Poll
Question:
Name Your Favored Composer
Option 1: Chopin
votes: 17
Option 2: Liszt
votes: 4
Option 3: Mendelssohn
votes: 3
Option 4: Schumann
votes: 18
I picked Schumann, closely followed by Chopin.
Chopin for me, closely followed by Liszt.
(Of the four mentioned, I mean.)
I usually prefer Schu(b)pininoff. But for the sake of this poll, I voted for Chopin.
I voted for Schumann as a protest vote - knowing Chopin will get more ;D
In reality I probably prefer Beethoven and Scriabin.
Chopin all the way, man.
Quote from: Don on August 28, 2008, 07:23:28 AM
I picked Schumann, closely followed by Chopin.
Difficult to choose
Don. As far as I am concerned it's a draw between Chopin and Liszt. Not for nothing
Don but I hear that J.S. Bach 0:) is one hell of a keyboard player and is eagerly played on the piano. I am surprised he isn't on your list ??? ??
marvin
Quote from: James on August 28, 2008, 08:18:15 AM
None of these make the grade for me i'm afraid. :-\
You're a hard man to please.
Chopin, followed closely by Schumann. (from these choices)
However, it's actually between Beethoven and Schubert, followed closely by Brahms for me. :-\
Too bad there wasn't an option for J. Strauss II this time around ;D
Quote from: marvinbrown on August 28, 2008, 09:11:03 AM
Difficult to choose Don. As far as I am concerned it's a draw between Chopin and Liszt. Not for nothing Don but I hear that J.S. Bach 0:) is one hell of a keyboard player and is eagerly played on the piano. I am surprised he isn't on your list ??? ??
marvin
I only selected from composers born in the early 1800's. If all composers for keyboard were selected, I'd go with Bach, then Schumann, then Scriabin.
Schumann.
Chopin, followed by Schumann by a long margin. Liszt is interesting and obviously important as far as piano literature goes, but too shallow for my tastes. I don't even know what to think of Mendelssohn. The guy could counterfeit genius like no other, and this sometimes led to decent results, but i don't think his piano works are among them.
For that period I prefer Schumann, followed by Chopin and then Fanny Mendelssohn. Otherwise I rate Medtner very highly not forgetting Debussy of course.
I would have picked Scriabin if he was there, but Liszt will do.
None of the above! Instead I cast my vote for George Crumb. Failing that, Bela Bartok. Failing THAT, Stephen Scott.
Haydn? Beethoven? Schubert? Grieg? Rachmaninov? Gershwin?
... not that it matters, since Chopin is my favorite anyway ;D
Beethoven and Bach would have come ahead of all of these IMO
Quote from: Holden on August 28, 2008, 02:43:29 PM
Beethoven and Bach would have come ahead of all of these IMO
Agreed. Of the choices in the poll, I chose Schumann, but he would be placed below Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and Brahms.
Quote from: hornteacher on August 28, 2008, 03:29:47 PM
Agreed. Of the choices in the poll, I chose Schumann, but he would be placed below Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and Brahms.
And Debussy. And Ravel. And...but that's enough, Schumann over Chopin by a nose.
Quote from: Brian on August 28, 2008, 01:50:42 PM
Haydn? Beethoven? Schubert? Grieg? Rachmaninov? Gershwin?
Read reply #9.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 28, 2008, 11:14:09 AM
I don't even know what to think of Mendelssohn. The guy could counterfeit genius like no other, and this sometimes led to decent results, but i don't think his piano works are among them.
That is certainly a talent in itself, don't you think? You can't even counterfeit an intelligent post on the internet, so I think you should respect Mendelssohn's talent for counterfeiting genius (and the fact that he has managed to fool many generations of musicians so far).
Quote from: Brian on August 28, 2008, 01:50:42 PM
Rachmaninov?
Please not that the correct spelling of this composer's name is
Rachmaninoff. I think I may have mentioned that here before.
I didn't vote. No Rachmaninoff, no Ravel, no Debussy. Just not enough choices.
Limiting myself to the available choices, I'd go with Schumann and Liszt (between which, the vote goes to the underdog).
I also rate Alkan and Medtner most highly, both composing almost exclusively for the piano.
SCHUMANN
I just nudged Chopin into the lead. But I wanted Debussy. :(
Quote from: M forever on August 28, 2008, 08:12:33 PM
(and the fact that he has managed to fool many generations of musicians so far).
He obviously didn't fool Wagner, and the reception of his music has always been a mixed bag, so you are definitely wrong about that.
Even though I enjoy Schumann, I'm surprised he is any sort of competition for Chopin.
Quote from: mn dave on August 29, 2008, 07:26:18 AM
Even though I enjoy Schumann, I'm surprised he is any sort of competition for Chopin.
I'm also surprised - but pleased.
