# How would you rank countries for their contribution to Classical music



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Say from 1600-1950, mainly based on the quality of composers each country produced.
Mine would be as follows:

1. Germany
2, France
3. Austria
4. Russia
5. Italy
6. Hungary,
7. Czech Republic/Bohemia
8. England
9. Finland
10. USA
11. Denmark
12. Norway
13. Poland
14. Ireland
15. Belgium


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Based on my own taste, and with 3 main composers per country as example*:

1. Germany (Bach, Brahms, Wagner)
2. Austria (Mahler, Schubert, Bruckner)
3. Russia/Soviet Union (Shostakovich, Gubaidulina, Tchaikovsky)
4. France (Ravel, Debussy, Faure)
5. UK (Moeran, Bax, Vaughan Williams)
6. Finland (Sibelius, Rautavaara, Sallinen)
7. Czechia (Dvorak, Suk, Martinu)
8. Poland (Chopin, Górecki, Szymanowski)
9. Italy (Respighi, Puccini, Scelsi)
10. USA (Barber, Adams, Reich)
11. Norway (Grieg, Svendsen, Tveitt)
12. Denmark (Nielsen, Holmboe, Glass)
13. Switzerland (Huber, Honegger, Martin)
14. Sweden (Alfven, Atterberg, Nystroem)
15. Netherlands (H Andriessen, Diepenbrock, van Gilse)

* and extending the range to 2017 rather than 1950.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> Based on my own taste, and with 3 main composers per country as example*:
> 
> 1. Germany (Bach, Brahms, Wagner)
> 2. Austria (Mahler, Schubert, Bruckner)
> ...


Italy on the 9th place  Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Verdi ??????????
I would rank 'Italy' (the geographical area) together with 'Germany' (geographically) #1

The whole idea of 'countries' is 19th century stuff.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> Based on my own taste....


I can do without Verdi (except Requiem) and Monteverdi.
:tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

IMO, a meaningful answer would require breaking it down by shorter periods: Italy for a century and a half, then Germany/Austria for a similar period, and finally Russia for the last century plus. Otherwise one is simply declaring which period and set of composers one prefers.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2017)

1. Canada...definitely... indisputably...but a "Canada" which doesn't include Quebec...
2. Canada again...definitely... indisputably...except this time a "Canada" which does include Quebec...

Canada's contributions to classical music are so exceptionally profound that they deserve both of the top two rankings but a more accurate and decisive way to express this would be to think of Canada (without including Quebec) as "1A" and Canada (including Quebec) as "1B"...






Pretty catchy tune, eh?

Numbers 3 through 9 left intentionally blank for reasons too obvious to be elaborated upon...

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Ireland - one name says all that needs to be said and that name is "Enya"...

Now that I've settled that to everyone's satisfaction I'll move along to a more relevant thread... No need to thank me for settling this question to everyone's satisfaction - just click on the "Like this post" button - (preferably several times - keep clicking on it until you break it, don't worry they'll replace it- I'm running waaaaaaay behind everyone else on "Likes" for reasons which are inexplicable to me...)

One last note... Unless you are intentionally trying to make me cry please do not mention the score of this game...


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Canada without Quebec? Don't be silly! Or indeed, optimistic. With Quebec included, at least they can rival, in terms of contribution to serious music, other giants such as Luxembourg, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and of course, Ireland!


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

How come Lichtenstein isn't listed?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Triplets said:


> How come Lichtenstein isn't listed?


Liechtenstein actually produced one reasonably well-known composer, Josef Rheinberger (many works available on CD).


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2017)

Triplets said:


> How come Lichtenstein isn't listed?


No one could spell it...


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2017)

Robert Pickett said:


> Canada without Quebec? Don't be silly! Or indeed, optimistic. With Quebec included, at least they can rival, in terms of contribution to serious music, other giants such as Luxembourg, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and of course, Ireland!


Well-spoken, sir, my compliments!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

beetzart said:


> Say from 1600-1950, mainly based on the quality of composers each country produced.
> Mine would be as follows:
> 
> 1. Germany
> ...


Reasonable list. I would put Poland at no. 11 with other greats including Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Panufnik, Tansman, and Bacewicz. And USA and Finland ahead of England for my own taste.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2017)

This is actually a pretty interesting idea for a thread - my compliments... wish I would have thought of it...


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Liechtenstein have the same national anthem as the UK!!! Oben am jungen Rhein uses our tune! A wonderful contribution to plagiarism, perhaps?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Starthrower - a damn good list of Poles there! I'm a big fan of Panufnik, and a fan of the others, but I know little of Tansman. Any pointers???


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

What's almost frightening is what the status of classical music would have been without Germany's contribution.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

Is this just supposed to be based on what countries we enjoy the composers from the most? If that is the case, here is my list.
1. England
2. Russia
3. United States
4. Finland
5. Germany
6. Austria
7. France
8. Hungary
9. Mexico
10. Argentina
11. Brazil
12. Denmark
13. Czech Republic (Czechia?)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'll just go with my favorites:

1. Germany
2. Austria
3. Russia
4. Czech Republic
5. England


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

DaveM said:


> What's almost frightening is what the status of classical music would have been without Germany's contribution.


I believe Marx said something like: "France brought the world a political revolution, England brought the world an industrial (economic/scientific) revolution, Germany only brought the world a philosophical revolution". I think you can extend the philosophy into arts (including music). Of course Marx ("historical materialism") meant it derogatively: France and England really changed the world while Germany only produced 'thinkers' who didn't help anyone to improve his life. But I think Germany's achievement in art and philosophy is truly great - Germany has been the Athens of modern times.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

It's difficult to choose

1. England 
2. Russia and Soviet Union
3. Germany and Austria (yes, I cheated here)
4. France
5. Scandinavia (yes, I cheated here)
6. Italy 
7. USA 
8. Central Europe (Czech, Hungary etc yes, I cheated here)
9. Poland
10. Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil (yes, I really cheated here)


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

R3PL4Y said:


> Is this just supposed to be based on what countries we enjoy the composers from the most? If that is the case, here is my list.
> 1. England
> 2. Russia
> 3. United States
> ...


