# Great composers are rare!



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

After having heard so much classical music, I can testify to the fact that great composers are rare. There are many _technicians_, but very few artist that have something original to say. Goethe talked about "snatching poetry from the air," it is the same way with music. I have heard the music of hundreds of technicians, but very few artist. This simply makes me appreciate an original voice when I hear it (even if the voice is not to my liking). While composers are abundant, great composers are rare. We could say the same thing about pianists. There are many competent technicians, but very few artist. Here I can give a concrete example: take Evgeny Kissin versus the mighty Sviotoslav Richter. Even Gould spoke of the artistry of Richter (I can assure you that he would never have discerned this in a technician like Kissin). This is not to say that Kissin has not performed some powerful pieces in a powerful way. (You can listen to Gould's commentary on Richter on youtube).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Cool

...........................


----------



## LHB (Nov 1, 2015)

By your definition, Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms would not be considered great composers.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

LHB said:


> By your definition, Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms would not be considered great composers.


How are you drawing that conclusion? Those three definitely have their own voice.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

What LHB is saying is that Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms didn't "snatch poetry out of the air", and that nobody great conjures art or music out of thin air.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SeptimalTritone said:


> What LHB is saying is that Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms didn't "snatch poetry out of the air", and that nobody great conjures art or music out of thin air.


Goethe was just being poetic! :tiphat:


----------



## LHB (Nov 1, 2015)

starthrower said:


> How are you drawing that conclusion? Those three definitely have their own voice.


Well, the original post doesn't really define well what "technical" composing is as opposed to "artistic" composing, or how "technical" composing is even a bad thing. I am assuming that he is referring to the romanticized idea that all great composers composed in inspired highs while sitting under a tree looking at the clouds roll by, rather than meticulously fiddling with ideas until a solution was arrived at. I also think that he is overemphasizing that you only need natural talent to be a great composer. While Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms had natural talent, they weren't on the same level as, say, Mozart or Schubert, but they were able to write music on the same level as them because of the high level of technical ability and craftsmanship in their compositions, which are things that aren't naturally given to someone.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

LHB said:


> Well, the original post doesn't really define well what "technical" composing is as opposed to "artistic" composing, or how "technical" composing is even a bad thing. I am assuming that he is referring to the romanticized idea that all great composers composed in inspired highs while sitting under a tree looking at the clouds roll by, rather than meticulously fiddling with ideas until a solution was arrived at. I also think that he is overemphasizing that you only need natural talent to be a great composer. While Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms had natural talent, they weren't on the same level as, say, Mozart or Schubert, but they were able to write music on the same level as them because of the high level of technical ability and craftsmanship in their compositions, which are things that aren't naturally given to someone.


Even incredibly naturally talented composers like Mozart and Schubert don't necessarily have the skill to pull off writing a great symphony or string quartet or whatever without some experience and practice.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

At the end of all the rhetoric we are still left with "If I like it, it must be great art." For me "great" is not black and white. It's a spectrum that changes daily depending also on what I as a listener bring to the equation.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

But the question that has always driven me nuts over the years is why do we only have to listen to great composers?

I keep thinking of all of the ungreat composers whose music is still very satisfying.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

LHB said:


> Well, the original post doesn't really define well what "technical" composing is as opposed to "artistic" composing, or how "technical" composing is even a bad thing. I am assuming that he is referring to the romanticized idea that all great composers composed in inspired highs while sitting under a tree looking at the clouds roll by, rather than meticulously fiddling with ideas until a solution was arrived at. I also think that he is overemphasizing that you only need natural talent to be a great composer. While Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms had natural talent, they weren't on the same level as, say, Mozart or Schubert, but they were able to write music on the same level as them because of the high level of technical ability and craftsmanship in their compositions, which are things that aren't naturally given to someone.


The head in the clouds composers hire Rimsky-Korsakov to orchestrate their stuff!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> But the question that has always driven me nuts over the years is why do we only have to listen to great composers?
> 
> I keep thinking of all of the ungreat composers whose music is still very satisfying.


Another case of great being the enemy of good.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Is there a difference between a _technician_ and an _artist_? Is there a difference between learning the principles of structure and creating structures? One creates structures that other people study, while others study structures that other people create. But this cannot be all... there is a powerful humanitarian attribute required for greatness in the context of art. This science is not... even in the case of Bach or Babbitt, purely logical.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Klassic said:


> After having heard so much classical music, I can testify to the fact that great composers are rare.


Of course, it all depends on what subjective definition of "great" you are using.

Personally, I think there are thousands of great composers out there, and the ones who stand out from the crowd should really be called "super great" or even "super-duper great" composers. That way, you would never be tempted to believe that greatness is something objective.


----------



## Dawood (Oct 11, 2015)

The way I see it is there are levels. Someone picks up an instrument - they learn to to play it. Their family is impressed - if they're lucky. Then their teachers are impressed. Perhaps even an audience - and if they're really cooking, a paying audience. They can earn a living - of sorts - from this instrument.

