century and today have happened without him? 

Also:

Mahler. Much as I love him, he has no business being in the top-10. He may be a contemporary fad (one I am wholly beholden to, of course!) but is too limited in scope. The arguments for him might be "Gate to Modernity". It's the one I can least deny. But in a way that can be translated: influential on SCHOENBERG. And so why not just include Schoenberg? And if the argument is: extra-compositional influence on classical music... I'd be very appreciative of that... except that would DEMAND the inclusion of Mendelssohn... and his inclusion would push Mahler right back out again.

Mahler--not just a symphonist.  One of the three greatest of symphonists, with a staggering body of work in the musical form that is arguably the summit of Western music.  And the orchestral song cycles are unmatched. 

If we decide that immediate influence is the sole determinant of greatness, then Schoenberg belongs--at least for now, though I suspect that in another hundred years he will be a footnote in music history.  But in virtually every other respect, Mahler towers over him.

[starrynight]

The definition of "greatest", boiled down to to its absolutely shortest form: "Greatest = Those composers whose absence would leave the greatest hole in the (history of) classical music."

That depends on who writes the history then doesn't it and at what time it was written.

Schoenberg, because he has changed music like none other since Beethoven... he's in. And in a way I suppose he is the place-holder or stand-in for many 20th century composers that would follow. Certainly his schoolboys AW & AB.

So he is there for originality but JS Bach isn't.  Conflicting ideas for greatness there.   Yeh I suppose some might just make him represent modernism, though there are very many good composers in that style which also developed further through the 20th century as well.  From the 3 you mention I might like Webern's music the most.  To describe them as mere schoolboys isn't that respectful.

[DavidRoss]

Disappointing that no one wants to join me with Berlioz as a favourite and my No 11 on that list might well be Elgar.

Berlioz is one of those who vied for the 10th spot on my greatest list, along with Schubert and Wagner and Handel.  And Elgar would probably make my top 20 faves if only for the concertos! 

[Leon]

From the other thread and drawing from just the composers on that list:

I read the poll ( and voted) according to those composers I consider the greatest, not my favorites. 

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Haydn
Stravinsky
Schoenberg
Bartok
Verdi
Wagner

If I were voting for my favorites a different group would emerge - with only a few that are on both lists:

Gershwin
Faure
Poulenc
Haydn
Stravinsky
Copland
Berg
Puccini
Mozart
Rossini

[starrynight]

Huh?  You asked a fairly straightforward question about other people's ideas (not your own).  I and others kindly addressed your question.   In response, you are putting words into my mouth.

You said rather brusquely 'get it now?' as if I just have to understand to agree with you.  So I made a humorous reply to it.

[jlaurson]

Wow, Jens, you're really taking this as a serious exercise.  Fodder for a column?

You bet. 

Of course inclusion in your list is a subjective choice (except, of course, that failure to include Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart would indicate incompetence).  And you may have excellent reasons to regard other figures as more worthy candidates than Sibelius.  But I'm surprised by the dismissal above.  "Basically the same as Bruckner?"  Come now!

1) Not just... the most strikingly original symphonist in history, a proto-modernist...
2) The tone poems, 3) His theatre music, 4) The violin concerto, 5) Luonnotar, and other orchestral songs.  And don't forget Kullervo.  And Voces Intimae...
A towering figure in Scandinavian music like Beethoven in Vienna.  Would the vitality of northern music in the latter 20th Century and today have happened without him? 

Also:Mahler--not just a symphonist.  One of the three greatest of symphonists, with a staggering body of work in the musical form that is arguably the summit of Western music.  And the orchestral song cycles are unmatched. 
If we decide that immediate influence is the sole determinant of greatness, then Schoenberg belongs--at least for now, though I suspect that in another hundred years he will be a footnote in music history.  But in virtually every other respect, Mahler towers over him.

I agree with almost everything re: Sibelius, except the point about him being a modernist, proto- or otherwise.  It was certainly rash of me to lump him together with Bruckner as a 'mere symphonist'. Not that either he or Bruckner are "mere"-anything. They're towering figures, of course.
But raisin-picking good and great compositions in his output doesn't quite convince me yet, as per inclusion. I could do the same with Alban Berg (whose Lulu and Wozzeck and Violin Concerto are among the greatest compositions, certainly of the 20th century). And yet I don't include Berg. (I haven't even un-included him. :-)

Mahler. I'm glad I don't need to tell you that I'm infected with Mahleria. That I'm a card carrying member. (Heck I my tailor is making me a suit right now, that's modeled on one of Mahler's.) Otherwise you might misconstrue what I'm going to say now as me either not 'getting' or not 'liking' Mahler, and turning something personal into something pseudo-objective. (And yes, it's true--in a way--that I Don't Love Mahler.)

