# What makes a TRULY magnificent composer?



## Prezification (Sep 21, 2012)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this or if this question has been discussed extensively in the past, but it's something I've pondering for the past week or so. How do we determine what defines a composer as timely, virtuosic, and overall outstanding. Feel free to remark on what I came up with, or provide some of your own characteristics! I took some thought into this and boiled it down to three main characteristics:

1) Quality vs. Quantity
An amazing composer is able to write great music in large quantities. A great example of this is W.A. Mozart. With over 600 compositions, his work has withstood the test of time and is performed everywhere around the world today. Some composers can be considered "one hit wonders", only writing a few notable works, but truly amazing composers can provide wonderful music at a large quantity.

2) Originality 
An amazing composer is able to change the boundaries of their past and be an innovator. I had Stravinsky in mind when I thought of this; he moved away from the older Russian style of composing and searched for new ground, experimenting with odd meter and dissonance (of course namely in The Rite of Spring, one of the best works of all time in my opinion). This sense of innovation shows the dynamic nature of a composer's mind. Those who are able to change the rules (successfully) deserve recognition at the forefront of great composers.

3) Ability to make emotionally provocative, and technically superior music
This one comes pretty naturally, so I'm not gonna take much time to explain it. Basically, the composer should be able to make emotionally driven music, while understanding proper orchestration and other things of that nature. In other words, they must simply have good technical skills as a composer. This trait makes me come back to Mahler every time I think about it. The emotion that comes out of every Mahler symphony is unmatched, and this also translates back to his technical knowledge of orchestrating, harmony, etc.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I wouldn't agree with 1), given that there are a number of acknowledged masters who have produced comparatively few works. I'm thinking of Ravel, Berg, Webern, Bruckner, and there probably many more.

And part of 3) is rather subjective. I'm not sure that admires of Wagner, Schubert, Bach or, why not, Chopin, would agree that Mahler in unmatched in terms of emotional impact. However, as far as the technical aspect is concerned, I think there's a certain degree of objectivity possible. Not everything is purely a matter of taste. I think noone would disagree with the statement that Mahler displayed a higher degree of technical skill in his works than, say, Johann Strauß II.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Quality always over quantity. In theory this could mean: If composer X has created only 1 totally brilliant, magnificent masterpiece, while composer Y has made a 1000 works from mediocre to good, but nothing great, I will personally consider composer X as the greater composer. There's nothing objective about this, it's just how I see it.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

I am a simple man and i have very simple way of evaluating art and that is how the artists/entertaiment makes me feel and because of it, Beethoven is my favorite. His music reaches depths of my soul that no other artists art has .

So what makes an magnificent composer? 
In my eyes its the ability to affect&evoke emotions in me.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

The parents of a magnificent composer.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2012)

Alcohol addiction, eccentricity, promiscuousness, funds, narcissism and finally a small chateau prefably in North Italy or the cote-Dazur.

Bravo

Ryan O'Brain OBE


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

There is _some _merit to nos. 2 and 3, although they are not sufficient conditions. No. 1 is out. Telemann wrote volumes of very good but not necessarily great music. What percentage of Mozart's 600+ is for the ages? 10-15%? If that. Quality always has it over quantity.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

GGluek said:


> What percentage of Mozart's 600+ is for the ages? 10-15%? If that.


You're kidding me!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

GGluek said:


> What percentage of Mozart's 600+ is for the ages? 10-15%? If that. Quality always has it over quantity.


And you got that figure from your extensive familiarity with his entire body of work, I'm sure...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

There seems to be some transference going on here. I know of magnificent music, can't come up with a single magnificent composer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Andreas said:


> I wouldn't agree with 1), given that there are a number of acknowledged masters who have produced comparatively few works. I'm thinking of Ravel, Berg, Webern, Bruckner, and there probably many more.


The original post asks 'what makes a "truly magnificent" composer?' I don't think Berg or Ravel or Bruckner qualify for the very top tier of composers. Scale is certainly something to consider when looking at the achievements of any artist. Shakespeare is generally acknowledged as being one of the absolute greatest of writers. This is not because no other author ever rivals him. Homer, Dante, Cervantes, Milton, Aeschylus, etc... all wrote works as strong as anything by Shakespeare. But Shakespeare rises to that level an incredible number of times. The same is true of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Schubert, Wagner, Handel, and a couple of others.



DeepR said:


> Quality always over quantity. In theory this could mean: If composer X has created only 1 totally brilliant, magnificent masterpiece, while composer Y has made a 1000 works from mediocre to good, but nothing great, I will personally consider composer X as the greater composer. There's nothing objective about this, it's just how I see it.


But is that "quality over quantity?" What if composer x has composed 1 brilliant masterpiece while composer Y has composed a couple dozen brilliant masterpieces and at least twice as many more near masterpieces? Seriously, if we are going to speak of "quality over quantity" I think we need specific examples.



