# The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History - According to You



## peeyaj

I can't believe that we don't have a specific thread regarding this subject. So, I'll post this. Feel free to argue the merits of your lists, and some of us we'll be compelled to defend ours.

Here are my guilty suspects.

* Most Overrated *

a. Mozart

b. Tchaikovsky

c. Mahler

d. Liszt

e. Philip Glass

f. John Cage

g. Stravinsky

* Most Underrated *

a. Monteverdi

b. Schubert

c. Handel

d. Schoenberg

e. Debussy

Mozart created some of the most beautiful and memorable music in Classical era. I just don't understand the adulation he received today. Tchaikovsky, in my opinion, is very competent composer, but his music doesn't ''do'' me. Same to Mahler' symphonies.

On, the other hand, we can argue that Schubert is as popular as ever, but there are some, who think that he's only a ''gifted amatuer'' (that's bs, btw). Monteverdi's contribution to opera was often overlooked, while Schoenberg's twelve-tone system continues to baffle listeners..

I am tempted to include LvB in the overrated, but I don't wanna die.. 

It's important to distinguish between ''overrated'' and ''underappreciated''.

What's in your list?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Under-appreciated:

Boulez
Varese
Stockhausen
Xenakis
Ligeti
The 2nd Viennese school
Wagner (!)

Overrated:

Tchaikovsky
Brahms


----------



## Pieck

peeyaj said:


> I am tempted to include LvB in the overrated, but I don't wanna die..


I'll take the chance


----------



## Pieck

emiellucifuge said:


> Overrated:
> Tchaikovsky
> Brahms


Oh, man


----------



## emiellucifuge

peeyaj said:


> there are some, who think that he's only a ''gifted amatuer'' (that's bs, btw).


Who?! :devil:


----------



## Art Rock

Most overrated: Verdi, Handel, Monteverdi, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky
Most underrated: Bax, Suk, Takemitsu, Barber, Respighi


----------



## Toccata

Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to let me know which list of composers I should be looking at as providing some kind of definitive list of ranks, before I decide which members on that list I consider to be overrated and underrated.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Were just speculating on what we perceive to be public opinion


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> Were just speculating on what we perceive to be public opinion


Ok then, please tell me how you perceive public opinion ranks the top 25 composers.


----------



## Josiah

Most Overrated: John Cage

Most Underrated: Pretty much all of the living composers... Except John Adams.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Toccata said:


> Ok then, please tell me how you perceive public opinion ranks the top 25 composers.


No thank you,
In my previous post I gave an idea of who I believe the public values too highly and too lowly.


----------



## Toccata

peeyaj said:


> Mozart created some of the most beautiful and memorable music in Classical era. I just don't understand the adulation he received today.


If the first statement is correct, why do you reckon Mozart is overrated today? People obviously like music from the Classical era. That's your answer.


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> No thank you,
> In my previous post I gave an idea of who I believe the public values too highly and too lowly.


I'm truly disappointed that you can't point to anything specific when you refer to "public opinion" about the rank order of the top classical composers.

I rather fear that this limits the usefulness of exercises like this insofar that we all have different perceptions of what we think other people think about they they think they like, as opposed to what we think they ought to like if they have the same musical prejudices as we have.

Don't you think?


----------



## toucan

The most overrated composer of all times has to be Dmitri Shostakovich. His music is imitative to the point of fabrication & simple-minded imitations at that, yet he is placed (by some) on a foot of equality with the original, Gustav Mahler.

Tchaikovsky is a good choice, though at least (unlike Shostakovich) he is authentic - same with Sibelius, who could also have been cited here.

Compared with Schubert or Chopin Brahms is heavy-handed, needing an hour and countless instruments to say less than Chopin and Schubert can say in less than a minute, using one pair of hands only. But perhaps the one who is most overrated there is Brahms' second-fiddle Dvorak, because he is Brahms' second-fiddle.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Toccata said:


> I'm truly disappointed that you can't point to anything specific when you refer to "public opinion" about the rank order of the top classical composers.
> 
> I rather fear that this limits the *usefulness* of exercises like this insofar that we all have different perceptions of what we think other people think about they they think they like, as opposed to what we think they ought to like if they have the same musical prejudices as we have.
> 
> Don't you think?


I am sorry to dissapoint you. Perhaps you are right, though I wasnt planning to use the responses in this thread for anything in particular, so it doesnt really bother me.


----------



## emiellucifuge

toucan said:


> The most overrated composer of all times has to be Dmitri Shostakovich. His music is imitative to the point of fabrication & simple-minded imitations at that, yet he is placed (by some) on a foot of equality with the original, Gustav Mahler.


You are right, but you also have to consider the oppressive society in which he lived. After Stalin's death we see a much more individual, original and creative Shostakovich.


----------



## science

I'm unwilling to say that anyone is overrated. 

But underrated! Well... 

Haydn
Brahms
Monteverdi
Lully
Berg
Biber
Franck
Palestrina
Telemann
Albeniz
Pergolesi
Tallis
Crumb


----------



## Il Seraglio

At the risk of kicking the proverbial hornet's nest.

Underrated
Francesco Carillo
Charpentier
Hasse
Francesco Araja
Rossini
Donizetti
Bellini
*Weber*
Bizet
Sarasate
Ariel Ramirez
Harry Partch
La Monte Young

Overrated
Wagner
Brahms
Mahler
Scriabin
Vaughan-Williams
Schoenberg
*John Cage*
John Adams


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> I am sorry to dissapoint you. Perhaps you are right, though I wasnt planning to use the responses in this thread for anything in particular, so it doesnt really bother me.


When someone says they think that a particular composer is underrated (or overrated as the case may be) all they're really saying is that _"I happen to like Composer X more than I think everyone else does"._ By implication, they think they're right and everyone else is wrong.

That's the curious thing about all this speculation, that if everybody expressed their opinion on which composers they considered to be underrated and overrated, and the results then totaled, you should finish up with results which match the starting position of "public opinion". Hence the whole exercise wouuld be a waste of time. To the extent that the results did not tally with public opinion, this would be a measure of the bias in the estimation procedure, a significant element of which would probably be the self-selecting sample of those who bother to respond to such an exercise, i.e. principally those who think they know better than the majority.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Here we go again... 

You'll have to explain this to me:



Toccata said:


> they're really saying is that _"I happen to like Composer X more than I think everyone else does"._ By implication, they think they're right and everyone else is wrong.


I havent put much thought into this thread so youll have to take it up with the OP, I merely participated by stating two composers whom I believe do not deserve all the recognition they received, and also listed a few composers I think deserve more attention.


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> Here we go again...
> 
> You'll have to explain this to me:
> 
> I havent put much thought into this thread so youll have to take it up with the OP, I merely participated by stating two composers whom I believe do not deserve all the recognition they received, and also listed a few composers I think deserve more attention.


Easily explained: it's simply that I like to probe concepts like "underrated" and "overrated", which I happen to think are useless if the point of comparison is with "public opinion", because if you get a non-biased response from the public you will finish up where you start, namely with the status quo public opinion. If you finish up with something else the sample is probably biased and not representative of the majority viewpoint.

I merely happen to have to have picked up your comments because you are such good fun to have an exchange of views with. So much so that, in the light of your selection of underrated and overrated composers, I was tempted to look back at your offering in the recent poll on _Top 25 Composers_. I see from that list that you placed Brahms at No 8, Tchaikovsky at No 14, Webern at No 18, Ligeti at No 21, and Xenakis at No 24.

I'm not sure that the two sets of list are entirely consistent, are they? For example, how can you now say that you think Brahms is overrated and yet place him at No 8 (which is very high position)? Your placing of Tchaikovsky at No 14 isn't a bad position overall, and to suggest now that you consider him to be overrated seems rather curious.

Furthermore, among the composers you now consider to be underrated you found no place previously in the top 25 list for Boulez, Varese, or Stochhausen. In addtion, you only found a place in your top 25 for just one of the main members of the Second Vienese School, namely Webern, with Schoenberg and Berg left out in the cold somewhere completely unmentioned.

These two lists don't strike me as being entirely consistent, but of course I would accept that one's mind on this kind of activity can change quite apprecaiably in the space of short period of time.


----------



## Toccata

toucan said:


> It might have been best if Toccata had not bothered to respond to this exercise as his harassment of emiellucifuge is reminiscent of the ever abusive Mirror Image


I have given what I consider to be a perfectlly rational explanation of the doubts I have about exercises of this nature, and have not been "harrassing" anybody but merely responding to non-answers given back to me by someone who happened to be present at the time I spotted this thread.

Instead, I'll focus my questions on you. Perhaps you could tell me what is your definition of an "underrated" or "overrated" composer? Against what yardstick are you making this comparison, i.e. which measure of "public opinion" are you referring to? Would you accept that in making such judgements all you are really saying is that you think you know better than than the public at large in asserting that you think a particular composer is underrated? If so, why do you believe that you are better informed about these matters than the totality of all other consumers? Do you think they are misinformed or have poor taste in comparison with yours?


----------



## emiellucifuge

This:



Toccata said:


> Easily explained: it's simply that I like to probe concepts like "underrated" and "overrated", which I happen to think are useless if the point of comparison is with "public opinion", because if you get a non-biased response from the public you will finish up where you start, namely with the status quo public opinion. If you finish up with something else the sample is probably biased and not representative of the majority viewpoint.


Does not explain this:



> they're really saying is that "I happen to like Composer X more than I think everyone else does". By implication, they think they're right and everyone else is wrong.


As for the rest of your post a few objections.

I placed Brahms 8th in my personal list, In RBrittains top 25 Brahms placed 5th. Therefore we can assume that IMO Brahms is placed 3 spots too high.

I placed Tchaikovsky at 14, yet he managed to get 7th place. 7 places too high IMO

See - both overrated!

I placed Webern at 18, Ligeti at 21 and Xenakis at 24 yet none of these made the top 25. Therefore I cannot specify exactly how underrated they are, but in IMO they surely are.

As for Boulez, Schoenberg and Berg etc... They may not have made my top 25. This is irrelevant, perhaps they didnt even make my top 100. We are talking in relative terms here, not absolute, therefore my extremely subjective pereceptions of public opinion give me a rough idea of how highly a certain composer is appreciated. My contribution to this thread compares my personal value-judgement of a composer to this 'public-opinion'.

Im glad you enjoy this.


----------



## toucan

People come to the internet for casual conversation & shooting the breeze, no more, no less.

Classical Music is no more democratic than the Fine Arts and High Letters. It is by and for the Elite. And in such fields, the opinion of a handful of people of taste does indeed count for more than the opinion of a general public that usually follows the directives of critics instead of making up its own minds and prefers the easy stuff - like John Williams and John Adams - over any music (or Literature or Art) that requires even minimal effort and attention.


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> As for the rest of your post a few objections.
> 
> I placed Brahms 8th in my personal list, In RBrittains top 25 Brahms placed 5th. Therefore we can assume that IMO Brahms is placed 3 spots too high.
> 
> I placed Tchaikovsky at 14, yet he managed to get 7th place. 7 places too high IMO
> 
> See - both overrated!
> 
> I placed Webern at 18, Ligeti at 21 and Xenakis at 24 yet none of these made the top 25. Therefore I cannot specify exactly how underrated they are, but in IMO they surely are.
> 
> As for Boulez, Schoenberg and Berg etc... They may not have made my top 25. This is irrelevant, perhaps they didnt even make my top 100. We are talking in relative terms here, not absolute, therefore my extremely subjective pereceptions of public opinion give me a rough idea of how highly a certain composer is appreciated. My contribution to this thread compares my personal value-judgement of a composer to this 'public-opinion'.
> 
> Im glad you enjoy this.


