# Bach and Schubert - the summit of all music



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

Add both their ages of death, and you have a super human who lived for 31 + 65 = 96 years of glorious music.

Both are the supreme masters of a heavenly music that fills our mind with an urge to believe something else exists.

In sacred music, both are supreme. Bach the peak of all, Schubert adding more colours to his amazing masses.

In much vocal music, each one has a whole span of sung masterpieces, Bach's cantatas and Schubert's lieder are very much both sides of the most amazing vocal music ever.

The keyboards reached new beauties with each. Bach's magical fugues and WTC on harpsichord, Schubert's incredible late sonatas, all the other sonatas, piano duos, etc

Bach did not write symphonies, of course, but in his time it was interesting to see how much the concertos evolved, and Bach peaked them. BCs, Orchestral Suites, HConcertos, .

Schubert did not write a concerto, but wrote amazing chamber music and symphonies. His unfinished symphony sends as much shivers as a Bach passion. 

I love how deep their music is...how beautiful it reaches me, and I hope both reach you as strong as they should.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

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


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> I hope you refrain from making Schubert's music seem something more than it actually is. There have been people like Partita who tried to make Schubert's 6th mass out as if it's better than Bach's B minor. I'm sure we can just "shut up and enjoy the music" without drawing these ridiculous conclusions from comparisons.


Such statements belie your claim that music is subjective.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Hammeredklavier, I think that OP just admires both Schubert's and Bach's music and I think it's a more than well-justified admiration - let people love what they love! You admire Mozart - can someone convince you that Mozart's music was bad if you like it deeply? Probably not. It's the same case with this thread. Of course people are on very different opinions about what to call the summit of all music and I don't think we'll ever reach a mutual agreement but it's not worth taking the joy out of threads like this one. Even the music of the greatest composers has its weaknesses but if I like it, it must mean its strengths matter more to me. Pointing out these weaknesses will most probably not change my opinion.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I pity the man who doesn't enjoy Schubert's music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

flamencosketches said:


> I pity the man who doesn't enjoy Schubert's music.


I enjoy the enjoyable parts.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> I hope you refrain from making Schubert's music seem something more than it actually is. There have been people like Partita who tried to make Schubert's 6th mass out as if it's better than Bach's B minor. I'm sure we can just "shut up and enjoy the music" without drawing these ridiculous conclusions from comparisons.


Well I have to agree with hammeredklavier there. I love a lot of Schubert's music, but to be honest it doesn't have the overall excellence in all forms to be considered a "summit". There is -- _in my opinion_ -- a lot more unevenness of quality there than there is in Bach or Mozart, which seems to be characteristic sometimes of composers who write a vast quantity of music but...who aren't Bach or Mozart. (Think Telemann.)
And if I read a comment stating that Bach's B Minor Mass is a "dog's breakfast of ludicrous length" then that's a signal to tune out. (He did finish the Mass, by the way. It was the Art of Fugue that was left unfinished, or so it would appear.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

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


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

@hammeredklavier: If I understand you correctly, you personally do not enjoy Schubert's music. I assume you are aware that a large percentage of classical music listeners adore his music. There are those who don't like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Wagner, and you do not like Schubert. Fine.



hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect, it's not hard to see why Schubert and his compositional methods, (which were not really properly developed due to him spending too much time and money at brothels instead of his own musical development) always inspired less than other major composers in the practice and tradition. _"Tchaikovsky observed that Schubert could not quite be ranked alongside Mozart and Beethoven"_.


I'm not sure what Tchaikovsky intended with this statement, but essentially he placed Schubert in the category of every single classical composer except Bach. But he did say "could not quite" perhaps meaning Schubert was a great composer but not one of the 3 best. That sounds like a compliment.



hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, music (art) is subjective, and there's no such thing as "objective greatness", but then this also validates the statement "Schubert is not the summit". I think it's far more appropriate to say "There's no such thing as a summit in classical music" than "Schubert is the summit". If there really was a "summit" in classical music, Schubert would probably be the last (the least likely) candidate to be it.