I think Mahler is one of the most overrated composers of our time. Hugely overrated. Excellent. Awesome. Fantastic and fantastical. And hugely overrated. Inspiring, groundbreaking in some small ways, and hugely overrated. He's a fad. A fad that fits our times. A composer for the age of anxiety and uncertainty. He is original, of course. But so is Ives. And yes, just a (great) symphonist. Even in his song cycles. But summit of Western Music? I'm almost shocked to feel into my insides and come up with so much immediate and instinctual disagreement. A craggy summit of his own making... something astounding. But more Eiger north face. Not K2. Matterhorn, maybe... because of its imposing and gorgeous nature. But not the stuff that Western classical music rests on. Frankly, I think the achievements of Richard Strauss had a greater influence and more relevance in music during their lifetimes, and to this day. Admittedly I'd never trade any Mahler Symphony just for the Alpine Symphony... but there is so much more to Strauss than what people think of when they make the Strauss-Mahler comparison. Elektra is singularly important in the development of 20th century music... Mahler's symphonies were--I hate to be so harsh--curiositae & footnotes. And I also disagree about Schoenberg. His effect on classical music is not one that will fade; it lives on in almost every composer that reacted to or against him. He'll be among the 20th most important composers of all time even when not a note of his works remains in the repertoire. (Not that I think that will ever happen. :-) )

1.) [It all] depends on who writes the history then doesn't it and at what time it was written.
2.) So he is there for originality but JS Bach isn't.  Conflicting ideas for greatness there.  
3.) Yeh I suppose some might just make [Schoenberg] represent modernism, though there are very many good composers in that style which also developed further through the 20th century as well.  From the 3 you mention I might like Webern's music the most.  To describe them as mere schoolboys isn't that respectful.

1.) Yep. 2.) Yep. 3.) Yep.

BTW: I adore Webern. Personally, I'd almost always go with Webern (or Berg) over Schoenberg. Just heard the Six Pieces with the Concertgebouw under Boulez. My goodness, what gorgeousness. My schoolboy comment is coy. It doesn't reflect any lack of respect for Webern on my part. If Schoenberg is the founder/father of the Second Viennese School, well, then Berg & Webern are the Second Viennese Schoolboys. 

[DavidRoss]

You said rather brusquely 'get it now?' as if I just have to understand to agree with you.  So I made a humorous reply to it.

My wife also confuses understanding with agreement and tends to put words into my mouth. 

Sorry if it seemed brusque, but it was a straightforward question, asking if my examples helped you to understand what you said you did not understand before.  It's still not clear that you see why some of us regard "favorite" and "greatest" as different categories, but it's not worth belaboring.

[DavidRoss]

I agree with almost everything re: Sibelius, except the point about him being a modernist, proto- or otherwise.

I've had this discussion a few times before.  My perception of Modernism comes from all the arts but especially painting, literature, and architecture.  People whose primary influence and training is in music tend to equate Modernism with Serialism.  To me, that's like equating it with Cubism. 

Mahler. I'm glad I don't need to tell you that I'm infected with Mahleria. That I'm a card carrying member. (Heck I my tailor is making me a suit right now, that's modeled on one of Mahler's.) Otherwise you might misconstrue what I'm going to say now as me either not 'getting' or not 'liking' Mahler, and turning something personal into something pseudo-objective. (And yes, it's true--in a way--that I Don't Love Mahler.)

I think Mahler is one of the most overrated composers of our time. Hugely overrated. Excellent. Awesome. Fantastic and fantastical. And hugely overrated. Inspiring, groundbreaking in some small ways, and hugely overrated.

Good heavens, Jens!  Of course we know that we both love Mahler.  Even Sarge knows that!    And to this point I agree with you completely.  Hugely overrated (by some, at least--mostly fanboys just coming to classical music in adolescence from a background of screaming electric guitars!).  But I think the sheer quality and scope of his achievement rank him among the greatest.  Of course, I weight orchestral music--especially with voice--more than I weight chamber music on its own.  Personal taste (though we could of course rationalize it).

Strauss is a toughie.  He's another whom I considered for top ten status.  Lots of terrific music across a variety of genres and with significant influence in his day.   

[jlaurson]

I've had this discussion a few times before.  My perception of Modernism comes from all the arts but especially painting, literature, and architecture.  People whose primary influence and training is in music tend to equate Modernism with Serialism.  To me, that's like equating it with Cubism. 

I definitely agree that it would be silly to limit the idea of musical modernism solely to serialism or new complexity. But if we're talking about modernism in Sibelius, I'd consider him a northern Debussy. A Western Scriabin. A non-German R.Strauss. Who is Sibelius in literature? Concise. Organic. Nationalist. With slight impressionist touches... ?!?

He fits firmly into the Symbolist school in Finnish art of the late 19th and early 20 centuries... Painters such as Gallen-Kallela, Simberg, Stjernschantz, Vaino Blomstedt

Funny how these pictures (some of that is almost Carl Larsson-ish) are so different what goes on in my mind when I hear Sibelius. Which is much less representative... full of colors... wonderful greens and blues and grays that move in and out of one another with soapstone-like forms and spume.

I don't like your tone at all, who do you think you are?

Is that a joke? If not, I'm shocked that I offend that Dutch sensitivity and their famously warm and kind tone. 