GGluek said:


> There is _some _merit to nos. 2 and 3, although they are not sufficient conditions. No. 1 is out. Telemann wrote volumes of very good but not necessarily great music. What percentage of Mozart's 600+ is for the ages? 10-15%? If that. Quality always has it over quantity.





trazom said:


> And you got that figure from your extensive familiarity with his entire body of work, I'm sure...


My thoughts exactly. How much of Telemann's works have you actually heard... well performed? Certainly he is not on the same level as Bach... few composers are... but he was among the finest composers of the Baroque... easily among the top 10... and part of his strength lies in the scale of his work and the number of marvelous pieces in a broad variety of genre. As for your analysis of Mozart... that's simply absurd. Nearly any fan of Mozart will agree that he produced a lot of mediocre work... especially considering how young he was when he started composing. On the other hand...

_Idomeneo
Die Entführung aus dem Serail
Le nozze di Figaro
Don Giovanni
Così fan tutte
Die Zauberflöte
La clemenza di Tito_
A good many of the concert arias
Mass No. 15 in C major, Coronation, K. 317
Mass No. 16 ("Missa solemnis") in C major, Missa aulica, K. 337
Mass No. 17 in C minor, Great Mass in C minor, K. 427
Requiem Mass in D minor, K. 626
Te Deum, K. 341
Exsultate, jubilate, K. 165
Ave verum corpus, K. 618
Divertimento for two horns and strings, "A Musical Joke"
Divertimento for string trio in E-flat major K. 563 
Serenade No. 6 in D major, "Serenata Notturna", K. 239
Serenade No. 7 in D major, "Haffner", K. 250
Serenade No. 9 in D major, "Posthorn"
Serenade No. 10 for twelve winds and double bass in B-flat major, "Gran Partita", K. 361
Serenade No. 11 for winds in E-flat major, K. 375
Serenade No. 12 for winds in C minor, K. 388
Serenade No. 13 for String Quartet & Bass in G major, "Eine kleine Nachtmusik", K. 525
Trio for Clarinet, Viola and Piano in E-flat major, "Kegelstatt", K. 498
Adagio and Fugue in C minor
Clarinet Quintet in A major
Adagio and Rondo for Glass Harmonica, Flute, Oboe, Viola and Cello, K. 617
Adagio in C for Glass Harmonica, K. 617a
Quintet for piano and winds
Oboe Quartet (oboe, violin, viola, cello) in F major, K. 370 
Horn Quintet In E-flat, K. 407
Quintet for piano and winds (oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon) K. 452
Piano Quartet No. 1 in G minor K. 478 (1785)
Piano Quartet No. 2 in E-flat major K. 493 (1786)
Trio (Sonata) in G for Piano, Violin and Violoncello, K. 496
Trio in B-flat for Piano, Violin and Violoncello, K. 502
Trio in E for Piano, Violin and Violoncello, K. 542
Trio in C for Piano, Violin and Violoncello, K. 548
Trio in G for Piano, Violin and Violoncello, K. 564
String Quintet No. 2 in C minor, K. 406 
String Quintet No. 3 in C major, K. 515
String Quintet No. 4 in G minor, K. 516
String Quintet No. 5 in D major, K. 593
String Quintet No. 6 in E-flat major, K. 614
_Haydn Quartets_ K. 387, 421, 428, 458, 464, 465, Op. 10
String Quartet No. 14 in G major, "Spring", K. 387 
String Quartet No. 15 in D minor, K. 421/417b 
String Quartet No. 16 in E-flat major, K. 428/421b
String Quartet No. 17 in B-flat major, "Hunt", K. 458 
String Quartet No. 18 in A major, K. 464
String Quartet No. 19 in C major, "Dissonance", K. 465 
String Quartet No. 20 in D major, "Hoffmeister", K. 499
_Prussian Quartets_, K. 575, 589, 590
String Quartet No. 21 in D major, K. 575
String Quartet No. 22 in B-flat major, K. 589
String Quartet No. 23 in F major, K. 590 
Duo for Violin & Viola in G major, K. 423
Duo for Violin & Viola in B-flat major, K. 424
Trio for Violin, Viola and Cello in E-flat major, K. 563
Violin Sonata No. 32 in B-flat major, K. 454
Violin Sonata No. 33 in E-flat major, K. 481
Violin Sonata No. 35 in A major, K. 526
Violin Sonata No. 36 in F major, K. 547
Piano Sonata No. 11 "Turkish March" in A major, K. 331
Piano Sonata No. 12 in F major, K. 332
Piano Sonata No. 13 in B-flat major, K. 333 
Piano Sonata No. 14 in C minor, K. 457
Piano Sonata No. 15 in F major, K. 533/494
Piano Sonata No. 16 in C major, K. 545
Piano Sonata No. 17 in B-flat major, K. 570
Piano Sonata No. 18 in D major, K. 576 
Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra in C major, K. 299
Concerto for Clarinet and Orchestra in A major, K. 622
Flute Concerto No. 1 in G major, K. 313
Horn Concerto No. 1 in D major, K. 412
Horn Concerto No. 2 in E-flat major, K. 417
Horn Concerto No. 3 in E-flat major, K. 447
Horn Concerto No. 4 in E-flat major, K. 495
Violin Concerto No. 1 in B-flat major, K. 207
Violin Concerto No. 2 in D major, K. 211 
Violin Concerto No. 3 in G major, K. 216
Violin Concerto No. 4 in D major, K. 218
Violin Concerto No. 5 in A major, K. 219
Piano Concerto No. 9 in E-flat major, "Jeunehomme", K. 271
Piano Concerto No. 10 in E-flat major for Two Pianos, K. 365
Piano Concerto No. 11 in F major, K. 413/387a
Piano Concerto No. 12 in A major, K. 414/385p
Piano Concerto No. 13 in C major, K. 415/387b
Piano Concerto No. 14 in E-flat major, K. 449
Piano Concerto No. 15 in B-flat major, K. 450
Piano Concerto No. 16 in D major, K. 451
Piano Concerto No. 17 in G major, K. 453
Piano Concerto No. 18 in B-flat major, K. 456
Piano Concerto No. 19 in F major, K. 459
Piano Concerto No. 20 in D minor, K. 466
Piano Concerto No. 21 in C major, K. 467
Piano Concerto No. 22 in E-flat major, K. 482
Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major, K. 488
Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, K. 491
Piano Concerto No. 25 in C major, K. 503
Piano Concerto No. 26 in D major, "Coronation", K. 537
Piano Concerto No. 27 in B-flat major, K. 595
Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183/173dB
Symphony No. 29 in A major, K. 201/186a
Symphony No. 31 in D major, "Paris", K. 297/300a (1778)
Symphony No. 35 in D major, "Haffner", K. 385
Symphony No. 36 in C major, "Linz", K. 425
Symphony No. 38 in D major, "Prague", K. 504
Symphony No. 39 in E-flat major, K. 543 (1788)
Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550 (1788)
Symphony No. 41 in C major, "Jupiter", K. 551 (1788)