I think you may be misunderstanding the OP or maybe misunderstanding this forum. I read the OP as aioriacont saying s/he loves Schubert and Bach. aioriacont hears Schubert's music as heavenly and amazing. So do I as do a high percentage of others. aioriacont wants to share this love of both Bach and Schubert as many TC members like to do. You do not enjoy Schubert so presumably you would not wish to share that love.



hammeredklavier said:


> There was one Schubert-favoring member who criticized Mozart's requiem as "being overrated". But there's a whole book on how influential the work has been in classical music. Schubert has virtually no parallel in the practice and tradition. Why should we give so much credit and praise to "someone who didn't contribute that much in giving inspiration" by labeling him as "the summit". If you value and respect the tradition, you wouldn't talk this way.


There are people on TC who adore Wagner, Mahler, Glazunov, Messiaen, and many others. They respect the tradition by sharing their love of some of the greatest music ever composed. There's no reason not to express one's love or even one's high valuation of great music. There are countless threads devoted to member's love of various composers. Do we really care exactly which words they use to show that joy. Of course not.



hammeredklavier said:


> If Schubert's music sounds good to you and you like it, -just say that it sounds good and you like it, just talk about what you like about it without making ridiculous "comparisons". Let's not use cringey hyperboles or superlatives like "the greatest ever", "the summit", or "the peak", to glorify it way out of proportion. aioriacont's post is exactly the kind of writing that makes me want to puke.


People should talk about music as they see fit especially if one is obviously simply expressing their love of certain composers or their music. Perhaps one could suggest that if one dislikes a composer they should simply state that once or twice and leave the love to those who appreciate that composer. Does that seem reasonable? TC is not a music journal, composition class, or collection of advanced musicians. TC is a collection of classical music lovers who love to share their views on and love of classical music. That's what is wonderful about this forum. We don't expect everyone to agree, but we all understand each other's passion for the music we love.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> If Schubert's music sounds good to you and you like it, -just say that it sounds good and you like it, just talk about what you like about it without making ridiculous "comparisons". Let's not use cringey hyperboles or superlatives like "the greatest ever", "the summit", or "the peak", to glorify it way out of proportion. aioriacont's post is exactly the kind of writing that makes me want to puke.


That's exactly what you do with Mozart. Every chance you get, you change the direction of threads through your worship of Mozart and disdain for Schubert.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> That's exactly what you do with Mozart. Every chance you get, you change the direction of threads through your worship of Mozart and disdain for Schubert.


Yes, you're exactly right. And for some unfathomable reason, he continues to get away with it.

@hammeredklavier: This is a thread about Schubert and Bach. There is no place for Mozart idolatry here. Kindly take your Mozart idolatry elsewhere.


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect...
> ...aioriacont's post is exactly the kind of writing that makes me want to puke.


Although I share your admiration for Mozart, I don't like this post. Your argument is factually correct, but you need to realize that you are not responding professional article published in a musicological journal. I think it's useless to respond to someone's enthusiasm with such strong words.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

aioriacont said:


> Add both their ages of death, and you have a super human who lived for 31 + 65 = 96 years of glorious music.
> 
> Both are the supreme masters of a heavenly music that fills our mind with an urge to believe something else exists.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you've found a couple of composers that have touched your soul. Especially in these days of pandemic, classical music serves to remind us that there is still much beauty in the world. I think Bach's _St. John Passion_ and _St. Matthew Passion_ can be regarded as the two most important religious works. As John Gardner has stated in his book on the life of Bach (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), "Bach at once touches what is human and what is divine." Schubert's in a different place, and there are lots of contenders to rival Schubert as a composer of symphonies and chamber works. I think Schubert stands out as a composer of songs or _lieder_, though some of Schumann's songs or _song cycles_ are as good or even better than Schubert's. To my ears, Schubert is a very pastoral composer, very much in line with the natural world. When I hear Schubert I think of trees, flowers, birds singing, and other beautiful things. Schubert's _Winterreise_ is a seemless blending of the season of winter and the winter of life. I don't know if your math makes any sense, though. You say that Bach and Schubert lived a combined total of 96 and therefore gave the world "96 years of glorious music" but that couldn't be unless they each started composing at the age of one. Even the child prodigy Mozart didn't start composing until age five.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