The Czech Republic consists of Czechia (Bohemia), Moravia & Silesia. When you choose 'Czechia', you get Dvorak; Silesia = Janacek. Moravia may take pride at being the birthplace of Bedrich Smetana & Gustav Mahler.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

England?

you must be americans saying england. Should be UK or Gb surely.

here is my list

1. austria (Moz/Schubert/Haydn/J Strauss)
2. Germany (Beet + Bach + Brahms)
3. UK (Elgar/RVW/Britten/Walton erm, all english)
4. Russia (Tchaik/Shost/Prok)


after that I'm not interested in ranking.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nothing wrong with "England." We happily say "Russia" when much of the music from there that we love was actually written in the USSR. And Beethoven insisted that he was a "German" composer even though there was no nation of Germany until 1871!

"If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England."

Doesn't sound quite as good if you say "the UK" instead... :lol:


----------



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

_Nothing wrong with "England"._ That's OK for you Ken, but it's England that tends to get the stick when the Scots and Welsh assume they're being left out. :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Nothing wrong with "England." We happily say "Russia" when much of the music from there that we love was actually written in the USSR. And Beethoven insisted that he was a "German" composer even though there was no nation of Germany until 1871!
> 
> "If I should die, think only this of me:
> That there's some corner of a foreign field
> ...


And if Brooke had been a scot he would have said forever scotland.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
not forgetting Scotland and Wales of course.”

How does that scan?


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> "If I should die, think only this of me:
> That there's some corner of a foreign field
> That is for ever the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
> not forgetting Scotland and Wales of course."
> ...


How about Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Those are really in the corners of a foreign field...


----------



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

KenOC said:


> "If I should die, think only this of me:
> That there's some corner of a foreign field
> That is for ever the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
> not forgetting Scotland and Wales of course."
> ...


You only then have to include the Isle of Man and you've pretty much cracked it.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

TxllxT said:


> The Czech Republic consists of Czechia (Bohemia), Moravia & Silesia. When you choose 'Czechia', you get Dvorak; Silesia = Janacek. Moravia may take pride at being the birthplace of Bedrich Smetana & Gustav Mahler.


Pedant alert!!!!! The village of Kaliště, where Mahler was born is in Bohemia. Jihlava, where he moved when a few months old, is mainly in Moravia, The old historical border runs through the north west edge of the town. The region is now called Vysočina, So the old boundaries are nowadays somewhat blurred. Even more pedantically, Janacek's home of Hukvaldy Is in Lassko, Moravia, just......!


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

.....And when you call it Czechia, you have a hideous name for a country, which I hope and pray never ever catches on!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Robert Pickett said:


> .....And when you call it Czechia, you have a hideous name for a country, which I hope and pray never ever catches on!


It is the version recommended by the Czech government (link).


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

All the more reason to ignore it!!!!!


----------



## vigilantviking (Dec 10, 2021)

I'm a little surprised to see Italy doing so poorly in the rankings given that Italy produced Vivaldi, Verdi, Monteverdi, Puccini, Scarlatti, Palestrina, Rossini, Paganini, Respighi, Corelli, Donizetti, Albinoni, Tartini and at least 200 others


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

1. Austria/Germany

2. Italy

3. Russia

4. France

5. Czech Republic

6. Britain

7. United States

Those are the most important contributors. Other contributors include the Netherlands, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, and Norway.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Some countries - some not even listed here - have one composer (i.e. Sibelius, Nielsen. Grieg. Enescu, Franck, Villa-Lobos, Ginastera) worth ten of another country's best. Even among countries with many famous composers, numbers alone are deceptive. France has far and away more famous composers than any other, yet Austria's relatively low numbers mean little considering who is on their roster. Some countries churn out a lot more composers than others, but not always the same number of geniuses. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story... America, Spain [cough, cough]). Anyway, here is the Top 10 (11 if you count Austria and Germany separately) countries in terms of raw numbers of noteworthy composers starting from the Middle Ages. I'll leave the rankings up to you.

France (45)
Adam, Alkan, Berlioz, Bizet, Boulez, Canteloube, Chabrier, G. Charpentier, M.A. Charpentier, Chausson, F. Couperin, Debussy, Delibes, d'Indy, Dufay, Dukas, Duparc, Duruflé, Dutilleux, Fauré, Gounod, Hahn, Halévy, Honegger, Jannequin, Josquin, Lalo, Lully, Machaut, Marais, Massenet, Messiaen, Milhaud, Offenbach, Perotin, Pierné, Poulenc, Rameau, Ravel, Roussel, Saint-Saëns, Satie, Schmitt, A.Thomas, Varèse

Italy (37)
Albinoni, Allegri, Bellini, Boccherini, Boito, Busoni, Catalani, Cilea, Cherubini, Cimarosa, Clementi, Corelli, Donizetti, Durante, Frescobaldi, G Gabrieli, Gesualdo, Giordano, Leoncavallo, Locatelli, Manfredini, Mascagni, Monteverdi, Paganini, Palestrina, Pergolesi, Ponchielli, Puccini, Respighi, Rossini, A. Scarlatti, D. Scarlatti, Tartini, Torelli, Verdi, Vivaldi, Zandonai

Germany (27)
C.P.E. Bach, J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruch, Flotow, Gluck, Handel, Henze, Hildegard of Bingen, Hindemith, Humperdinck, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Orff, Pachelbel, Reger, Schumann, Schütz, Spohr, Stockhausen, R. Strauss, Telemann, Wagner, Weber, Weill, Wolf

