Not the greatest, but one of your favorites

[Chaszz]

In the Mendelssohn vs. Wagner thread, one or two posters say they realize Mendelssohn is not among the greatest composers, but is a particular favorite of theirs. I myself feel Brahms is outranked by (among a few others) Beethoven and Mozart, but I'd much rather listen to him than either of them. Who else has a particular favorite whom they admit is not of the very first rank? And what are the qualities that endear?

In my case, with Brahms, I love his thorny thickets of rhythms and rough-edged orchestration that I find almost a precursor of jazz. Also his melodic sense, especially in slow movements, is to me gorgeous.  And the rightness and inevitability of his long developmental form, which enters in and out of many byways but still always has a solid and meaningful structure.

I'd also mention Fauré and Gluck. I've never heard a work by either of these composers that I didn't immediately love. Fauré doesn't seem the most profound of composers but his melodies and developments go right to the heart. Gluck is a grave and noble exponent of the classical style, comparable to the severe early classical style in ancient Greek sculpture in the generation preceding the Parthenon. Everything he writes seems intense and alive. I am surprised he is not rated much nearer to Haydn and Mozart as a classical-era composer, but is treated more as a second-rater.  

[DavidW]

I disagree-- Brahms is on par with Mozart and Beethoven.  I also strongly disagree with your sentiment that Faure is not a profound composer.  His chamber works are some of the absolute greatest.  I wouldn't even compare a romantic era composer to a classical era either, it doesn't even make sense.

[Chaszz]

1. I disagree-- Brahms is on par with Mozart and Beethoven.... 
2. I wouldn't even compare a romantic era composer to a classical era either, it doesn't even make sense.

[DavidW]

You said that Brahms is outranked by Beethoven and Mozart.  Brahms is outranked by no one.  And Beethoven and Mozart are classical era composers, do not compare them to a Romantic era composer.

[Gabriel]

Don't be fooled and follow your ears, Brahms is far more adventurous & well rounded musically compared to either Mozart or Beethoven.

My ears tell me something completely different, and they would also if I had to compare Brahms and Haydn.

Gluck is a grave and noble exponent of the classical style, comparable to the severe early classical style in ancient Greek sculpture in the generation preceding the Parthenon. Everything he writes seems intense and alive. I am surprised he is not rated much nearer to Haydn and Mozart as a classical-era composer, but is treated more as a second-rater. 

It is unfortunately so. He wrote really great music and I humbly consider his Iphigénie en Tauride as one of the greatest masterpieces in the history of opera.

Now to the subject. Some of my favourites that probably do not rank among the greatest composers: Dussek, Kalinnikov, Borodin, Field, Corelli, Biber, Spohr, Glinka, Franck, Méhul. There are certainly others; no doubt it is more problematic to restrict to a list of five or six names the ones that belong to a first rank.

[Gabriel]

And sorry, I forgot: yes, I really enjoy listening to Die Fledermaus!

[hornteacher]

My "lesser" composer of choice (and I shudder using that term), is Copland.  I wouldn't dare call him "second rate" or anything similar but I'm sure even he would have admitted that he was "outranked" by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, and others.

Copland's music for me represents a simplicity and serenity that very few have been able to match.  He blended modernist rhythmic ambiguity and dissonance with accessible melodic content.  As a result he was able to be innovative and yet reach the widest possible audience.  Along with Beethoven and Dvorak, he is the composer who's music I listen to the most.

[Chaszz]

You said that Brahms is outranked by Beethoven and Mozart.  Brahms is outranked by no one.  And Beethoven and Mozart are classical era composers, do not compare them to a Romantic era composer.

I do not see the problem in ranking composers from different eras and with different styles vis a vis one another. For instance, Dvorak is certainly not as great as Bach. Each to his own opinion of what is possible or appropriate in judging, unless we want to debate ground rules for aesthetics and criticism.  

Secondly, I can't truly rate Beethoven or Mozart because neither is vitally important to me. So I will not comment on your saying Brahms is as good as they are. But both Wagner and Brahms are very dear to my heart, and my judgment is that Wagner is certainly greater than Brahms. I would say no contest. However I do not want to go to the mat with you on this, and accept your opinion after having stated my own.  

[greg]

It sounds like "greatness" being defined here as those who win the popularity contest...

[DavidW]

Chaszz, do you have any criteria whatsoever for ranking Brahms 2nd?

I put Brahms on the tops list because he is a master of classical form that still manages to find a personal voice that is still chromatic, and thus romantic.  He sounds deeply inspired by Beethoven, but unique in his own way not a knock off.  His works show a perfection from a deep commitment not seen often.  There are no others like him in his time.

Your turn.

[Coopmv]

Yeah, Brahms has a special place in my heart when it comes to choral music -since I love choral works.  I rank his German Requiem the most significant choral work after Bach St Matthew Passion and Handel Messiah.  I particularly enjoy watching this DVD by Karajan ...

