# You can bring one composer back to life.



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Choose only one and the age you wish them to be, but there is a caveat. You will have to look after them, feed them, house them, put up with them until either of you succumb to whatever final act you commit on earth.

I would choose Clementi; teach him how to use Sibelius, use of my piano and see how prolific he might be with hopefully plenty of new piano sonatas for me to play!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Awkward thread. To hang with, Vivaldi and maybe Corelli would be enjoyable. I think many of the Composers are too serious to be easy to get along with. Maybe just Beeethoven. I think a part of what makes Composers great is they don't let distractions keep them from Composing great music.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Awkward thread. To hang with, Vivaldi and maybe Corelli would be enjoyable. I think many of the Composers *are too serious *to be easy to get along with. Maybe just Beeethoven. I think a part of what makes Composers great is they don't let distractions keep them from Composing great music.


Haha, what about Mozart and his jokes? 

But I agree, I would pick Vivaldi.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Schubert. I mean, he has so much potential. Died at the age of 31, he haven't written his 10th piano concerto, the 3rd Clarinet concerto, the 7th trombone concerto, the 4th Oboe concerto and many many more concertos. He would still write his 20th symphony, his 2350th lied, his first successful opera, and dozens of chamber works! In my estimation, at the rate of his writing songs, he would eventually surpass Bach to 10:1! 

Fancy thinking.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

It would have to be Mozart to complete his requiem with Schubert a close second.
It would be quite something to watch Mozart going through Beethoven's works - all the way up to the present and hear his opinion. Of course he would not go back to classical style - but I am convinced he would have something big to say.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

beetzart said:


> Choose only one and the age you wish them to be, but there is a caveat. You will have to look after them, feed them, house them, put up with them until either of you succumb to whatever final act you commit on earth.


That caveat throws a big spanner in the works. Taking this into account, I would say:

Bach - couldn't put up with the organ
Beethoven - too smelly and would cost too much in booze
Mozart - too frivolous and would probably need a whole wing to himself, not just a room 
Haydn - probably a bit ga-ga
Wagner - dodgy on the conversation front, might upset the neighbours
Brahms - too fussy and crotchety
Tchaikovsky - too troubled a mind
Schubert - wouldn't get much conversation out of him, too distant busy thinking up music
Handel - couldn't afford the food bill
Schumann - would need to fork out too much in psychiatric bills

..........

I think it would be Mendelssohn. A brilliant composer and conductor. A very clever man all round. I like his style. We were robbed 'cos he too died far too young with lots still to offer. I imagine he was well balanced, highly intelligent and one could laern a lot from him. I'd get him to write some of my T-C posts and hope to dazzle you all with my knowledge.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Liszt, and it isn't close. Not only for him being a great composer, but also one of the colossal personalities of all time, and one of the greatest exponents of the romantic spirit that I love. And oh, yeah - Liszt piano recitals at my house!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

*Ligeti* for obvious reasons
Webern: COMPLETE WORKS AND ARRANGEMENTS ON 5 DISCS IS NOT ENOUGH


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

Mozart, and made him listen to Chaliapin's recording of his aria "Madamina, il catalogo è questo". I think it could drive him crazy !

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B40Y-VZmolE


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Definitely Mozart. With modern medicine, the royalties for all his works and some luck he will live and work for another fifty or sixty years. Can one imagine what he could produce in that time with his prodigious talent and the developments of the last few centuries at his finger tips?


----------



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

Mahler in a heartbeat.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Ligeti* for obvious reasons
> Webern: COMPLETE WORKS AND ARRANGEMENTS ON 5 DISCS IS NOT ENOUGH


Webern, 4 cds and after 6 cds, Pierre Boulez. The guy was accidentally killed.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Many... Mozart, the same age he was when he died, Bartok, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky, Wagner, Puccini, Alban Beeg, Ligeti, Schnittke, Marilyn Monroe...LOL

Martin


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Bach. For obvious reasons.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Mozart.............with his limitless talents (and ability to "soak up" ,and learn from other composers) it is difficult to fathom what he could produce.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

I don't know. I'd like to say Mozart, with Schubert being a close second, but I know that if either of them were brought back to life today and had another 40 or 50 years to live and compose, what they would end up composing would ultimately be swayed by new styles that developed since they died, and as a result they would probably not be able to cope well, leaving us with new music that wouldn't live up to the high expectations people would have of them and certainly not being the compositions they would have composed had they lived a full life *in their own lifetime*.

Contemporary influence could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I fear it would ruin their images forever and ultimately be detrimental to the masterworks they did leave us with.