Thank you for now telliing me what you failed to tell me earlier in response to my specific question, that your point of reference in deciding which composers you consider to be underrated and overrated is the final result of the earlier _Top 25 Composers_ poll.

I rather guessed as much. All you saying, then, is that where your selection of composers for that Top 25 poll didn't match up exactly with the majority viewpoint as finally emerged, you now consider that the composers where divergences appear are the ones which you consider to be underrrated or overrated. I hardly think that this is fair comment, unless you wish to cast aspersions on the quality of decision making of all your immediate colleagues here on T-C who voted in that pol.

I'm sure that isn't your intention, and in fact I think you are being over-modest about your achievements in this area. Your selection of candidates for that Top 25 poll were pretty good in terms of closeness of fit with the final result based on almost 50 responses. You managed to get most of the "winning" candidates in the roughly the correct order. In fact ion those criteria you were in second place, with me coming first, among all the voters.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Overrated

Dvorák
Saint-Saëns

Underrated

Sibelius
Beethoven (no rating is high enough!)


----------



## Toccata

toucan said:


> People come to the internet for casual conversation & shooting the breeze, no more, no less.
> 
> Classical Music is no more democratic than the Fine Arts and High Letters. It is by and for the Elite. And in such fields, the opinion of a handful of people of taste does indeed count for more than the opinion of a general public that usually follows the directives of critics instead of making up its own minds and prefers the easy stuff - like John Williams and John Adams - over any music (or Literature or Art) that requires even minimal effort and attention.


Flagged for reference.

I see you too have declined to answer some perfectly respectable questions I have put to you about the logic of this exercise.


----------



## emiellucifuge

No I did not reference that list while making my decisions, I put only the slightest amount of thought into this thread. I only began to refer to the list after *you *quoted the lists i nominated there.

Though lets face it! Those lists were made as a summation or 'average' of the opinions of the general public here and so to some degree of accuracy do represent the general opinion.

I would rather debate the musical reasons behind my choices rather than these statistical things, so following Toucan's advice I will not answer such questions.

However, which 'Achievements' are you referring to?


----------



## mueske

Il Seraglio said:


> Overrated
> Wagner
> Brahms
> Mahler
> *Scriabin*
> *Vaughan-Williams*
> Schoenberg
> John Cage
> John Adams


What!!? Scriabin overrated? He should be standing next to the great 'revolutionaries' (Beethoven, Debussy, Stravinsky,...), but ever so often is his truly revolutionary music completely overlooked.

And as for RVW, that might be becaus I live in Belgium, they rarely play him on the radio, and in my local CD shop his music is also very scarce.


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> However, which 'Achievements' are you referring to?


I thought it was clear that I was referring to the fact that your list of candidates for the Top 25 Composer Poll lined up very well with the final result, in terms of the number of composers you selected which appeared in the final top 25 and their closeness of fit in terms of rank order.

I was therefore surprised that you made an issue out of the fact that there where discrepancies appeared (eg Brahms finishing up at No 5 but you selected the No 8 spot) this somehow constituted grounds for your assertion that you consider Brahms to be overrated. I would have thought that you would have been happy with that result.

As for your selections which didn't make the top 25, or where there were bigger discrepancies in rank order among those that did make the final cut, I can't understand why you consider these composers to be either underrated or overrated, when it was the result of a sizeable sample and the statistical analysis was fairly carried out, given the inherent limitations of this kind of thing (as I tried to point out at the time).

All I can see that anyone can reasonably say is something like that "_my tastes differ from the majority viewpoint set out here [give a source] in the following areas ... but I'm not suggesting that my opinion is better than theirs because of this, and I accept that the rankings in that source for what they are and I have no wish to try to change them or to suggest that other peoples' collective opinion is wrong in any way or inferior to mine"_.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

When someone says they think that a particular composer is underrated (or overrated as the case may be) all they're really saying is that "I happen to like Composer X more than I think everyone else does". By implication, they think they're right and everyone else is wrong.

This is essentially true. Any list suggesting that Mozart, Wagner, Mahler, or Brahms (let alone Monteverdi) is overrated, must be taken with a very large pinch of salt. To suggest something is "overrated" it would seem that one would need to employ some logical arguments establishing why a given composer is far more recognized and admired than he or she deserves. One might argue that Philip Glass or Henryck Gorecki are overrated... considering all the contemporary composers who are largely ignored... but to suggest that Wagner or Mozart is overrated is little more than trying to justify one's personal biases by suggesting that everyone else is mistaken.

I largely agree with member science who refused to suggest that any composer is overrated... especially in comparison with the recognition afforded the most mediocre pop stars, the whole of classical music is underrated. I do agree that some composers are more underrated or ignored than others and deserve more recognition. Biber, Zelenka, Buxtehude, Monteverdi, Rameau, Delalande, Pereotin, Gesualdo, Leonin, Alessandro Scarlatti, and a good many others are not exactly everyday names... in spite of an impressive musical oeuvre.


----------



## Webernite

I'd say Bizet is underrated, maybe Hummel. And then there are innumerable Baroque and Renaissance composers: Frescobaldi, Ockeghem, Buxtehude, Zelenka, Rameau...


----------



## Il Seraglio

mueske said:


> What!!? Scriabin overrated? He should be standing next to the great 'revolutionaries' (Beethoven, Debussy, Stravinsky,...), but ever so often is his truly revolutionary music completely overlooked.
> 
> And as for RVW, that might be becaus I live in Belgium, they rarely play him on the radio, and in my local CD shop his music is also very scarce.


I actually really like Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and a number of his piano works, but I think his status as a pioneer of atonality is something of a dubious distinction, that is if it's at all true.

Vaughan-Williams is not hugely hyped I suppose, but he is very popular in the UK. Perhaps understandable as this is his country of origin. It's just that I've been in many a situation where I was forced to play down the fact that I wasn't much of a fan.


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I largely agree with member science who refused to suggest that any composer is overrated... especially in comparison with the recognition afforded the most mediocre pop stars, the whole of classical music is underrated.


Bieber > Biber


----------



## Air

I'll make the recent TC Top 25 composers (& beyond) list my "simple linear regression", since it was made by this community itself. Of course, none of this is to be taken too seriously...

*Key*
+ = Position should be raised slightly
- = Position should be lowered slightly
++ = Position should be raised significantly
-- = Position should be lowered significantly

"Significantly" becomes larger as the list goes further down.
_*Net charge = 0.*_

1. Beethoven -
2. Mozart 0
3. Bach +
4. Schubert -
5. Brahms 0
6. Wagner +
7. Tchaikovsky --
8. Haydn 0
9. Mahler --
10. Debussy 0
11. Handel +
12. Chopin 0
13. Dvorak --
14. Sibelius --
15. Prokofiev +
16. Stravinsky +
17. Mendelssohn -
18. Shostakovich -
19. Ravel +
20. Schumann ++
21. Richard Strauss +
22. Bruckner 0
23. Liszt 0
24. Verdi 0
25. Monteverdi 0
26. Schoenberg +
27. Bartok +
28. Rachmaninov --
29. Grieg --
30. Vivaldi -
31. Berlioz +
32. Puccini 0
33. Janacek ++
34. Rossini -
35. Scarlatti +
36. Rimsky-Korsakov --
37. Dez Prez +
38. Vaughan Williams 0
39. Saint-Saens -
40. Ligeti ++
41. Britten 0
42. Palestrina +
43. Mussorgsky --
44. Berg +
45. Webern +
46. Varese ++
47. Elgar -
48. Borodin -
49. Faure 0
50. Scriabin +
51. Rameau ++
52. Barber 0
53. Alkan +
54. Khachaturian --
55. Donizetti 0
56. Ockegem ?
57. Satie -
58. Xenakis +
59. Holst --
60. Enescu 0
61. Bellini 0
62. Zemlinsky +
63. Glazunov --
64. Bizet -
65. Ives ++
66. Paganini --
67. Biber ?
68. Respighi -
69. Telemann ++
70. Falla 0
71. Smetana --
72. Purcell +
73. Bruch --
74. Ginastera +
75. Part -
76. Messiaen ++
77. Adams -
78. Massenet 0
79. Schnittke 0
80. Boulez +
81. CPE Bach 0
82. Poulenc 0
83. Feldman +
84. Gluck 0
85. Szymanowski +
86. Suk -
87. Nielsen ++
88. Dufay +
89. Myaskovsky +
90. Boccherini 0
91. Lutoslawski 0
92. Spohr 0
93. Wellesz ?
94. Frescobaldi ?
95. Tartini --
96. Martinu +
97. Lully +
98. Hanson --
99. Takemitsu 0
100. Hummel +

Just realized that on the original list, "Josquin" and "des Prez" were listed as separate entities! 

*Others (will only tackle the underrated for now)*
Villa-Lobos ++
Walton ++
Byrd ++
Buxtehude ++
Medtner ++
Carter ++
Weber ++
Busoni ++
Tallis ++
Xenakis ++
Penderecki +
Partch +
Hindemith +
Taneyev +
Kapustin +
Tippett +
Roussel +
Roslavets +
Rubinstein +
Kraus +
Gubaidulina +
Pachelbel +
Corigliano +


----------



## peeyaj

emiellucifuge said:


> Who?! :devil:


As contrasted, with his views on composers, such as Schubert - *'' a gifted amateur''* and Beethoven, - '' he lacked the technique to express his emotions''

- Andrew Porte, liner notes to Walter Greseling's recording to Mendelssohn's Song Without Words.

When you die at the age of 31, you don't have the luxury of refining your composition such as Beethoven and Brahms. I think, there is some thinking that because Schubert died too young, he shouldn't be counted as a major composer. But his contribution to the field of Lieder, his excellent chamber works, the last two symphonies, piano works and chorals, falsify this. That's an accomplishment for someone so young!

I agree with Brahms! What a rambling symphonist he is! And he's one of the 3 B's!


----------



## World Violist

Overrated: Mozart and Beethoven
Underrated: Enescu and Rubbra


----------



## Couchie

Overrated: Bach










Underrated: The true baroque genius, Telemann


----------



## Couchie

Couchie said:


> Overrated: Bach


Yes, I jest.
However: Haydn sucks.

This is a fun thread.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Way, way overrated: John Cage. He wrote some pieces worth listening but the man was essentially a charlatant.


----------



## Weston

I'll have to jump on the predictable bandwagon and claim *Mozart* as the most overrated. I would never want to ruin his worshipers' adulation, but for me *Haydn* and even *von Dittersdorf* are more listenable, more surprising.

My current list of underrated favorites include *Berwald*, *Rubinstein*, and *Herbert Howells*. Maybe they didn't move music forward, but neither did Bach.


----------



## Air

I think everyone should put in emoticons right after they bash a great composer in order to denote playfulness!

For me, Weston, it's the exact opposite. But you're opinion is just as good as mine. On that note... COME ON AND SEE THE LIGHT OF TRUTH BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! 

By the way, I just wanted to say that Tchaikovsky is QUITE overrated, his music is pure Soap Opera material for easily-snared beginners. 





:devil:

:tiphat:

It's obviously a bit late in the evening for me.


----------



## bassClef

I think this thread is destined to provoke some heated arguments, probably as it was intended!


(not playing)


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Way, way overrated: John Cage. He wrote some pieces worth listening but the man was essentially a charlatant.


Ha! If John Cage is overrated,
Stravinsky is too.
Just cuz you're the first to do something doesn't mean you're the greatest.


----------



## Pieck

Who the H is John Cage?


----------



## science

When I think of "overrated" and "underrated," I don't think in terms of ranking, but in terms of amount of attention their music gets, the kind of thing people on fora like this say, and so on.