That is a particular ability: I think 'technician' is a fair enough term.

Then you have someone who picks up an instrument - and they think 'what I'm doing just isn't enough. I'm not happy with simply playing tunes other folks have written'. And they make their own tunes. These tunes might have some relation to the music they like, or perform - or the tunes might be radically different. But true originality is really tricky. And their family like them (maybe) and if they are really lucky an audience might actually pay to hear these tunes.

These people are artists.

Everything else is subjective.

So, in conclusion, to say great composers are rare is a purely subjective statement. It's impossible to measure it.

I could say, there is a great sportsperson, for example - they can do what they do with stunning prescience. And in their field they are clearly better than other sportsfolk because they score more points, or run faster, etc. But in the field of art, these measurements do not exist.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

It's all just after-the-fact rationalisations of feelings we can't explain.

There can be as many great composers as you want there to be.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Is there a difference between a _technician_ and an _artist_? Is there a difference between learning the principles of structure and creating structures? One creates structures that other people study, while others study structures that other people create.


All great composers did both, obviously. They all read, studied and/or copied scores to learn the principles of structure.



Klassic said:


> But this cannot be all... there is a powerful humanitarian attribute required for greatness in the context of art. This science is not... even in the case of Bach or Babbitt, purely logical.


Interesting claim. You have our attention. Is there actual content to follow? Or are you going to leave us with nothing but this vague and empty assertion? What is this "attribute required for greatness in the context of art?"


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I have it on good authority that there are/have been approximately one hundred Great Composers. The title of Harold C. Schonberg's classic is _The Lives of the Great Composers_, is it not? So I took the trouble to start a rough count of everybody in Schonberg's book who gets more than one sentence, and came up with that figure. That should settle the issue once and for all.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2015)

There is no reason to believe that great art is great for purely logical reasons. If the process were purely logical, we would all know of at least one example of music that produces the same response from all of us. If it were an applicable science (short of the realm of quantum mechanics), there would be at least SOME absolute truths to speak of...


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

To my mind the status of greatness can only be given to a select few. Most often the problem is coming to some agreement about who these few are.
Looking at the sporting analogy, if we take generally acknowledged "greats" eg Tiger Woods or Roger Federer, whilst they may both be blessed with some extra natural talent, it is the relentless practice they did that resulted in their achievements. So I feel it is talent and hardwork combined, ie talent and technician together. But if you ain't got that extra bit of natural talent all the practice in the world will not make you great.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

One thing I have learned about discussions like this is if one asks ten members to define greatness one gets fifteen answers.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Reason dictates that we have no choice but to agree with subjectivity on this topic. It is still interesting to contrast composers... insofar as one makes a distinction between an artist and a non-artist, one cannot claim that all composers are artists, unless of course, one starts with the premise that "all composers are artists." The point is that we each have a criteria of _differentiation_; the challenge is to identify this criteria in ourselves... a broader challenge is to find a common thread between competing criteria. For my part I hold to the idea that not all composers are artists (it would seem this places me in a bind, as here I must make distinctions).


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

starthrower said:


> Goethe was just being poetic!


That was the problem with that guy. Just wouldn't stop with the poetry.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Great artists of any sort are rare. Maybe one in a thousand. Same with great athletes, great business executives, great scientists/engineers/mathematicians, . . If being exceptionally good at a given thing were common, then we'd change our definition of great to encompass a narrower spectrum further out on the tail of the curve.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Reason dictates that we have no choice but to agree with subjectivity on this topic. It is still interesting to contrast composers... insofar as one makes a distinction between an artist and a non-artist, one cannot claim that all composers are artists, unless of course, one starts with the premise that "all composers are artists." The point is that we each have a criteria of _differentiation_; the challenge is to identify this criteria in ourselves... a broader challenge is to find a common thread between competing criteria. For my part I hold to the idea that not all composers are artists (it would seem this places me in a bind, as here I must make distinctions).


Yes, "it is interesting to contrast composers." Could you do so, that is, name a few composers who are artists and a few who aren't, by your lights? That would help me to understand what you are on about.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Klassic said:


> After having heard so much classical music, I can testify to the fact that great composers are rare. There are many _technicians_, but very few artist that have something original to say. Goethe talked about "snatching poetry from the air," it is the same way with music. I have heard the music of hundreds of technicians, but very few artist. This simply makes me appreciate an original voice when I hear it (even if the voice is not to my liking). While composers are abundant, great composers are rare. We could say the same thing about pianists. There are many competent technicians, but very few artist. Here I can give a concrete example: take Evgeny Kissin versus the mighty Sviotoslav Richter. Even Gould spoke of the artistry of Richter (I can assure you that he would never have discerned this in a technician like Kissin). This is not to say that Kissin has not performed some powerful pieces in a powerful way. (You can listen to Gould's commentary on Richter on youtube).


Technician/Artist when presented as a dichotomy is too black and white for me. You'd have to explain yourself more thoroughly before I could jump on board with such an idea, that there is a composer who is a true artist and one who is a technician, nothing in between.