That said, it is astonishing to think that had Mozart lived a lifetime as long as Haydn, he would have outlived Beethoven. It's interesting to question whether or not this would have been a good thing. Could Beethoven have achieved what he did with Mozart staring over his shoulder? Things would certainly be different.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Beethoven, i would show him some modern classical music scores and tell him to bring Tonal music back to vogue!
( I don't actually know what is in the vogue on the classical world right now)
And i would ask him to compose a symphony!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

jani said:


> Beethoven, i would show him some modern classical music scores and tell him to bring Tonal music back to vogue!
> ( I don't actually know what is in the vogue on the classical world right now)
> And i would ask him to compose a symphony!


well, have you listened to Salonen's violin concerto?, he has won the 2012 Grawemeyer Award for that piece.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cul...-salonen-wins-the-2012-grawemeyer-award-.html
I would say that this is in vogue.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

If we could do stuff like bring people back from the dead, there would be no need for art. Pain and loss is what makes life precious.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

poconoron said:


> Mozart.............with his limitless talents (and ability to "soak up" ,and learn from other composers) it is difficult to fathom what he could produce.


Yes - he would kick *** for sure - out Ligeti Ligeti -and composeravantguarde would then have M has his top man - he would figure out his style and out do him without question and stick John in his Cage.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Contemporary influence could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I fear it would ruin their images forever and ultimately be detrimental to the masterworks they did leave us with.
> 
> That said, it is astonishing to think that had Mozart lived a lifetime as long as Haydn, he would have outlived Beethoven. It's interesting to question whether or not this would have been a good thing. Could Beethoven have achieved what he did with Mozart staring over his shoulder? Things would certainly be different.


There may have been no Beethoven era had M lived - M was making massive strides in the last few years and he would have taken music in his own new direction. Something better and even more daring than the Eroica would have appeared. Beethoven would have had to take that into account.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

if...if...if. No, people, Mozart died, and Beethoven won ! This is how reality looks today.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> That caveat throws a big spanner in the works. Taking this into account, I would say:
> 
> Bach - couldn't put up with the organ
> Beethoven - too smelly and would cost too much in booze
> ...


Excellent post!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Clara Schumann


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

No, people, Mozart died, and Beethoven won!

Beethoven won what?


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

The privilege of being the inventor of Romanticism. Don't take me seriously, I was just joking I am not a fanatic.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

Hildegard/Leonin/Perotin/early composer

just to see how much music has advanced from monophony


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would have to go with Mozart... followed by Schubert as a close second. Mozart was just really hitting his stride. I can't even begin to fathom what he might have achieved had he had another 30 years of more. I can imagine him going to London like Haydn and turning out another dozen symphonies on the level of his last few, a half-dozen more piano concertos, and certainly a slew of further operas and choral works. 

Schubert, on the other hand, may have had even more potential. What might he have achieved with the symphony with another 40 years? He was one of the greatest writers for voice... what might he have achieved in the realm of orchestral lieder, choral works, and opera if he had the time? What could he have achieved in the realm of piano sonatas and chamber works? What of a piano concerto or violin concerto?


----------



## Nolanws (Jul 16, 2012)

Moses Hogan!  for all his great choral work! an amazing man!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> The privilege of being the inventor of Romanticism. Don't take me seriously, I was just joking I am not a fanatic.


Or the one to blame for it. Depending how you look at it.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> Bach. For obvious reasons.


What are these reasons?

Martin, intrigued


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> What are these reasons?
> 
> Martin, intrigued


Why do you think ? He is obviously the composer who wrote the most technically challenging pieces. Imagine what he could do now, in present.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

jani said:


> Beethoven, i would show him some modern classical music scores and tell him to bring Tonal music back to vogue!
> ( I don't actually know what is in the vogue on the classical world right now)
> And i would ask him to compose a symphony!


Tonal and atonal are ok. Atonal people HERE want you to feel old fashion. You should not care! More people in this world like tonal than atonal music, I like both. There are not incompatible. In terms of music anything goes.

Martin


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I might like to bring back Pergolesi. The poor bloke had such a short life that it is tragic.

I'd love to Mozart's face, if you brought him back, and showed him the little memory cards you put in your phone and say 'everything you ever wrote is stored on this, Wolfie!'.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> if...if...if. No, people, Mozart died, and Beethoven won ! This is how reality looks today.


According to HMV, Mozart is the most bought composer on CD year in year out - who won?


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

stomanek said:


> who won?


His listeners


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

beetzart said:


> Choose only one and the age you wish them to be, but there is a caveat. You will have to look after them, feed them, house them, put up with them until either of you succumb to whatever final act you commit on earth.
> 
> ...


In terms of your 'caveat' it would have to be some filthy rich composer, so they would earn the money so looking after them would not be a burden financially (and might have some 'fringe benefits' for me attached :lol: ).

So these would do, and I also love their music!
Gershwin
Liszt
J. Strauss II...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sid... I thought for certain that you would have elected to bring back Richard Wagner...


