Top 10 favourite VS. top 10 greatest composers

[RJR]

Gustav Mahler is the only composer mentionned who wasn't a fulltime composer. He was a fulltime conductor artistic and music director who composed in during his leisure hours vacations in (eventually) his lovely shacks in the woods on various lake shores of Austria.

A bet you would soundly lose. (Although we probably get your point...)

But surely that's not so much a statement of fact as it is your projection on Mahler based on your response to his music thus far...

(Not that I'd include him in the top three symphonists, despite my addiction to the composer...)

I look forward to receiving a recording of you humming all thirty-three minutes-give or take a minute-of the first movement of Mahler's Third Symphony. No cheating, do it just from memory.

[RJR]

Gustav Mahler is the only composer mentionned who wasn't a fulltime composer. He was a fulltime conductor artistic and music director who composed in during his leisure hours vacations in (eventually) his lovely shacks in the woods on various lake shores of Austria.

A bet you would soundly lose. (Although we probably get your point...)

But surely that's not so much a statement of fact as it is your projection on Mahler based on your response to his music thus far...

(Not that I'd include him in the top three symphonists, despite my addiction to the composer...)

By the way, my reference Mahler 3rd Symphony is a Philips Mono double LP conducted by Bernard Haitink that my youngest brother sent to me in 1969. It was the first symphony of Mahler that I ever listened to, soon followed by Bruno Walter's recording of the First Symphony. I like some Mahler, but as I said earlier his works could have used a lot of judicious trimming. So could Bruckner, for that matter.

[jlaurson]

I look forward to receiving a recording of you humming all thirty-three minutes-give or take a minute-of the first movement of Mahler's Third Symphony. No cheating, do it just from memory.

From memory? I couldn't hum (all of) Beethoven's Third from memory. I thought you meant "hum along".

As far as trimming is concerned... well... not sure. He throws a lot in there... he needs lots of time. Webern it ain't... but I can think of a few composers who wrote shorter pieces who could use a little more trimming a little more desperately than Mahler. You're lucky he cut a whole movement from the Third.

[knight66]

Surely we are not going to make the idea of a humming test respectable as a measure of whether a work is too long. Debussy's Pelleas and Melisande is an acknowledged masterpiece, try humming that one, any of it.

If you insist on humability; try Pachelbell's Cannon.

Should you want to seriously argue that Mahler is overblown; which even those who like him may concede on occasion, you need to put forward an argument that goes more to the heart of the matter.

Mike

[RJR]

A close friend of mine and a former proprietor of The Record Center, a record lending library in Montréal, Québec that had an inventory of over 20, 000 records had this to say when I wrote to him about choosing Brahms over Mahler:

Good Luck old boy, you are absolutley right. Brahms forever. See you in a couple of weeks. Edgar

[DavidRoss]

If your preference is for chamber music or concertos, Brahms is your man.  If the symphony is your bag--or vocal music with orchestra--Mahler wins the duel.  I'm a huge Mahler fan who gets flack from some others because I think his music would have benefited from more judicious editing.  Much of Brahms's music could, too.  I'm also aware that my aesthetic values are shaped by modernist concerns that both predated.

[Xenophanes]

There are the greatest composers, about which opinion varies; then there are the composers I like most as a whole; and then there are the compositions I actually listen to most--sometimes, they're about the only piece by a composer I listen to very much.

Greatest:

Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Chopin
Brahms
Wagner
Debussy
Sibelius
Stravinsky
Bartok

Favorites:

G. Gabrieli
Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Dvorak
Rachmaninoff
Sibelius
Mahler

Compositions I actually listen to the most:

G. Gabrieli, Music for Brass
Bach, Magnificat; Passacaglia in C; Violin Concertos
Haydn, Symphonies nos. 22, 24, 77, 82, 94
Mozart, Symphonies nos. 35 and 41; Requiem; Clarinet Quintet; Haydn Quartets
Beethoven, Symphony nos. 6; Middle Quartets
Schubert, Symphony no. 9
Mussorgsky-Ravel, Pictures at an Exhibition
Brahms, Symphony no. 4; Clarinet Quintet
Dvorak, Quartets nos. 10 and 12
Ippolitov-Ivanov, Caucasian Sketches, Suite no. 1 (I like the thing.)
Rachmaninoff, Symphony no. 2; Isle of the Dead
Sibelius, Symphony no. 5; 4 Lemminkainen Suites; Karelia Suite
Mahler, Das Lied von der Erde
Mayuzumi, Samsara; Essay for String Orchestra

[some guy]

I wonder how many of the people who have taken part in this exercise would say that the quality of their listening experience with any given piece is at all affected by whether that piece is one that thousands or millions (or dozens) of other listeners have found satisfying?