Is Beethoven an artist while Carl Nielsen a technician? I don't think so. Nor Tchaikovsky an artist while Haydn a technician. The truth is somewhere in between, and will vary from person to person too.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> One thing I have learned about discussions like this is if one asks ten members to define greatness one gets fifteen answers.


Yeah, 8 or 7 people who are satisfied with one answer they give and two or three blowhards to duke it out over 20+pages with gradually evolving answers that amount to the remaining 8 or 7 answers.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I just had a dream last night about this very topic I swear. A guy I know was being exceptionally picky with his 'refined tastes' and my friend and I were remarking on how much he was missing and how annoying it was to talk to him because he was so limited in his ability to perceive aesthetics beyond only what he had somehow decided on as being the very best.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

As others have inferred, the term, 'great', is too broad and too subjective. For instance, IMO, the 19th century gave us countless composers. If I call Beethoven and Brahms 'great', what do I call Mendelssohn? Excellent or pretty good? 

Using my measuring stick (and staying with that period), there were so many great 19th century composers, that I would end up having to isolate Beethoven and Brahms in some sort of astounding, unbelievable and ethereal category. I sometimes wonder how many individuals called themselves 'a composer' in the 1800s. There must have been quite a few whose works went nowhere, never to be heard again. Let's say you heard some of those works and then you heard Anton Rubinstein's piano concertos. You might then think that they (and he) were great. 

So, I think one has to carefully define the term(s) of comparison and that is easier said than done.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There is a false dichotomy between artist and technician. Every great artist has also been trained with the technical tools needed in order to express his artistry. Hence we see that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al had great training in the techniques of composing through which they were able to express their art. Of course there are some people who are great technicians without necessarily being greater artist. But the great artists needs the technique to fully express his art.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2015)

DavidA said:


> There is a false dichotomy between artist and technician. Every great artist has also been trained with the technical tools needed in order to express his artistry. Hence we see that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al had great training in the techniques of composing through which they were able to express their art. Of course there are some people who are great technicians without necessarily being greater artist. But the great artists needs the technique to fully express his art.


I think this was meant by the starter of this topic .Great composers are rare and great musicians also.There are very skilful technicians who play and can hide behind many notes but when they have to play a so called simple Mozart pianosonata they realy have to proof themselves.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

"'Israel in Egypt in 15 days, Don Giovanni in a month, Il barbiere di Siviglia in 18 days. Those men did not have exhausted blood, were well-balanced natures, had their heads on squarely, and knew what they wanted." (G Verdi)


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> But the question that has always driven me nuts over the years is why do we only have to listen to great composers?
> 
> I keep thinking of all of the ungreat composers whose music is still very satisfying.


Great comment. As I write this I am listening to Joachim Raff Symphony 3. I don't think Raff is even in the standard repertoire any longer, but I can enjoy his music, even though I am aware of Raff's limitations. Yesterday I was listening to Joseph Suk's Fantastic Scherzo, a marvelous piece.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Never ceases to amaze me what threads succeed and what threads fail. 

That is, how there has been three pages following that OP is beyond me. And that is say nothing of his view, but there was so little to respond to. And yet here we are!


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

The are more great composers than you think, but what is what problem is that a great composer need be discovered by a great artist and played for a great proselytiser and heard many times. Increase buy more for an opera etc. That is a tricky and a half ...


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Avey said:


> Never ceases to amaze me what threads succeed and what threads fail.
> 
> That is, how there has been three pages following that OP is beyond me. And that is say nothing of his view, but there was so little to respond to. And yet here we are!


This is nothing--I've seen threads go on for over 4000 pages in response to four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

... when there better pieces of music by Cage.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

4-me-personally Bach is perhaps the father of greatness. The hard part about all this (I made it many comments back): once we admit that not all composers are great we find ourselves in a dilemma. Once we admit that there is a difference between greatness and mediocrity we have drawn a line. Are all symphonies great? I am all for listening to composers that did not achieve the status of greatness; my personal criteria is fairly simple, if I like it then I listen; if I like it lots then I listen lots.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Just think, it takes billions of people to come up with so few great composers.
Even 200 would be few. What a fractional amount. I sometimes think how
God could have created so many people, it seems unfair, but when you look at 
how relatively few so-called great souls develop, it makes sense to create billions, lol 
I don't judge the value of life based on "greatness."


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Klassic said:


> once we admit that not all composers are great we find ourselves in a dilemma.


Really? Most of us have already been down this road, here and in the outside world. I hate to say this because I want to avoid sounding too snotty, but most of us do not have a problem with following the music of B level composers.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

Let us face facts...if you ask a majority of people who the the greatest composer is, you would get Lennon/McCartney ahead of classical composers.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I hear so many great composers that I am unable to keep up.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Dear Mr. arpeggio, are all composers B level composers? What about a C level? How do you tell the difference? (_and I want to avoid sounding too snotty here_) I think perhaps, maybe you do not understand the dilemma? This is not specific to me. Anytime, any person, admits that something is better they have a criteria by which to judge that thing, it is no different in the case of music. If you deny that all composers are great then you have to face the same dilemma of differentiation (at least this is true for honest people).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Stirling said:


> Let us face facts...if you ask a majority of people who the the greatest composer is, you would get Lennon/McCartney ahead of classical composers.