If only to have it out with him.:lol:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Orlando Gibbons, ye olde englishman.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sid... I thought for certain that you would have elected to bring back Richard Wagner...
> 
> If only to have it out with him.:lol:


Don't need to bring him back. We've got one on this very forum, a green ghost of Wagner. I think he was also in the movie 'Ghostbusters' but unfortunately they didn't zap him. So he's come here and we're stuck with this guy, he's haunting the TC house.

...& besides, Richard was always in debt. So he doesn't fit in with the OP's 'caveat.' I don't want anything to do with any guy in debt. He's an albatross hanging around my neck. Those rich guys I put, they're better (esp. Gershwin). I would like the trickle down effect, maybe get a cut of their royalties or become their agent. I am a careerist, don't give a hoot about art. 'Porgy and Bess' beats any Wagner opera anyways.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

For me it would be Dietrich Buxtehude and/or Johann Pachelbel ... as an organist, I have great appreciation for their works which are always good audience pleasers at concerts and in service playing at church.

Kh


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Left to right: Verena Wagner (second daughter and youngest child of Siegfried Wagner, and youngest granddaughter of Richard Wager), Hitler, and Friedelind Wagner (first daughter and second child of Siegfried, and granddaughter of Richard).

Too much controversey! The Wagners are better off being dead.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^& the two ladies look like female versions of grandpa...SCARY


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Haydn; Brilliant and jolly, very hard to find both in classical composers. Or Glenn Gould, just so he could compose, conduct, write more. Ravel comes as a close second as I very much like his personality.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> Schubert. I mean, he has so much potential. Died at the age of 31, he haven't written his 10th piano concerto, the 3rd Clarinet concerto, the 7th trombone concerto, the 4th Oboe concerto and many many more concertos. He would still write his 20th symphony, his 2350th lied, his first successful opera, and dozens of chamber works! In my estimation, at the rate of his writing songs, he would eventually surpass Bach to 10:1!
> 
> Fancy thinking.


Good Lord, Schubert would surpass *Bach* 10:1?? Now thats just silly talk.

I agree with many here. Mozart, then Schubert. It might break my heart, though. If Mozart became a rapper, I would drink myself to death!

Now Beethoven, though. If 10 more years could mean more works at the sublime level of his last quartets and sonatas, that might be my choice. In fact, I would love to hear Mozart's reaction to those incomparable works.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

SottoVoce said:


> Haydn; Brilliant and jolly, very hard to find both in classical composers. Or Glenn Gould, just so he could compose, conduct, write more. Ravel comes as a close second as I very much like his personality.


Good god did haydn not live long enough as it is without bringing him back to write another 104 average symphonies.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Schumann. I have a psychotic family member, so it wouldn't be all that much different with him around.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Good god did haydn not live long enough as it is without bringing him back to write another 104 average symphonies.


They are not average.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Rapide said:


> Left to right: Verena Wagner (second daughter and youngest child of Siegfried Wagner, and youngest granddaughter of Richard Wager), Hitler, and Friedelind Wagner (first daughter and second child of Siegfried, and granddaughter of Richard).
> 
> Too much controversey! The Wagners are better off being dead.


What on earth does the fact that Wagner's grandchildren hung out with Hitler have to do with Wagner. Am I missing something here, of am to be eternally damned if down the road my great grandson's second cousin turns out to be a serial killer?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I agree with many here. Mozart, then Schubert. It might break my heart, though. If Mozart became a rapper, I would drink myself to death!

There's actually a classic science-fiction tale by Robert Silverberg entitled _Gianni_ that posits a scenario in which Giovanni Battista Pergolesi is brought back to life in the future. Pergolesi is given a crash course in the evolution of music. He is ecstatic over Bach, Haydn, C.P.E. Bach, and Mozart... whose innovations seem only inevitable to him. he sits up all night listening to Don Giovanni and Le Nozze di Figaro and begs the scientists to "bring back this Mozart as well... He is wonder! He is angel! He is too good!" Coming upon Berlioz and Wagner he calls them "lunatics." "Dementi pazzi, but they are wonderful... Madmen! Marvelous Madmen! Eventually arriving at the 20th century and Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Bartok he (naturally) finds them all ugly and incomprehensible, while Stockhausen, Ligeti, Penderecki, and Xenakis he refused to even recognize as music at all. But then he happens upon the pop music of the time... "music for _Imbecilli? Infanti?_" he queries. Discovering that this is the most popular music of the day, he abandons classical music altogether and turns to becoming the greatest virtuoso pop musician.:lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> They are not average.


No they're not. I think Mozart's half a dozen or so best are better than Haydn's - but if I were on a desert island I would rather have the Haydn 104. 
Knowing my luck though I would probably get lumbered with bach's complete cantatas.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

It would have to be Erik Satie, you'd have to keep him off the "pop" for his livers sake.
Life would certainly be interesting


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Knowing my luck though I would probably get lumbered with bach's complete cantatas.

"Lumbered?"

"Lumbered?!?!"