----------



## Toccata

science said:


> When I think of "overrated" and "underrated," I don't think in terms of ranking, but in terms of amount of attention their music gets, the kind of thing people on fora like this say, and so on.


I would have thought that there is a strong correlation between ranking of composers and the amount of attention their music gets, at least in the longer term, so I'm not sure that the distinction you make is of any real use.

After several pages of this discussion, would anybody like to attempt to draw up a list of underrated composers (or overrated composers if they choose) based on an objective assessment of the responses made thus far, rather than merely their own preferences? It should be intriguiing to see whether or not there is any clear evidence of any composers who are widely considered to be in one or other category.

Actually, it would be a downright miracle if there were any, but I do not wish to prejudge the outcome any further. Please speak, and don't forget to give us the evidence on which it's based.


----------



## World Violist

Toccata said:


> Please speak, and don't forget to give us the evidence on which it's based.


All the evidence I need for my "underrated" list is their music. If more people listened to it, they would not be underrated, and possibly those who are overrated would be less so as well.


----------



## Weston

Air said:


> For me, Weston, it's the exact opposite. But you're opinion is just as good as mine. On that note... COME ON AND SEE THE LIGHT OF TRUTH BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!


Well, never say "never." It will probably take a really good set of annotations or a passionate lecturer to get me in the Mozart camp. Eventually I will try to find materials like that to enhance my listening experience.

But first I want to "get" Mahler. That's another seemingly overrated composer I should have mentioned. Mahler's music is pleasant enough, but doesn't stay with me, doesn't impact me much.

So if anyone has any recommendations for Mozart or Mahler annotations or lectures, I'm all ears.


----------



## Pierrot Lunaire

Underrated:
Gérard Grisey
Charles-Valentin Alkan 
Girolamo Frescobaldi
Henri Dutilleux
Jean-Philippe Rameau
Sofia Gubaidulina
Hildegard von Bingen
Gabriel Fauré
Zoltán Kodály
Witold Lutosławski


Overrated:
Ludwig van Beethoven
Karlheinz Stockhausen
Sergei Prokofiev
John Cage
Dmitri Shostakovich
Richard Wagner
Philip Glass
Antonio Vivaldi
Hector Berlioz
Krzysztof Penderecki


----------



## Sid James

The premise of this thread is basically codswallop. Overrated or underrated according to whom? I think that, since even a lot of classical listeners haven't heard much except their "greatest hits," even the titans of the classical world can be underrated (using the kinds of definitions people seem to have developed here). Much more people know Bach's _Jesu, joy of man's desiring_ than his _Well Tempered Clavier_ or _Art of Fugue_. Ditto Beethoven's _Fur Elise_ versus the _Grosse Fuge_. Ditto Chopin's _Minute Waltz_ versus say the _Ballades_. & the list goes on. I agree with the gist of what some others are suggesting here - 99% of the classical repertoire is basically underrated - especially if that equates to what is well known or more famous versus those things that aren't...


----------



## tdc

Pierrot Lunaire said:


> Overrated:
> Krzysztof Penderecki


I've really tried so hard to stay out of this thread, but I have to say - you definetely got this one in the wrong category! 

(I agree with most of your under-rated's though).


----------



## Ravellian

I dislike these overrated/underrated topics. I believe people should simply listen to the music they enjoy the most, and not worry about how many other people enjoy it or not.


----------



## Sid James

Ravellian said:


> I dislike these overrated/underrated topics. I believe people should simply listen to the music they enjoy the most, and not worry about how many other people enjoy it or not.


I agree 100% with this...


----------



## Listener

To me it's no so much a matter of being over rated as over emphasized. The 19th century unjustly dominates the classical music world. I find 18th or 17th century music much more interesting.


----------



## Weston

tdc said:


> I've really tried so hard to stay out of this thread, but I have to say - you definetely got this one in the wrong category!
> 
> (I agree with most of your under-rated's though).


I second this thought. I've been getting into some of Penderecki's chamber music, his Clarinet Quartet and his Sextet for Clarinet, Horn, Violin, and -- and other instruments (?). These sound nothing at all like the Penderecki we may know from Stanley Kubric movies. They almost seem an entire new genre of music. I would almost call them melodic except they are also highly rhythmic in places. Very interesting stuff!


----------



## tdc

Weston said:


> I second this thought. I've been getting into some of Penderecki's chamber music, his Clarinet Quartet and his Sextet for Clarinet, Horn, Violin, and -- and other instruments (?). These sound nothing at all like the Penderecki we may know from Stanley Kubric movies. They almost seem an entire new genre of music. I would almost call them melodic except they are also highly rhythmic in places. Very interesting stuff!


Nice video Weston, I had not seen before, thanks for posting it!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Weston said:


> Well, never say "never." It will probably take a really good set of annotations or a passionate lecturer to get me in the Mozart camp. Eventually I will try to find materials like that to enhance my listening experience.
> 
> But first I want to "get" Mahler. That's another seemingly overrated composer I should have mentioned. Mahler's music is pleasant enough, but doesn't stay with me, doesn't impact me much.
> 
> So if anyone has any recommendations for Mozart or Mahler annotations or lectures, I'm all ears.


----------



## Pierrot Lunaire

> The premise of this thread is basically codswallop. Overrated or underrated according to whom? I think that, since even a lot of classical listeners haven't heard much except their "greatest hits," even the titans of the classical world can be underrated (using the kinds of definitions people seem to have developed here). Much more people know Bach's Jesu, joy of man's desiring than his Well Tempered Clavier or Art of Fugue. Ditto Beethoven's Fur Elise versus the Grosse Fuge. Ditto Chopin's Minute Waltz versus say the Ballades. & the list goes on. I agree with the gist of what some others are suggesting here - 99% of the classical repertoire is basically underrated - especially if that equates to what is well known or more famous versus those things that aren't...


It's just a message board. You don't have to take it too seriously. It's just for fun!



> I've really tried so hard to stay out of this thread, but I have to say - you definetely got this one in the wrong category!
> 
> (I agree with most of your under-rated's though).


I can totally see why you would think that! But I personally feel like Penderecki is kinda famous for his more avant garde stuff which only took up a small portion of his career and then he started to sound much more like Mahler than Xenakis. I was conceiving this list with those avant garde compositions in mind. I can see your point though. Maybe I will replace him with Nico Muhly.


----------



## mamascarlatti

I sometimes think that Domenico Scarlatti doesn't get much love. When I was still listening mainly to non-operatic music I had a respectable collection but had never heard of him. Then I started learning piano, stumbled across a disc of his sonatas, and couldn't believe that I had managed to miss him for so long!


----------



## Jacob Singer

*MOST OVERRATED COMPOSERS*

*Wagner* - He is by far one of the most overrated composers of all-time. His being ranked in any top composer list is downright laughable, as his music is nothing but amateurish wankery. My professor from Berlin called his music "overly-sentimental" and "pathetic", and I couldn't agree more. Wagner is utter cheese. He doesn't belong anywhere near the top 30 or 40, and I am finding more and more people that completely agree with that sentiment. His music is a joke that was foisted on the world by psychotic propagandists, and it is sad that people today could still fall for such sophomoric drivel.

Anybody can just throw chords together. The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much _how_ or _where_ they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go _somewhere_. That's the very essence of what music is. We can only perceive music as movement (or change) over time, and thus the most lifeless state of music is stagnation: too much rambling chaos, or too much stifling conventionality, and the music never actually goes anywhere. Then it's just noise.

If counterpoint/development/experimental chord progressions/etc are just done as an intellectual _or_ emotional exercise as if to satisfy some quota, then it is just ************. The best art transcends such petty concepts, and if that isn't happening, then it is a huge flaw of the music. Wagner's music is the worst of example of this that I can think of, from _any_ genre of music. It is so pretentious and lacking in real substance that it is actually pitiful.

*Mozart, Bach* - Mozart is typically rated in the top 2 or 3 in most classical circles, and yet I can think of numerous composers that were far more inventive than Mozart was. Given his overall body of work, he is definitely overrated. I'll give him credit for the ~5% of his stuff that was actually original, but the rest of it is just the same dainty crap regurgitated a zillion times. I mean come on… 41 numbered symphonies and you can easily count on one hand the few that stand out. There is something seriously wrong with that, and only a strong bias could prevent someone from admitting it. Mozart did write some good operas, but that's nowhere near enough to justify him being ranked so ridiculously high.

Most of Mozart's music is far too cutesy-wutesy to be taken as seriously as it is, and the fact is that even when he occasionally tried to inject some darker colors into his music, it somehow usually still ends up sounding all light and fluffy (with a few rare exceptions). Without any real contrast between the light and the dark, the music ends up just staying in the same place all the time, and it never actually takes the listener anywhere. This is a HUGE flaw. Look at Beethoven or Schubert or Tchaikovsky, on the other hand, and these guys understood how to use that light/dark e*motion*al contrast to a masterful degree (indeed they were some of the very best at this in all of classical music, even if they did each have their minor flaws). Compared to them, composers like Mozart and Haydn and Bach - as technically proficient as they were - are downright monotone. Even if I forced myself to listen to piece after piece by one of these composers for hours on end, the light/dark movement within their music could quite literally remain at zero the entire time. The fact is that technical skill alone doesn't accomplish anything unless it helps the music to actually _go somewhere_. Otherwise, it's just wankery.

The bottom line is that Mozart and Bach were each important for passing on to subsequent generations the fundamentals of technical composition, but their understanding of the emotional part of the musical equation was clearly quite primitive. The vast majority of Mozart's music is frivolous and childlike in its lack of emotional scope, while most of Bach's music is simply robotic in its bland emotional sterility - more like a series of purely academic exercises than actual emotionally-fluid music. I'll give Bach the credit he deserves for his intellectual contributions to the musical world, but there is a hell of a lot more to the *art* of music than just that.  Bach's musical works… I'm sorry, his _exercises_ are so soulless and monotonous that if I were forced to listen to them indefinitely I'd probably jump out of a window just to escape the torture. The majority of Mozart, on the other hand, is just the powdered-wig equivalent of muzak, suitable only if you are having tea and crumpets and you need some cheesy background noise to complete the vibe.

------------------

If anyone has even the slightest doubt as to the possibility that these composers may indeed be overrated, then have a look at this poll for the most overrated composer:

http://www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16967

There were 377 total votes cast, and not including the "Other" or "I love them all!" categories , there were 291 votes cast for individual composers, with the average number of votes per composer being about 16. *The most overrated on the list were deemed to be Mozart with 64 votes, and Wagner with 45 votes.* Vivaldi and Bach scored as the next most overrated, but I didn't include Vivaldi in my above examples simply because he isn't typically rated nearly as highly as these others are to begin with (although he is equally insipid in his own right).


----------



## Jacob Singer

*MOST UNDERRATED COMPOSERS*

*Mendelssohn* - This guy was incredible, and has to be one of the most underrated composers of all-time. He wrote some really interesting symphonies/concertos, he wrote some great chamber music, and he wasn't too shabby with the solo piano stuff either (not to mention his being a badass improvisational musician). He could _literally_ do it all, and yet in most classical circles he is consistently rated outside the top 10 or 12 in favor of emotionally-vapid composers like Haydn. That is preposterous. Mendelssohn was light years beyond the likes of boring old Haydn. It's almost as if Mendelssohn's music was undervalued/underplayed on purpose by a dominant European culture for decades upon decades _upon decades_, the effects of which can still be seen today (hint, hint). Gee, I wonder how _that_ could have happened… 

*Ravel* - He was phenomenal. His orchestral work is already pretty well-regarded, and if anyone doubts his skills as a chamber composer, then they surely haven't heard things like his piano trio or his string quartet. He did consistently excellent work, and yet on some lists he barely makes the top 30(!). That's completely insane, and is probably a reflection of bias against impressionist music. I don't listen to all that much impressionist music myself, but I damn sure listen to Ravel.