Andre Previn knew both Leonard Berstein - the hugely talented maestro - and Irving Berlin, a honky tonk pianist who couldn't read mysic. He said while Bernstein had more music in his little finger than Berlin had, Berln still wrote the best songs.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Is Johann Sebastian Bach a great composer? or Beethoven? or Mozart?
There is only one answer to this question, whether you like his music or not. An answer which is universally shared, and sets the foundation of the so called Western culture.
I'm sorry but it's not all subjective. It's not all "I like it so it's great. I don't, it's not" One thing is what you like, another one is greatness. period. So true even here, where someone writing "Bach/Beethoven/Mozart sucks" could be charged of trollism right away. Isn't it?
Greatness exists in all its objectivness, Hard to define? yes. Hard to measure? also. But I do believe that we all have "the sense of Greatness" well rooted inside each one of us.

And, yes, great composers (poets, painters, architects, film makers) are rare. Not so bad, imo.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Great" composers are, IMO, defined both by the quality and force of their music and the values of the generation doing the listening. The latter is subject to change. I'm pretty sure Haydn would have rated somewhat downscale in the 19th century and a good part of the 20th as well.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

KenOC, I very much agree with your view on this subject, although I suspect we could even find a few criteria that transcend several cultures (although I would not argue that such attributes would transcend all cultures, there would still be a contingency of value and time). Clear thinking here.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

I prefer my great composers well done than rare.


----------



## Beethoven456 (Dec 21, 2015)

Beethoven rocks


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I really can't imagine having to listen to a select group of "great" (whatever that may mean) composers over and over again. It would rob me of the pleasure of discovering hidden gems like the violin concerto and piano concerto of Belgian composer August de Boeck (2 CD's I played this morning).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

It occurs to me to wonder why anyone cares whether or not composers are great, whatever that means. And why focus on the relative stature of composers in the first place? It just ends up sounding like competing personality cults. Kind of childish, really, a semi-adult version of "My dad can beat your dad." Why not focus on music instead? Remember music? Don't composers who fail to make the conventional list of greats, however one decides this, sometimes — or often — write great music? And don't the "greats" sometimes write lackluster works? And, if so, isn't a big part of the difference just a matter of frequency? So who, ultimately, cares if a less-than-great composer was "on" in a smaller proportion of his/her compositions? Listen to the great works and be happy. 

Actually, I do have a theory about who becomes preoccupied with these issues: Perhaps those who aren't capable of—or confident about—passing aesthetic judgment on specific musical works talk about the status of composers because that requires less discrimination and entails less risk of ridicule, yet still allows them to assert their powers of taste and discernment — puffed feathers without the work or exposure. Nah, that couldn't be it.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Beethoven456 said:


> Beethoven on rocks


Sounds like a fine coctail mmm


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I consider listing great composers to be a harmless pastime. However, I personally much prefer referring to indubitable geniuses as "pieces of crap." "Hey, Mozart, what have you done for me lately you worthless fool? And btw your earliest violin sonatas kinda suck." It's fun to do, especially if you're having drinks with a friend or two that's into music. Unfortunately people tend to frown on that sort of thing on the open forum so I try to abstain.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Composing an effective and characterful piece, you could say a unique piece, is a lot easier if you do it on a small scale, like a minute-long video game music piece. Actually, it's not that hard at all. I bet thousands of 20 year olds could compose one or two - if not a dozen or two - without too much trouble.

But I don't think that's what classical music fans mean by 'great music'. If there is something entirely rational about the usage of that term, I guess it has to do with expecting such music to, first of all, have a certain sophistication about it, and secondly to be able to withstand relatively regular listening without boredom setting in (rather subjective, but generally speaking the more complex the music, the more often you can listen to it without getting bored).

The aesthetics of contrast and variety are in conflict with the aesthetics of characterfulness and uniqueness. People who have come to expect the former (classical music), often don't value music of the latter sort very highly (much video game music is just the perfect example).

Variety was the most prominent aesthetic goal of the early Renaissance - if Tinctoris and the music itself are any guide - and perhaps of the whole Renaissance. So much so that today classical music fans usually have a lot of trouble with that era if they bother to explore it in depth at all. Though there are exceptions, it's generally speaking music that has a constantly evolving shape from moment to moment, without audible motives or themes binding it all together, so that the music seems to lack character when you first hear it. It may be difficult to tell apart one Palestrina mass from another Palestrina mass for the average listener. To some extent the same could perhaps be said of a lot of atonal music. You could say the polyphonic dodecaphonists like Schoenberg, Krenek, Sessions, and Joonas Kokkonen approached the aesthetics of the Renaissance, usually without meaning to.