I would count all of the above among Mozart's "great" or "near" great works... works that I would not be without. Certainly this accounts for more than 10% of Mozart's entire oeuvre... and an even larger percentage if we ignore the juvenalia.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The original post asks 'what makes a "truly magnificent" composer?' I don't think Berg or Ravel or Bruckner qualify for the very top tier of composers. Scale is certainly something to consider when looking at the achievements of any artist. Shakespeare is generally acknowledged as being one of the absolute greatest of writers. This is not because no other author ever rivals him. Homer, Dante, Cervantes, Milton, Aeschylus, etc... all wrote works as strong as anything by Shakespeare. But Shakespeare rises to that level an incredible number of times. The same is true of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Schubert, Wagner, Handel, and a couple of others.


I would argue that Berg at the very least qualifies. He wrote two incredible operas that are indisputably among the best in the genre of the 20th century, and the rest of his mature works are up to an unflaggingly high standard.

Seven Early Songs
Piano Sonata Op. 1
Three Orchestral Pieces
Five Songs on Picture Postcard Texts by Altenberg
Wozzeck
Chamber Concerto
Lulu
Der Wein
Violin Concerto


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I would say quality overall is more important than sheer quantity. & also sustaining this quality over time. 

Many composers did 'note spinning' but they haven't got anything in the core performance repertoire. For example, Sammartini did dozens of symphonies, and he did them before Mozart or Haydn (so he was innovative to some degree), but he's more of a historical footnote in music history than anything else. By comparison you got someone like Duparc, whose just over a dozen (about 17 or 18) art songs are pivotal to the French art song tradition/repertoire. This may well be a crude comparison but I think it highlights an important point - its hard to generalise about these things.

In any case if we knew what it takes to be a "truly magnificent" composer, it would all be so easy, wouldn't it? If we had a kind of formula, could boil it down to that. For example, another comparison being how Janacek really only hit his stride in his 50's (and Elliott Carter in his 40's), while by that age Mozart was dead and had achieved everything he did during that short space of time. Why did Sibelius stop in his sixties arguably at the height of his powers, while R. Strauss went on composing after 1910 but by then all his innovations where over, his powers in that regard spent? They where all individuals basically, different things made them 'tick,' for some like Sibelius they where perfectionists, for others like Janacek they had to wait to find a voice (which takes time, longer than it does to study the 'nuts and bolts' of music theory and technique), while others kind of did most of their notable things early on and had nothing much new to add to the picture after that.

So there's all these variables, and I think they're all unique and kind of did what they did in their unique way, given the time they where alotted (which is also quite by chance)...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andreas said:


> I wouldn't agree with 1), given that there are a number of acknowledged masters who have produced comparatively few works. I'm thinking of Ravel, Berg, Webern, Bruckner, and there probably many more.
> ...


