# Lassus vs Palestrina? who really were the greatest?



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

From what i heard Palestrina stole Lassus spotlight has a great composer for some reason that i dont know why but Lassus still has more to offer he was more prolific than i ask why was his poppularity eclipse by Palestrina?

I dont know mutch Palestrina others than his motets(king's singers) and missa papea marcelli, but i have a lot of works by Lassus, so for now im more into Lassus but Palestrina music started impressing me very mutch, he is a great composer but greater than Lassus i would says this but they were in the same league, maybe Palestrina is just more poppular or something?

What is your view on all of this??

I know it's one of these lame vs post , but these composer in a vs post , is still interresting since they were great composer both of them?

What about who do you preffered Palestrina or Lassus?

Have a nice day enjoy this warm summer day :tiphat:


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

There is no correct answer to who is the greatest. If there is such an objective answer, I'm not qualified to provide it. I've heard people say that Palestrina must be respected, but Lassus can be loved. 

Does Palestrina deserve to have a better reputation? I don't know. How much of this can be traced back to Fux, who venerated Palestrina? Or to the general sense that the next century was more about Italians composers than Flemish ones?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think all around, Lassus was more varied in all the styles of music he put out. I also think Palestrina is not as boring as he has been made to sound; he seems to have gotten pigenholed into some ideal Renaissance composer.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> There is no correct answer to who is the greatest. If there is such an objective answer, I'm not qualified to provide it. I've heard people say that Palestrina must be respected, but Lassus can be loved.
> 
> Does Palestrina deserve to have a better reputation? I don't know. *How much of this can be traced back to Fux, who venerated Palestrina?* Or to the general sense that the next century was more about Italians composers than Flemish ones?





Manxfeeder said:


> I think all around, Lassus was more varied in all the styles of music he put out. I also think Palestrina is not as boring as he has been made to sound; *he seems to have gotten pigenholed into some ideal Renaissance composer.*


Good points and I think they connect. Fux did hold Palestrina up as the purest ideal of Renassiance vocal polyphony so that all who used his Gradus ad Parnassum were steeped in Palestrina's style. And this tradition continues in modern times. In his great 20thc treatise _Counterpoint_, Knud Jeppesen also took Palestrina as his model, but he researched and codified the style with much greater precision and theoretical accuracy than Fux had. His treatise is now widely used by modern composers who study 16th counterpoint.

Another basis of Palestrina's formidable reputation is the mythology about him being the savior of sacred polyphony during the Council of Trent (which lasted about two decades in the mid 16thc). The council had among its aims the reform of church music with an emphasis on assuring the intelligibility of the text. Palestrina was among several composers who submitted masses composed to demonstrate that textual intelligibility was compatible with a complex polyphonic texture. Lassus did as well, but it has been suggested that one Jacobus de Kerle was the most influential in swaying the council in favor of polyphonic music. Nevertheless, Palestrina was long extolled as the savior and his Missa Papae Marcelli, the test piece, as the means of salvation.

And Palestrina also held one of the most important positions in church music during this crucial period.

I prefer Lassus to Palestrina, but on a purely subjective aesthetic level.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

deprofundis said:


> From what i heard Palestrina stole Lassus spotlight has a great composer for some reason that i dont know why but Lassus still has more to offer he was more prolific than i ask why was his poppularity eclipse by Palestrina?
> 
> I dont know mutch Palestrina others than his motets(king's singers) and missa papea marcelli, but i have a lot of works by Lassus, so for now im more into Lassus but Palestrina music started impressing me very mutch, he is a great composer but greater than Lassus i would says this but they were in the same league, maybe Palestrina is just more poppular or something?
> 
> ...


Is there any composer you didn't mention already?


----------