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Knowing my luck though I would probably get lumbered with bach's complete cantatas.
> 
> "Lumbered?"
> 
> "Lumbered?!?!"


Sorry - but much as I admire and rate bach - his cantatas are boring.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Criticisms are always levelled at Haydn, like those above. Yeah, his symphonies are 'average' (not). Haydn actually anticipated - well, in 'embryonic' form at the very least - many of Beethoven's symphonic innovations to come decades later. Not to speak of other genres, like chamber music and choral. But forget it. It's telling how if I said a similar thing about Bach's 60 or so cantatas (which I'm not commenting on, only using them as an example), I'd get whopped over the head (evidence to similar effect above). But if you pull down Haydn, or most other composers, it doesn't matter. Well I really don't care, except to say that double standards are at work here, big time.

Another totally futile and useless 'rant' over.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I think I'd bring back Tchaikovsky, or Chopin, or Shostakovich, so they could experience happier lives, in a world with more acceptance of homosexuality, better medical treatment, and if he lived here, not under oppression from a totalitarian state.

edit: and so I could give them a hug and my compassion and friendship.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

My choice should be obvious. 

I would want to meet Glazunov. I would want to hear his voice... I would do many a thing to get a chance to hear it. So I remember that he was indeed human. Despite is inhuman qualities...


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

beetzart said:


> I would choose Clementi; teach him how to use Sibelius, use of my piano and see how prolific he might be with hopefully plenty of new piano sonatas for me to play!


 Please don't!!! I mean, he's much happier as a ghost.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Rapide said:


> Left to right: Verena Wagner (second daughter and youngest child of Siegfried Wagner, and youngest granddaughter of Richard Wager), Hitler, and Friedelind Wagner (first daughter and second child of Siegfried, and granddaughter of Richard).
> 
> Too much controversey! *The Wagners are better off being dead.*


The Wagners are still very well alive and kicking, and still being photographed with German Chancellors:


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

trazom said:


> Please don't!!! I mean, he's much happier as a ghost.


He could haunt me anytime!


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Knowing my luck though I would probably get lumbered with bach's complete cantatas.
> 
> "Lumbered?"
> 
> "Lumbered?!?!"


I agree! Bach's Cantatas are the glorious works that completely opened my eyes to Bach! So I would do a snoopy dance if my desert island time were spent with the cantatas.


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> Schumann - would need to fork out too much in psychiatric bills


:lol:

I would want Schubert. I have a piano too. My neighbors houses are not close together so he can play piano all night long. I want him to write up to D.37528 for providing him room and food.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Muddy said:


> Good Lord, Schubert would surpass *Bach* 10:1?? Now thats just silly talk.


What I mean is, if the rate of Schubert writing songs is equal his writing of his other works, he would be more prolific than Bach.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sorry - but much as I admire and rate bach - his cantatas are boring.

To quote our beloved Composer of the Avant Garde:

"And your opinion would be: *WRONG!!!"*


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> What I mean is, if the rate of Schubert writing songs is equal his writing of his other works, he would be more prolific than Bach.


Ok, I'll concede that. I LOVE Schubert! Such a divine talent. But Bach. Bach. Just listen to his Mass in B Minor, and then listen....actually, if Schubert were aware of this debate, he would clear this up in a heart beat.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Criticisms are always levelled at Haydn, like those above. Yeah, his symphonies are 'average' (not). Haydn actually anticipated - well, in 'embryonic' form at the very least - many of Beethoven's symphonic innovations to come decades later. Not to speak of other genres, like chamber music and choral. But forget it. It's telling how if I said a similar thing about Bach's 60 or so cantatas (which I'm not commenting on, only using them as an example), I'd get whopped over the head (evidence to similar effect above). But if you pull down Haydn, or most other composers, it doesn't matter. Well I really don't care, except to say that double standards are at work here, big time.
> 
> Another totally futile and useless 'rant' over.


They're not average symphonies - though I do think that Haydn could have lived to be 200 and not written anything better than the last half dozen. How long did he live? 90 odd years? Listen to the progression in Mozart's symphonic output from sy 25 to sy 41 - he made a quantumn leap from sy 38 onwards - 38, 39, 40, 41 are all as different from each other as they are wonderful unique compositions. I would have expected M to go further and the quality of his inventions to improve further still - alas he died at 36 so we will never know - Haydn had 90 odd years and the world has the best of him so please don't go wishing for another dozen London symphonies - he's had his full say. 
The world doesn't need that. But it could use another year of M or Schubert for sure.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I know Haydn got as far and high as he could get with symphonies as well as other things. By the end of his life he was a tired and sick man. It is true that he lived much longer than Mozart, around double the time. But I was only defending Haydn as an innovator on his own terms/merits, not really aiming to bring Mozart into my argument. In any case, Beethoven adored Mozart, while at the same time claiming he didn't learn a thing (or much) from his brief time with Haydn. Literally that may have been the case, but subliminally at least, both the innovations of Haydn and Mozart in symphonies, concerto, string quartets and other genres, paved the way for the new century, for Beethoven and beyond.