Russia (23)
Arensky, Balakirev, Borodin, Glazunov, Gliere, Glinka, Gubaidulina, Ippolitov-Ivanov, Kabalevsky, Kalinnikov, Liadov, Mussorgsky, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rubinstein, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shchedrin, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Taneyev, P.I. Tchaikovsky

England (21)
Arnold, Bantock, Bax, Bridge, Britten, Byrd, Delius, Dowland, Dunstable, Elgar, Gibbons, Holst, Morley, Purcell, Sullivan, Tallis, Tippett, Vaughan Williams, Walton, Weelkes, Wilbye

USA (20)
Adams, Barber, L. Bernstein, Cage, Carter, Chadwick, Copland, Floyd, Gershwin, Glass, Goldsmith, Gottschalk, Herrmann, Hovhaness, Ives, Joplin, Reich, Sousa, Still, Williams

Austria (17)
Berg, Bruckner, Haydn, Hummel, Korngold, Kreisler, Mahler, Mozart, Schmidt, Schoenberg, Schreker, Schubert, J. Strauss Jr., Josef Strauss, Suppé Webern, Zemlinsky

Poland (10)
Chopin, Godowsky, Górecki, Lutosławski, Moszkowski, Paderewski, Panufnik, Penderecki, Szymanowski,Wieniawski

Spain (10)
Albéniz, Arriaga, de Falla, Granados, Mompou, Rodrigo, Sarasate, Tarrega. Turina, Victoria

Czech Republic / Bohemia (7)
Biber, Dvořák, Fibich, Janáček, Martinů, Smetana, Suk

Hungary (7)
Bartók, Dohnanyi, Goldmark, Kodály, Lehár, Ligeti, Liszt


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

1. Germany
2. Austria
3. Italy
4. Russia
5. France/UK/USA
8. Scandinavia
9. Bohemia & environs
10. Poland


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"there was no country called "Germany" in Mozart's day; rather, there were hundreds of independent or quasi-independent German-speaking states. Of these, Prussia was already on the rise, expanding its territory, and it was under Prussian leadership that Germany was ultimately unified in 1871. It was only as of that year that one could speak of a German nation-state.
However, the word "German" (in German: deutsch) was in use well before this time, designating the people of central Europe who shared German language and culture. To give an example, when in 1801 Mozart's old colleague Emanuel Schikaneder opened the Theater an der Wien in Vienna, a Leipzig music journal praised the new theater as "the "most comfortable and satisfactory in the whole of Germany". The city of Salzburg, owing to its fine ecclesiastical architecture, was sometimes called "the German Rome"."

"For administrative purposes, the Holy Roman Empire was divided into "circles". The Austrian Circle included the original Archduchy of Austria, as well as a number of other areas now part of modern Austria. Salzburg was not included; it was part of the Bavarian Circle.
"Austria" in Mozart's time could mean (in increasing order of size), the Archduchy of Austria, the Austrian Circle, and the Habsburg-ruled lands. None of these included Salzburg."

_"If Germany, my beloved fatherland, of whom you know I am proud, will not accept me, then must I, in the name of God, again make France or England richer by one capable German; - and to the shame of the German nation."_


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Holy Roman Empire notwithstanding

1. Germany
2. France
3. Austria
4. Italy
5. Hungary
6. Russia
7. United Kingdom
8. Finland
9. Poland
10. USA


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"This also explains why Mozart was not a political animal: the state was of even less interest to him than society, with political theories belonging in the realm of abstraction, a world that could not be grasped through the senses and for which he therefore had no time. Here, as elsewhere, there was a vast gulf between him and his father, who was unusually interested in both the theory of practice and politics. For Mozart, conversely, political principles were a matter of almost total indifference and he had time only for the people who represented them, hence the fact that in his choice of friends he never allowed himself to be influenced by political considerations. Very rarely do we find sudden outbursts of the kind that occurred in 1782, following the British successes at Gibraltar, when he proudly called himself an 'out-and-out-Englishman.' But these were no more than passing moods and they fade into total insignificance beside the fact that the most important political event that he lived to witness, the French Revolution, receives not a single word of mention in his letters. Never once do we hear him speak of freedom, equality, human rights, and so on as universal demands. Whenever he came into contact with individuals who championed these principles, as occasionally happened in Masonic lodges, it was again the people who fascinated him, not the principles. As a result, readers will search his letters in vain for a political creed. [...] 
Striking, by contrast, are the frequent professions of Germanness that we have already encountered and that we shall encounter on many further occasions in the course of the following pages. In this, Mozart was markedly different from both Haydn and Beethoven. That these were not merely occasional outbursts is clear from their sheer number. Nor was this the egoistical patriotism of his father, a sentiment born of hatred and envy of the Italians, but the increasingly clear awareness that, thanks to the actions of Frederick the Great, intellectual forces were beginning to stir in Germany that he recognized as more closely related to his own view of the world than the spirit that blew in from abroad. As a result, he was not a patriot in the modern, middle-class sense of the term and was probably something more than this: he was pleased to have discovered new wellsprings of artistic strength on German soil and insisted on their exploitation in order to increase Germany's might and prestige. Even today, we may reckon this to his credit."
[ W.A. Mozart | Hermann Abert | P. 736~737 ]


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

1. Germany
2 Austria
3. Russia
4 France
5. Italy
6. Czech Republic/Bohemia
7. Hungary 
8. Great-Britain
9. Finland
10. USA
11. Poland
12. Norway
13. Denmark
14. Ireland
15. Belgium


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

I have a strange feeling that the extent of contributions of the diverse 'Americans' might still be underrated because of:
1. Their contributions coming relatively recently and in the time of the greatest divergences in music
2. Coming from 'the other' side of the Atlantic, thus making it easy for many conservative Europeans to not bother with / ignore American music

Their roster is very strong and increasing with each decade, in part because of how populous the country is.

imho:
1. Germany / Austria
2. France
3. Italy

and then USA, even ahead of Russia.