*Tchaikovsky* - He was one of the greatest melodists of all-time (from _any_ genre of music), he was a fantastic orchestrator, and he managed to sound completely unique even in the late Romantic Period when so many had already come before him. The reason I include him here is that in some of the more snooty circles it isn't "cool" or something to recognize Tchaikovsky's exceptional talent. Shameful. He does get his due amongst other groups, however, and is included in many top ten lists fairly securely, just as he should be.

The only real criticism I've heard of Tchaikovsky (albeit a weak one made by those who apparently only see music as an intellectual exercise) is that some do not find his development to be consistently sufficient. So what? Anyone who has studied many forms of musical art can easily recognize that motival development is just one technique in a much, much wider world of music, and like any other technique it is clearly not what makes music sound good in-and-of itself. You could certainly develop a motif in order to do something interesting, or you could do something completely different that makes the music even _more_ interesting (shudder to think!). Why do some classical followers miss this obvious characteristic of music-making? The fact is that composers can excel at the techniques of motival development and counterpoint and still make music that is lifeless and as boring as watching paint dry. Techniques are just tools, not goals.

Tchaikovsky not only had the ability to weave completely unique melodic phrases through his chord progressions, but he also had the occasional skill of making them _sound really freaking good_, which is a hell of lot harder to do than some people seem to think. As has been said before, there is an _art_ to making a great melody, especially ones that stand the test of time as well as Tchaikovsky's have. It's interesting to me how many jazz musicians are quick to recognize Tchaikovsky's ability to combine his melodies, harmonies, rhythms, and dynamic orchestration into seamless original creations, while others completely fail to see this (or maybe they just refuse to see it because he is "too popular" with the general public… a really lame reason). The fact is that many a composer through the centuries would have killed to have had Tchaikovsky's exceptional talent in that regard, and there is no way he should ever be left out of any top ten list of classical composers, period.

*Dvořák* - Like Tchaikovsky, Dvořák managed to sound unique when it was becoming harder and harder to do within the Romantic genre. Of course, he had to travel half way around the world to find the influences he needed to do so, but so what? His music is exceptionally well-written, well-orchestrated, and most importantly original. He was a really great artist, and there is no way he ranks outside the top dozen or so.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Jacob Singer said:


> *MOST OVERRATED COMPOSERS*
> 
> *Wagner* - He is by far one of the most overrated composers of all-time. His being ranked in any top composer list is downright laughable, as his music is nothing but amateurish wankery. My professor from Berlin called his music "overly-sentimental" and "pathetic", and I couldn't agree more. Wagner is utter cheese. He doesn't belong anywhere near the top 30 or 40, and I am finding more and more people that completely agree with that sentiment. His music is a joke that was foisted on the world by psychotic propagandists, and it is sad that people today could still fall for such sophomoric drivel.
> 
> Anybody can just throw chords together. The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much _how_ or _where_ they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go _somewhere_. That's the very essence of what music is. We can only perceive music as movement (or change) over time, and thus the most lifeless state of music is stagnation: too much rambling chaos, or too much stifling conventionality, and the music never actually goes anywhere. Then it's just noise.
> 
> If counterpoint/development/experimental chord progressions/etc are just done as an intellectual _or_ emotional exercise as if to satisfy some quota, then it is just ************. The best art transcends such petty concepts, and if that isn't happening, then it is a huge flaw of the music. Wagner's music is the worst of example of this that I can think of, from _any_ genre of music. It is so pretentious and lacking in real substance that it is actually pitiful.


I recently listened/watched/absorbed Tristan und Isolde for the first time. Since then I have considered calling Wagner THE greatest composer in History.

Wagner is neither Rambling Chaos nor is it Stifling Conventionality. Any musicologist can tell you Wagner was one of the most revolutionary composers in history. With the Tristan Chord (among other things) he shattered harmonic conventions and opened the way for larger-continuous harmonic structures. An unstable chord that resolves onto another unstable chord? How was it possible? Instead the harmony has become a tool that can be used subjected to the dramatic/emotional contour. The result - the most emotional supremely sensual music that has EVER existed. The chord only resolves in the very final measures, the listener is actually carried in the emotion of the characters and can actually feel the release upon the death of Isolde, leaving them to love eachother in eternal death.

This groundbreaking revolution Wagner instigated influenced a multitude of composers to follow in his footsteps and explore this nee harmonic language. A true answer wasnt found until Schoenberg.

It isnt Rambling Chaos because It is highly organised. The entire opus is constructed from the genius manipulation, variation, development, counterpoint etc.. Of only a few melodic blocks. The music is only as chaotic as the dramatic plot.

So.. Two paragraphs above you see he was original. Now i will extend my answer to explain why it does 'go somewhere'.
Firstly the music must go somewhere. The music is subjected to the libretto. I think everyone can agree there is in fact a story, plot etc... (granted many people do justifiably believe he dwells on each section for too long. I disagree). 
Secondly using an example from Tristan und Isolde again. The unresolved tristan chord is on a four hour quest to resolve. There is definitely direction.

As for your final paragraph. Thats fine but it your opinion. There is no final answer to the question of Art's Purpose. Indeed it has been debated by philosophers for many centuries. Wagner's music is entirely justified within Schopenhauer's aesthetics. This is a well argued body of writing. If you think the best music is not emotional but transcends this then that is fine, but Wagner did not believe this nor do I.


----------



## emiellucifuge

On Tchaikovsky: I realise you may be referring to a post I once made noting his lack of development. I agree entirely with you here. Take Tchaikovsky's best friend Taneyev - his music is an example of perfect development but it all too often leaves the music lifeless.


----------



## tdc

Without getting into this too much (hopefully) Jacob singer, I'll just state, your reasons for disliking Wagner seem largely based on your own boxed in idea of what _you _think music should be, while ignoring his enormous influence on later composers and his enormous influence on the direction of western music as a whole. You've listed your professor as a resource, but I could list some pretty brilliant minds who would disagree and consider Wagner's music pretty ingenious and revolutionary (Mahler, Bruckner etc). I also would surmise (from previous posts) you've decided you don't like the _person_ Wagner was and you let this effect your perception of his _music_.

Secondly, your arguments against Bach and Mozart are analytical fallacies because you are comparing them to composers from a different era of music and then suggesting they are faulty for not being as developed (in ways) as some genius's from a century or so later. It's like me taking a name from the renassiance period and then continuing to pound away how much more developed Handel or Scarlatti's music was. Well I'm sure I could make an incredible case for myself, but the whole argument is like a strawman (fake), because I am comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Indeed, you have to view music in its context. Late german Baroque music is late German Baroque msuic. You cant compare it to Mahler.

This is a highly subjective argument to use. I could in the same way judge that Tchaikovsky and the other composers you mention are too self-indulgent and therefore the musical purity is diluted by impure human emotions. In contrast Bachs music is beautiful in its purity and comes from a faith in a higher poeer and therefore is more virtuous.

In the same way, you first argue that Wagner is emotional 'wankery' and then criticise Mozart and Bach for not being emotional enough.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Without getting into this too much (hopefully) Jacob singer, I'll just state, your reasons for disliking Wagner seem largely based on your own boxed in idea of what you think music should be...

Well let's face it... Jacob's opinions have consistently proven themselves to be worth less than the paper they are printed on... and considering that there's no paper involved... Like a good many students he has the arrogance of believing that his own opinions hold great weight for the simple reason that he assumes he knows more than any one else.

And he speaks of Wagner as pretentious... and pitiful?

:tiphat:


----------



## Sid James

I agree with Jacob's praise for Mendelssohn, Ravel, Tchaikovsky & Dvorak but I don't like the tenor of his negative arguments with regards to Wagner, Mozart & Bach. I think that there is a lot of generalising in his arguments, which he even makes clear. I'm beginning to appreciate the last three, J.S. Bach & Mozart in particular. I'd argue that the real innovators were the composers of the Renaissance, Baroque & Classical eras. The rules, foundations & ideas they laid down would be further refined & expanded upon in the Romantic and Modern periods...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, I don't think Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, or Ravel are underrated if one considers that all of them are quite well respected within the realm of classical music. If anything... I would agree that they have portions of their oeuvre that less-well-known than they deserve to be. Tchaikovsky's songs and certainly his operas deserve far more recognition. The same is true of Dvorak... and I would add to this some of his choral works and his quartets. Ravel's melodies/French art songs deserve more recognition. Mendelssohn? I personally don't see him as underrated. I think that from all I had been exposed to that I rapidly recognized his importance as a composer and the merits of most of his major works. If anything, he is simply underrated in the same way that Schumann is as a composer of early Romanticism... and in the same way that it seems many undervalue nearly any composer prior to high Romanticism, be it Mozart, Haydn, Handel, Rameau, Biber, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, etc...


----------



## Webernite

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I don't think Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, or Ravel are underrated if one considers that all of them are quite well respected within the realm of classical music. If anything... I would agree that they have portions of their oeuvre that less-well-known than they deserve to be. Tchaikovsky's songs and certainly his operas deserve far more recognition. The same is true of Dvorak... and I would add to this some of his choral works and his quartets. Ravel's melodies/French art songs deserve more recognition. Mendelssohn? I personally don't see him as underrated. I think that from all I had been exposed to that I rapidly recognized his importance as a composer and the merits of most of his major works. If anything, he is simply underrated in the same way that Schumann is as a composer of early Romanticism... and in the same way that it seems many undervalue nearly any composer prior to high Romanticism, be it Mozart, Haydn, Handel, Rameau, Biber, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, etc...


I agree with all of this.

And I can't believe that Jacob Singer would call Wagner "amateurish." He's one of the least amateurish of all composers! Brahms and Schoenberg spent their whole lives studying counterpoint, and yet neither of them was capable of writing a contrapuntal masterpiece as transparent and effortless as the prelude to _Die Meistersinger_. I still struggle to understand how Wagner was able to produce compositions that match Brahms's for complexity, when Brahms was basically a musicologist and Wagner was not.


----------



## science

The moral of the thread: do not say anyone is overrated. Just list the composers (or whatever the topic is) that you believe are underrated.


----------



## Machiavel

Sorry But I had so much a BIG LOL when I saw what Jacob wrote. Mozart is bad because he is not serious. So any works that is serious,dramatic is by definition superior to a work who is about beauty,joyfullness, positive emotions. I pity you my friend. Do you realize it's just because YOU think a serious work is better than a work who sounds and smells beauty all around. That is a mere preference and in no way facts. So one could say Beethoven is bad because he is over-dramatic and melo-dramatic sometimes and that some of his works just sounds like etudes or that it misses the beauty that is so much present in the music for Mozart! Apples and oranges.

One thing I will give you Is Mendelssohn is underrated. His third symphonies to me is better then any previous symphony made before by any composers. Yes that means MR mighty deity Beethoven


----------



## Lipatti

Jacob Singer said:


> *MOST OVERRATED COMPOSERS*but their understanding of the emotional part of the musical equation was clearly quite primitive.


Then how do you explain *the fact* that Bach and Mozart composed some of the most emotional and expressive melodies ever?  I think you should use also your ears, not only your intellect, when you listen to music.