The music that came after Renaissance and before Schoenberg is perhaps somewhere in the middle of the variety-uniqueness conflict. A lot of, say, Beethoven does sound unique, but it was probably a lot harder to compose than pieces that try only to be unique (and good) without also trying to be varied and "sophisticated" at the same time.

The music of this middle path seems to be the most respected these days, but I don't see a reason not to listen to the other types as well, although appreciating them properly may require undoing some psychological habits and developing a wider palette as a listener, which is a task that's hard to argue for in a busy world.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> It occurs to me to wonder why anyone cares whether or not composers are great, whatever that means. And why focus on the relative stature of composers in the first place? It just ends up sounding like competing personality cults. Kind of childish, really, a semi-adult version of "My dad can beat your dad." Why not focus on music instead? Remember music? Don't composers who fail to make the conventional list of greats, however one decides this, sometimes - or often - write great music? And don't the "greats" sometimes write lackluster works? And, if so, isn't a big part of the difference just a matter of frequency? So who, ultimately, cares if a less-than-great composer was "on" in a smaller proportion of his/her compositions? Listen to the great works and be happy.
> 
> Actually, I do have a theory about who becomes preoccupied with these issues: Perhaps those who aren't capable of-or confident about-passing aesthetic judgment on specific musical works talk about the status of composers because that requires less discrimination and entails less risk of ridicule, yet still allows them to assert their powers of taste and discernment - puffed feathers without the work or exposure. Nah, that couldn't be it.


I'm not happy with the term 'great' since it isn't clearly defined and thus, it wouldn't be clear which composers are generally considered 'great' relative to others. But, I don't understand why a discussion about the subject of who the great composers might be, and why, is some sort of 'childish', 'semi-adult' endeavor or why it infers some sort of insecurity about judging 'specific works'. Seems like an off-topic stretch to me.

Also, nowhere in the discussion do I see an overall value judgment that infers that the subject matter of this thread would mean that one would listen to, enjoy or place any judgment on any particular work whether from an 'alleged' great composer or not.

As an aside, personally, I find the subject as to why Bach, Beethoven and Brahms seem to be frequently mentioned as at the top of the heap to be rather interesting. I'm not even sure it can be put into words, but I enjoy the endeavor.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> There can be as many great composers as you want there to be.


In a previous post, I established that there were/are approximately 100 Great Composers, as inferred from my quick analysis of Harold C. Schonberg's _The Lives of the Great Composers_. As an aside, I found that Schonberg singles out Sibelius as "occupy[ing] an honorable place among the minor composers", thus relegating Sibelius to the selfsame colorless Limbo from which Schonberg in another chapter has rescued Rachmaninoff. De gustibus indeed, and in spades!

But I digress. Everybody interested in classical music should read the Wallace Brockway & Herbert Weinstock classic, _Men of Music_, first published in 1939 and revised in 1950. B&W are a hoot, to put it mildly, with strong views strongly and colorfully expressed on their Great Composers, some of whom they damn with extremely faint praise indeed, notably Liszt and Brahms. But the book is great fun, and you will find yourself re-reading it from time to time just for the pleasure of it. Anyway, here are B&W's Great Composers as of 1950: Bach, Handel, Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, Rossini, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, Verdi, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Strauss, Sibelius, Stravinsky. Just like all of us, strange eccentricity of taste, or penetrating insight.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't waste much time thinking about who or what is great and who or what isn't - it isn't a line of thought that takes me anywhere particularly - but I think I'm pretty good at recognizing greatness when I hear it. That recognition may take me unawares as I'm listening to something, or remembering the experience of it, or as I'm thinking of a composer's work and suddenly the sheer size of his creative imagination appears before me and I feel amazed or awed and see a vision of the peaks and valleys of human achievement unroll before me with a clarity that only thinking of such outstanding individual achievements can effect. Some peaks are higher than others in the landscape of history, and they put the rest in useful perspective. But the pleasure of contemplating the landscape is not the same as the pleasure of wandering about in it. When I climbed Mt. Monadnock, I didn't need to think of the existence of Mt. Everest - and if I did think of it, it only had the effect of heightening my different but exquisite pleasure in the gentle panorama of the New Hampshire countryside, and my gratitude for such an easy walk to the summit.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I'm not happy with the term 'great' since it isn't clearly defined and thus, it wouldn't be clear which composers are generally considered 'great' relative to others. But, I don't understand why a discussion about the subject of who the great composers might be, and why, is some sort of 'childish', 'semi-adult' endeavor or why it infers some sort of insecurity about judging 'specific works'. Seems like an off-topic stretch to me.
> 
> Also, nowhere in the discussion do I see an overall value judgment that infers that the subject matter of this thread would mean that one would listen to, enjoy or place any judgment on any particular work whether from an 'alleged' great composer or not.
> 
> As an aside, personally, I find the subject as to why Bach, Beethoven and Brahms seem to be frequently mentioned as at the top of the heap to be rather interesting. I'm not even sure it can be put into words, but I enjoy the endeavor.