The fame of further nations gets more and more sketchy because of how often it rests on the shoulders of fewer than 5 exceptional individuals, some of whom studied / worked away from where they were born


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

The German-speaking countries and Italy, and then everybody else wherever.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Austria is easily at the top, alone when you consider how influential Haydn and Schönberg were.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

United States
France
Italy

all others


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

That there was no "Germany" is a moot point. There was no "Italy" before the mid-19th either but there seems to be hardly any doubt about what belongs to Italian art and music within this period despite the region being divided politically.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I have a strange feeling that the extent of contributions of the diverse 'Americans' might still be underrated because of:
> 1. Their contributions coming relatively recently and in the time of the greatest divergences in music
> 2. Coming from 'the other' side of the Atlantic, thus making it easy for many conservative Europeans to not bother with / ignore American music
> 
> ...


the US actually has something of a natural advantage as it was the center of the universe as far as the recording industry went- only the UK was close. i do think it helped the likes of more "outside" US greats like Partch, Crumb, Moondog etc get recorded, though that's just part of the game.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Germany boasts four giants: Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and Brahms. That's almost enough for me, but then there are Buxtehude, Telemann, Handel, the other Bachs, Gluck, Weber, Mendelsssohn, Schumann, Hindemith and a host of others.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Kreisler jr said:


> That there was no "Germany" is a moot point. There was no "Italy" before the mid-19th either but there seems to be hardly any doubt about what belongs to Italian art and music within this period despite the region being divided politically.


One thought is - it may be that Italy was/is relatively easy to define geographically were as Germany with so many historically flexible land borders is less so.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

1. Europe.
2 = North America.
2 = Rest of the World.

I know the above areas are not countries but given over the lifespan of 'classical music' borders and names within these borders have changed so much I like to keep things simple.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

What is a country? Was the HRE a country or a confederation? If it was a confederation then Bach came from Saxe-Eisenach, Beethoven came from the Electrorate of Cologne etc. If the HRE was a country then was it Germany?

So for this purpose I rather define the countries by ethnicity instead of in an legalistic way. It makes more sense.

1. Germany including Austria (and Austria would rather easily win a competition against other german states)
2. Russia
3. Italy
I have to admit that France probably must be 4th but french culture does not convince me in terms of style.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

i think the US is also a bit advantageous these days as the more rigidly "institutional" style of the 20th century French school is a bit out of fashion these days, while a lot of work done by Americans over that period benefited from not being part of the backlash to the Boulez-ian parties.


----------



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

I would still put all German composers together as German even though the country didn't officially exist prior to 1871 (same principle applies to Italy). I'm not convinced that Beethoven would consider himself a Westphalian rather than a German. Of course, the Venn Diagram factor with regards to parts of the German Confederation which came into being in 1815 muddied the waters further, just like the Holy Roman Empire did before it.

The original question itself? Tough, but the four heavy hitters for me are Germany, Italy, Austria and France (in that order) based not just on their own individual contributions but their various levels of influence on other countries which hadn't yet established much of a foothold by the mid 19th century (esp. Russia and Great Britain). 

Bonus prize goes to Finland for punching above her weight in terms of the amount of notable composers in relation to her small population.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Germany boasts four giants: Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and Brahms. That's almost enough for me, but then there are Buxtehude, Telemann, Handel, the other Bachs, Gluck, Weber, Mendelsssohn, Schumann, Hindemith and a host of others.


I only have one German on my list of my ten favorite composers and none from your "giants+": Kurt Weill.

The rest of the countries represented are two Russians (although one was born in Poland), one from Switzerland, one from Poland, one from Argentina, one from France, three from the US.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I only have one German on my list of my ten favorite composers and none from your "giants+": Kurt Weill.
> 
> The rest of the countries represented are two Russians (although one was born in Poland), one from Switzerland, one from Poland, one from Argentina, one from France, three from the US.


The thread title is "How would you rank countries for their contribution to Classical music"? Contribution to classical music, not to my personal pleasure or CD collection. At this point in my life I can hardly even say who my personal favorite composers are; all four of the Big Guys I mention would have to be somewhere among them, though not necessarily at the top, at least not consistently over the years.

These composers _are_ giants, by the way, not "giants," by almost any criteria Western musical culture has devised for evaluating its producers. Not coincidentally, composers who are not considered giants have tended to agree on who the giants are. The ability of some composers to have a strong and broad impact on others is one of the things - but only one - that make them giants. It's a major part of their "contribution to classical music."


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> The thread title is "How would you rank countries for their contribution to Classical music"? Contribution to classical music, not to my personal pleasure or CD collection. At this point in my life I can hardly even say who my personal favorite composers are; all four of the Big Guys I mention would have to be somewhere among them, though not necessarily at the top, at least not consistently over the years.
> 
> These composers _are_ giants, by the way, not "giants," by almost any criteria Western musical culture has devised for evaluating its producers. Not coincidentally, composers who are not considered giants have tended to agree on who the giants are. The ability of some composers to have a strong and broad impact on others is one of the things - but only one - that make them giants. It's a major part of their "contribution to classical music."


I put "great" in quotes since it was your term, not mine - and did not mean to question your usage of it.

Despite the thread's title, I am more interested in people's favorites rather than trying to identify great composers, or in the case of this thread, countries that have produced the most great composers. I suppose I am more interested in people and their taste in music rather than which composers are considered great (which, by this time, is a closed question, and not very interesting, IMO).


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Difficult to actually measure the impact of German/Austrian composer against those from Italy.

Italy wins. All of our engraved tempo markings are in *Italian*.

Still, countries come and go, and their arbitrary borders change both gradually and suddenly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I put "great" in quotes since it was your term, not mine - and did not mean to question your usage of it.
> 
> Despite the thread's title, I am more interested in people's favorites rather than trying to identify great composers, or in the case of this thread, countries that have produced the most great composers. I suppose I am more interested in people and their taste in music rather than which composers are considered great (which, by this time, is a closed question, and not very interesting, IMO).