Along those lines, in terms of relatively small quantity of output (or output in the core performance repertoire) we can add Mahler and Wagner easily I think. Also Varese. But they're among the greatest composers - esp. in terms of their respective genres - of their time. Great innovators. So?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would argue that Berg at the very least qualifies. He wrote two incredible operas that are indisputably among the best in the genre of the 20th century, and the rest of his mature works are up to an unflaggingly high standard.

Seven Early Songs
Piano Sonata Op. 1
Three Orchestral Pieces
Five Songs on Picture Postcard Texts by Altenberg
Wozzeck
Chamber Concerto
Lulu
Der Wein
Violin Concerto

I guess I'm being a bit more harsh in my definition of a "truly magnificent composer" by limiting this to the top ten or so of all time. As much as I like Berg, I don't think he rises to that level.

I would say quality overall is more important than sheer quantity. Many composers did 'note spinning' but they haven't got anything in the core performance repertoire. For example, Sammartini did dozens of symphonies, and he did them before Mozart or Haydn (so he was innovative to some degree), but he's more of a historical footnote in music history than anything else. By comparison you got someone like Duparc, whose just over a dozen (about 17 or 18) art songs are pivotal to the French art song tradition/repertoire.

I would say this is even more true of Duparc. He is certainly an important composer... perhaps even a "great" composer... but I just don't think that 17 or 18 brilliant songs places one at the pinnacle.

The great 20th century writer, J.L. Borges raised a similar question with regard to literature. He noted that there were any number of poets that have written one or two... or even a handful of "perfect" sonnets. "Why," he asked, "were they not seen as equal writers to Shakespeare or Cervantes?" After all, he continued, it is well acknowledged that Cervantes' _Don Quixote_ is laden with flaws and even Shakespeare's finest plays are not "perfect". Borges then answered that while the ability to create one or two small flawless artistic jewels is something that most artists would aspire to... to achieve something more grandiose... such as Don Quixote or Othello is far more challenging to the artist... in spite of the flaws. Such a work contains repeated passages every bit as flawless as the perfect sonnet... again and again.

This is what I am thinking when I look at Duparc or Berg or Pergolesi. All achieved a few perfect gems... but Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Handel, and the handful of others that I would place at the peak of Western music achieved this again and again and again.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Along those lines, in terms of relatively small quantity of output (or output in the core performance repertoire) we can add Mahler and Wagner easily I think.

I don't think we should be thinking in terms of the number of individual compositions. As much as I love Schubert, a single beautiful lied by him is not on the same scale as an opera by Wagner or a Symphony by Mahler. Schubert, himself, far surpasses Duparc, for example, in part just on sheer scale... the hundreds and hundreds of brilliant lieder as opposed to a mere 17.

Michelangelo, for example, painted but a handful of paintings and a little over a dozen sculpture... a fewer than that if we only count the finished work... but no one would underestimate the sheer scale of his achievements. The Sistine Ceiling is a single painting like Wagner's Ring is but a single work of music. Both aspire to... and achieve something on an almost superhuman scale.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Why did Sibelius stop in his sixties arguably at the height of his powers, while R. Strauss went on composing after 1910 but by then all his innovations where over, his powers in that regard spent?

Now Andre... don't get me started on Strauss. Were his powers really "spent" by 1910?

Der Rosenkavalier- 1911
Ariadne auf Naxos- 1916
Alpine Symphony- 1915
Die Frau ohne Schatten- 1919
Lieder (29)- 1919
Song Cycle for Male Choir and Orchestra- 1928
Arabella- 1933
Daphne- 1938
Capriccio- 1942
Metamorphosen- 1945
Oboe Concerto- 1945
Four Last Songs- 1950

_Der Rosenkavalier_ and _Die Frau ohne Schatten_ rank among the finest operas of the 20th century... any century... while _Arabella, Daphne_, and _Ariadne auf Naxos_ are all certainly very fine operas with moments of genius. _The Alpine Symphony_, the _Oboe Concerto, Metamorphosen_, certainly _The Last Four Songs._.. as well as several dozen other lieder composed over the years are every bit worthy of comparison with the finest of his early work. There are few composers who have ever achieved as much after age 50. While one might argue that none of these works are as ground-breaking as _Salome_ or _Elektra_, one might say the same of Stravinsky... he never again achieved something as earth-shattering as _The Rite of Spring_. Still I would never suggest that after the _Rite_, Stravinsky's powers were spent.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is what I am thinking when I look at Duparc or Berg or Pergolesi. All achieved a few perfect gems... but Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Handel, and the handful of others that I would place at the peak of Western music achieved this again and again and again.


I would never put those three names together.

I note that none of the names you have mentioned are composers of the later Romantic or Modernist persuasion, who invented form and function anew with every work. In the context of an oeuvre like that of Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart, the work of Berg, Bruckner, or Mahler might seem small, but in terms of the quality of each individual work and its place within their composers' respective development, I would argue that these composers stand side by side with the greats you have mentioned (I would add Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Debussy as well).