I was just reflecting not only on your comments earlier but what I've read on this forum a fair few times, eg. that Haydn's symphonies are 'cookie cutter' and so on. Well there is a uniformity there, but that also has strengths, eg. in terms of him having unique unmistakable style. But there are unique features in many of his symphonies, not only the crowning 'London' sets, but also many others that were earlier.

I would give Mozart and Schubert more time to live. I think we all would. Haydn did accomplish what he wanted. But it doesn't mean his symphonies where 'average' which is what got me on that mini rant.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I prefer Haydn's Symphonies tbh.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ^^I know Haydn got as far and high as he could get with symphonies as well as other things. By the end of his life he was a tired and sick man. It is true that he lived much longer than Mozart, around double the time. But I was only defending Haydn as an innovator on his own terms/merits, not really aiming to bring Mozart into my argument. In any case, Beethoven adored Mozart, while at the same time claiming he didn't learn a thing (or much) from his brief time with Haydn. Literally that may have been the case, but subliminally at least, both the innovations of Haydn and Mozart in symphonies, concerto, string quartets and other genres, paved the way for the new century, for Beethoven and beyond.
> 
> I was just reflecting not only on your comments earlier but what I've read on this forum a fair few times, eg. that Haydn's symphonies are 'cookie cutter' and so on. Well there is a uniformity there, but that also has strengths, eg. in terms of him having unique unmistakable style. But there are unique features in many of his symphonies, not only the crowning 'London' sets, but also many others that were earlier.
> 
> I would give Mozart and Schubert more time to live. I think we all would. Haydn did accomplish what he wanted. But it doesn't mean his symphonies where 'average' which is what got me on that mini rant.


No I said they are fine symphonies and I also said I would rather have Haydn's 104 on a desert island than Mozart's half a dozen great symphonies.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Haydn has some great early Symphonies as well. Symphonies 7, 22, 26, 31, 39, 44, 45, 49 as example. Yes he is most famous for his London Symphonies but I tend to prefer his early stuff.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I used to have a CD of Pinnock doing the sturm and drang stuff and I thought it was fabulous.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

stomanek said:


> No I said they are fine symphonies and I also said I would rather have Haydn's 104 on a desert island than Mozart's half a dozen great symphonies.


It was your earlier comment describing Haydn's symphonies as "average" that caused the confusion. I see now that your intended point was that you believe Haydn peaked out in quality at a lower level than Mozart actually achieved by the time of Mozart's symphonies 39-41, and that you believe that Mozart would have gone on to achieve even higher quality symphonies had he lived longer. In this sense, Mozart was a bigger loss than Haydn. This sounds perfectly sensible to me. Incidentally, Haydn died at age 72, not in his 90s as you suggested.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Franz Liszt for piano lessons and to make amazing piano transcriptions of some of today's crappy pop songs, just to show who's the boss. Then he could go on tour playing these pieces, to become a superstar once again while I get part of the profits for bringing him back to life.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

beetzart said:


> Choose only one and the age you wish them to be, but there is a caveat. You will have to look after them, feed them, house them, put up with them until either of you succumb to whatever final act you commit on earth.
> 
> I would choose Clementi; teach him how to use Sibelius, use of my piano and see how prolific he might be with hopefully plenty of new piano sonatas for me to play!


I greatly appreciate your passion for Clementi. He is a favorite of mine as well.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> They're not average symphonies - though I do think that Haydn could have lived to be 200 and not written anything better than the last half dozen. How long did he live? 90 odd years? Listen to the progression in Mozart's symphonic output from sy 25 to sy 41 - he made a quantumn leap from sy 38 onwards - 38, 39, 40, 41 are all as different from each other as they are wonderful unique compositions. I would have expected M to go further and the quality of his inventions to improve further still - alas he died at 36 so we will never know - Haydn had 90 odd years and the world has the best of him so please don't go wishing for another dozen London symphonies - he's had his full say.
> The world doesn't need that. But it could use another year of M or Schubert for sure.


Have you heard his late masses? These are a continuation of his symphonies really, and they are on a new level. His polyphonic vocal writing is quite good, I've been privileged enough to hear some of it live and its moving music, not just intellectually interesting.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> It was your earlier comment describing Haydn's symphonies as "average" that caused the confusion. I see now that your intended point was that you believe Haydn peaked out in quality at a lower level than Mozart actually achieved by the time of Mozart's symphonies 39-41, and that you believe that Mozart would have gone on to achieve even higher quality symphonies had he lived longer. In this sense, Mozart was a bigger loss than Haydn. This sounds perfectly sensible to me. Incidentally, Haydn died at age 72, not in his 90s as you suggested.