Actually, I'm in sympathy with that, and don't tend to engage in contests of greatness, which are at least a hornet's nest of disagreements over definitions and criteria. It isn't too hard, though, to guage a composer's contribution to enlarging the art form and his work's impact on the wider culture.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

pianozach said:


> ...
> Italy wins. All of our engraved tempo markings are in *Italian*.
> ...


Violin, viola, cello, piano, cantata, sonata, concerto, oratorio, opera...all from Italy. It's hard to top Italy's list of contributions.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

I’m ok with the OP original listing. Not a difficult question. Perchance a slight
Shifting upon personal taste.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm ok with the OP original listing. Not a difficult question. Perchance a slight
> Shifting upon personal taste.


And I am ok with your ok, good observation.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

1. Russia
2. Austro-Germany
3. France, Japan
4. Scandanavia
5. UK


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I'll just do a Top 3:

1. Germany
2. Austria
3. Russia


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Based on my own taste, and with 3 main composers per country as example*:
> 
> 1. Germany (Bach, Brahms, Wagner)
> 2. Austria (Mahler, Schubert, Bruckner)
> ...


I'm honestly surprised you didn't mention Janáček or Smetana when mentioning Czechia.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

They would be 4 and 5 in my personal preference for Czechia.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

dissident said:


> Violin, viola, cello, piano, cantata, sonata, concerto, oratorio, opera...all from Italy. It's hard to top Italy's list of contributions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_of_Arezzo


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Not coincidentally, composers who are not considered giants have tended to agree on who the giants are. The ability of some composers to have a strong and broad impact on others is one of the things - but only one - that make them giants. It's a major part of their "contribution to classical music."


I'm a bit skeptical about the existence of the whole "greatness" thing. It's far too vague and subjective a concept. There were times in history the "Big Guys" weren't even the most popular or highly regarded. I would describe those artists as "appealing to the later generations" rather than "objectively great".


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

One does not need in invoke the greatness of any particular composers at all to realize that in the 17th and 18th century Italian musical culture dominated Europe and German/Austrian (to a lesser extent) in most of the 19th century. 
E.g. look _where _people go to study (or to boost their careers) if they can afford it. To Italy in the baroque, to Leipzig or Vienna in the 19th century, maybe to Paris in the early 20th century etc.

Conversely, look, _from_ which countries the composers came who went to the best paid positions all over Europe. From the low countries ("franco-flemish") in the 15th and 16th century, from Italy in the 18th century.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Other composers agree on 'greats' because the entire spectrum of these composers and the individual weights of their opinions are also, self-selected by the same people, standard and tradition. The mainstream. Ask composers who aren't in style or who are even forgotten, who are great, and you get loads of other diverse answers. It's why anything other than the mainstream is hard to poll, the mainstream already made its impact, on the Western and global markets and traditions of everyone. This is the same reason I once made that list of Top composers who fit strongest into a niche or school--among them Wagner, Russian composers like Rimsky-Korsakov, Weinberg, Wolf, etc. and the Big 3 holding the largest niche.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> 1. Russia
> 2. Austro-Germany
> 3. France, Japan
> 4. Scandanavia
> 5. UK


Just curious: Who are these Japanese composers who contributed to classical music? I don't know many significant ones besides Takemitsu.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Similar to Russia, there are no significant composers. Just an overall cultural influence.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Where is the overall cultural influence of Russia or Japan on European/Western music to be found? 

How many European composers studied in Russia or Japan or clearly imitated their styles like they did in 17th-18th century Italy? 

The main thing I can think of was the "barbarism" of Le Sacre and this was a) rather short-lived and b) obviously all the 19th century Russians and Stravinsky had absorbed far more from Italian, French, Austro-German music than ever "travelled back" decades later.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> Other composers agree on 'greats' because the entire spectrum of these composers and the individual weights of their opinions are also, self-selected by the same people, standard and tradition. The mainstream. Ask composers who aren't in style or who are even forgotten, who are great, and you get loads of other diverse answers. ...


But that's kind of circular. It doesn't address *why* this or that composer is considered "great". It's just stating the obvious: "there's a consensus that X is 'great' because the consensus is that X is 'great'". It seems that most of the objections to the idea of "greatness" come from people who are big fans of music that isn't by consensus really considered "great", and so "greatness" has to disappear. "I enjoy Clementi more than Mozart. But the consensus seems to be that Mozart is considered 'greater'. Therefore to validate my taste, there's no such thing as 'greatness'".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

dissident said:


> But that's kind of circular. It doesn't address *why* this or that composer is considered "great". It's just stating the obvious: "there's a consensus that X is 'great' because the consensus is that X is 'great'". It seems that most of the objections to the idea of "greatness" come from people who are big fans of music that isn't by consensus really considered "great", and so "greatness" has to disappear. "I enjoy Clementi more than Mozart. But the consensus seems to be that Mozart is considered 'greater'. Therefore to validate my taste, there's no such thing as 'greatness'".


I think that each generation has a certain kind of taste or there are trends of musical style. There are composers who have embodied that collective taste and done it better than others and are remembered as the great composers of that period.

Stylistic innovations might cause a ripple in this contemporary appreciation but the next generation might find those innovations the previous generation couldn't understand or accept, appealing and completely appropriate.

But these composers also have certain, what have been called, universal qualities which every generation appreciates and will still find their music important and to a degree relevant to any period.

But as to the technical means used to achieve this impression - it would take research and writing a book to prove.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

1. England
2. France
3a. Germany
3b. Austria
4. Italy
5. Estonia


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

When one wants to talk about objective greatness, one is stuck with objective facts- popularity, the acclaim of peers, contemporaries, and historians, and artistic influence. Otherwise you're in the field of subjective greatness, like someone who considers the "greatest composers" to be his favorite ones.