Quote from: mn dave on August 29, 2008, 07:26:18 AM
Even though I enjoy Schumann, I'm surprised he is any sort of competition for Chopin.
Well, the following opinion may just be ignorant drivel on my part--in which case legions of GMGers will no doubt pounce to set me straight--but Chopin seems just a bit on the precious side to me, whereas Schumann is a bit more manly.
I probably just need to listen to more Chopin. Every time I do I'm reminded why people regard him as great, but I'm rarely interested in coming back for more.
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 29, 2008, 09:10:06 AM
Well, the following opinion may just be ignorant drivel on my part--in which case legions of GMGers will no doubt pounce to set me straight--but Chopin seems just a bit on the precious side to me, whereas Schumann is a bit more manly.
I probably just need to listen to more Chopin. Every time I do I'm reminded why people regard him as great, but I'm rarely interested in coming back for more.
You bastard.
;)
[Edit: I don't think testosterone levels factor into my enjoyment of music.]
Beethoven, closely followed by Schubert.
Q
With the Variations Sérieuses tolling in my head for weeks now, and because he's so underrated, my vote is going to Mendelssohn. I'm not sure any other composer wrote such eminently pianistic music.
Quote from: Que on August 29, 2008, 12:57:31 PM
Beethoven, closely followed by Schubert.
Q
As the question was 'favorite composer' this is fair enough. Whilst these composers wrote great piano music, I didn't mention them (or Bach and Mozart) because I was thinking of the piano as the instrument stands now. In Beethoven's day this was relatively new. He certainly used its power but not the full range of its possibilities. Schubert showed a mastery of its tonal values especially in his songs. The extension of musical expression on the piano was begun by Weber and Hummel but it was left to the next generation to exploit it to the full. This does not detract in the least from earlier composers, it is merely an accident of history.
The voting has closed, and I'm rather surprised at the results. I thought Chopin would be at the top with both Schumann and Liszt close behind. That Liszt barely had more votes than Mendelssohn was a result I never would have dreamed; after all, Mendelssohn is not best known for his piano works.
Quote from: Don on September 02, 2008, 09:14:06 AM
The voting has closed
The voting has now reopened with ezodisy pushing Shoppin' level with Shoeman. I would take Rachmaninoff, Albeniz and Satie before Liszt and Mendelssohn, with a bottle of scotch whisky replacing all 5.
Quote from: ezodisy on September 05, 2008, 11:33:17 AM
The voting has now reopened with ezodisy pushing Shoppin' level with Shoeman. I would take Rachmaninoff, Albeniz and Satie before Liszt and Mendelssohn, with a bottle of scotch whisky replacing all 5.
Rachmaninoff's worth at least 2 bottles.
Quote from: Don on September 05, 2008, 12:09:45 PM
Rachmaninoff's worth at least 2 bottles.
You don't have to twist my arm to pick up a second bottle ;)
This should put the name argument to bed(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/Rachmaninoff_Vodka.JPG)
Chopin, easily Chopin.
Mendelssohn suffers from the popular delusion that sad music is somehow superior to cheerful music. Once you've rid yourself of this bullshit, Mendelssohn comes out pretty well.
For twenty years, I'd say Schumann. But for the past few years, it has been Medtner.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 06, 2008, 08:49:14 AM
Mendelssohn suffers from the popular delusion that sad music is somehow superior to cheerful music. Once you've rid yourself of this bullshit, Mendelssohn comes out pretty well.
I wouldn't call it bullshit, just a modern appreciation of classical music :)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 06, 2008, 08:49:14 AM
Mendelssohn suffers from the popular delusion that sad music is somehow superior to cheerful music. Once you've rid yourself of this bullshit, Mendelssohn comes out pretty well.
To me, cheerful music has little to offer. I'm making a distinction here between cheerful/upbeat music and uplifting music. If you want cheerful music, all you have to do is enter a supermarket, elevator or office building.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 06, 2008, 08:49:14 AM
Mendelssohn suffers from the popular delusion that sad music is somehow superior to cheerful music. Once you've rid yourself of this bullshit, Mendelssohn comes out pretty well.
That's funny because I thought that Mendelssohn suffers from being an uninventive tunesmith compared to the likes of Chopin and Schumann. It has nothing to do with sad vs cheerful. Mendelssohn's great music is in his chamber works, not his piano works.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 06, 2008, 08:49:14 AM
Mendelssohn suffers from the popular delusion that sad music is somehow superior to cheerful music.
Nonsense. Mendelssohn suffers from the simple fact his inspiration was very uneven, despite his immense natural talents. Hey, nobody has ever said being an artist was easy. Though shit. If your argument had any merit at all then how do you explain Mozart? Or Haydn?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 06, 2008, 10:24:49 AM
Hey, nobody has ever said being an artist was easy.