I was being ironic of course. I have not heard even 1/4 of the 104 so should probably reserve my comments - though I know the London symphonies - the paris set - some of the earlier works. I was quite surprised when i heard sy no 1 - a very good work. Haydn was a great composer - I don't think he had quite the genuis that Mozart had - and I think he knew it - he loved Mozart's music and so did M love and respect Haydn. I do think M last 4 symphonies are all in the Eroica class - and I am convinced he would have achieved yet more in this - and of course - every other genre.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> Have you heard his late masses? These are a continuation of his symphonies really, and they are on a new level. His polyphonic vocal writing is quite good, I've been privileged enough to hear some of it live and its moving music, not just intellectually interesting.


Haydn's late masses actually anticipate a good deal of what Beethoven did in eg. 'Missa Solemnis,' Papa Haydn did it like roughly 15-20 years before Ludwig van. No doubt similar things can be said of Mozart's music, eg. the 'Great Mass in C.'

My point is that I dislike these 'dichotomy' games. They were all unique. I was not reacting to anything much except how Haydn seems an easy target. But if someone says they don't like a part of J.S. Bach's output - eg. his cantatas as someone said they dislike above, and my opinion is the same, although I like his chamber music - well you get trounced and given the old 'battering ram' (over)reaction.

People can worship whatever sacred cows they like, but it doesn't mean that everyone has to. Its a free world, people.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I'd revive Sibelius, enjoy some cigars and Finish vodka with him, touch his bald head for good luck.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

Mozart. I'd like to kick his *** in billiard.


----------



## Francesca (Feb 24, 2013)

I would have to choose 2, Liszt as someone else has said, he was the greatest virtuoso of his day, perhaps of all time as far as piano is concerned - and had great force of personality - but also Bach who had the most fertile musical imagination of any composer, I would love to ask him where he drew his inspiration from....


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I'll take Mendelssohn.  He seemed to be a rather refined chap, so he shouldn't be too difficult to live with. I could see living with his company and music on a daily basis.

Or maybe Ravel, because he didn't right near enough piano music. I don't know what I'm getting into personality wise. But, we're eventually going to refinish our basement, so if he's difficult I suppose he can have his own basement apartment and come up once a month or so with new batches of music. We'll have the basement furnished with a kitchenette, or I can send his meals down


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lisztian said:


> Liszt, and it isn't close. Not only for him being a great composer, but also one of the colossal personalities of all time, and one of the greatest exponents of the romantic spirit that I love. And oh, yeah - Liszt piano recitals at my house!


Yeah, Liszt could work out. However - if he gets to return to the prime of life, I must get the same deal. We could 'batch' together, sharing expenses. There could be some _very_ entertaining parties. And then I suppose there is the music thing.


----------



## FLighT (Mar 7, 2013)

MJongo said:


> Mahler in a heartbeat.


Yep, he really should finish the scoring and instrumentation on the 10th to end any further controversy about it and to get it into the concert hall on a more regular basis.


----------



## PavelC (Oct 6, 2012)

Sonata said:


> I'll take Mendelssohn.  He seemed to be a rather refined chap, so he shouldn't be too difficult to live with. I could see living with his company and music on a daily basis.
> 
> Or maybe Ravel, because he didn't right near enough piano music. I don't know what I'm getting into personality wise. But, we're eventually going to refinish our basement, so if he's difficult I suppose he can have his own basement apartment and come up once a month or so with new batches of music. We'll have the basement furnished with a kitchenette, or I can send his meals down


Though I understand the humorous approach many of you have, but while reading some of the posts I only think that you might "keep" the composer only for him to compose. Why not consider how amazed they would be about their surroundings?
Imagine the hardships of explaining all the progress the music has been through since their death, and not music only, how would they see the world as it is , a "free" world. Most of the music they've composed was because they were "forced" to do so, either to keep up with the expenses or please the regime. Art comes from struggle. Would they still be so productive now?
Given the liberty I would choose Mozart, many of you have already written why, above. Also I think that he, or many other composers would rather be tolerant and would find the sounds produced nowadays "interesting", not just "music for imbeciles".

Come on, just imagine the enthusiasm from the world music...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Rossini, for sure. He was a great chef, and the price of his resurrection would be to cook a gourmet dinner here once a week.

But I wouldn't ask him to compose.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

Usually I would definitely choose Mendelssohn, but today I'll choose Borodin, because I think he deserves some more time to focus on composing, and I happen to be struggling with my chemistry homework so it'd be nice to get some help. :lol:


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Had another thought: Clara Schumann. In this life, I'd let her focus on composing more of her own music.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

PavelC said:


> Though I understand the humorous approach many of you have, but while reading some of the posts I only think that you might "keep" the composer only for him to compose. Why not consider how amazed they would be about their surroundings?
> Imagine the hardships of explaining all the progress the music has been through since their death, and not music only, how would they see the world as it is , a "free" world. Most of the music they've composed was because they were "forced" to do so, either to keep up with the expenses or please the regime. Art comes from struggle. Would they still be so productive now?
> Given the liberty I would choose Mozart, many of you have already written why, above. Also I think that he, or many other composers would rather be tolerant and would find the sounds produced nowadays "interesting", not just "music for imbeciles".
> 
> Come on, just imagine the enthusiasm from the world music...