[Antoine Marchand]

When the discussion is about the greatness of Brahms, I suppose a name like Tobias Hume will be almost invisible, a secret composer. Anyway, I love his Elizabethan melancholic compositions.

Particularly, I would fervently recommend to anyone these two superb discs on Naxos:

Tobias Hume - Captain Humes Poeticall Musicke, 2 vols.
Les Voix Humaines - Stephen Stubbs - Paul Audet - Réjean Poirier - Francis Colpron - Daniel Taylor

[Bulldog]

My list would include Zelenka, Myaskovsky, Weinberg, Shebalin, R. Franck, Gade and Granados.

[Harpo]

Edvard Grieg and John Rutter

[Dana]

It sounds like "greatness" being defined here as those who win the popularity contest...

      That's the trouble: greatness is both in the eye of the beholder, and in the eye of the next generation of composers. In a way, greatness in music is very disconnected from the beauty of said music. Greatness often takes influence and achievement into account - not just beauty and pleasure. Beethoven's 9th Symphony is an influential symphony because composers for the next 100 years imitate or fear it in some way or another - Schubert, Berlioz, Brahms, Mahler, Shostakovich. Wagner's Tristan and Isolde is a great opera because it influenced both the German and French schools of the ensuing fifty years. Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique, on the other hand, doesn't have nearly the influence that these aforementioned works do. Therefore... Berlioz is not as great a composer? Hmm. I suspect that some members of the forum would object to that statement.

      Therefore, forum-goers are simultaneously unqualified to define greatness, and better equipped to define it than the art critic of the New York Times. Why even bother asking the question?

[Grazioso]

Bax springs to mind, a skilled composer with a fairly unique style, yet a relatively limited range of expression. (Or perhaps his unique way of expressing things obscures the breadth of what he has to say?) I can imagine his very personal style of orchestration (extremely woodwind heavy, among other things) being a turn-off for some, though it's grown on me. The structural clarity of his larger works, especially the symphonies, is a matter of debate, though with repeated listening, I've been coming around to the view, espoused forcibly by no less an expert than the late Vernon Handley, that these supposedly discursive works are actually tightly structured.  A good starting point for exploration:

or

Both feature some of his best-known works, such as the beautiful, sweeping Tintagel.

(As for the "greatest", this discussion might be more profitable if everyone decided for the sake of argument to leave the generally acknowledged greats like the 3 B's, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Wagner, et al. aside and focus on lesser-known composers.)

[Grazioso]

Leevi Madetoja, a Finnish contemporary of Sibelius, who was well regarded in his day and still considered by critics to be one of the major Finnish symphonists (and who did what Sibelius didn't, write a very successful national opera), yet you rarely hear about him even among hardcore classical fans. Like Sibelius, Madetoja's symphonies combine northern Romanticism with clarity and compression, though that latter element of Madetoja's music was influenced in particular by his sojourns in France and respect for traditional Gallic musical virtues. While his output is relatively small (and recorded output even smaller), I'm really impressed with the assurance of his symphonies, their sheer tunefulness, and their variety, with each of the three markedly different from the others. I could easily imagine a wide range of music lovers enjoying these works.



You can also find his symphonies and other orchestral works on an excellent series of discs from the small Finnish label, Alba.

[Guido]

Strauss would be the one I think fits your original definition* best for me - reams of his music I find very boring, but the good bits are so good, that it's all worthwhile! (almost)

*you seem to be talking about very famous composers only - Fauré, Gluck, Brahms etc. rather than Marx, Reznicek, Tischenko and the like.

I'd like to point out that I find the whole idea of ranking composers utterly ludicrous and quite distasteful.

[Cato]

Gliere (the 3 symphonies), Liadov (basically everything: Kikimora, Baba Yaga, 8 Russian Folksongs, From the Apocalypse), and Busoni (the Piano Concerto and the opera Doctor Faust) are my choices for close to greatness, but as Tchaikovsky said of Glazunov, something held them back.

[Chaszz]

Chaszz, do you have any criteria whatsoever for ranking Brahms 2nd?

I put Brahms on the tops list because he is a master of classical form that still manages to find a personal voice that is still chromatic, and thus romantic.  He sounds deeply inspired by Beethoven, but unique in his own way not a knock off.  His works show a perfection from a deep commitment not seen often.  There are no others like him in his time.

Your turn.

It's fair to ask my criteria, which do not include either who inspired a composer nor whom he influenced. It is more to do with the direct effect on me. And this is in terms of emotion. Wven though I love form, and I do realize that art is a fusion of form and emotion, emotion is primarily why I listen to music. Brahms arouses great and deep emotions in me, but not so much as Wagner. Wagner's Siegfried's Rhine Journey, to name but one "bleeding chunk" alone, is to me greater than anything Brahms ever wrote in the intense feelings of life and joy it arouses in me. In general, Wagner arouses in me great happiness and optimism for the future, ironic in view of the pessimism of most of his stories. But then, I make a big distinction between his plots and his music.

My opinion only, not claiming this to be valid for anyone else.