[knight66]

He fits firmly into the Symbolist school in Finnish art of the late 19th and early 20 centuries.

Comosers such as:
Melartin
Railto

Painters
Gallen-Kallela
Simberg
Stjernschantz
Vaino Blomstedt

Mike

[Henk]

The definition of "greatest", boiled down to to its absolutely shortest form: "Greatest = Those composers whose absence would leave the greatest hole in the (history of) classical music."

By common consent (not because of the consent, but because it happens to be on-target   ), let's keep:
ns equal weight, would definitely include Brahms and possibly DSCH after all? (And what would be the argument of Bartok vs. DSCH?

...

I don't like your tone at all, who do you think you are?

Ranking like you do, judging composers why they do are don't deserve a place in your top ten, is such annoying bullshit to me. Stop it, will you?

Henk

[DavidRoss]

I definitely agree that it would be silly to limit the idea of musical modernism solely to serialism or new complexity. But if we're talking about modernism in Sibelius, I'd consider him a northern Debussy. A Western Scriabin. A non-German R.Strauss. Who is Sibelius in literature? Concise. Organic. Nationalist. With slight impressionist touches... ?!?

He fits firmly into the Symbolist school in Finnish art of the late 19th and early 20 centuries.

In lit?  Maybe Hemingway, paring stuff down with a very distinctive voice and extraordinary craftsmanship that seems effortless and organic.  Lionized in his time, then despised, then neglected, ultimately to be rehabilitated.  But the overtly spiritual focus and apparent accessibility...Hesse, perhaps?

As a painter?  Not a provincial.  The progression of tone poems makes me think of Matisse.  The symphonies...Mondrian...no, Kandinsky!

[knight66]

Not sure re literature, but I was referring specifically to a Finnish context.

Henk.....ease off would you. Jens has thrown a lot of deliberately controversial thoughts into the ring to provide some jumping off points for discussion. And here we are in dialogue about aspects of his propositions. He is not really attempting to act as GMG Arbiter of Taste.

Mike

[nigeld]

So who's the greatest?

I'm a believer in the wisdom of crowds, so I've pulled a list from Amazon.co.uk that shows the number of items for sale in their classical music section ranked by composer

I figure that this reasonably reflects the preferences of the entire classical music buying public and therefore is a good objective answer to the question who's the greatest

so here goes:


Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (17,402)
Beethoven, Ludwig van (15,346)
Bach, Johann Sebastian (14,148)
Brahms, Johannes (9,021)
Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich (8,760)
Schubert, Franz (8,656)
Verdi, Giuseppe (7,518)
Chopin, Frédéric (6,454)
Haydn, Joseph (6,276)
Schumann, Robert (5,854)
Mendelssohn, Felix (5,603)
Vivaldi, Antonio (5,275)
Debussy, Claude (5,271)
Liszt, Franz (5,142)
Wagner, Richard (4,933)
Dvorák, Antonín (4,924)
Puccini, Giacomo (4,573)
Rachmaninov, Sergei (3,977)
Ravel, Maurice (3,909)
Rossini, Gioachino (3,827)
Strauss, Richard (3,557)
Bizet, Georges (3,250)
Grieg, Edvard (3,105)
Mahler, Gustav (3,013)
Saint-Saens, Camille (3,012)
Donizetti, Gaetano (2,956)
Handel, Georg Frideric (2,878)
Shostakovich, Dmitri (2,814)
Prokofiev, Serge (2,777)
Gounod, Charles (2,626)
Faure, Gabriel (2,556)
Massenet, Jules (2,381)
Elgar, Edward (2,337)
Sibelius, Jean (2,077)
Stravinsky, Igor (2,006)
Rimsky-Korsakov, Nicolai (1,939)
Gershwin, George (1,876)
Telemann, George Philipp (1,835)
Berlioz, Hector (1,833)
Purcell, Henry (1,776)
Franck, Cesar (1,704)
Mussorgsky, Modest (1,695)
Bellini, Vincenzo (1,670)
Bruckner, Anton (1,659)
Bartok, Bela (1,583)
Britten, Benjamin (1,577)
Vaughan Williams, Ralph (1,570)
Offenbach, Jacques (1,314)
Gluck, Christoph Willibald v. (1,282)
Poulenc, Francis (1,267)
Scarlatti, Domenico (1,177)
Borodin, Alexander (1,064)
Meyerbeer, Giacomo (1,049)
Holst, Gustav (972)
Schoenberg, Arnold (819)
Delibes, Leo (801)
Janácek, Leos (691)
Rameau, Jean-Phillippe (625)
Sullivan, Arthur (562)
Ives, Charles (547)
Kodály, Zoltán (464)
Tallis, Thomas (437)
Glass, Philip (325)
Lully, Jean-Baptiste (294)

[karlhenning]

So if you like others alot then I assume you must think they are great too in some way otherwise you wouldn't listen to them.

Is language too rich, that we are in a hurry to equate "what I like" with "what is great"?  Why the pigeon-hole-ism?

Honestly, I don't see any great problem with having distinct categories.