What's that? I love them both, my number 2 and 3. Maybe your body resonates with their music or something


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

annaw said:


> Hammeredklavier, I think that OP just admires both Schubert's and Bach's music and I think it's a more than well-justified admiration - let people love what they love! You admire Mozart - can someone convince you that Mozart's music was bad if you like it deeply? Probably not. It's the same case with this thread. Of course people are on very different opinions about what to call the summit of all music and I don't think we'll ever reach a mutual agreement but it's not worth taking the joy out of threads like this one. Even the music of the greatest composers has its weaknesses but if I like it, it must mean its strengths matter more to me. *Pointing out these weaknesses will most probably not change my opinion.*


But are the things member hammeredklavier points out truly weaknesses? Or just characteristics that _he_ views as weaknesses? He loves to attack late Beethoven for example for his use of long passages of tremolos and trills and in my perspective at least these are actually strengths: Beethoven is doing something different from the conventions of his time. The same with the finale of the Ninth, hammeredklavier seems to detest it and find thousands of "weaknesses" in it but I actually think that it's one of the most wonderful and original moments of Beethoven's music.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

aioriacont said:


> Add both their ages of death, and you have a super human who lived for 31 + 65 = 96 years of glorious music.
> 
> Both are the supreme masters of a heavenly music that fills our mind with an urge to believe something else exists.
> 
> ...


These are two of the most brilliant composers ever also in my opinion and on my part it's nice to see that you also enjoy their music. Don't listen to the haters; Schubert _is_ great, no matter what they say, and blind spots we all have (but some unfortunately seem willing to prove that theirs are the absolute truth, although they aren't).


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Allerius said:


> But are the things member hammeredklavier point truly weaknesses? Or just characteristics that _he_ views as weaknesses? He loves to attack late Beethoven for example for his use of long passages of tremolos and trills and in my perspective at least these are actually strenghts: Beethoven is doing something different from the conventions of his time. The same with the finale of the Ninth, hammeredklavier seems to detest it and find thousands of "weaknesses" in it but I actually think that it's one of the most wonderful and original moments of Beethoven's music.


I actually started thinking about the same thing but seemingly didn't have the strength to press "Edit post" again and write "(subjective) weaknesses" instead (so now I can write this significantly longer post :lol. Regarding Beethoven, I'm with you! I love late Beethoven and the finale of the Ninth is probably my favourite symphonic movement!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bluecrab said:


> This is a thread about Schubert and Bach. There is no place for Mozart idolatry here. Kindly take your Mozart idolatry elsewhere.





Bulldog said:


> That's exactly what you do with Mozart. Every chance you get, you change the direction of threads through your worship of Mozart and disdain for Schubert.


I just don't get the purpose of this thread. Is the OP _demanding us to accept_ that "Schubert tops everyone else"? What kind responses is he expecting for it? I'm sure there are many ways to praise a composer's music without resorting to highly exaggerated, egotistical claims such as "He Beats Everyone Else", "He wrote the Best Stuff Ever". As many people including me on this forum have demonstrated:



hammeredklavier said:


> But it wasn't until he studied with Padre Martini in Bologna and studied Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum 5 years later, he started to become seriously good at the stuff.
> I think his Missa longa K.262 in C major (1775) is an interesting example to discuss. About how it's different in expressivity from the masterful Missa in honorem sanctissimae trinitatis (K.167, which he wrote two years earlier), and how Mozart starts to outgrow the influences of his father (and other Salzburg masters including Eberlin) in expressivity, and show-off many various aspects of contrapuntal composition (canon, fugato, double fugato, fugue, double fugue, triple fugue) with a "Look, daddy! No hands!" attitude.
> Kyrie: contains sections of double fugues in sonata-ritornello form [0:32]. It has a striking development in a darker color [1:46].
> Gloria: contains sections of expressive counterpoint, for example, _"Domine fili.."_ [4:25],
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> I find this to be the most interesting work Mozart wrote at 20.
> It consists of 9 movements, but there are elements of contrast and connections between them:
> _"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
> [10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