And by the way - please tell me if you think your teacher in Berlin is more informed than each one of these guys:

Karl Barth
It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1956), as translated by Clarence K. Pott
Mozart's music is free of all exaggeration, of all sharp breaks and contradictions. The sun shines but does not blind, does not burn or consume. Heaven arches over the earth, but it does not weigh it down, it does not crush or devour it. Hence earth remains earth, with no need to maintain itself in a titanic revolt against heaven. Granted, darkness, chaos, death and hell do appear, but not for a moment are they allowed to prevail. Knowing all, Mozart creates music from a mysterious center, and so knows the limits to the right and the left, above and below. He maintains moderation.
As quoted in "Amadeus : Sin, Salvation and Salieri" in Saint Paul at the Movies : The Apostle's Dialogue with American Culture (1993) by Robert Jewett, p. 37, and Melting the Venusberg : A Feminist Theology of Music (2004) by Heidi Epstein, p. 72
Mozart's music always sounds unburdened, effortless, and light. This is why it unburdens, releases, and liberates us.
Mozart's music is an invitation to the listener to venture just a little out of the sense of his own subjectivity.

Leonard Bernstein
It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion.
Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's - the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering - a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages.
Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.

Charles Gounod
Before Mozart, all ambition turns to despair.
Mozart, prodigal heaven gave thee everything, grace and strength, abundance and moderation, perfect equilibrium.
Who has reached the extreme limits of scale with the same infallible precision, equally guarded against the false refinement of artificial elegance and the roughness of spurious force? Who has better known how to breathe anguish and dread into the purest and most exquisite forms?
Mozart exists, and will exist, eternally; divine Mozart - less a name, more a soul descending to us from the heavens, who appeared on this earth, stayed for a little over thirty years, and left it all the more rejuvenated, richer and happier for his appearance.
As with all great artists, Mozart expressed not only the soul, the taste and the aroma of his epoch, but also the spiritual world of man-man for all ages, in all the complexity of his desires, his struggles and ambivalence. Some of us, who only identify in Mozart a certain aristocratic refinement, may find these words strange. Often we meet with a condescending attitude towards him, to his music, reminiscent of chiming bells in a music box! ...'It's very nice, but not for me' say such people, 'give me passion - Beethoven, Brahms, tragic, monumental...' Such comments only reveal one thing, these people don't know Mozart.

George Szell
editor, Viva Mozart: An Anthology of Appreciation
21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece.
Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles.
Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
I find consolation and rest in Mozart's music, wherein he gives expression to that joy of life which was part of his sane and wholesome temperament.
Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.
Mozart is the musical Christ.

Others

We cannot despair about mankind knowing that Mozart was a man.
Albert Einstein

I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death.
Ludwig van Beethoven

When Mozart composed he didn't have aims of genius, he simply was one.
Sir Roger Norrington

Mozart has the classic purity of light and the red ocean; Beethoven the romantic grandeur which belongs to the storms of air and sea, and while the soul of Mozart seems to dwell on the ethereal peaks of Olympus, that of Beethoven climbs shuddering the storm-beaten sides of a Sinai. Blessed be they both! Each represents a moment of the ideal life, each does us good. Our love is due to both.
Henri-Frédéric Amiel

Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another.
Claudio Arrau

Most of all I admire Mozart's capacity to be both deep and rational, a combination often said to be impossible.
Allan Bloom

Mozart combined high formality and playfulness that delights as no other composition in any other medium does.
Roy Blount, Jr.

In my dreams of heaven, I always see the great Masters gathered in a huge hall in which they all reside. Only Mozart has his own suite.
Victor Borge

Together with the puzzle, Mozart gives you the solution.
Ferruccio Busoni

If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity.
Johannes Brahms

It is a real pleasure to see music so bright and spontaneous expressed with corresponding ease and grace.
Johannes Brahms

Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head.
Frédéric Chopin

Mozart tapped the source from which all music flows, expressing himself with a spontaneity and refinement and breathtaking rightness.
Aaron Copland

Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath, for no sooner is one inclined to reflect upon a beautiful inspiration than another appears, even more splendid, which drives away the first, and this continues on and on, so that in the end one is unable to retain any of these beauties in the memory.
Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf

Mozart began his works in childhood and a childlike quality lurked in his compositions until it dawned on him that the Requiem he was writing for a stranger was his own.
Will and Ariel Durant

Mozart is sweet sunshine.
Antonín Dvořák

Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it - that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed.
Albert Einstein

Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard.
Gabriel Fauré

There are three things in the world I love most: the sea, Hamlet, and Don Giovanni.
Gustave Flaubert

Mozart's joy is made of serenity, and a phrase of his music is like a calm thought; his simplicity is merely purity. It is a crystalline thing in which all the emotions play a role, but as if already celestially transposed. Moderation consists in feeling emotions as the angels do.
André Gide

A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

In Mozart's music, all intensity are crystallized in the clearest, the most beautifully balanced and proportioned, and altogether flawless musical forms.
Phil Goulding

In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct.
Edvard Grieg

The riddle of Mozart is precisely that "the man" refuses to be a key for solving it. In death, as in life, he conceals himself behind his work.
Wolfgang Hildesheimer

Mozart's music is the mysterious language of a distant spiritual kingdom, whose marvelous accents echo in our inner being and arouse a higher, intensive life.
E.T.A. Hoffmann

Mozart said profound things and at the same time remained flippant and lively.
Michael Kennedy

Mozart has reached the boundary gate of music and leaped over it, leaving behind the old masters and moderns, and posterity itself.
A. Hyatt King

Mozart's music is so beautiful as to entice angels down to earth.
Franz Alexander von Kleist

The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen.
Wanda Landowska

For one moment in the history of music all opposites were reconciled; all tensions resolved; that luminous moment was Mozart.
Joseph Machlis

Mozart resolved his emotions on a level that transformed them into moods uncontaminated by mortal anguish, enabling him to express the angelic anguish that is so peculiarly his own.
Yehudi Menuhin

Mozart is happiness before it has gotten defined.
Arthur Miller

Mozart wrote everything with such ease and speed as might at first be taken for carelessness or haste. His imagination held before him the whole work clear and lively once it was conceived. One seldom finds in his scores improved or erased passages.
Franz Niemetschek

There was nothing exceptional about the physical presence of this extraordinary man; he was small and his appearance gave no sign of his genius, apart from his large intense eyes. [...] But in this ungainly body there dwelt an artistic genius such as Nature rarely bestows even upon her most treasured darlings.
Franz Niemetschek

Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece.
Camille Saint-Saëns

What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient.
Camille Saint-Saëns

A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me.
Franz Schubert

A world that has produced a Mozart is a world worth saving. What a picture of a better world you have given us, Mozart!
Franz Schubert

Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?
Robert Schumann

Designing an opera by Mozart is like doing something for God - it's a labor of love.
Maurice Sendak

The best of Mozart's works cannot be even slightly rewritten without diminishment.
Peter Shaffer

Mozart's music represents neither the prolonged sigh of faith that characterizes so much of the music written before his time, nor the stormy idealism which cloaks most music after him. Rather he is that mercurial balance of the skeptic and the humane. Like him, and in him, we can always discover new worlds.
Joseph Solman

Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces.
Georg Solti

Sometimes the impact of Mozart's music is so immediate that the vision in the mind remains blurred and incomplete, while the soul seems to be directly invaded, drenched in wave upon wave of melancholy.
Stendhal

I listened to the pure crystalline notes of one of Mozart's concertos dropping at my feet like leaves from the trees.
Virgil Thomson

Mozart touched no problem without solving it to perfection.
Donald Francis Tovey

Mozart's mental grip never loosens; he never abandons himself to any one sense; even at his most ecstatic moments his mind is vigorous, alert, and on the wing. He dives unerringly on to his finest ideas like a bird of prey, and once an idea is seized he soars off again with an undiminished power.
Walter J. Turner

The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts.
Richard Wagner

Certain things in Mozart will and can never be excelled
Richard Wagner

I never heard so much content in so short a period.
Pinchas Zukerman


----------



## Toccata

Regards Jacob Singer’s interesting comments, I’m not a great fan of Wagner but I still recognise his greatness and deserved placing well inside the top 10 composers. I do find it curious that some people have trouble distinguishing between their personal favourites and those composers they consider to be the greatest on wider, objective criteria such as popularity in a lasting sense, influence on other composers, etc. Anyone who has bothered to read any of the biographies of later composers will soon appreciate how influential they considered Wagner to be.

It’s the criticism of Mozart that I find most peculiar. Perhaps I could firstly mention that during the first half of January 2011, every single programme on BBC Radio 3 throughout the period from 1st to the 12th was 100% dedicated to the works of Mozart. This was a highly exceptional event for this country's leading classical music station (ignoring CFM which is rubbish by comparison). There were many distinguished guests who appeared on the he many programmes to discuss various aspects of Mozart’s greatness. They were all mostly well known, top-notch conductors, performers, academics etc. I personally did not need any persuading of Mozart’s greatness but it was refreshing to hear some proper experts talk intelligently on the subject, instead of trivial discussion from the opposite end of the spectrumwhich one so often encounters. 

I’m not going to get into any kind of blow-by-blow account of Mozart’s greatness over Beethoven, but suffice to say that Mozart kicks Beethoven's butt in all concertos. Beethoven didn’t even attempt any wind concertos, and here Mozart scores highly. Mozart wrote 27 piano concertos against 5 by Beethoven. The last eight of Mozart's piano concertos are masterpieces, with No 20 being probably the greatest work of that genre ever written. Mozart wrote 5 violin concertos against Beethoven’s one. Personally, I prefer Mozart’s late symphonies, or like them just as much, as any of Beethoven’s. Beethoven probably wins the string quartet segment but Mozart wrote some dazzling chamber music of the very highest order of quality, but rverall I rate Mozart's chamber music of at least equal quality to Beethoven's. Mozart has a commanding edge over Beethoven in the area of opera. Thus, Mozart easily stands comparison with Beethoven.

J S Bach hardly needs any defending. Together with Mozart and Beethoven they form a deserved Divinity. Personally, I like Schubert just as much if not more so than any of the first three. I have little doubt that if Schubert had lived just a few more years he would have exceeded all of them. I am here talking about the very highest echelons of classical music, the like of which in quality I do not believe will ever be seen again. They wre something really special. The only later composers who got remotely close to these four in the next 200 years were Wagner and Brahms.


----------



## Kieran

Two music-to-my-ears posts about Mozart. I particularly find this quote to be revealing:



> Mozart touched no problem without solving it to perfection.
> Donald Francis Tovey


We find this most exactly in the operas, where Mozart excelled in reaching the heights to bring the right music to right scene, whether it required an aria, terzetto, quartet, sextet, ensemble, it didn't matter: his music was like the master tailor who cut the cloth to fit the body. There are only exceptions in Mozart's operas, nothing is routine.

I like Toccata's post too, because not only do I have an admiration but no real love for Wagner, but I also think that Mozart's range as a composer far exceeds Beethoven, and in the piano concerti there are so many riches that we traverse the range of piano concerto expectations in Mozart: his 9th is gigantic, described by Brendel as a wonder of the world, I think Mozart's 9th should be the most famous of all Ninths! :trp:

There's really no necessity to defend people like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, etc. Their music has already stood the test of time. After this, there are preferences only. :tiphat:


----------



## Chris

How can there be any doubt about Mozart's greatness when he could dash off music like this?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

emiellucifuge said:


> I recently listened/watched/absorbed Tristan und Isolde for the first time. Since then I have considered calling Wagner THE greatest composer in History... With the Tristan [und Isolde] (among other things) he shattered harmonic conventions and opened the way for larger-continuous harmonic structures. (revision mine)


I'll permit myself to say this much:

To 'get' *Tristan und Isolde*, by which I mean not necessarily enjoy it or love it as much as successfully absorb and comprehend it, to understand why it is one of the seminal works of the Western Classical Music tradition- 
is to have undertaken a significant step in one's _Bildungsroman_ as an informed Classical Music enthusiast.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I'll permit myself to say this much:
> 
> To 'get' *Tristan und Isolde*, by which I mean not necessarily enjoy it or love it as much as successfully absorb and comprehend it, to understand why it is one of the seminal works of the Western Classical Music tradition-
> is to have undertaken a significant step in one's _Bildungsroman_ as an informed Classical Music enthusiast.