Very interesting thoughts indeed.


----------



## conclass (Jan 12, 2013)

Beethoven, my friends, who else? Beethoven is energy, pure energy, creative energy!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

We should be careful what we wish for in this thread. Remember:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey's_Paw


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

If not myself- I feel but dead, then EDGARD VARÉSE.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I will admit to having fantasized about explaining the current state of music to a recently revived J.S. Bach, so I guess that's my choice. He doesn't seem to difficult to take care of , and he apparently had a habit of leading extended _a capella_ improvisations before dinner, which is awesome. Just have to keep him away from bassoonists.

As for Wagner, my favourite composer of the moment...yeah, he can stay dead.


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

That story by 'Jacob's'... is a Cracker, Ken!


----------



## CoCo (Mar 19, 2013)

I'd like to bring Mozart back to life and ask him to write another concerto for Horn.
And then also, I could see if he looks like the picture published in the paper the other month...that is meant to be of him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...rait-that-shows-musician-without-his-wig.html


----------



## OboeKnight (Jan 25, 2013)

I'd bring Tchaikovsky back and request that he write an oboe concerto with as much sentiment and passion as his Violin concerto in D Major....mmmm. I'd also like to show him how he is considered a genius now and that his works are some of the most celebrated pieces of music ever. It might cheer him up after all those horrendous reviews he was given at the majority of his premiers.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I've given this some thought since the question was posted, and while my gut perhaps says that Shostakovich or Mahler would be the perfect, prolonging their life's with 20-30 years without illnesses and perhaps only top revive in their own period. I can't really think of anyone historically to bring back that would not become bonkers and run a muck by the difference in everything that has happened since their time.

I would probably choose someone quite recent who did not get any recognition by their own time and who lost their life tragically. One such that come to mind is the very original* Swedish late romantic composer Claude Loyola Allgén who lived in severe self inflicted poverty (to save money for an orphanage he had helped set up) and who lost his life in a tragic fire living in his parents derelict house, a place filled with news papers and candles for only heating, in 1990.
I'd like to bring him back now to show him that he is finally getting some deserved recognition!

/ptr

*Just to give a glimpse of how "original" he was, his second violin concerto 'I capricci' use Paganini's 24 Capricci for solo violin as thematic material and use it for at set of variations, one movement for each Paganini Capriccio, I have not seen the score myself, by a Violinist I know have seen fragments of it and estimate that each movement is about an hour long! Not a Concerto for wusses...


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

CoCo said:


> And then also, I could see if he looks like the picture published in the paper the other month...that is meant to be of him.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...rait-that-shows-musician-without-his-wig.html


The problem with Wolfie's portraits is that he looks completely different in all of them. Which probably means he wasn't very interesting-looking and his portraitists were making things up.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Richard Wagner


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Rapide said:


> Richard Wagner


Would that be wise...............


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

For me it would be Bruckner, so he could finally complete his 9th symphony . Actually, the finale IS pretty much complete except for the coda . If he had lived longer he could have put the finale in its definitive form .


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

Without any hesitation, Schubert. He is one of my favorite composers and could do so much more living more 40-50 years. After composing symphonies 8 and 9, just imagine how amazing would be the next ones.


----------



## worov (Oct 12, 2012)

Bach has to come back to complete the Art of Fugue.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Glazunov, no doubt about it. Not that I would ask him to compose much more for me, maybe just a flute work or 2, but I'd just want to meet him...


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

I would choose Charles Tomlinson Griffes (Elmira, New York, September 17, 1884 – New York City, April 8, 1920). His output was extremely varied in style and in genre; he died young (influenza). He would've given us much more music to enjoy if he had lived longer.


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

Gershwin, so he could write his Symphony. The orchestration skills he employed for his Piano Concerto shows he is capable of the task.

He could also throw in some more concert works as well, while he's here.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Mozart as he had so much development on so many fronts 'waiting in the wings' had those 'sad wings of destiny' not taken him, yes, has to be 'The Divine M' (no doubt about it).


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Wagner,just to see how he would react to the crazy contemporary productions of his great works at
Bayreuth & elsewhere ! I'd love to see the expression on his face !




:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford (Feb 8, 2014)

Bach for me!! I love his music, and I could do with a few lessons from the master himself!


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

I've often listened to pieces and wondered what Mozart would think of them. What would he think of Stravinsky, Ravel, or Mussorgsky? Would he like the music of John Williams, or would he consider it uninspired? Would he find Beethoven's music to be as powerful as people consider it to be?