There are many ways to write great music without elaborate counterpoint, such as Gluck's _Orfeo ed Euridice_, or Pergolesi's _Stabat Mater_. Some people try to make it seem like Schubert's only problem is his lack of facility with counterpoint. But I find that he just lacks "proper sense" in writing music with form. If Schubert had a theme like the slow movement of Brahms' 3rd symphony, for example, I can imagine in my mind what kind of "amazing stuff" he would have done with it. The OP mentions "Schubert's piano duos" as being part of his "great works" but I'm so baffled by those claims. I think Schubert just didn't improve or make progress with the lessons he got. I acknowledge that other people can hear things in Schubert that I don't. But at the same time I always wonder why overhype Schubert so much when there are obscure composers (especially Schubert's own contemporaries) who wrote music more skillfully expressive than Schubert's.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I just don't get the purpose of this thread. Is the OP _demanding us to accept_ that "Schubert tops everyone else"?


It's obvious to me that the thread's purpose is to enthusiastically praise the music of Schubert and Bach. The OP isn't demanding anything of us; I'm surprised you would give that notion any consideration.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I did find the "hope both reach you as strong as they *should*" a bit strong, which seems to imply acknowledging both the summit of all music. But then all writing is full of hyperboles. No big deal one way or another. It's the same as me saying Prokofiev is also at that summit, as you all should know or else there is some kind of deficiency with you.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I did find the "hope both reach you as strong as they *should*" a bit strong, which seems to imply acknowledging both the summit of all music. But then all writing is full of hyperboles. No big deal one way or another. It's the same as me saying Prokofiev is also at that summit, as you all should know or else there is some kind of deficiency with you.


indeed, I admit i used quite a strong use of words! Thank you for you polite reply.

Very nice and cool replies overall! Nice to see so many Bach and Schubert lovers here. 
Indeed, I'd like to share my admiration for my two favorite composers. Others who I love are Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Bartok, Dvorak...In jazz there are Miles, Coltrane, Mingus, who also inspire me a lot. All these guys music are together with when I work, when I walk, when I read...their art amazing companions of my daily life.

And hammeredklavier, be more polite to others. Some text comprehension or even basic logic thinking lessons can be useful too, as it can be matter of lack of overall cognitive capacity other than manners - or both. Besides that, your speech and manners are so lacking in relevance that I will not even bother replying to them anymore.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Ahh, the 3 Bs: 

Bach, Brahms, and Schubert


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

aioriacont said:


> And hammeredklavier, be more polite to others. Some text comprehension or even basic logic thinking lessons can be useful too, as it can be matter of lack of overall cognitive capacity other than manners - or both. Besides that, your speech and manners are so lacking in relevance that I will not even bother replying to them anymore.


I apologize about the offensive comments I said in this thread (about how your post makes me want to puke). Thinking too much about the past experiences I had (with members like Partita and others) regarding this issue probably made me act this way. Making you feel bad for liking Schubert was never my intention. I again acknowledge you and other people hear things in Schubert that I don't, and your judgement of his music is not objectively "wrong". Please feel free to discuss what you think are good things about his music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect, it's not hard to see why Schubert and his compositional methods, (which were not really properly developed due to him spending too much time and money at brothels instead of his own musical development) always inspired less than other major composers in the practice and tradition. _"Tchaikovsky observed that Schubert could not quite be ranked alongside Mozart and Beethoven"_.


That Schubert visited brothels is irrelevant - clearly an ad hominem - and regarding Tchaikovsky - as I have mentioned before he is hardly the most disinterested critic - he described Brahms as a 'talentless b*stard'.

BTW - a wasn't actually attempting to make a case for Schubert - just pointing out that your acceptance of the subjectivity of music aesthetics is very questionable.



> Just look how he modulates (F#->A). As if he thought it was cool, he does it again in the next measures, with dotted rhythm. It's as if he's saying: "Hey! Look how cool this is! Haha!"