Greatness, it seems there is almost universal agreement about this, is consensus. But when I'm listening to music, there's just me and the sounds. Do I have to wait for other people to like something before I can enjoy it? But I already know that I like Marisol Jiménez' Guijarros-Humaredas. Too late!

I think the fundamental urge is the urge to objectify, the urge to legitimize, which arises from our fundamental insecurity, it seems. We need somehow to legitimize our opinions, to make them something other than subjective. But subjective is exactly what opinions are. As I recently said in a similar thread on another board, if you put ten sheep in a pen, then ten more, then ten more, no matter how many sheep you cram in that pen, there will never come a point when, magically, they all turn into a lion. You will never have more than just a bunch of sheep. And adding up opinions will never result in a fact. You'll just have a bunch of opinions.

And why that isn't OK, I really don't know. (I'm afraid that even I just don't know.) But then I don't worship objectivity as the be all and end all of intellectual activity.

Here's what I'd propose, jettison the notion of greatness. It doesn't do anyone any good. At the best, all you can do with a dichotomy like this one between great and favorite is show everyone that you can tell the difference between your opinions and the aggregate opinion of a group. There must be some use for that ability, but it doesn't impinge on the quality of listening. And if it doesn't affect listening, then why not ignore it?

I think we'd all be better off if we simply took responsibility for our own listening. Anything after that would be along the lines of what we like and why. (The "and why" is the critical part. That's what creates discussion. That's what encourages other people to maybe seek out Marisol Jiménez' Guijarros-Humaredas and give it a listen themselves. Which means I'm supposed to say why now, aren't I? Oh the holes we dig for ourselves.... I like Guijarros-Humaredas because I like percussion music, particularly when it's just the non-pitched instruments. I like the hard, crisp attacks and the blurred, sustained noises that you can get with those instruments, the moving between the two and the playing of both simultaneously. Which is what you get in Guijarros-Humaredas. I also like the electroacoustic sounds you can get just from the percussion. Adding in actual electroacoustic sounds, as Jiménez does, gives the piece an intriguing sonic ambiguity. Which I also like.

And nowadays, with youtube, you can often supplement your words with a nice clip. Unfortunately, this one is preceded by 34 seconds of some generic guitar playing and followed by some more of the same. Poopies:

http://www.youtube.com/v/WLMFPo2tmpo

[starrynight]

I wonder how many of the people who have taken part in this exercise would say that the quality of their listening experience with any given piece is at all affected by whether that piece is one that thousands or millions (or dozens) of other listeners have found satisfying?

It affects us because the pieces we listen to first normally are the pieces which are the most acclaimed in the past, so those are also the pieces that we probably know the longest as well.

I think the fundamental urge is the urge to objectify, the urge to legitimize, which arises from our fundamental insecurity, it seems. We need somehow to legitimize our opinions, to make them something other than subjective.

No doubt.  The only legitimacy I use with music is my own ears.  Or with other arts my own eyes.   If I am not convinced by a famous piece, for whatever reason, then I won't say it is great until I actually feel that way.  I may like some music which isn't so fashionable, but why should I care about that? 

I think we'd all be better off if we simply took responsibility for our own listening. Anything after that would be along the lines of what we like and why. (The "and why" is the critical part. That's what creates discussion. That's what encourages other people to maybe seek out Marisol Jiménez' Guijarros-Humaredas and give it a listen themselves. Which means I'm supposed to say why now, aren't I?

Yes, people should take responsibility for themselves with their listening choices.  Don't just ask people what they should listen to, they should listen through stuff themselves on their own initiative and select what they like.  Looking at lesser known composers or lesser known works (like earlier ones) by famous composers are a couple of ways of doing this.  Don't ask to be spoonfed opinions from people go out and research what different opinions are.  Search on google or search on forums.  Part of the fun is the exploration.