Im glad to have taken it :tiphat:


----------



## Efraim

peeyaj said:


> I can't believe that we don't have a specific thread regarding this subject. So, I'll post this. Feel free to argue the merits of your lists, and some of us we'll be compelled to defend ours.
> 
> Here are my guilty suspects.
> 
> * Most Overrated *
> 
> a. Mozart
> 
> b. Tchaikovsky
> 
> c. Mahler
> 
> d. Liszt
> 
> e. Philip Glass
> 
> f. John Cage
> 
> g. Stravinsky
> 
> * Most Underrated *
> 
> a. Monteverdi
> 
> b. Schubert
> 
> c. Handel
> 
> d. Schoenberg
> 
> e. Debussy


 I agree as to the first four names. Concerning your underrated ones: Monteverdi - I don't know, but the remaining four are not underrated, they are universally respected.

This is an entirely sterile topic for discussion. I am fond of it: for example I adore torturing my dear and otherwise much loved (over-loved) wife, who during the last years went incurably mad about Mozart, with rhetorical declamations about the worldwide and undeserved Mozart-adulation. Saying that someone is overrated or underrated amounts to saying that you don't like/abhor his music, or at least not so much. Of course you can always find "objective" reasons why. My subjective reason with respect (with disrespect) to Mozart is that his music makes me nervous, except for two violin sonatas (in G - K. 379 - and e) and perhaps for the Flute Quartet in C, which is not over-ambitious and is charming with its simplicity. What makes me nervous in Mozart is that although he is captivatingly gifted, he rarely lives up to his promises. I think that had he lived thirty years more he might have become a great composer. (Glenn Gould on the contrary says he would have ended up somewhere between Spohr and Weber.) Or had he been born some forty years later he would have founded romantic music. I imagine that Schubert (one of my idols) is Mozart's more successful reincarnation, provided metempsychosis exists.

As "objective" reasons I can quote Jacob Singer who put it with a laudably exaggerated and strident outspokenness:

"_*Most of Mozart's music is far too cutesy-wutesy to be taken as seriously as it is, and the fact is that even when he occasionally tried to inject some darker colors into his music, it somehow usually still ends up sounding all light and fluffy (with a few rare exceptions). Without any real contrast between the light and the dark, the music ends up just staying in the same place all the time, and it never actually takes the listener anywhere. This is a HUGE flaw*_."

I suspect he is not overrated for his real or imagined merits but for side-issues: for his being an infant prodigy, later on a handsome young lion who was movingly ill-treated in his life and accompanied to his burial only by his doggy and so on. A friend of mine who is a big fan of Mozart agrees with me on this point. My only problem is that great composers, including my biggest idols such as Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms etc., unlike the public, surely did not overrate him for this stupid reason...

(But as to Bach and Haydn I don't agree at all with Jacob Singer; in this respect he is not objective, of course… Haydn is the greatest, or at least one of the three or four greatest geniuses, the founding father of the whole modern music. I am not sure whether, had Haydn not come, somebody else would have founded it in his stead.)

I grasp the opportunity to advertise here *Johann Nepomuk Hummel*. For long he had not been underrated for the simple reason that he was not rated at all, not played and not spoken of. Today some forty or fifty, possibly more, Hummel-CDs are available. More and more musicians - albeit not the most famous of them - discover him, Hummel societies, Hummel projects, Hummel concerts are organized. This is an excellent and extremely interesting composer who wrote a pretty nice amount of very good and enjoyable music. As you can read in the sleeve-notes of every CD and as I wrote here in Current listening,

_"Hummel seems far less disciplined and consequent _[than many big names of the past, whose music is respectable but boring] _in realizing his objectives; moreover, in some of his works you can hear queer soundings or on the contrary classical stereotypes, nonetheless he has plenty of excellent original ideas and in many respect he interestingly anticipates - more than did Beethoven and Schubert - the big upheaval that was to happen in the music twenty or more years ahead. Some of his works, when played in a great manner, are true masterpieces, first of all his Piano Sonata in F Sharp Minor and his Piano Quartet in E Flat Minor _"etc.

(Sorry, I was wrong: not Piano Quartet but Piano _Quintet_.)

I would like to include here for listening his *Fantasie in E flat major Op. 18,* from a Naxos CD (Hummel: Fantasies, by Madoka Inui), in order to flabbergast, abash, amaze, astonish, blow away, bowl over, confound, dumbfound (and all the other synonyms) all of you, but unfortunately I don't know how to do it. This is not simply a vague anticipation of what was to happen in the music a few decades later; this _is_ sheer Schumann, nothing less, _and not at all on a lower level_, five years before Schumann's birth! Something unbelievable!

Another Fantasie on the same disc, in G minor Op. 123, is a world première recording. Also amazing! Rush to order it, as well as his towering masterpiece, the piano sonata in F sharp minor (preferably by Malcolm Binns)! This is nothing less than the best Schubert, Liszt, Schumann and Chopin at the same time - one year before Beethoven's Op. 106 sonata!


----------



## Efraim

Pieck said:


> Who the H is John Cage?


I never heard a single note from his entire output but in my biased complacency I imagine that his top achievement may easily be his "Seven minutes of silence" (or something like that; does this really exist?). :devil:


----------



## Kopachris

Efraim said:


> I never heard a single note from his entire output but in my biased complacency I imagine that his top achievement may easily be his "Seven minutes of silence" (or something like that; does this really exist?). :devil:


4'33", actually, and yes, it does exist. Sort of.

As for my top overrated and underrated composers, I may shock you all somewhat with my choices.

*Overrated:*
Schoenberg
Berlioz
Bartók
Brahms
Prokofiev
Strauss

*Underrated:*
Dvorak
Considering the way people talk around here, I might have to add Mozart, Haydn, and Bach

Why did I do this? I just don't like them that much, really. Don't even bother asking me to explain it, because I know you'll just argue. _(Hint: If you really want to know why I dislike them, look at some of my other posts.)_

As for my underrated composers, I listed them primarily because I don't hear many good things about them, and I really like their music.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

Cant say anyone's particulary overrated but certainly there are a lot of well known composers some of whose works I find strangely underperformed, underecorded, lacking critical acclaim etc e.g.

Dvorak - the 1st 6 symphonies, tone poems and the serenades are overlooked in favour of 7-9 & the cello concerto
Tchaik - symphonies 1-3 and the Manfred dont get enough recognition
Schumann and Mendelssohn- dont think EITHER gets enough acclaim for their symphs
Schubert's early symphonies - way underrated
Bizet - there's more to him than just Carmen e.g. symph in C, l'Arlesiennes suites, 
Bruch -there's more to him than just the 1st violin cocnerto e.g. the 2nd and 3rd symphs and violin concerto #3
Haydn - the general view I come across is that he's strictly 2nd tier adn not in the same league as LvB, WAM, Schubert etc


----------



## Pieck

Underrated - Weber


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There's really no necessity to defend people like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, etc. Their music has already stood the test of time. After this, there are preferences only.

True. At this point the opinions of a music school wanna-be or even the most respected academic will have little or no impact whatsoever.


----------



## Jacob Singer

tdc said:


> Without getting into this too much (hopefully) Jacob singer, I'll just state, your reasons for disliking Wagner seem largely based on your own boxed in idea of what _you _think music should be, while ignoring his enormous influence on later composers and his enormous influence on the direction of western music as a whole.


Ah yes... the "influence" argument. I was hoping someone would step into that one.

So, if composer X influenced a lot of people, but the majority of artists whom he influenced were arguably not that great overall, then should we think _more_ or _less_ highly of composer X? How are you sorting out quality from quantity with respect to these subsequent artists, and how far in the future do you measure? If some incredible musical genius came out today, then would his or her music somehow not be as good now as it may become later since it hasn't influenced anybody yet? What if an artist is so uniquely talented that others have difficulty reflecting that influence within their own art?

Do you see the multitude of problems with using influence as a meaningful gauge of artistic talent? How about we just rate the artists based on _their_ art, and not on anything else? Besides, it shouldn't be necessary to cite those influenced by an artist in order to defend that artist (i.e. their art should be able to stand on its own).



tdc said:


> I also would surmise (from previous posts) you've decided you don't like the _person_ Wagner was and you let this effect your perception of his _music_.


Nope, sorry. If there was any truth to that statement then I wouldn't listen to Beethoven or Brahms either, as they were also ********. Now maybe Beethoven had his reasons for being cranky, but I don't know what the hell Brahms' problem was. In fact, probably the majority of my favorite artists were less-than-decent human beings much of the time, but I just don't see how it is relevant to the sound that comes out of my speakers.



tdc said:


> Secondly, your arguments against Bach and Mozart are analytical fallacies because you are comparing them to composers from a different era of music and then suggesting they are faulty for not being as developed (in ways) as some genius's from a century or so later. It's like me taking a name from the renassiance period and then continuing to pound away how much more developed Handel or Scarlatti's music was. Well I'm sure I could make an incredible case for myself, but the whole argument is like a strawman (fake), because I am comparing apples to oranges.


Sounds like an excuse. I am only making judgments about the music itself, not the story behind it. If the restraints of the time period limited the artistry of the music, then I am not faulting the _men_. I am only faulting the music itself. Again, all that matters to me is what comes out of my speakers. Everything else is irrelevant.


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Well let's face it... Jacob's opinions have consistently proven themselves to be worth less than the paper they are printed on... and considering that there's no paper involved... Like a good many students he has the arrogance of believing that his own opinions hold great weight for the simple reason that he assumes he knows more than any one else.


Every word of that was utterly false (not unlike some of the other debates I've had with you). I make no such assumptions, and I base my arguments not only on my own justifiable observations but on _many others' as well._

Put simply, when a given artist is being criticized consistently for the same exact thing, then there is almost certainly something to it. The criticisms of these composers are very consistent, and can be found easily. It simply cannot be a coincidence that so many others have come to the same conclusions that I have. I even provided a poll (of hundreds of people) that supports the notion that these composers are the most overrated. In what bizarre universe does that translate to me believing that I know more than anyone else? That makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, there are other composers whom I do not care for, but because they do not get as much attention in that regard I don't see the point of mentioning them.

Your posts indicate that you want to personalize this, when I have already shown that for me it isn't personal at all (and I've even mentioned on more than one occasion that I _do_ like some Mozart, fwiw).

Also, I prefer to engage in debates with other posters without resorting to spurious ad hominem attacks. You should try it sometime.


----------



## Toccata

Jacob Singer said:


> ... I even provided a poll (of hundreds of people) that supports the notion that these composers are the most overrated.


I do not think that the poll you refer to is statistically valid since it failed to define a benchmark against which members can nominate the composers they deemed to be most overrated.

The poll might have had some semblance of respectability if some kind of ranked list of composers (e.g. Goulding's list or similar) had been provided as a point of comparison, but it didn't do that.

Therefore, each respondent presumably had their own notion of how the general public a ranks composers, and these notions could have been different. For example, one respondent might think that Wagner is rated at the No 1 spot in the public's perception, whereas another member might think it's Mozart. If these people don't like Wagner or Mozart respectively, they are bound to say that they consider them to be overrated. However, if they were presented with an independent list in which Mozart and Wagner are placed further down, then they might have given completely different answers. In the absence of any such benchmark, the results of this poll are indeterminate.