I played it through on the piano - it's a modulation - but since I don't know the piece (I would need more context) it's hard to give an opinion.



> in certain sections of the Rosamunde quartet, in each measure it goes like - all the voices start on note A, the next measure, on note D, the next, on G, the next, on C.. (Wow..)


And?



> Sure, music (art) is subjective, and there's no such thing as "objective greatness", but then this also validates the statement "Schubert is not the summit". I think it's far more appropriate to say "There's no such thing as a summit in classical music" than "Schubert is the summit". If there really was a "summit" in classical music, Schubert would probably be the last (the least likely) candidate to be it.
> There was one Schubert-favoring member who criticized Mozart's requiem as "being overrated". But there's a whole book on how influential the work has been in classical music. Schubert has virtually no parallel in the practice and tradition. Why should we give so much credit and praise to "someone who didn't contribute that much in giving inspiration" by labeling him as "the summit". If you value and respect the tradition, you wouldn't talk this way.
> If Schubert's music sounds good to you and you like it, -just say that it sounds good and you like it, just talk about what you like about it without making ridiculous "comparisons". Let's not use cringey hyperboles or superlatives like "the greatest ever", "the summit", or "the peak", to glorify it way out of proportion. aioriacont's post is exactly the kind of writing that makes me want to puke.


Perhaps aioriacont should not have used the word 'should':

_I love how deep their music is...how beautiful it reaches me, and I hope both reach you as strong as they *should*.
_



> "Wagner's life-long admiration included an encounter in the mid-to late 1820s that 'formed the starting point of my enthusiastic absorption in the works of that master [Mozart]' and contemplations of it late in life as well; Anton Rubinstein, Mahler Richard Strauss, Stanford and Rimsky-Korsakov all conducted it, Rimsky-Korsakov also quoting extensively from the Introit in the final section of _Mozart and Salieri_. Described in 1902 as one of Mozart's works that 'speaks persuadingly to every generation . . . [through which] Mozart's influence still persists and must be reckoned with as a factor in the complexus of forces which is moulding the music of the new century', it had similar exposure among twentieth century composers. Bartok used examples from the Requiem in his teaching; Szymanowski wrote of its 'divine grief', the most powerful 'eruption' of the 'grim, powerful call from a world beyond ours' in Mozart's late music; Janecek conducted a highly successful performance of it in Brno in the late 1870s and another in the memory of Smetana in Prague in 1916; the fifteen-year-old Walton sang a solo part in a performance at Christ Church, Oxford, in December 1917; Britten considered it an important historical precedent for the modern-day composer in writing his own War Requiem (1961-2), subsequently reacting profoundly to conducting Mozart's work (1971)."
> (Mozart's Requiem: Reception, Work, Completion, By Simon P. Keefe, Page 6)


Okay - I'm not a great fan of Mozart's requiem but it's influence is to be respected. If I took the time to compare it with all other such masses written at the time I would probably admit that Mozart's was the best - indeed, of all the music I have heard of this period he comes out on top for me.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I apologize about the offensive comments I said in this thread (about how your post makes me want to puke). Thinking too much about the past experiences I had (with members like Partita and others) regarding this issue probably made me act this way. Making you feel bad for liking Schubert was never my intention. I again acknowledge you and other people hear things in Schubert that I don't, and your judgement of his music is not objectively "wrong". Please feel free to discuss what you think are good things about his music.


Congratulations and thanks for this post, hammeredklavier 
I also apologize for the harsh answer I gave you in my last post.
Cheers!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect, it's not hard to see why Schubert and his compositional methods, (which were not really properly developed due to him spending too much time and money at brothels instead of his own musical development) always inspired less than other major composers in the practice and tradition. _"Tchaikovsky observed that Schubert could not quite be ranked alongside Mozart and Beethoven"_


And I observe that Tchaikovsky cannot quite be ranked with Schubert. Tchaikovsky's opinion doesn't mean much to me.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Sonata in B-Flat Major, D. 960 - Molto moderato - (Richard Goode) - absolutely sublime imo.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Symphony No.8 in B minor, D.759 - "Unfinished"


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

consuono said:


> And I observe that Tchaikovsky* cannot quite be ranked* with Schubert. Tchaikovsky's opinion doesn't mean much to me.