None of these are composers who wrote "a few" gems. They are composers whose work as a whole is significant, both in its entirety and in each of its constituent parts. That, I suppose, will suffice for my definition of what makes a truly magnificent composer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mahler, Debussy, and Richard Strauss all rank among my Top 20. Berg... while I quite like his music... does not. Schoenberg... well I simply don't like Schoenberg... and Stravinsky? I love the early groundbreaking "Russian" work: Petruschka, the Firebird, the Rite, Le Rossignol, the Soldier's Story... but his later work has never quite grabbed me to the same extent.

Of course, I would argue that inventions of new forms... new artistic languages or vocabularies... is all well and fine... but what matters is the actual work. What matters is what is done with these innovations. I wonder, for example, without resorting to Google, how many know which Renaissance artist finally "discovered" the method of linear one-point perspective... perhaps the most important innovation of Renaissance art? The artist in question was the architect, Brunelleschi, none of whose paintings or drawings employing linear perspective have survived. In other words... outside of the historical anecdotes, nothing survives by Brunelleschi employing his greatest innovation. Were it not for his achievements as an architect, his name would almost certainly be wholly lost to history.
But Brunelleschi remains a major figure... as a result of his architectural achievements:










The poet who invented the sonnet is lost to history... but not the great writers of sonnets who built upon his innovation: Dante, Petrarch, Ronsard, Spenser, Shakespeare. Surely the impact of Pérotin's development of polyphonic music far surpasses any innovation of Stravinsky or Schoenberg. Why, then, don't we all acknowledge him among the list of the greatest composers ever? I suspect that the limited scope of his known work has something to do with it... that and the fact that later composers achieved far more spectacular results with the musical language he invented. Who invented jazz? A question worthy of the historian and the musicologist... but as a listener I doubt that this individual can surpass Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, or Miles Davis who created a wealth of music of real brilliance employing a language invented by others. The reality is that innovations or inventions... the artistic languages are one thing... but what truly matters are the works of art... music... themselves... what matters to me is what is done with the artistic language.

To this I'll add that it is also far more difficult to recognize or appreciate the genius of our own time. If I were asked... within my own field of expertise... to name the ten greatest painters of all time I would surely include a couple from the early 20th century (Picasso would be a given)... but none from the mid-century onward. Does this mean there have been no genius painters for almost 70 years. Of course not. There are any number that I greatly admire. But the greatest of all time...? I don't think that I can rightly judge work so new. It has yet to be fully absorbed by the culture... to have centuries to impact subsequent artists like the "old masters" have had... like Beethoven and Mozart have had.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Some interesting comments here, but it seems as no coincidence to me that the composers individuals in this thread claim to qualify as being 'magnificent' largely correspond with their personal favorites. Here stlukes makes arguments for Strauss and Mahlerian for Berg, obviously I would suggest that Ravel is a magnificent composer who wrote more than a few gems. I think more time has to pass to settle the issue of who was who in the 20th century, and it is only natural for us to be swayed by our personal preferences.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is what I am thinking when I look at Duparc or Berg or Pergolesi. All achieved a few perfect gems... but Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Handel, and the handful of others that I would place at the peak of Western music achieved this again and again and again.


Well as Mahlerian showed, Berg is up there with the greats of his time. Pergolesi died very young, and Duparc retired prematurely. But they contributed to a high level to their genre of choice (choral and song respectively). Below I added to this argument re mastery of genre.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> 
> I don't think we should be thinking in terms of the number of individual compositions. As much as I love Schubert, a single beautiful lied by him is not on the same scale as an opera by Wagner or a Symphony by Mahler. Schubert, himself, far surpasses Duparc, for example, in part just on sheer scale... the hundreds and hundreds of brilliant lieder as opposed to a mere 17.
> .


I wouldn't compare a single song by Schubert to an opera by Wagner or a symphony by Mahler. I would look at what Schubert contributed to the genre or genres he was a master of. Same as the other two guys.

In terms of 'the canon,' I see as three distinct ones, but they also have links:

- Performance repertoire
- TEaching/pedagogical canon
- Genre/s mastered and added to by each composer

So Schubert being a master of what he was is equally "magnificent" as Wagner, Mahler, etc. I've argued this before though on this forum, many times. Even did a thread or two on it. I'm trying to be as objective as possible here (eg. I dislike Wagner, but he's in all three of those canons above - so?).

& re the "again and again" argument you make, and what I said about sustained high quality output over a long period of time, the three big modernists qualify as great or magnificent or whatever - Bartok, Schoenberg, Stravinsky.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> 
> Now Andre... don't get me started on Strauss. Were his powers really "spent" by 1910?
> .




In terms of innovation, as I said, yes. Had he stopped composing after around 1910, his contribution to music in terms of pushing it forward would be no different. & a great innovator he was around that turn of the century period, I'd rank him along Debussy and Mahler, but for different reasons to them of course. Its not to argue he did not produce masterpieces after he ended innovating. I would be foolish to argue that. Metamorphosen is one of my favourite works, but its apparent that Schoenberg had done all that (in terms of technique/innovation) with Transfigured Night around 50 years before. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, I'm just looking it in terms of history of musical innovation.

