# are the most famous pieces considered the best by the composers which wrote them?



## DenisAfanasyev (Jul 10, 2021)

Are the most famouse pieces of the most famous composers considered the best among critics?
Could it be that composers considered the best less famous pieces?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Critics afford to be critics because they appeal to what's popular. When they don't, they don't afford a job. Has nothing to do with if it's objectively better or worse--it's simply *average.* Bach's Mass or Beethoven's 9th, very average works, are great *in the minds* of those who propagate them. Some grew up thinking they really are the best, because authority or *averageness* is how their brain works, they automatically hear it as better, when it's subjective. It's easy for critics to propagate certain sounds to people, the sounds are more simplified for the average ear and pace. However, if you can't *hear* yourself what's good music, why should anyone believe you know the best critics? If you have to quote others about what's good instead of deciding yourself, you don't have a strong ear, do you? Asking everyone what the greatest piece is, everyone will simply be all over the map. *End of story:* If Hugo Wolf is the best composer in the mind of someone, there's nothing you can do to disprove it and claim objectivity. You have no real proof. Critics find loosely agreeable pieces to appeal and garner followers, and the works become somewhat more popular, but listeners don't believe they're all good. It's definitely sometimes 50/50 and meaningless.

Theoretically speaking, if you can't rely on your own ear to decide what's good, you already have no basis to judge. And if you grew up listening to the Big 3 first, or other popular composers, you're already biased! So you can't run away from popular culture and its influence. It's all here; it makes up entry-level knowledge.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Often we do not have statements from composers. And the ones we have are often not reliable, expressing an opinion at a moment in time or maybe actually advertising a piece by praising it. 
I doubt we find a lot of statements from Bach concerning his own music. However, I think it is not unlikely that the pain he took rather late in life in completing the b minor mass (which had been only a "Lutheran" mass of Kyrie and Gloria only) although it was never performed in his lifetime that he wanted to preserve an exemplary choral work in a broader and longer tradition than German language church music. (And of the latter, it seems also clear that the St Matthew is of a special scale and clearly not an average work because one needs a passion every Good Friday.) Similarly, that Bach singled out a bunch of pieces for the 4 volumes of Clavierübung seems an indication that he rated this a bit higher than e.g the French suites.

Beethoven supposedly said, that the Missa solemnis was his greatest work. I think he also rated the Eroica highest until his 9th symphony and op.106 the best piano sonata (so it seems he mostly went by sheer length). OTOH he also highly praised the op.22 sonata when he had written it and very few today would put it before several earlier ones.

There are also cases of composers never really getting "finished" with a piece and therefore having a tortured relationship with it. This is probably the case with Wagner's Tannhäuser where he felt he still owed the world a final definitive version.


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

DenisAfanasyev said:


> Could it be that composers considered the best less famous pieces?


A very interesting question! I think there has been a tendency for composers to spring to the defense of their more neglected children. Beethoven famously maintained that his Eighth Symphony was vastly superior to his Seventh. Saint-Saëns regarded his _Henry VIII _as his best work. Respighi regarded his _Sunken Bell_ as his best. Dvořák always insisted that he was primarily an opera composer. Mozart is supposed to have rated his church music most highly. The list could be continued almost indefinitely!

Same thing happens with writers. Conan Doyle thought his earnest historical novels much better than his Sherlock Holmes stories. Lewis Carroll thought _Sylvie and Bruno_ a great improvement over _Alice in Wonderland_. Milton rated his _Paradise Regained_ much higher than his _Paradise Lost_. And so on.

In some of these cases I personally am in sympathy with the composer or author. Definitely not _Sylvie and Bruno,_ however!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

To answer simply: no. Critics have dismissed the Tchaikovsky 1st piano concerto, 1812 overture, the violin concerto and more since they were written. Their opinions did nothing to suppress their popularity and fame. Ferde Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite has always been a target of critics (and a lot of musicians). Still a very popular and well-known work with audiences. Critics are often wrong.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

If the musical arrangements of James Last constituted my main musical preferences, I'd probably hate any intellectual criticism of it, should I accidentally come across it.

Current newspaper critics regarding classical music have often rather surrendered to the general demand, popularity, and thus relativism, and any harsh, critical elitism is quite rare, at least in my country. There may be a few critical remarks, but the overall theme now is: don't offend the audience 

Frankly, it usually makes reading classical reviews boring, or un-reliable.


----------



## 8opus (Jul 17, 2021)

Rachmaninoff regretted writing his Prelude in C sharp minor. He got tired of people always requesting it.