How about the opinions of those who are ranking?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> How about the opinions of those who are ranking?


They're opinions. I'd respect the opinions of many anonymous commenters here more than Tchaikovsky's, though. The guy seems to have had a critical streak that wasn't in keeping with his own status, in my opinion. He should've concentrated more on form within his own work than in trashing Handel or Brahms. Maybe Tchaikovsky should've been a professional critic.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

consuono said:


> And I observe that Tchaikovsky cannot quite be ranked with Schubert. Tchaikovsky's opinion doesn't mean much to me.


Tchaikovsky was not wrong about Schubert, just like he wasn't about Brahms and Bach. He was in as great a position as it gets to make calls in these matters.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

consuono said:


> They're opinions. I'd respect the opinions of many anonymous commenters here more than Tchaikovsky's, though. The guy seems to have had a critical streak that wasn't in keeping with his own status, in my opinion. He should've concentrated more on form within his own work than in trashing Handel or Brahms. *Maybe Tchaikovsky should've been a professional critic.*


The thing is... he was! Tchaikovsky was a professional music critic.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

annaw said:


> The thing is... he was! Tchaikovsky was a professional music critic.


I wasn't aware of that, or had forgotten it. OK, let's clarify: he should've been a professional critic * exclusively *.


Fabulin said:


> Tchaikovsky was not wrong about Schubert, just like he wasn't about Brahms and Bach. He was in as great a position as it gets to make calls in these matters.


Well, that's your opinion. I don't share it.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

consuono said:


> OK, let's clarify: he should've been a professional critic * exclusively *.


So you are saying that Tchaikovsky shouldn't have been a composer?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> So you are saying that Tchaikovsky shouldn't have been a composer?


I'm saying I'd rather hear Schubert or Brahms than Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Our friend @Hammeredklavier has written a detailed post (beginning of this thread) for Schubert. He has written among the others: _there's something "wrong" about his identity as a classical music composer_. If instead the noun _identity _had used the word _*life*_ he could had much more success with his arguments. Schubert had an extremely difficult life. He was fat, small, with many illnesses and very isolated (not social) as a personality. He had also difficulties to speak (was very shy), from the very simple words ''how do you do?'' to more complex things such ''Maria I love you'' or ''Herr Beethoven you are my hero!'' Under these circumstances what he achieved in music is GLORIUS. Without social contact, without the energy is coming from love, it is admirable he made such GREAT music. I consider his case worst than this of Hugo Wolf. Both they found liberty in Lieder. The second died in asylum. Tragical stories. BIG music and a lot of respect for Franz. (Bach had an easy life. He is CERTAINLY bigger composer than Schubert and second only to Beethoven. But his music is of another gerne. So, any comparison is useless).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> I apologize about the offensive comments I said in this thread (about how your post makes me want to puke). Thinking too much about the past experiences I had (with members like Partita and others) regarding this issue probably made me act this way. Making you feel bad for liking Schubert was never my intention. I again acknowledge you and other people hear things in Schubert that I don't, and your judgement of his music is not objectively "wrong". Please feel free to discuss what you think are good things about his music.


Clearly, another case of post-traumatic syndrome. I've been there.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Dimace said:


> ... (Bach had an easy life. He is CERTAINLY bigger composer than Schubert and second only to Beethoven. But his music is of another gerne. So, any comparison is useless).


Orphaned by the time he was 10, first wife died while he was away, about half of his many children died before reaching maturity...no, I'd say Bach's life wasn't really easy. And psssst...he's second to none.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

consuono said:


> And I observe that Tchaikovsky cannot quite be ranked with Schubert. Tchaikovsky's opinion doesn't mean much to me.





consuono said:


> I wasn't aware of that, or had forgotten it. OK, let's clarify: he should've been a professional critic * exclusively *.