But I must add, all this is in hindsight. What makes a truly magnificent composer is all well and good to say now, but what about when those we consider great now where not known or hardly known? Bach with his 100 year dip is a good example. Ives and Mahler too, whose profile increased after they where active as composers. & STrauss comes into this too. AFter the 1910's, he was seen by many as old hat, past his use by date. But we got a more balanced assessment now. Similar with Saint-Saens, who once he became 'establishment' in old age, many saw him as an anachronism. But we've reassessed that now, as with Strauss, as you pointed out many fine works came from his pen after his earlier innovations where absorbed into the mainstream, became part of those three canons (well, performance at least), before he died.

So if we ask what makes a truly magnificent composer today, its still hard to boil down. & my argument from the beginning is why boil it down? They're all individuals, they all contribute what they do. Think of this. Without Chopin, its hard to see Debussy's own innovations as happening. Not to speak of without Liszt. Then there's the argument that Wagner and Liszt influenced eachother so much, we don't know who did what first. There's so many unknowns here, even given those three canons, even given a more objective approach.

So basically I don't think "what makes a truly magnificent composer" can be answered. Maybe with hindsight it can, but with regards to making a formula or general principles of what is "magnificent" or "great," we can argue for ages about that (and there have been so many threads on this kind of thing here lately, I think I'll stop here with this post!).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

An earlier post by me explaining that concept of 'three canons' -

http://www.talkclassical.com/15439-canon-your-canon-3.html#post217889


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Sid James said:


> So basically I don't think "what makes a truly magnificent composer" can be answered. Maybe with hindsight it can, but with regards to making a formula or general principles of what is "magnificent" or "great," we can argue for ages about that (and there have been so many threads on this kind of thing here lately, I think I'll stop here with this post!).


Thanks Sid for putting down my thoughts so eloquently! I agree on everything You've written so far in this thread, I could never have written it better myself. 

/ptr


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

A truely magnificent composer was one who composed music on sheets using quills while wearing beautiful wigs, and is remembered today visually with original oil on canvas portraits. For example, seated and looking self-confident and extremely dignified,


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

^^ Double like!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mahler, Debussy, and Richard Strauss all rank among my Top 20. Berg... while I quite like his music... does not. Schoenberg... well I simply don't like Schoenberg... and Stravinsky? I love the early groundbreaking "Russian" work: Petruschka, the Firebird, the Rite, Le Rossignol, the Soldier's Story... but his later work has never quite grabbed me to the same extent.
> 
> The poet who invented the sonnet is lost to history... but not the great writers of sonnets who built upon his innovation: Dante, Petrarch, Ronsard, Spenser, Shakespeare. Surely the impact of Pérotin's development of polyphonic music far surpasses any innovation of Stravinsky or Schoenberg. Why, then, don't we all acknowledge him among the list of the greatest composers ever? I suspect that the limited scope of his known work has something to do with it... that and the fact that later composers achieved far more spectacular results with the musical language he invented. Who invented jazz? A question worthy of the historian and the musicologist... but as a listener I doubt that this individual can surpass Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, or Miles Davis who created a wealth of music of real brilliance employing a language invented by others. The reality is that innovations or inventions... the artistic languages are one thing... but what truly matters are the works of art... music... themselves... what matters to me is what is done with the artistic language.


Do you think I disagree?

I judge a great composer by his works, as I said above. I never said anything about innovation. That the composers I mentioned were often innovative is of little consequence compared to the quality of their works.

I would take the oeuvre of Stravinsky as a whole, as I love it back to front. The composer who wrote:

Petrushka
The Rite of Spring
Three Japanese Lyrics
Les Noces
Pucinella
Octet
Concerto for Piano and Winds
Symphony of Psalms
Oedipus Rex
Apollo
Symphony in Three Movements
The Rake's Progress
Agon
Canticum Sacrum
Threni
Requiem Canticles

...did not ever lose his powers.

As for Schoenberg, his oeuvre is just as consistently high quality:

All 5(!) String Quartets
Verklaerte Nacht
Gurrelieder
Both Chamber Symphonies
Three Piano Pieces
Pierrot Lunaire
Five Orchestral Pieces
Erwartung
Suite for Piano
Septet Suite
Variations for Orchestra
Moses und Aron
Both Concertos
All of the unaccompanied choral works, especially op. 50
String Trio
A Survivor from Warsaw

Not all of these are innovative works. They are simply great works. I would have no qualms about spending a week, two weeks, or a month just listening to either of these composers.

I could not say the same for Richard Strauss, whom I would not put in my top 20, despite a few operatic gems. He wrote too much schlock like:

Japanese Festival Music (the worst piece of music I know by a major composer)
Festival Prelude for Orchestra and Organ
Symphonia Domestica
Ein Heldenleben


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So basically I don't think "what makes a truly magnificent composer" can be answered.