Something similar happened with Beethoven who wished people would focus less on his Moonlight sonata and more on other ones he thought were superior.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Critics?

Let the reader beware.

Many critics love to bash great works. Others pander to whatever is popular.

Historically there are plenty of examples of critics decimating works that turn out to be very well received in retrospect. This is true of Classical and Pop music, films, and fine art.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

More often than not, I find critically acclaimed works overly mechanical and cerebral. What critics recommend is what I tend to avoid most.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rachmaninov made some terse comments on criticism and reception of music. This one from 1937 still rings true:

"Only critics understand everything after a single hearing. Sometimes such quick understanding is a dangerous thing, I should not be brave enough to say whether a work is good or bad after hearing it only once."

Nevertheless, critics have an important role in music and the arts in general. I think that providing publicity is a major part of it. This was especially important in previous times when print media was dominant, and of course many composers where themselves critics of note.

When I watched the biopic _Mr. Turner_ in the cinemas, the scene where the painter meets the critic John Ruskin stood out for me:






Ruskin very much represents critics as they where. His argument that Turner is superior to Claude Lorrain doesn't convince anybody, including Turner. One of the others at the meeting tries to point out to him the difference between artists who create and critics who observe. When Turner asks Ruskin what type of pie he prefers - steak and kidney or veal and ham - he says he can't answer the question.

Presumably its because he thinks that his opinion is objective, so what he likes or dislikes is irrelevant? Perhaps he doesn't think matters of taste in food can be compared to art?

In any case, as portrayed, the young Ruskin represents the old school critic. Today, most critics will at least make some attempt to weigh up different points of view before reaching their own conclusion. As E. H. Newman said, "men will die upon dogma but not fall victim to a conclusion." If Ruskin's mask of objectivity, superiority or whatever was already slipping two hundred years ago, he needn't bother to wear it if he was around today.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Ravel was a stringent critic of his own work. During the composition of Boléro, he said to Joaquín Nin that the work had "no form, properly speaking, no development, no or almost no modulation". In a newspaper interview with The Daily Telegraph in July 1931 he spoke about the work as follows:
It constitutes an experiment in a very special and limited direction, and should not be suspected of aiming at achieving anything different from, or anything more than, it actually does achieve. Before its first performance, I issued a warning to the effect that what I had written was a piece lasting seventeen minutes and consisting wholly of "orchestral tissue without music"—of one very long, gradual crescendo. There are no contrasts, and practically no invention except the plan and the manner of execution."


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

8opus said:


> Rachmaninoff regretted writing his Prelude in C sharp minor. He got tired of people always requesting it.


Once when asked his definition of heaven Rachmaninoff is alleged to have said: "Anywhere the C# minor prelude isn't." Another reason he hated it is that it sold thousands of copies - after he had sold all rights to it for 20 rubles.



mbhaub said:


> To answer simply: no. Critics have dismissed the Tchaikovsky 1st piano concerto, 1812 overture, the violin concerto and more since they were written. Their opinions did nothing to suppress their popularity and fame. Ferde Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite has always been a target of critics (and a lot of musicians). Still a very popular and well-known work with audiences. *Critics are often wrong.*


Wrong? If their reviews were intended as predictions of popularity, they would have been wrong. They weren't (ambiguity intentional) The critics were expressing their opinion that the music isn't very good. A judgment against popular opinion could be seen as a sign of integrity.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

'Pay no attention to what the critics say; no statue has ever been erected to a critic' Jean Sibelius


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Subutai said:


> 'Pay no attention to what the critics say; *no statue has ever been erected to a critic'* Jean Sibelius


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

Brahms considered his first String Quintet in F major one of his best works. I don`t think it would ever receive particularly bad reviews from the critics but it is certainly not his most famous work among the critics nor the commoners.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Highwayman said:


> Brahms considered his first String Quintet in F major one of his best works. I don`t think it would ever receive particularly bad reviews from the critics but it is certainly not his most famous work among the critics nor the commoners.


It is one of his better chamber works, IMO. However, it cannot equal his Clarinet Quintet, Piano Quintet, First Cello Sonata, or First Piano Trio.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Rachmaninoff is alleged to have said he regarded The Bells as his finest work. If so, interesting that he chose a choral/orchestral work, not piano.

That said, Moiseiwitsch reckoned that when he asked SVR to name his finest piece, he opted for his B-minor Prelude, op.32/10. 

Neither would be numbered among his half-dozen best-known works.

My opinion? Well, since you ask I would nominate his Corelli Variations.


----------