DaveM, I very much agree with you, I to find such a conversation to be very interesting. No one says we have to solve the riddles of the universe, this is just a fun topic to explore.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> In a previous post, I established that there were/are approximately 100 Great Composers,


I think every nation have in average at least 100 great composers.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

Good luck with Andorra.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

This conversation is very interesting to me. Aesthetic judgement is like wisdom, very desirable but how to get it? How do you even define it? It is elusive. Not provable. More opinion than substance, mostly. But there is just a hint more in the topic than just opinion that has always intrigued me.

My primary musical interest is in the music from the High Classical era to the Late Romantic. Often termed the "Common Practice Era". Within the Common Practice Era it is possible to find more concrete means to differentiate composers and compositions. Orchestration, harmony, form, themes, and rhythms define the music of the C.P.E. and differences can be found between composers and compositions. 

At 63 years old I am learning constantly and I know I have a lot more to learn. One value in defining greatness is to focus my studies. As I get older I realize the hours and minutes I have left for music are not without limit. My time will run out.

With all that being said, I was recently thinking about Paul Dukas. Dukas is not on anyone's list of top composers, or great composers as far as I am aware. But based on great orchestration, great harmonies, memorable enduring themes, lively rhythms, aesthetic quality, and audience impact, I know of no single movement work that is superior to The Sorceror's Apprentice. If it is not a masterpiece, than I need to give up studying classical music. So why is Dukas not Great? Is it an automatic disqualification if you only write one great thing?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Klassic said:


> After having heard so much classical music, I can testify to the fact that great composers are rare. There are many _technicians_, but very few artist that have something original to say. Goethe talked about "snatching poetry from the air," it is the same way with music. I have heard the music of hundreds of technicians, but very few artist. This simply makes me appreciate an original voice when I hear it (even if the voice is not to my liking). While composers are abundant, great composers are rare. We could say the same thing about pianists. There are many competent technicians, but very few artist. Here I can give a concrete example: take Evgeny Kissin versus the mighty Sviotoslav Richter. Even Gould spoke of the artistry of Richter (I can assure you that he would never have discerned this in a technician like Kissin). This is not to say that Kissin has not performed some powerful pieces in a powerful way. (You can listen to Gould's commentary on Richter on youtube).


Agree, which is what makes a composer great.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

*"One value in defining greatness is to focus my studies. As I get older I realize the hours and minutes I have left for music are not without limit. My time will run out."*

This is such an excellent point; it explains the "why" behind the exercise of probing such a question as the greatness of composers.

I believe I can say more, I have been speaking about the dilemma we find ourselves in the moment we admit that not all composers are great (see my past replies). I suspect the answer to the question of greatness can be probed in two ways: one is the perspective one has in experiencing something great (this is a personal criteria, _and if I may_, the criteria that really _matters_ in the sense of "time running out") while the other way is to probe the topic from a broader, social context. Both of these approaches are valid. Hence we can say that Bach, within the context of music itself, is a great composer (regardless if one likes him), but we can also say, that the music of a more obscure composer is great, because it is great _to us_. I suspect this is the bottom line.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Truckload said:


> If it is not a masterpiece, than I need to give up studying classical music. So why is Dukas not Great? Is it an automatic disqualification if you only write one great thing?


I'd assume so. To be a great composer (if there is such a thing), you have to demostrate consistent greatness. Or at least pull it off more than once.

The question you should be asking is, why worry about great composers rather than great works? We don't listen to compsoers, we listen to works.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Klassic said:


> Both of these approaches are valid. Hence we can say that Bach, within the context of music itself, is a great composer (regardless if one likes him), but we can also say, that the music of a more obscure composer is great, because it is great _to us_. I suspect this is the bottom line.


I can mostly agree. There are many who think any attempt to define greatness is just personal opinion. Others, and there are fewer of them today than in the past, will say that greatness is not a matter of personal opinion. The conversation tends to end up running in the same circles. I mostly think that the more in depth our knowledge becomes, the more we can appreciate the differences between the Great and the not Great.

If Beethoven died after composing his first symphony in 1800, would he still be considered Great?

Just having fun with the conversation,


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

Great works come from someplace.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> The question you should be asking is, why worry about great composers rather than great works? We don't listen to compsoers, we listen to works.


True enough, but almost always the two go together. Thinking about Dukas bothers me for that very reason. It isn't as if Sorceror is just sort of good, it is truly great. I just finished anlyzing the score and the harmonies a few days ago, and it just amazed me with the quality of workmanship.

Still, I did decide to study the piece, even though Dukas is not on any list of Greats, so that agrees with your point.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

They're great and rare because their music is always well done !!! LOL !!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

To think that "greatness" is purely some inherent attribute of the music, without reference to the audience, is an error. Nations have perished from lesser follies!


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> To think that "greatness" is purely some inherent attribute of the music, without reference to the audience, is an error. Nations have perished from lesser follies!