Considering the subjective nature of art and the opinions thereof, this is basically true. Of course while all opinions concerning art are subjective, some opinions are better than others. Perhaps the best we can answer is why something enters the "canon" or why something is revered within the "canon" at a certain level. Ultimately it comes down to the audience... the well-informed listeners. Mozart and Bach stand at the top of the "canon" because they have been consistently placed there by well-informed listeners, music "experts" (musicologists and other academics), musicians, and subsequent generations of composers. Just as Shakespeare has woven his way into the English language and into 100s of years of English literature in a way in which James Joyce or Thomas Pynchon can not yet have achieved, so the same is true of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart in a way that is not yet possible for Berg or Stravinsky.

In terms of 'the canon,' I see as three distinct ones, but they also have links:

- Performance repertoire
- Teaching/pedagogical canon
- Genre/s mastered and added to by each composer

*Musicology & music historiography *- Eg. historical context of a work, it's innovations, setting trends, technical attributes, etc.

*Pedagogical* - Involving the teaching of music, what is the core of what is taught in each area of music, etc.

*Performance* - Basically what is part of the core repertoire, in terms of performance and recording. This is "part of the public face of music."

I don't see Sid's concept of the "three aspects of the canon" as in any way contradicting my own thoughts when I speak of the "canon" being established by "well-informed listeners, music "experts" (musicologists and other academics), musicians, and subsequent generations of composers."

Sid's element of "Performance" mirrors my suggestion of the importance of the opinions of the well-informed audience. Those whose passion is for thornier innovation have long dismissed Rachmaninoff and Puccini... but you cannot ignore their sustained popularity with the classical music audience. Alexandre Dumas has never been taken "seriously" by literary academics, critics, or even most writers... but the continued popularity of _The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Christo_... long past any realm of fad... clearly place Dumas in the "canon" of literature.

Sid's realm of the Pedagogical is surely not far removed from my suggestion that the opinions of subsequent musicians and composers hold a certain weight. Obviously, they are building upon the work of those that are seen as having much to teach.

Musicology/history...? Well is this not the realm of the "experts?": the critics, the musicologists, the historians, etc...

But even this "concept" is far from being a formula upon which we can achieve some objective measure of artistic merit.

I think most of us would consider such elements... consciously or not... when constructing our ideal "canon". We would also probably consider things such as the number of genre mastered or contributed to, the innovations, the breadth and scale of the work, etc... In the end we would all still end up with our disagreements.

Case in point:

I would take the oeuvre of Stravinsky as a whole, as I love it back to front. The composer who wrote:

Petrushka
The Rite of Spring
Three Japanese Lyrics
Les Noces
Pucinella
Octet
Concerto for Piano and Winds
Symphony of Psalms
Oedipus Rex
Apollo
Symphony in Three Movements
The Rake's Progress
Agon
Canticum Sacrum
Threni
Requiem Canticles

...did not ever lose his powers.

As for Schoenberg, his oeuvre is just as consistently high quality:

All 5(!) String Quartets
Verklaerte Nacht
Gurrelieder
Both Chamber Symphonies
Three Piano Pieces
Pierrot Lunaire
Five Orchestral Pieces
Erwartung
Suite for Piano
Septet Suite
Variations for Orchestra
Moses und Aron
Both Concertos
All of the unaccompanied choral works, especially op. 50
String Trio
A Survivor from Warsaw

Not all of these are innovative works. They are simply great works. I would have no qualms about spending a week, two weeks, or a month just listening to either of these composers.

I could not say the same for Richard Strauss, whom I would not put in my top 20, despite a few operatic gems. He wrote too much schlock like:

Japanese Festival Music (the worst piece of music I know by a major composer)
Festival Prelude for Orchestra and Organ
Symphonia Domestica
Ein Heldenleben

I, on the other hand, find little of merit or interest in Schoenberg at all. Stravinsky? Well I have already admitted to a great admiration for

Petrushka
The Firebird
The Rite of Spring
Le Rossignol

and I would add:

Les noces
Concerto in E-flat Dumbarton Oaks
Symphony of Psalms

Too much of the latter work has yet to really grab hold of me. Perhaps it is the overly intellectual chameleon-nature of Stravinsky's later work which seems to lack the raw intensity of the earlier work. I don't know. At the same time, I would disallow the possibility of such work eventually growing on me as I certainly haven't disliked most of what I have listened to from the later periods. Indeed, I quite liked the work... just not as passionately as I like the earlier work...

...or the work of Richard Strauss

I would not put in my top 20, despite a few operatic gems. He wrote too much schlock...

The amount of "bad" art created by an artist has always been a non-issue with me. Those who underestimate Mozart always bring up the amount of mediocre music he wrote. How does this in any way undermine the brilliance of _Don Giovanni_ or the clarinet quintet? Picasso probably created more truly bad art than any artist in the whole of history. But he may have also created more brilliant art than any other artist.