I don't know why the poll didn't simply ask members to nominate the composers they consider to be the greatest. I suspect that if this had been done it would have drawn a diferent mix of voters, and probably one which wasn't so biased against those composers who generally make it to the top, namely the same ones you reckon are overrated based on this cock-eyed poll to which you refer.

The same objections in principle apply to this thread, but at least there is no poll.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Toccata said:


> I do not think that the poll you refer to is statistically valid since it failed to define a benchmark against which members can nominate the composers they deemed to be most overrated. The poll might have had some semblance of respectability if some kind of ranked list of composers (e.g. Goulding's list or similar) had been provided as a point of comparison, but it didn't do that.


It's a poll of composers of musical art, Toccata, not a rigid scientific investigation. Hundreds and hundreds of people voted based on their perceptions of how highly these composers are typically rated. If you actually _read_ the post by the OP, he simply asks for "the ones who you hear about constantly but either can't get into or just find insipid or trite".

How much more straightforward could it possibly be? Considering that there tends to be very little substantive variation amongst the typical rankings, your quibble is irrelevant at best, and specious at worst.

Besides, haven't you made the point yourself that the various rankings of composers tend to be far more similar than they are different anyway? I seem to recall your arguments to that effect on another thread. It was pointed out that the big names - like the ones included on this poll - tend to cluster in the same places on these kinds of lists anyway. Whether Brahms (or whoever) is 5th or 6th on any one particular list is hardly relevant.

The poll I referenced is simply the most informative one I've ever seen on the subject, and regardless of whether or not you are capable of admitting it, the results are quite staggering.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Thats fine Jacob Singer, but when you go into concrete musical criticisms; structure, lack of direction etc... Then it becomes something objective, and I have countered all your arguments against Wagner. If you just dont like Wagner thats fine, will you admit that?


----------



## Lipatti

Any composer who is widely regarded as the greatest, will at the same time automatically also be regarded as the most overrated. It's just simple logic.


----------



## Jacob Singer

emiellucifuge said:


> Now i will extend my answer to explain why it does 'go somewhere'.
> Firstly the music must go somewhere. The music is subjected to the libretto. I think everyone can agree there is in fact a story, plot etc... (granted many people do justifiably believe he dwells on each section for too long. I disagree).


"Subjected to the libretto"? That's just another way of saying that the music can't really stand on its own without the plot/story context. On that point I agree. Also, I'd add that a good portion of the subsequent atonal and 20th century music can serve as really fantastic soundtrack music/audio effects for some other art form, but to listen to it on its own without additional context can be awfully dull. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the music itself.

In contrast, people like Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky composed great music that was intended to accompany some other art form, but that music can _also_ stand perfectly fine on its own. That's the difference (and it's one of the reasons why those artists were so talented).



emiellucifuge said:


> Secondly using an example from Tristan und Isolde again. The unresolved tristan chord is on a four hour quest to resolve.


And that's a good thing? Sorry to break it to you, but our human perceptual system can't "feel" a previous chord for very long at all. We can only _remember_ it intellectually, but that's no different than reading the chord off of a sheet of music beforehand and remembering it.

It's _precisely_ that kind of arrogance (and ignorance) that makes Wagner so cheesy and amateurish. He didn't understand the first thing at all about the *human* part of music perception, and it showed. It was all just a supercilious exercise in self-indulgent wankery. That kind of gimmicky game-playing has no effect whatsoever on the way music is actually perceived over time by our auditory system, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure pretense.

That's also why Wagner's operas are slightly less bad with cuts… the more the better. Stringing four hours of boring chords together just to eventually link two mildly interesting ones is _beyond_ arrogant. It's just plain dumb.



emiellucifuge said:


> If you think the best music is not emotional but transcends this then that is fine, but Wagner did not believe this nor do I.


That's not what I said at all. I said that if music is created as if to satisfy some quota (intellectual _or_ emotional), then it is just ************. Wagner invented quotas for himself so that he could pretend to be accomplishing something when he really wasn't (as your example helps to point out). That kind of childish one-upmanship is the phoniest and most soulless form of art, and I can't think of a bigger phony in all of music than Wagner.


----------



## Webernite

I'm shocked that you'd complain that Wagner's music can't stand on its own. His musical textures are much thicker and more interesting than any earlier opera composer's. Perhaps you just haven't got the volume turned up high enough.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Jacob Singer said:


> "Subjected to the libretto"? That's just another way of saying that the music can't really stand on its own without the plot/story context. On that point I agree. Also, I'd add that a good portion of the subsequent atonal and 20th century music can serve as really fantastic soundtrack music/audio effects for some other art form, but to listen to it on its own without additional context can be awfully dull. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the music itself.
> 
> In contrast, people like Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky composed great music that was intended to accompany some other art form, but that music can _also_ stand perfectly fine on its own. That's the difference (and it's one of the reasons why those artists were so talented).
> 
> And that's a good thing? Sorry to break it to you, but our human perceptual system can't "feel" a previous chord for very long at all. We can only _remember_ it intellectually, but that's no different than reading the chord off of a sheet of music beforehand and remembering it.
> 
> It's _precisely_ that kind of arrogance (and ignorance) that makes Wagner so cheesy and amateurish. He didn't understand the first thing at all about the *human* part of music perception, and it showed. It was all just a supercilious exercise in self-indulgent wankery. That kind of gimmicky game-playing has no effect whatsoever on the way music is actually perceived over time by our auditory system, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure pretense.
> 
> That's also why Wagner's operas are slightly less bad with cuts… the more the better. Stringing four hours of boring chords together just to eventually link two mildly interesting ones is _beyond_ arrogant. It's just plain dumb.
> 
> That's not what I said at all. I said that if music is created as if to satisfy some quota (intellectual _or_ emotional), then it is just ************. Wagner invented quotas for himself so that he could pretend to be accomplishing something when he really wasn't (as your example helps to point out). That kind of childish one-upmanship is the phoniest and most soulless form of art, and I can't think of a bigger phony in all of music than Wagner.


All your arguments have become subjective. Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet is equally bound to the libretto and story. You saying that Prokofiev's music stands better on its own is an entirely personal opinion.

Im sorry are you suggesting the modern opera-goer/listener is too stupid to recognise a motif as striking as the tristan chord? When it resolves at the very end I am pretty certain that a sizeable majority will recognise and feel/understand that its resolution has a very important narrative/emotional purpose.
Your rather narrow and generalised view of the whole opera as 'boring chords used to string together two mildly interesting ones' is quite frankly ridiculous. 
The emotions invoked in me by this music far surpass anything else. I only hope you can one day experience what I have.

Can you produce any evidence that Wagner felt the need to fulfil an emotional or intellectual quota?


----------



## tdc

Jacob Singer said:


> Ah yes... the "influence" argument. I was hoping someone would step into that one.
> 
> So, if composer X influenced a lot of people, but the majority of artists whom he influenced were arguably not that great overall, then should we think _more_ or _less_ highly of composer X? How are you sorting out quality from quantity with respect to these subsequent artists, and how far in the future do you measure? If some incredible musical genius came out today, then would his or her music somehow not be as good now as it may become later since it hasn't influenced anybody yet? What if an artist is so uniquely talented that others have difficulty reflecting that influence within their own art?
> 
> Do you see the multitude of problems with using influence as a meaningful gauge of artistic talent? How about we just rate the artists based on _their_ art, and not on anything else? Besides, it shouldn't be necessary to cite those influenced by an artist in order to defend that artist (i.e. their art should be able to stand on its own).
> 
> Nope, sorry. If there was any truth to that statement then I wouldn't listen to Beethoven or Brahms either, as they were also ********. Now maybe Beethoven had his reasons for being cranky, but I don't know what the hell Brahms' problem was. In fact, probably the majority of my favorite artists were less-than-decent human beings much of the time, but I just don't see how it is relevant to the sound that comes out of my speakers.
> 
> Sounds like an excuse. I am only making judgments about the music itself, not the story behind it. If the restraints of the time period limited the artistry of the music, then I am not faulting the _men_. I am only faulting the music itself. Again, all that matters to me is what comes out of my speakers. Everything else is irrelevant.


So, let me get this straight - what I'm getting here is that you think that influence no matter what the extent and no matter how brilliant the composers were by other people's subjective views (that seem to be not as important as your own subjective views) who were influenced, is completely irrelevant in gauging a composers 'greatness'... and comparing composers across wide spans of time is also fine by you because you only care about 'the music coming out of your speakers', and how you subjectively define it. Nothing else is worth taking into consideration...hmmm

So basically what I'm getting from you then is that you think your subjective opinions on music are more informed than all the famous composers, conductors and artists who would say otherwise about Mozart and Wagner, and you can back this up with your subjective opinions alone and by posting a link to a non-scientific survey.

Wow. Good job. I'm done with this. I think you enjoy debating much more than I do.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think you enjoy debating much more than I do.

No... he just enjoys seeing himself in print and imagining how he impresses so many lesser mortals with his brilliance. Adolescents have such delusions of grandeur. Sad, really.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Jacob Singer said:


> Most of Mozart's music is far too cutesy-wutesy to be taken as seriously as it is, and the fact is that even when he occasionally tried to inject some darker colors into his music, it somehow usually still ends up sounding all light and fluffy (with a few rare exceptions). Without any real contrast between the light and the dark, the music ends up just staying in the same place all the time, and it never actually takes the listener anywhere. This is a HUGE flaw. *Look at Beethoven or Schubert or Tchaikovsky, on the other hand, and these guys understood how to use that light/dark e*motion*al contrast to a masterful degree (indeed they were some of the very best at this in all of classical music, even if they did each have their minor flaws). Compared to them, composers like Mozart and Haydn and Bach - as technically proficient as they were - are downright monotone.* Even if I forced myself to listen to piece after piece by one of these composers for hours on end, the light/dark movement within their music could quite literally remain at zero the entire time. The fact is that technical skill alone doesn't accomplish anything unless it helps the music to actually _go somewhere_. Otherwise, it's just wankery.


Your reaction to the music of Bach, Haydn and Mozart is not surprising at all as you are expecting them to write music as if they were working from the 1820s and beyond. Your comments plainly show that. Obviously, you still have a long way to go to appreciate the idiom of music from the Baroque and the age of the Enlightenment/Classical. But if these two periods are not your cup of tea, then that's your preference, which you are entitled to.


----------



## World Violist

I'm now thinking of Ernest Chausson as a very underrated composer.


----------



## Toccata

Jacob Singer said:


> It's a poll of composers of musical art, Toccata, not a rigid scientific investigation. Hundreds and hundreds of people voted based on their perceptions of how highly these composers are typically rated. If you actually _read_ the post by the OP, he simply asks for "the ones who you hear about constantly but either can't get into or just find insipid or trite".
> 
> How much more straightforward could it possibly be? Considering that there tends to be very little substantive variation amongst the typical rankings, your quibble is irrelevant at best, and specious at worst.
> 
> Besides, haven't you made the point yourself that the various rankings of composers tend to be far more similar than they are different anyway? I seem to recall your arguments to that effect on another thread. It was pointed out that the big names - like the ones included on this poll - tend to cluster in the same places on these kinds of lists anyway. Whether Brahms (or whoever) is 5th or 6th on any one particular list is hardly relevant.
> 
> The poll I referenced is simply the most informative one I've ever seen on the subject, and regardless of whether or not you are capable of admitting it, the results are quite staggering.


Yes, of course most properly conducted polls on the greatest composers will tend to come up with the same list of names in roughly the same order, give or take the occasional exception. That's my whole point.