Somebody mentioned earlier about not knowing what Mozart looked like, as many paintings were either poorly done, not done in his lifetime, or are possibly not even of the composer himself. We all have a good idea as to what Beethoven looked like, as there is some consistency, as well as life and death masks, and busts based upon them.








The above photo is one of the very few examples of Mozart actually being in front of the artist for the portrait. The other famous painting is a copy of another painting and it was done years after Mozart was gone.

What kind of character was Mozart. I feel like I can relate more to Beethoven, but I feel like Mozart would be a fun guy to be around, until the money runs out.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

superhorn said:


> Wagner,just to see how he would react to the crazy contemporary productions of his great works at
> Bayreuth & elsewhere ! I'd love to see the expression on his face !


I think he would be the one to set Bayreuth on fire.


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

Charles Tomlinson Griffes: He's another one who died young (age 35) whose output included art songs, tone poems, ballets and more in a variety of styles. It would be interesting to hear what he might have come up with.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Delius, because I think he would be more surprised that most others to find himself alive again.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think it'd be really funny to bring back Haydn or Mozart just to hear them shock people by hating everything after Beethoven's middle period. 

Which is what they would probably do.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I compose sometimes - could I bring myself back to life after I die?


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

science said:


> I think it'd be really funny to bring back Haydn or Mozart just to hear them shock people by hating everything after Beethoven's middle period.
> 
> Which is what they would probably do.


Of course, objectively speaking no one should be shocked. After all, Bach and Mozart are the pinnacle of humanity's music, and everything afterwards _is_ worse. So in reality, they would be pointing out the facts.


----------



## BubbleBobble (Jul 31, 2011)

Chopin

that's my bro right there B-)

ummm doesn't matter what age I guess...


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Beethoven for sure. Maybe could get him to do a another opera.


----------



## BubbleBobble (Jul 31, 2011)

Beethoven seems like he'd be annoying to put up with :3


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Zappa, so he can run for president. Because Trump and Ben Carson are too stupid.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Puccini.

So we can get a decent ending to Turandot.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

George Butterworth - died at age 31. Based on what we have from his pen, probably one of the most serious losses to music due to world war 1


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

I was going to say Beethoven at first, but he's going to be extremely difficult to take care of, so I'm going with Haydn. He seems nice and mature enough. Or Bach, but he'll definitely reprimand me over and over for my procrastination habits...

No, wait. Actually I'll go with Bach. Yep. So I can find out more about his personality as well as whether his voice actually sounds like Mindy Kaling's. Besides, I need to get my procrastination issues fixed.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

No one, lets the dead be dead en enjoy what they left behind .


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

I would've said Beethoven, but one bipolar person is enough for a household.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Pugg said:


> No one, lets the dead be dead en enjoy what they left behind .


That's no fun. x(


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Becca said:


> George Butterworth - died at age 31. Based on what we have from his pen, probably one of the most serious losses to music due to world war 1


At least he left enough songs for us to know that he was certainly adept in that particular department - had he lived I'd have liked to have seen how (or if) he would have developed as a composer of larger-scale orchestral and choral works. Sad loss.


----------



## Baregrass (Feb 16, 2015)

Just found this cool thread! Good picks from a lot of people. I am going to break the rules and pick two. Corelli and Vivaldi so I can have musical discussions with two that were in on the ground floor so to speak. Besides both were excellent musicians but so was Bach. Tough choices. Can I have three?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

J.S. Bach. But then I am sure he'd take one look at the mess we've created and immediately jump back in his coffin.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Gesualdo, so he can murder more people as a zombie.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Gesualdo, so he can murder more people as a zombie.


F***ing YES. And then talk classical can kill him again.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I choose L. Boulanger. She would have surpassed Debussy in both fame and amount of incredible music if she lived even at least a decade or two longer.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Or she would have taken the neoclassical turn and become another average composer disappointing everyone. We'll never know.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Or she would have taken the neoclassical turn and become another average composer disappointing everyone. We'll never know.


Would she have been a second rate Milhaud or better than Dutilleux, we will never know.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Got to be Schubert, sit him down and ask him to finish what he started


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Haydn man said:


> Got to be Schubert, sit him down and ask him to finish what he started


"No more bratwurst for you, Franz, until you get it done!"


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

beetzart said:


> Choose only one and the age you wish them to be, but there is a caveat. You will have to look after them, *feed them*, house them, put up with them until either of you succumb to whatever final act you commit on earth.


That actually made me laugh out loud. FEED THEM! How did you ever think of that?


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

mstar said:


> That actually made me laugh out loud. FEED THEM! How did you ever think of that?


I think they meant in general just having them as a member of the household, like a sibling or something. Though - as a general rule of thumb - if there's food involved, do not, I repeat, *do not* bring Handel.


----------