Strauss was not as consistent as Berg or Ravel... but he did create a rather impressive oeuvre of truly great work:

Aus Italien
Don Juan
Tod und Verklärung
Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche
Also sprach Zarathustra
Don Quixote
Ein Heldenleben
Symphonia Domestica (clearly we disagree on these last two)
Salome
Elektra
Der Rosenkavalier
Le bourgeois gentilhomme
Ariadne auf Naxos
An Alpine Symphony
Die Frau ohne Schatten
Arabella
Daphne
Capriccio
Metamorphosen
Oboe Concerto
Four Last Songs

and beyond the _Last Four Songs_ Strauss composed a wealth of lieder... for male or female voice, chorus, orchestral/chamber/piano settings.

These works are more than enough for me to place Strauss among my Top 20.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Okay, I struck a nerve back there about Mozart -- and it's purely personal -- but if I count up the works I listen to enough to consider essential to my listening pleasure, I come up with fewer than four dozen (6-7 symphonies, 7-8 concerti/sinfonia concertantes, 4 operas, 2 large scale religious works, 10-12 chamber works, 4-5 solo piano, 5-6 serenades/miscellaneous). That's a lot, but compared to 600 it's less than 10%. I'm not disparaging Mozart -- or the people who worship his music -- just making a point about quantity as a measure of greatness. He's great because that 10% (or whatever your percentage is) is great music, not because his output is voluminous.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

GGluek said:


> Okay, I struck a nerve back there about Mozart -- and it's purely personal -- I'm not disparaging Mozart -- or the people who worship his music -- just making a point about quantity as a measure of greatness.


You're actually making more of a point about your own tastes...


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Kieran said:


> You're actually making more of a point about your own tastes...


Which I don't apologize for.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

GGluek said:


> Which I don't apologize for.


Good! And nor should you...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> 
> Sid's element of "Performance" mirrors my suggestion of the importance of the opinions of the well-informed audience. Those whose passion is for thornier innovation have long dismissed Rachmaninoff and Puccini... but you cannot ignore their sustained popularity with the classical music audience.


Well I for one very much like Rachmaninov and maybe people forget that at the turn of the century (similar to Strauss) he was an innovator in piano technique. He was in that circle of composers in Russia which included Scriabin - whose own innovations are more widely credited perhaps - and also Stravinsky. I think Rachmaninov actually premiered a work by Scriabin. As for Puccini, he's one of the best 'polyglot' type composers, not innovating but definitely synthesising/absorbing music around him. He was very knowledgeable about recent trends in music, he admired Stravinsky's Rite of Spring as well as Berg's Wozzeck (which was to influenced his own Turandot considerably). So I never put down Puccini, and same as Strauss, they're the only two c20th composers with three operas in the core performance repertoire. & you know I am not a mega fan of either (even though some of their works I wouldn't go without), but I think its important to know these things about them.



> ...
> Sid's realm of the Pedagogical is surely not far removed from my suggestion that the opinions of subsequent musicians and composers hold a certain weight. Obviously, they are building upon the work of those that are seen as having much to teach.
> 
> Musicology/history...? Well is this not the realm of the "experts?": the critics, the musicologists, the historians, etc...
> ...


Well yes, that 'three tier canon' type thing is less a rigid checklist and more a guide to looking at music, the trends, the contributions, the issue of posterity and so on. I see it as a way of making connections, and I think that that's what I'm interested in, the connections. But as you suggest, my opinion is just one of many, many potentially differing and opposing opinions. In any case I got the idea of the '3 canons' from a book, a basic introductory book on musicology. So its just one source, and I think I provided it in my link which you quoted.

But I'm glad this thread has gone well and its less of a 'bumpy ride' compared to other threads dealing with such contentious topics.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ptr said:


> Thanks Sid for putting down my thoughts so eloquently! I agree on everything You've written so far in this thread, I could never have written it better myself.
> 
> /ptr


If you choose to establish a Sid James Fan Club, I would not object. BRING IT ON!!! :lol:

But seriously I've also enjoyed your contributions to the forum (esp. current listening). Keep it up!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

...if I count up the works I listen to enough to consider essential to my listening pleasure, I come up with fewer than four dozen (6-7 symphonies, 7-8 concerti/sinfonia concertantes, 4 operas, 2 large scale religious works, 10-12 chamber works, 4-5 solo piano, 5-6 serenades/miscellaneous). That's a lot, but compared to 600 it's less than 10%. 

The number of works in the Köchel catalogue (626) can be deceiving. It isn't like every work is of equal weight. A large number of the works in question were written by Mozart as a child. How many other composers have the merit of the juvenile works held against them. You also should consider that many of the works in the Köchel catalogue are just little bon-bons tossed off here or there: marches, dances, songs, variations, etc... A single major opera or symphony is equally reduced to a single number in the Köchel catalogue but surely amounts to a far greater percentage of Mozart's oeuvre.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

Good press.


----------