Audiences in the time of Bach were really tough. He had to come up with brand new music every week. Talk about a new music friendly crowd. They would tolerate nothing less than brand new stuff or else whammy! no more cushy organist gig.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> The question you should be asking is, why worry about great composers rather than great works? We don't listen to compsoers, we listen to works.


Very true, but nonetheless we're fascinated by composers. I really don't know why.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

Try to write some, then get back to us.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Truckload said:


> I can mostly agree. There are many who think any attempt to define greatness is just personal opinion. Others, and there are fewer of them today than in the past, will say that greatness is not a matter of personal opinion. The conversation tends to end up running in the same circles. I mostly think that the more in depth our knowledge becomes, the more we can appreciate the differences between the Great and the not Great.
> 
> If Beethoven died after composing his first symphony in 1800, would he still be considered Great?
> 
> Just having fun with the conversation,


_
"If Beethoven died after composing his first symphony in 1800, would he still be considered Great?"_

In a social context we could measure this (if this was the social context we had to measure), but fortunately we have a better social context in which Beethoven is great. The very question assumes this, implying that he is great.

Is there anyone who would dare to (seriously) claim that Beethoven was not a great composer? So far as I can see he fits every social criteria that could ever be established; originality, technical, revolutionary, influential, profound humanitarian impact etc....


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> The question you should be asking is, why worry about great composers rather than great works? We don't listen to compsoers, we listen to works.


Yeah, that's what I was getting at. If someone asks: "Is X a great composer?," the best answer would be: "(S)he wrote these great pieces. Does that qualify by whatever arbitrary criteria you are using?"


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

KenOC said:


> To think that "greatness" is purely some inherent attribute of the music, without reference to the audience, is an error. Nations have perished from lesser follies!


My position does not do this. My position leaves subjectivity intact. I agree with you. How then, you might ask, can we talk about great composers outside the context of mere personal preference? Simple, within the context of a larger social structure. Yes, this structure is still subjective, but it is less subjective than the personal structure. Greatness is not some purely inherent attribute in the music, but is an attribute of the music _which resonates on a larger scale._


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Truckload said:


> If Beethoven died after composing his first symphony in 1800, would he still be considered Great?


I'm quite sure Beethoven would not be forgotten. His Piano Concerto #1 would certainly be in the orchestral repertoire, and several of his pre-1800 piano sonatas (including the Pathetique) and string and piano trios would still be played. Perhaps his early cello and violin sonatas as well. And of course his Op. 18 quartets. All these works were clearly pushing in a new direction, beyond the boundaries established by Mozart and Haydn, and all are of the highest quality.

But would he be considered a "great composer"? That's a tough one, and maybe depends on how influential the music he _did _manage to write turned out to be. At a minimum, he would be considered a composer of potential greatness who died too young.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> arbitrary criteria you are using?"


Arbitrary, wow. Just out of curiosity, do you have the same problem with "great" when used for painters, sculptors, architects, poets, and novelists?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Truckload said:


> I was recently thinking about Paul Dukas. Dukas is not on anyone's list of top composers, or great composers as far as I am aware. But based on great orchestration, great harmonies, memorable enduring themes, lively rhythms, aesthetic quality, and audience impact, I know of no single movement work that is superior to The Sorceror's Apprentice. If it is not a masterpiece, than I need to give up studying classical music. So why is Dukas not Great? Is it an automatic disqualification if you only write one great thing?


A thing may be great of its kind, but not all kinds are equally great.

Sardou's _Tosca_ is arguably a more perfectly made play than _King Lear_. Why then is it not on anyone's list of great plays?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Klassic said:


> Dear Mr. arpeggio, are all composers B level composers? What about a C level? How do you tell the difference? (_and I want to avoid sounding too snotty here_) I think perhaps, maybe you do not understand the dilemma? This is not specific to me. Anytime, any person, admits that something is better they have a criteria by which to judge that thing, it is no different in the case of music. If you deny that all composers are great then you have to face the same dilemma of differentiation (at least this is true for honest people).


Au contraire, I think that Arpeggio is making a very valid point and that you are artificially creating a dilemma by requiring differentiation. Why is that necessary? More importantly, HOW is it possible? There is no score-card.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Becca said:


> Au contraire, I think that Arpeggio is making a very valid point and that you are artificially creating a dilemma by requiring differentiation. Why is that necessary? More importantly, HOW is it possible? There is no score-card.