Greatness obviously exists as a concept- It's just that it lacks any sort of specific definition. I think the "greatest" composers are the most historically influential, which perhaps unfairly disadvantages composers with enormous skill in craftsmanship but weren't revolutionary, like Mendelssohn or Dvorak. Someone else might consider craftsmanship above all, and maybe not rate composers who were great innovators but perhaps flawed craftsmen, like, say, Berlioz to an extent. But someone else might say their favorite composers are the "greatest" because that is the music that moves them the most. This isn't to say that the concept doesn't exist- just that it isn't some kind of specific thing that everyone agrees on, like what A440 sounds like. 

If anything the people who seem to want to validate their tastes are ones who like popular composers, but want to prove that those who don't like them are not expressing a difference of taste, but are objectively incorrect.


----------



## Dimboukas (Oct 12, 2011)

The fact that Italy is always so low shows the ignorance of the members of this forum. Actually all classical music comes from Italy.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Dimboukas said:


> The fact that Italy is always so low shows the ignorance of the members of this forum. Actually all classical music comes from Italy.


hey, don't look at me, I voted Verdi in the top 5, everyone else went for Wagner, hah


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> I think the "greatest" composers are the most historically influential, which perhaps unfairly disadvantages composers with enormous skill in craftsmanship but weren't revolutionary, like Mendelssohn or Dvorak.


But Bach wasn't really a "revolutionary" either. He was actually more retro.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

dissident said:


> But that's kind of circular. It doesn't address *why* this or that composer is considered "great". It's just stating the obvious: "there's a consensus that X is 'great' because the consensus is that X is 'great'". It seems that most of the objections to the idea of "greatness" come from people who are big fans of music that isn't by consensus really considered "great", and so "greatness" has to disappear. "I enjoy Clementi more than Mozart. But the consensus seems to be that Mozart is considered 'greater'. Therefore to validate my taste, there's no such thing as 'greatness'".


I think you made too far an assumption. The reason for the greatness of any composer, is dependent upon those who enjoy them. Your assumption was that only some composers, who I listed, fit the benchmark of their own niche/school. But actually all Composers fit an absute benchmark, so long as they're someone's favorite, or one of their favorite, composers: the ones I listed were just some of the most _popular_ benchmarks for different groups. Why do lots of people, especially composers we pre-select in the first place, love the Big 3? Because they're biologically and experientially wired, just as those who think Wagner, or Wolf, or Rachmaninoff or Weinberg, are the greatest. Popularity won't make something more scientifically objective; we can bring any functional opposite case and notice equal flawlessness in rationale, or if intelligibility of rationale is subjective, at least nerve.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

An important thing of mention is, we often seek to interpret the quality of composers others like, by the works which are most popular or enjoyed by the majority, instead of the works that the individual niche/school of that composer enjoys. That's why I posted this as an introduction to the essence of each composer. I should write up more schools soon, as even the ones I wrote there have more essential, esoteric works to be listed over the popular ones.

Usually when I name a composer I enjoy, it isn't enough. I have to demonstrate which works or even specific examples about that composer. Rimsky-Korsakov for instance, one of my favorites of his is the Andante of his 3rd Symphony, such prolonged but beautiful, calculated development to the very last second.


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

Based on a point system derived from my individual top 100:


Germany 
France 
Russia 
Austria 
Italy 
Hungary 
Belgium 
U.K. 
Poland 
Czechia 
Spain 
Finland 
U.S.A. 
Brazil 
Norway 
Greece 
Japan 
Netherlands


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Doublestring said:


> Based on a point system derived from my individual top 100:
> 
> 
> Germany
> ...


If you can find a place for Romania (Georges Enesco) your list is complete and to the point.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Dimboukas said:


> The fact that Italy is always so low shows the ignorance of the members of this forum. Actually all classical music comes from Italy.


Don't look at me #2

I put Italy 3rd, after Germany and Austria; given that they are for all intense and purposes the same nation, it means I had Italy second out of 195 countries across the world!


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> I think you made too far an assumption. The reason for the greatness of any composer, is dependent upon those who enjoy them. Your assumption was that only some composers, who I listed, fit the benchmark of their own niche/school. But actually all Composers fit an absute benchmark, so long as they're someone's favorite, or one of their favorite, composers: the ones I listed were just some of the most _popular_ benchmarks for different groups. Why do lots of people, especially composers we pre-select in the first place, love the Big 3? Because they're biologically and experientially wired...


Where's your proof? That's no more a statement of fact than "the powers that be dictated that the Big 3 would be adored for sociopolitical reasons and so here we are". And anyway "biologically and experientially wired" wouldn't be any different from saying "a whole lot of people think it's beautiful or great". It just sounds more science-y.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Dimboukas said:


> The fact that Italy is always so low shows the ignorance of the members of this forum. Actually all classical music comes from Italy.


Well that's probably because most people think of individual composers, and in that Italy is behind the German-speaking countries imo. But in overall contribution, including the mechanics of the medium and the musical forms used over the centuries, Italy is il vincitore, no question.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

dissident said:


> Where's your proof? That's no more a statement of fact than "the powers that be dictated that the Big 3 would be adored for sociopolitical reasons and so here we are".


How does "experientially wired to perceive them as great" not account for everything we're talking about. Anyway, I don't see a point with your response. Karayev, Wolf, Holst, Weinberg, or Beethoven are all great, it just depends on who you ask. Popularity only tells you how most people are wired or conditioned. It can't tell you about quality. Quality itself is a subjective word.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

I’ve looked at all the posts. The answer was obvious from the beginning. There is a consensus here and it’s the correct consensus.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> Popularity only tells you how most people are wired or conditioned.