Come on now, you're been unfair to one of Russia's greatest composers ever. Tchaikovsky is a genius in the department of creating long, beautiful and asymmetrical melodies associated with gorgeous orchestrations that, through the expressive use of dynamics, particularly crescendos, make the music reach apotheotic heights. He was one of the first composers to notate a ffff in the score (of the _1812 overture_), created some of the most famous and influential ballets of all times, was Russia's first great symphonist, made experimentations with rhythms (that undanceable 5/4 waltz that is the second movement of the _Pathétique_ symphony is supposed to have influenced Stravinsky himself according to Copland in his book _What to Listen for in Music_) etc. If Tchaikovsky had not been a composer the world of music today would be significantly poorer in my opinion.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I don’t believe Bach or Schubert to be ‘the summit of all music’. I think that’s a preposterous and, quite frankly, ill-informed comment to make. What do we make of Mozart or Beethoven? Were their musical contributions of no importance? I think the problem when saying ludicrous statements such as the one made by the OP in the title of this thread, is it opens oneself up to much criticism and even suspicion. To be even more honest, I don’t care much for Bach and I only like a few Schubert works, but I would never make the claim that they’re ‘the summit of all music’.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> I don't believe Bach or Schubert to be 'the summit of all music'. I think that's a preposterous and, quite frankly, ill-informed comment to make. What do we make of Mozart or Beethoven? Were their musical contributions of no importance?


Take it easy. The OP never said that other composers didn't make contributions.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I read the OP as saying that the OP's favorite composers are Bach and Schubert. The OP wished to share that view and hear from others who also love Bach and Schubert. In fact, aioriacont later posted:



> I admit i used quite a strong use of words! ...Nice to see so many Bach and Schubert lovers here.
> Indeed, I'd like to share my admiration for my two favorite composers.


I hardly feel that the OP "opens oneself up to much criticism and even suspicion." Perhaps a question or two could help clarify the OP's intent and views. Schubert is certainly viewed as one of the greatest composers. If someone views him as their favorite and supreme in many ways, fine. Schubert falls in my general category of truly great composers if not at the top.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Take it easy. The OP never said that other composers didn't make contributions.


I didn't say that he said they didn't make contributions. I was asking a question that only the OP can answer.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> I didn't say that he said they didn't make contributions. I was asking a question that only the OP can answer.


At least he didn't say that Hanson and Pachebel were the summit.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I read the OP as saying that the OP's favorite composers are Bach and Schubert. The OP wished to share that view and hear from others who also love Bach and Schubert. In fact, aioriacont later posted:
> 
> I hardly feel that the OP "opens oneself up to much criticism and even suspicion." Perhaps a question or two could help clarify the OP's intent and views. Schubert is certainly viewed as one of the greatest composers. If someone views him as their favorite and supreme in many ways, fine. Schubert falls in my general category of truly great composers if not at the top.


I just happen to think that saying that whatever composer one likes is 'the summit of all music' is pretentious. 'The summit of all music' is a far cry from saying something like 'I truly feel that Bach and Schubert are two of the greatest composers that ever lived', but this wasn't said in the thread headliner was it? The OP had to make a grand statement only to try to say he loves their music and he hopes that others do as well _after_ he had already made that kind of statement. As I've said, they're NOT 'the summit of all music' for me and never will be, because 1. it's just not going to happen and 2. even if I did like the composers, I wouldn't ever make that sort of assertion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Well, Bach is my summit - Schubert no. That's just personal.

Overall, I think you are taking this matter too seriously, but you obviously feel otherwise.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Well, Bach is my summit - Schubert no. That's just personal.
> 
> Overall, I think you are taking this matter too seriously, but you obviously feel otherwise.


Sorry, but when it comes to music, it's not a joking matter to me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I just happen to think that saying that whatever composer one likes is 'the summit of all music' is pretentious. 'The summit of all music' is a far cry from saying something like 'I truly feel that Bach and Schubert are two of the greatest composers that ever lived', but this wasn't said in the thread headliner was it? The OP had to make a grand statement only to try to say he loves their music and he hopes that others do as well _after_ he had already made that kind of statement. As I've said, they're NOT 'the summit of all music' for me and never will be, because 1. it's just not going to happen and 2. even if I did like the composers, I wouldn't ever make that sort of assertion.