[haziz]

Roughly in descending order:

Greatest
1-3. Bach/Mozart/Beethoven (joint 1st place)
4. Haydn
5. Brahms
6. Wagner
7. Mahler
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Chopin
10. Stravinsky

Favorite
1. Tchaikovsky
2. Beethoven
3. Dvorak
4. Grieg
5. Rachmaninov
6. Mendelssohn
7. Chopin
8. Mozart
9. Max Bruch
10. Elgar

My criteria for greatest include originality, influence on contemporaries and subsequent generations, quality of work, respect and admiration by colleagues (subtly different from influence). A lot of you nominated Schoenberg in the greatest category (but often not in the favorites category), he fails on both counts in my case, for while he may have been somewhat influential and may have been fairly original, I think he fails miserably in the quality of work category at least in my book.

Bach does not make it into my favorites list, but his Solo Cello suites (counting them as one work) are one of my favorite 5 compositions by anybody, but I listen to very little else by Bach, though I rarely will put on his Goldberg variations and very rarely his violin concertos.

I probably missed or messed up one or two on each list.

Sincerely,

Hany.

[DavidRoss]

     Wha? Humans have a remarkable ability to agree on facts. They have trouble agreeing on matters of taste, frequently imagining they are in possession of some controlling fact which slipped the grasp of millions of other intelligent people. It's not a good explanation of taste. People must be, within reason, different in their sensitivity to the elements art is made from, and when you add differences in experience and background beliefs you have enough to explain how tastes differ without resort to the notion of greatness as a discoverable truth. It's a social phenomenon in which we all play a part. Instead of arguing against your own taste you can seek to expand it by discovering what other people have found. You don't have to do that, but it's worth doing.

I just came across this post, a bit late , I fear, but it reminded me that it's been too long, Ernie, since I told you how much I love you. 

[eyeresist]

Greatest:

Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Wagner
Tchaikovsky
Debussy
Mahler
Bartok


Favourite:

Vivaldi
Mozart
Schubert
Dvorak
Bruckner
Elgar
Mahler
Prokofiev
Shostakovich
Vaughan williams


Only Mozart and Mahler make both lists.

Greatness is for me here defined as writing great works AND serving as a landmark in the development of music. I'd say Tchaikovsky deserves his place among the greats on the basis of the late symphonies and the Nutcracker, if nothing else.
I have to take the greatness of some of the earlier composers partly on faith, as I am just not familiar enough with that period (hence no pre-Baroque names). I am unable to assess specialists in chamber music and opera for the same reason (Wagner is of course a special case). For modern developments, I had to exclude Schoenberg firstly because I dislike his music (including the tonal stuff), and second because in terms of development he ultimately represented more a gravestone than a waymarker.

Many of my listed favourites miss their place on the "greats" list by a narrow margin, due either to inconsistency or unaccountable lack of influence on broad trends. Some also arguably represent a consolidation of previous gains rather than a forward step (here Brahms is the special case).

[Mirror Image]

I think we all know the greatest lists (i. e. Beethoven, Haydn, Bach, Mozart...), but while I acknowledge their influence and inherent greatness they are far (and I do mean far) from being favorites of mine.

Here are a few of my favorites:

Ravel
Bartok
Vaughan Williams
Villa-Lobos
Koechlin
Stravinsky
Sibelius
Debussy
Janacek
Berg
Tchaikovsky
Ives
Martinu
Shostakovich
Szymanowski
Milhaud
Revueltas
Myaskovsky
Prokofiev
Suk
Ginastera
Chavez
Nielsen
Rubbra
Alwyn
Wagner
Dutilleux
Adams
Barber
Copland
Vine
Sculthorpe
Part
Lindberg
Salonen
Honegger
Rimsky-Korsakov
Mussorgsky
Lyadov
Ligeti
Pettersson
Schoenberg

[eyeresist]

tl;dr!

[Bulldog]

I think we all know the greatest lists (i. e. Beethoven, Haydn, Bach, Mozart...), but while I acknowledge their influence and inherent greatness they are far (and I do mean far) from being favorites of mine.