"Wired or conditioned" is too vague, no less vague than "people sense a beauty or greatness in X". With some study I can tell you how this device I'm using to view this site is wired. You can't tell me how I'm "wired or conditioned" to find "beauty" and "greatness" in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Chopin or Webern for that matter.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> But that's kind of circular. It doesn't address *why* this or that composer is considered "great". It's just stating the obvious: "there's a consensus that X is 'great' because the consensus is that X is 'great'".


Yeah, the Beatles are a "big hit" in another music genre, but why in classical music do we have to be constantly hammered into the head about certain artists being "great", not just "famous". Also just cause someone/something is readily appealing to our biological senses, it doesn't necessarily mean they have "depth" objectively. Prove to me Ockeghem has less "depth" than Bach objectively.



> It seems that most of the objections to the idea of "greatness" come from people who are big fans of music that isn't by consensus really considered "great", and so "greatness" has to disappear.


The "general consensus" only "matters" when it favors Bach in some way. Anyone who thinks this way, for instance, is no different from the kind you described.
And there's not much a point in talking about the "general consensus" in terms of popularity, when classical music appreciation itself is already a "niche interest" in the world today, to begin with.



> "I enjoy Clementi more than Mozart. But the consensus seems to be that Mozart is considered 'greater'. Therefore to validate my taste, there's no such thing as 'greatness'".


Well, various people today* have "aversion" to the most basic things Mozart and his contemporaries considered "beautiful" and "acceptable" in the Age of Enlightenment and all its sentiments (which are now horribly outdated). For instance:


dissident said:


> those examples may indeed be "childish" considering the incongruity of the music with the text.


They* all "cherry-pick" to "validate their taste". It's just the degrees and kinds of "cherry-picking" in these people that differ. Let's just admit it.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yeah, the Beatles are a "big hit" in another music genre, but why in classical music do we have to be constantly hammered into the head about certain artists being "great", not just "famous". Also just cause someone/something is readily appealing to our biological senses, it doesn't necessarily mean they have "depth" objectively. Prove to me Ockeghem has less "depth" than Bach objectively.


What's your hangup with Bach? I honestly don't care what the "general consensus" is on Bach or Ockeghem or whoever. Are you about to go on a mission to downgrade Bach a la your anti-Joseph Haydn crusade? Have at it.

The *reasons* for the fame is what I'm getting at.



> Also just cause someone/something is readily appealing to our biological senses, it doesn't necessarily mean they have "depth" objectively.


It doesn't necessarily mean that they *don't*, either, or that there is no such thing as relative or even objective "depth". Shakespeare as a whole does indeed have more "depth" than the collected output of the Three Stooges. And hey, I love the Stooges.



> The 'general consensus' only "matters" when it favors Bach in one way or another.


No, as I said it doesn't matter much at all. It is what it is. What matters is when "general consensus" snubs someone you think is a blazing genius.



> Well, various people today* have 'aversion' to the most basic things Mozart and his contemporaries considered 'beautiful' and 'acceptable' in the Age of Enlightenment and all its sentiments which are now horribly outdated. For instance:
> 
> They* all "cherry-pick" to "validate their taste". It's just the degrees and kinds of "cherry-picking" in these people that differ. Let's just admit it.


What "aversion"? In that thread I just asked you to demonstrate how those selections you posted are "childlike". You weren't up to it, apparently.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> What's your hangup with Bach? I honestly don't care what the "general consensus" is on Bach or Ockeghem or whoever. Are you about to go on a mission to downgrade Bach a la your anti-Joseph Haydn crusade? Have at it.


I'm just taking Bach as an example, (but it can be any other artist), please try to understand what I'm saying in its full context. What is this anti-Joseph Haydn crusade you keep talking about.. I had only meant we have to view history accurately and objectively (that one composer shouldn't always be discribed as "the father of everything".). I'm not the one who constantly did crusades against Mozart piano sonatas and modern music for no reason before changing his identity.



> The *reasons* for the fame is what I'm getting at.


Yeah, the Beatles are also a "big hit" in another music genre, yet are we hammered into our heads about their "objective greatness" all the time?



> No, as I said it doesn't matter much at all. It is what it is. What matters is when "general consensus" snubs someone you think is a blazing genius.


So all the sentimental rhetorics like that matter only when they "favor" Bach in some way. Ok..



> What "aversion"?


Riiight.. Pointing out Bach seemingly having a 'religious crisis' in terms of usage of text in his works ("murderous Papists") counts as a "display of aversion". (In your own words; "going on a mission to downgrade Bach".)



> In that thread I just asked you to demonstrate how those selections you posted are "childlike". You weren't up to it, apparently.


Neither can anyone prove the existence of "objective greatness" here, apparently.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hanmeredklavier said:


> Neither can anyone prove the existence of "objective greatness" here, apparently.


Nobody said anything about "objective greatness". There are objective qualities or characteristics, but whether they're "great" in total or not depends on the individual. And that's where the interesting nature of "consensus" or "intersubjectivity" (as EdwardBast I think brought up) comes in.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

dissident said:


> It seems that most of the objections to the idea of "greatness" come from people who are big fans of music that isn't by consensus really considered "great", and so "greatness" has to disappear. "I enjoy Clementi more than Mozart. But the consensus seems to be that Mozart is considered 'greater'. Therefore to validate my taste, there's no such thing as 'greatness'".


There are two extremes which are both wrong imo:
- Comparing two competitive composers and saying one of them is proven to be objectively greater.
- Denying that there are differences at all in objective greatness. Total relativism.

Do differences in objective greatness exist? Probably yes. Can we know them exactly? No. Can we detect rough differences? Probably yes.

There is probably objective greatness in music but our opinions about it are subjective. It only makes sense to use it as an argument, if differences are large and rather obvious. But it would be just silly to declare that Bach is objectively greater than Vivaldi for example.