I understand. Neither Bach not Schubert would be in my top 2, but they're both close. Anyway, I just thought the thread was an attempt to celebrate their music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I understand. Neither Bach not Schubert would be in my top 2, but they're both close. Anyway, I just thought the thread was an attempt to celebrate their music.


And he did so without uttering a single negative word about any other composers; that's an accomplishment on TC.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allerius said:


> Come on now, you're been unfair to one of Russia's greatest composers ever. Tchaikovsky is a genius in the department of creating long, beautiful and asymmetrical melodies associated with gorgeous orchestrations that, through the expressive use of dynamics, particularly crescendos, make the music reach apotheotic heights. He was one of the first composers to notate a ffff in the score (of the _1812 overture_), created some of the most famous and influential ballets of all times, was Russia's first great symphonist, made experimentations with rhythms (that undanceable 5/4 waltz that is the second movement of the _Pathétique_ symphony is supposed to have influenced Stravinsky himself according to Copland in his book _What to Listen for in Music_) etc. If Tchaikovsky had not been a composer the world of music today would be significantly poorer in my opinion.


I think you're right. I'm not a huge fan, but I don't think Tchaikovsky's some kind of abomination either. TBH I think his sour attitude toward some composers that I actually admire caused me to have a sour attitude toward _him_, which isn't really a rational critique.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

Indeed people! 
my intention was not to imply that those two composers are the absolute best, though I agree i badly expressed myself by the term "summit", which I honestly believe can't be applied to any art form, since it is all about personal taste.

In fact, I have other musicians from other genres who go pretty close to Bach and Schubert in my personal taste, for example Yuki Kajiura, Miles Davis and John Coltrane. But those two from the thread title are my absolute favorites in terms of various criteria, especially in how they touch my feelings. But i would never consider them a superior limit that no one else could surpass - after all, there's nothing to surpass at all, music is not a competition in my view.
Cheers!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

janxharris said:


> That Schubert visited brothels is irrelevant...


I'm not so sure of that. For all we know, Schubert may have returned from brothel visits inspired to write some of his most beautiful music given that as much as brothels are generally looked down on by society, those who frequented them seemed to enjoy the experience enough to return to them often. 

Perhaps it was after such an occasion that Schubert wrote this. Or maybe not, but in any event, regardless of long tomes written in an attempt to diminish his music, the fact is that any composer that could create music like this was simply blessed:






I would also point out that anyone who adores Mozart and the legacy that he left should be able to appreciate the originality of the work above which includes a melodic complexity as if produced by someone with 3 hands (watch Horowitz's fingering) -something which anticipated the solo piano works of Chopin, Mendelssohn and Schumann- and a sound that is not of the Classical period regardless of the inability of some of Schubert's contemporaries (not including LVB) to avoid sounding like Mozart.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Schubert's heavenly-lengthy music makes me believe there was something else going on in his life that held him back from being a fully professional classical music composer. I doubt he's any more capable than C.P.E. Bach (in orchestral music) and J.A. Hasse (in choral music). Frankly, if a classical music composer pumps out 600+ popsongs to fill his oeuvre, there's something "wrong" about his identity as a classical music composer. (Vivaldi at least did it with concertos). People are crazy about how he was a "poet" and could set interesting lyrics to them. But Erlkönig honestly sounds like a 4-minute-long machine gun, like a lot of his other works. A load of "unsalted, unspiced meat", even now, I can hear in my mind all those diluted, padded-out arpeggios of his lieder. I'll admit he was a good "tune-smith" in works like the Arpeggione sonata. But his contemporaries, Spohr, Weber, Hummel did stuff more striking than Schubert.


I tend to agree with a lot of your comments. That's an affectionate compliment. But alas, if you were wrong anywhere, it would be here.


----------