How would
you know? And how do you measure and compare inspiration? I personally think that Mozart and Haydn were "more important" composers, too, but then I think that these direct comparisons and rankings are simply idiotic. Mendelssohn left us a number of great pieces, and when I listen to his music, as to any other composer's, I either enjoy it or not. It never occurs to me to "compare" it to someone else's music.
Quote from: DavidW on September 06, 2008, 10:06:25 AM
That's funny because I thought that Mendelssohn suffers from being an uninventive tunesmith compared to the likes of Chopin and Schumann. It has nothing to do with sad vs cheerful. Mendelssohn's great music is in his chamber works, not his piano works.
To say Mendelssohn's piano0 music is uninventive shows a remarkable ignorance of it.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 06, 2008, 10:24:49 AM
Nonsense. Mendelssohn suffers from the simple fact his inspiration was very uneven, despite his immense natural talents. Hey, nobody has ever said being an artist was easy. Though shit. If your argument had any merit at all then how do you explain Mozart? Or Haydn?
I agree that it is uneven but it does include some very fine works. That is why I prefer other composers overall.
Quote from: Don on September 06, 2008, 09:36:52 AM
To me, cheerful music has little to offer. I'm making a distinction here between cheerful/upbeat music and uplifting music. If you want cheerful music, all you have to do is enter a supermarket, elevator or office building.
On the contrary, sad music is easy to write in comparison with cheerful music. The music one hears in supermarkets etc is anything but cheerful, it's enough to drive one mad.
Quote from: ezodisy on September 06, 2008, 09:27:34 AM
I wouldn't call it bullshit, just a modern appreciation of classical music :)
I don't believe we are really so out of touch with the spirit of music.
Another excellent composer of cheerful music for the piano: Debussy.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 08, 2008, 01:54:13 PM
On the contrary, sad music is easy to write in comparison with cheerful music. The music one hears in supermarkets etc is anything but cheerful, it's enough to drive one mad.
So you're still hung up on this sad/cheerful comparison? Dig a little deeper. As for the supermarkets, I'll assume you visit them as infrequently as possible. I go there at least once every two days so I can soak up the cheerful tunes. ;D
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 08, 2008, 01:54:13 PM
On the contrary, sad music is easy to write in comparison with cheerful music.
Ok, now this is getting a bit silly........
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 08, 2008, 03:23:50 PM
Ok, now this is getting a bit silly........
and thoroughly superficial.
Actually I voted for Schumann because he was able to was able to switch from being cheerful to being sad so readily, probably due to his schizophrenia. This contrast adds greatly to the sense of pathos.
The preferred artists broadcast in my local supermarket practise what can best be described as moaning.
Some more cheerful works for you:
Chopin: the delightfully whimsical Nocturne Op. 37 No. 1
Scriabin: the foot-tapping Sonata No. 4
Debussy!
I find Debussy's piano music hard to get into. Just listened to a disc again today, reconfirming my previous impressions:
(http://weblogs.redeyechicago.com/iphoneblog/images/2008/01/16/yawn.jpg)
You associate Debussy with male pattern baldness?
Quote from: lukeottevanger on September 09, 2008, 12:42:17 PM
You associate Debussy with male pattern baldness?
I think that's me in the future, listening to Debussy while working at a program in a lab. Except the future doesn't look too good, because it means i'll be back to wearing glasses for some reason, and i go bald earlier than what i've guessed, given genetic probabilities into account.
I don't think any of you gave any thought my proposition regarding the difference between composing sad and composing cheerful music. This was not so pronounced in the era of diatonic music, so composers such as Haydn and Mozart did not face any difficulty in this respect. With chromatic harmony however the diminished minor second begins to take over as the driving force. Using the major second effectively became more problematic. Debussy gets round this by his use of the whole tone scale.
Another brilliant example:
Kabalevsky Prelude Op38 No21 in Bb Festivamente. You can really give this some wellie!
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 09, 2008, 01:17:54 PM
I don't think any of you gave any thought my proposition regarding the difference between composing sad and composing cheerful music.
I gave it some thought and quickly decided it was even too trivial for me.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 09, 2008, 01:17:54 PM
Another brilliant example:
Kabalevsky Prelude Op38 No21 in Bb Festivamente. You can really give this some wellie!
You find the Kabalevsky cheerful? Perhaps, but I've always considered it more ceremonial than upbeat.
Quote from: Don on September 09, 2008, 04:22:57 PM
You find the Kabalevsky cheerful? Perhaps, but I've always considered it more ceremonial than upbeat.
Some wild ceremony this!!!!
Quote from: Don on September 09, 2008, 03:40:04 PM
I gave it some thought and quickly decided it was even too trivial for me.
Sorry, I didn't realise it was so obviously true.
Beethoven. :P