But it seems that most of the objections to the idea of "greatness" come from people with subversive intentions. They don't want that classical music is considered greater as Cages 4'33 or rap. They don't want that quality differences exist. They want everything to be equal. Their point is about the big differences, and they use the problematic comparison of small differences just as an argument.



fbjim said:


> When one wants to talk about objective greatness, one is stuck with objective facts- popularity, the acclaim of peers, contemporaries, and historians, and artistic influence. Otherwise you're in the field of subjective greatness, like someone who considers the "greatest composers" to be his favorite ones.


No. One can have a subjective opinion about objective greatness. And one can have a subjective opinion about subjective greatness.

An supposedly objective opinion about objective greatness is not an objective fact about objective greatness. Supposedly objective criteria are still subjectively chosen.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

1-Germany: the most musical people on this dark-blue planet, what settles my hesitation between Italy and Germany is Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I (Mar 10, 1503 - Jul 25, 1564) who opposed the ban of polyphonic music, without his intervention into the musical decision, our musical world would have been totally another tale. 

2-Italy: the earliest country to print music, most early franco-flemish musical works come down through italian prints. 

3-England: due to the islandic geography, had been spared from most foreign invasions thus preserved many precious copies from the whole continent.

4-Spain: been a very catholic country all along and keen in observing the most Palestrinian doctrines of music into the late 17th century, and as in modern time offers many unique pieces combining conservatism and italian baroque styles of middle and late 17th century. 

5-France: due to the revolutions, the musical preservation of french early music is far more deplorable even compared to Germany which had been the most ravaged european country in recent wars and political unrests. It is amazing how french cultural heritages preservation is so 3rd worldly. Also, most materialistic, progressive influences from Europe starts in France. France is a like a european china, better at making fames rather than substances in cultural senses.

France lost more than half of Attaignant books, while Germany preserves almost all of the contemporary to Attaignant Lutheran music prints. See, how internal revolutions in the progressive favor could be so much more destructive than foreign invasions, France is the prime example of self-destruction through delusional liberalism.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

Ariasexta said:


> 1-Germany: the most musical people on this dark-blue planet, what settles my hesitation between Italy and Germany is Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I (Mar 10, 1503 - Jul 25, 1564) who opposed the ban of polyphonic music, without his intervention into the musical decision, our musical world would have been totally another tale.
> 
> 2-Italy: the earliest country to print music, most early franco-flemish musical works come down through italian prints.
> 
> ...


Which year are you writing from? And how is papa Haydn's health?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> Based on my own taste, and with 3 main composers per country as example*:
> 
> 1. Germany (Bach, Brahms, Wagner)
> 2. Austria (Mahler, Schubert, Bruckner)
> ...


The UK is not a country


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

You probably would also think the Britannica is not an encyclopaedia.....


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> The UK is not a country


The UK is a country of countries.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> You probably would also think the Britannica is not an encyclopaedia.....


Wiki and all other ency sites and many other sites are blocked in china.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Which year are you writing from? And how is papa Haydn's health?


Johannes Gutenberg was the first european printer with movable type but it was Ottavio Petrucci who applied the technique to music. French 17th, 18th centuries are surely lacking the musical bulk compared to the rest of Europe except for russia. Even Spain, whose music are still undiscovered, not like France, most of whose baroque musical prints and manuscripts are lost.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Ariasexta said:


> 1-Germany: the most musical people on this dark-blue planet, what settles my hesitation between Italy and Germany is Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I (Mar 10, 1503 - Jul 25, 1564) who opposed the ban of polyphonic music, without his intervention into the musical decision, our musical world would have been totally another tale.


Usually its Palestrina given the credit for 'saving polyphony', either way its a myth - no evidence that it was ever under threat by the Counter-Reformation


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Usually its Palestrina given the credit for 'saving polyphony', either way its a myth - no evidence that it was ever under threat by the Counter-Reformation


_At the same time danger threatened the council from another quarter. The Emperor, Ferdinand I. had put forward a very comprehensive scheme of reform. Some portions of this were considered by the legates to be prejudicial to the rights of the Holy See, and were therefore rejected by them after consultation with the Pope. Ferdinand annoyed by their action asserted that there was no liberty at the council, that it was being controlled entirely from Rome, and that the assembly at Trent had become merely a machine for confirming what had been decreed already on the other side of the Alps. At his request several of his supporters left Trent and joined him at Innsbruck, where a kind of opposition assembly was begun. Cardinal Morone, realising fully the seriousness of the situation, betook himself to Innsbruck (April 1563) for a personal interview with the Emperor. The meeting had the result of clearing away many of the misunderstandings that had arisen, and of bringing about a compromise. At the same time the Pope wrote a letter pointing out that it was only reasonable that the Head of the Church, not being present at the council, should be consulted by his legates in all important matters that might arise._

---HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
From the Renaissance to the French Revolution
Rev. James MacCaffrey, S.J., 1914

Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I was surely very important in the process of the Council of Trent, apparently, there were disagreements between the emperor and the council, yet finally certain agreements were reached between them. Details are still likely classified by Vatican, but the rumor itself is not groundless as the chapter above shows. Palestrina`s Missa Papae Marcelli was a direct dedication, I even remember the image in my high school texts book of History showing Palestrina kneeling before the pope with the score in his hands of the missa, it means a lot and worthy of endless historical stretches.


----------



## Satorama (6 mo ago)

beetzart said:


> Say from 1600-1950, mainly based on the quality of composers each country produced.
> Mine would be as follows:
> 
> 1. Germany
> ...





Art Rock said:


> Based on my own taste, and with 3 main composers per country as example*:
> 
> 1. Germany (Bach, Brahms, Wagner)
> 2. Austria (Mahler, Schubert, Bruckner)
> ...


Where is Mozart on your list?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Satorama said:


> Where is Mozart on your list?


Not in the top 3 for Austria (he would actually by 4th after the three I mentioned).


----------