Here are a few of my favorites:

Ravel
Bartok
Vaughan Williams
Villa-Lobos
Koechlin
Stravinsky
Sibelius
Debussy
Janacek
Berg
Tchaikovsky
Ives
Martinu
Shostakovich
Szymanowski
Milhaud
Revueltas
Myaskovsky
Prokofiev
Suk
Ginastera
Chavez
Nielsen
Rubbra
Alwyn
Wagner
Dutilleux
Adams
Barber
Copland
Vine
Sculthorpe
Part
Lindberg
Salonen
Honegger
Rimsky-Korsakov
Mussorgsky
Lyadov
Ligeti
Pettersson
Schoenberg

A few?  I'd call it 3 1/2 dozen.

[Mirror Image]

A few?  I'd call it 3 1/2 dozen.

[Roberto]

Well... I can't write anything about great composers after I've read jlaurson's wonderful post (even if I don't understand all of his phrase, it was a joy for read). And I agree with him.

I can't write even 10 of my favorite because I think to name a favorite composer I have to know much of his/her () output in different genres. I love Schubert's symphonies and his last 2 masses but I don't know one of his lieder neither. I think this fact doesn't legitimate me to include he on my favorite list. So my favorites are:

1. Mozart: 2-3 years ago he even wasn't on my 10 list. When I listened one of his compositions I said: yes, he is great. And after it I didn't listen any of his composition again for months. But something changed. I got to know his operas (at first the Figaro with Harnoncourt and after the Idomeneo with Jacobs and after it the rest great operas). Then I started to collect HIP Mozart recordings. And now: no day without Mozart's music. I don't like romantic Mozart (romantic performance) but I love his symphonies, concertos, great operas, chamber works, masses, anything in HIP performance. His joy, sometimes his demonic, dark, frightening character, his intelligence, his brilliance is absolutely for me.

2. Bartók: he was my first introduction to 20th century music. (The first I listened from him was the Dance Suite.) His music is like native language for me. Forceful, strong, authentic. Piano concertos, opera, ballet music, chamber music, songs, anything. And he was Hungarian also. I can listen his vocal works mainly in original language and it is very moving experience much for me. (I learned folk music at elementary school and I find much folk music elements in his music also.)

3. Mahler: some people consider him great, some consider him bad. No matter. I love his symphonies and songs. The sounding is forceful, his slow movements touch my soul deeply.

4. Beethoven: I think I don't have to say anything. HIP or romantic performance: no matter. But his slow movements are not so touching for me like the first 3 on my list.

5. Webern: some months ago I bought Boulez's DGG complete set so I know almost all of his works (I discover him slowly because I can listen to his music only weekends and I listen to a piece many times.) Just read Greg Sandow's article about him: http://www.gregsandow.com/webern.htm

[Roberto]

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."
[...]

I have thought about the last four spots. I would suggest the following composers:
7: Liszt: no matter what we think about his compositional abilities (actually I admire him), he is an emblematic person of the romantic era. His influence on other romantic composers (including Wagner) is massive and he didn't exclude any outer impression from his own music. Maybe the modern piano wouldn't be the same without him. And his last compositions are visions about 20th century.

8: Stravinsky: as you wrote he stands for the 20th century. It is fully enough. (Without Rite of spring the music of the 20th century wouldn't be the same.)

But I don't know about 9th and 10th spot. I would include Bartók because he includes the folk music in his music in a unique way and he creates a synthesis of the folk and classical music. His music is constant in the great orchestras repertoire, he is maybe one of the most frequently played modern composer. But he has small influence on the others. But he is my 2nd favorite composer and it would be an emotional decision. It is the case with Webern also. He is a less-played composer but he had huge influence of the composers of the 2nd half of 20th century. But he was apprentice of Schönberg and Shönberg already included.

[madaboutmahler]

My opinion:
10 greatest: Beethoven, J.S Bach, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, Mahler, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Shostakovich
10 favourites: Mahler, R.Strauss, Elgar, Beethoven, Shostakovich, Ravel, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Bruckner

Daniel

[thalbergmad]

I tend not to have favourites as they would change so often I would lose track of them. As I get older, I tend to have alternatives instead, so I will list some of the greats with my alternatives.

Beethoven - Woelfl or Cramer
Mozart - Clementi or Pinto
Liszt - Thalberg, Henselt or Tausig
Rachmaninov - Bortkiewicz or Rozycki
Chopin - Dussek or Field
Brahms - Brull or Gernsheim

I am going to stop before I start changing my mind again.

Thal