Becca, thank you for your reply. My point is that Mr. Arpeggio, whether he admits it or not, already has a criteria he utilizes to evaluate greatness (_unless he says nothing is great or all things are great_). Just so long as _any of us_ admits that not all things are great, then we are already making a distinction between greatness and non-greatness. What then am I doing: _trying to make us aware of this fact so we can more carefully refine our criteria._ Nothing is personal here. One cannot consistently speak of "B level composers" without equally assuming "A level composers," in which case, one has a criteria by which to tell the difference. Hence, one is faced with precisely the dilemma I mentioned, unless of course, your advice here is simply to _ignore_ the fact that such distinctions exists? But if this is the case then I'm afraid I don't understand why one would even raise an objection to anything I have said. Why not simply apply the same standard of ignorance?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I think that his comments are being taken to mean far more than they were intended to. His reference to B level composers referred to his previous comment about why do we only have to listen to great composers, i.e. by "B" he means "less than great" which does not imply any need for hierarchy. And, of course, the entire idea of who is great is totally subjective and probably not even consistent for any one person from one decade to the next. Personally I have stated in the past that the words 'great', 'greatest', etc., etc., should be banned from the forum


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

*"Personally I have stated in the past that the words 'great', 'greatest', etc., etc., should be banned from the forum." *

With all due respect, this seems a bit extreme to me. I have already made the case, within the course of this thread, that we can use the word great when referring to composers, that is, we speak within a social context. This is totally valid, and yet it retains the vital element of personal subjectivity. I think banning should be reserved for abusive actions.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

You haven't been a member of the forum long enough to see just how those words can get used & abused, and how many people can't appreciate that those words are strictly personal opinion and not fact.

BTW, please note the presence of the smiley after my statement, it is there on purpose.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Everyone's yapping about great composers, what about grate composers?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Everyone's yapping about great composers, what about grate composers?


 You mean grated composers? There are kitchen tools for that, but they're rather large. Suggestion: Freeze them first, less messy and easier clean-up.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I remember seeing a Glenn Gould video years ago where he said something to the effect of, "were I a betting man, I would place my chips for the prospect of immortality of great composers on Arnold Schoenberg." (This is just a paraphrase). I have no doubt many people on this Forum probably know the video I'm talking about.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*:.*



Klassic said:


> How then, you might ask, can we talk about great composers outside the context of mere personal preference? Simple, within the context of a larger social structure. Yes, this structure is still subjective, but it is less subjective than the personal structure. Greatness is not some purely inherent attribute in the music, but is an attribute of the music _which resonates on a larger scale._


We're either back to the bell curve/popularity contest argument, or to the J. Robert Oppenheimer tautology: that we should take our cues about what is good/great in the arts from the best-educated, most refined, most "cultured" stratum of society--people easily identified because they appreciate the best art. Not buying either. _De gustibus non disputandum est._


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

We are also at the point we people are will to change the minds.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Everyone's yapping about great composers, what about grate composers?


Ingrate!!!:devil:


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> We're either back to the bell curve/popularity contest argument, or to the J. Robert Oppenheimer tautology: that we should take our cues about what is good/great in the arts from the best-educated, most refined, most "cultured" stratum of society--people easily identified because they appreciate the best art. Not buying either. _De gustibus non disputandum est._


Fortunately you don't have to choose. You can both indulge in a journey of finding personal favorites based on first impressions and also take some occasional guidance from experts. Guidance is useful because often one has to put some effort into a genre or even a composition in order to begin to appreciate it.

I can see the allure of the idea that "it is all subjective" and that "first impressions are all you need", but following it to its logical conclusion leaves no room for genuine self-improvement, which I think would be a huge mistake when occurring culture-wide. Just look at America.

I don't think the experts are experts because they know and like all the best music. I think they are experts partially by accident, but also because they have more experience and perceptiveness than most people, at least at this stage in history. There is no tautology involved: they remember music better, they hear it more accurately, they can play an instrument rather well themselves. All this means that they have some relatively good ideas about which composers and works might be worth studying or getting to know in depth if you are interested in works of lasting value. Experts of course often have some form of biases of their own - often very knowledgeable about their own cultural heritage and very useful to that extent, but often also incapable of appreciating anything truly new (e.g. Schoenberg's bad treatment by critics of his time), though this aspect of their biases seems to be less of a problem now than a hundred years ago. Of course, they may also be ignorant of music from some particular era like the Renaissance or some particular culture. But if you choose your guides well, you'll probably have some cause for gratitude along the way that you wouldn't otherwise.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Arbitrary, wow. Just out of curiosity, do you have the same problem with "great" when used for painters, sculptors, architects, poets, and novelists?


Yes! Same sort of stuff comes up on literary forums: Five greatest novelists, greatest stylist, blah, blah, ecchhh!


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

Schumann said the many composers were great - for one chord progression.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Chordalrock said:


> Fortunately you don't have to choose. You can both indulge in a journey of finding personal favorites based on first impressions and also take some occasional guidance from experts. Guidance is useful because often one has to put some effort into a genre or even a composition in order to begin to appreciate it..


I don't think either of us has to choose between what I expressed in my post and what you've posted here; it's not a yes/no situation. I read extensively about the music, the lives and intentions (where known) of composers, the Zeitgeist, whatever. I've found that the more one learns about both The Thing and The Context, the greater one's understanding and one's possibility for pleasure. Having said and done that, though, no matter how you slice it and dice it, it comes down to personal taste as the only thing that matters, no matter what one chooses to tell oneself or, especially, others.


----------