But then to ask which of these composers is overrated or underrated makes no sense, as all you will get is either a list of nominations which average out as "white noise" around the mean values established by the majority, provided the sample of responses is randomly drawn from the same population, or more likely, an atypical bunch of responses from those who, by definition, differ from the majority.

The results of the poll to which you refer prove nothing at all about the views of the majority, and if you think they do you are deceiving yourself. They are in all likelihood biased results drawn from a minority set of the wider classical music public. They can't be anything else, otherwise the whole thing is self-contradictory.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Webernite said:


> I'm shocked that you'd complain that Wagner's music can't stand on its own.


An understandable reaction. However, I think there's a more obvious point to be made...

It was Tim Page (perhaps among others) who stated self-deprecatingly that critics are fond of quoting themselves. Now, I don't place myself in the 'critic' column- but like those individuals, sometimes I can't resist the temptation to quote myself:


Chi_townPhilly said:


> Virtually alone among opera composers, if Bill Maher were to get his wish and opera were to cease to be, Wagner's music would still have a vibrant life in the Concert Hall- indeed, more of a life than most composers who wrote exclusively for the Concert Hall. [T]o consider the familiarity of Wagner's music among the wider public, reflect on the following: no 'short-list' of familiar classical tunes can be so short as to exclude the 'Bridal Chorus' from Lohengrin. We don't need to expand that list much more to include 'The Ride of the Valkyries' from Die Walküre. The Guinness Book of World Records once claimed that the overture to Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg was the most-recorded orchestral composition.


Obvious point being that there's a arm's length list of Wagner's music that routinely 
"stand(s) on its own without the plot/story context."


----------



## Toccata

Jacob Singer said:


> The poll I referenced is simply the most informative one I've ever seen on the subject, and regardless of whether or not you are capable of admitting it, the results are quite staggering.


Sorry but I completely disagree. I have already tried to show the folly of this kind of poll, but here's another attempt.

*Poll 1* Suppose someone organises a poll of members of a Forum asking for their favourite composers in rank order. The result (which will be assumed to based on a decent sample size drawn from a fair cross-section of the wider classical music appreciating public) shows the following set of ranks: Composer A (first), Composer B (second), etc.

*Poll 2* Some time later another poll is organised in which the same members only from the first poll are permitted to vote and are asked to specify which of the top rated composers from Poll 1 they consider to be overrated/underrated. Provided the sample size is big enough and random, all you will expect to get is "white noise" (ie random fluctuations with mean zero) around the original results from Step 1, i.e. there would be no evidence that any of the top-ranked composers are either overrated or underrated. This is obvious from the fact that the same members (or drawn from the same original group) are voting on the same issue, except that the question is posed differently, and they are obviously not going to generate a completely different set of preferences if they are rational and their views haven't changed.

*Poll 3* After this, suppose another poll is organised in which anyone (whether or not they voted in the first or send poll) can specify which of the top composers from Poll 1 they consider to be overrated/underrated. Alternatively, as variant, anyone can vote for a composer they consider to be overrated without identifying any specific list of composers to be taken as the base case. Now here you won't necessarily expect to get "white noise" around the set of ranks established in Poll 1. It's not possible to say exactly what you will get, but one thing that can be said is that whatever the results show they are going to unreliable if they differ materially from the ranks in Poll 1. If they do differ, all it will show is that a non-random sample of the population at large has selected itself, i.e. people who don't like the composers that most people do. As such, their views are uninteresting and tell us nothing about the worth of composers from the majority viewpoint.

The poll to which you refer is in all likelihood akin to the third one above, i.e. biased. All this is so flippin' obvious, that it seems a shame to have to spell it out like this.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Toccata said:


> The poll to which you refer is in all likelihood akin to the third one above, i.e. biased. All this is so flippin' obvious, that it seems a shame to have to spell it out like this.


You're just angry about the results of the poll. In short, because you don't like the results, you are just concocting rationalizations to try to convince yourself that there is somehow something wrong with the poll, when there really isn't.

The fact is that you can't provide any other poll that addresses this question even remotely as well as this one does. How's that for flippin' obvious? 



Toccata said:


> …most properly conducted polls on the greatest composers…


There is no such thing as a "properly conducted" poll on art, because there is simply no way to definitively determine what kinds of people should be either included or excluded from the sample. The poll that I referenced is at least as worthy as any other, and because of the huge number of people who voted, it is certainly better than any of the much smaller polls from the much more insular groups (such as this forum). If there is a better poll out there, then I've yet to see it.

This kind of poll is not like a poll for who should be president, when literally any eligible voter could potentially be a part of the sample. When it comes to art, there is no way to precisely delineate who should and who shouldn't be eligible to vote. Should it just be trained professionals? What about authors and scholars? Teachers and students? What about jazz players who figure everything out by ear? What about your average joe on the street who only has _Ride of the Valkyries_ or Handel's _Messiah_ in his classical music collection? Where do you draw the line? Do you see the problem with such a rigid scientific view when it comes to art?

I get that you like to throw around scientific terminology, Toccata, and you seem to be eager to want to show off your statistical knowledge (a little too eager, perhaps?), but you seem to be missing one of the most important parts of the scientific ideal: you have to know when _not_ to overanalyze something, or else you can easily misuse science to suit your own ends. I have no doubt that if this poll followed your exact specifications it would still have yielded similar results, _and judging from your posts I'd wager that you'd just invent some _other_ rationalization as to why these extremely straightforward and undeniable results should be so willfully ignored._

The fact is that this is a poll of hundreds and hundreds of people, and it is more comprehensive on this particular subject than any other poll out there. It draws from a perfectly acceptable sample of people… professional musicians, teachers, students, die-hard fans, etc. (as natural a voting sample as one can _ever_ hope to get with respect to the subject matter), and no other poll of this many people could ever possibly be proven scientifically to be any better, period. Again, it's art, not science, and a great many people seem to share the same opinions regarding that art (and, I would argue, for many of the same reasons). There is no way in hell that it's just a coincidence.

If you want to make an argument that the only opinions that matter are that of a very small number of conservative elites (some of whose careers may even depend on elevating certain composers or styles over others), then go right ahead. I prefer placing more importance on the opinions of a much wider group of people, including a great many individuals who are clearly more open-minded regarding the subject of classical music than most of the "old guard" of extremely conservative musical elites could ever be.


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> No... he just enjoys seeing himself in print and imagining how he impresses so many lesser mortals with his brilliance. Adolescents have such delusions of grandeur. Sad, really.


Sounds a lot more like you're talking about yourself than you are about me. I've consistently made rational, level-headed arguments without resorting to childish mudslinging. You _really_ haven't. 

Also, I always had the impression that I was quite a bit older than you.


----------



## Chris

Jacob Singer said:


> The fact is that this is a poll of hundreds and hundreds of people, and it is more comprehensive on this particular subject than any other poll out there. It draws from a perfectly acceptable sample of people… professional musicians, teachers, students, die-hard fans, etc. QUOTE]
> 
> The trouble with this poll is it doesn't 'draw on a sample' of people. The sample has chosen itself. A valid poll must make its own random selection.


----------



## Toccata

Jacob Singer said:


> You're just angry about the results of the poll. In short, because you don't like the results, you are just concocting rationalizations to try to convince yourself that there is somehow something wrong with the poll, when there really isn't.
> 
> The fact is that you can't provide any other poll that addresses this question even remotely as well as this one does. How's that for flippin' obvious?


It's just as well that some of us are prepared to challenge the statistical methodology employed in the poll to which you refer. You have used that poll to argue that most people consider Mozart and Wagner to be overrated, and hence that a fairer result would show them to be placed much further down a proper rank list according to your perceptions of greatness.

I'm saying that your poll results involve a very dubious procedure and therefore the results cannot be trusted. This is because if you want to seek the public's opinion about their favourite composers you should not go about it by asking which ones they consider to be the most overrated. That's too indirect. The obvious thing to do is to ask them directly the straightforward question which ones are their favourites or ones they consider to be the greatest. The T-C poll of 25 Favourite Composers did this, and the results are far more reliable than the one you have referred to. The analysis of results in the T-C poll was done very competently and gave Mozart the No 2 spot and Wagner the No 6. There are no great surprises here.

In the poll to which you refer, at the very least they would need to have asked which composers people consider to be the most overrated ones against a specified ranked list. Even then it would still have been a very dubious procedure, but they didn't even do that do that but merely asked people to specify which composers they consider to be most overrated, without any point of reference. It's that feature which makes it completely useless as a device to say anything worthwhile about the public's perception of greatness.

In consequence, all that has happened is that people who dislike Mozart or Wagner (i.e. the composers they believe to be the most highly rated by virtue of polls like T-C one and other sources) have come out to say so, in greater abundance than the supporters of these composers have done, simply because there was no need for the latter to come out all given that they don't believe they are overrated in the first place. Your poll therefore involves a completely fallacious procedure, and carries no statistical validity for the assertions you make about these composers' alleged overratedness in the view of the classical music public at large.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Toccata said:


> I'm saying that your poll results involve a very dubious procedure and therefore the results cannot be trusted.


That's completely false. The procedure is every bit as good as any other when it comes to polling people's opinions of art. If anything, the polls done within the _much_ smaller, insular groups - many of whose members fall within the same small musical 'clique' - are the ones we should consider dubious.

And you KNOW it, Toccata. Why can't you admit it?



Toccata said:


> The obvious thing to do is to ask them directly the straightforward question which ones are their favourites or ones they consider to be the greatest.


But that's simply not asking the same question. Many people may find the exact same composers to be the most overrated, but as far as their individual favorites they will tend to be much more varied in their responses. There's no mystery there.



Chris said:


> The trouble with this poll is it doesn't 'draw on a sample' of people. The sample has chosen itself. A valid poll must make its own random selection.


No poll of people's opinions on art does the things you are talking about, and if that were so critically important (as if this were a science, not an art), then why did no one ever register the same complaint about _all the polls done on this site_, not a single one of which was randomly selected?  That's intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.

As I have already pointed out, there is no "proper" scientific sample when it comes to a poll of art. The poll to which I have referred is every bit as worthy as any other (more so I'd say, since the number of voters is so very much larger than the small 'clique' polls), and there is absolutely no way one can scientifically prove otherwise.

Any suggestion to the contrary is pure chicanery.


----------



## Jacob Singer

emiellucifuge said:


> Im sorry are you suggesting the modern opera-goer/listener is too stupid to recognise a motif as striking as the tristan chord?


I never said that anyone couldn't recognize it. I said that it can only be recognized as a strictly intellectual concept, while perceptually we cannot feel a previous chord for anywhere near long enough for it to matter in that regard (i.e. Wagner could just as easily have used _different_ chords and done so with greater musical effect). That kind of purely academic, "inhuman" approach to composition makes for really bland music, and it's no wonder that so many people agree with me about Wagner's music being so vapid and cheesy. Among my colleagues within the Jazz/African-American music communities, for example, I've never known even a single individual who finds even the slightest bit of value in Wagner's music, for the exact reasons I have described in detail. In other words, unlike most of the other heralded Romantic "greats", Wagner's music has absolutely no soul.

The other thing about this weird obsession with the Tristan motif is that it's just not that striking - as you put it - to begin with. Why do you think it is? It's strange. I suspect you have simply tricked yourself using the process of adaptation (see below) with respect to Tristan and Isolde. Regardless, you seem to be reducing your argument to Wagner's campy and pretentiously drawn-out use of one single chord that isn't really all that interesting in the first place (and that Wagner didn't even invent, by the way). Am I somehow supposed to be impressed by that?

_Seriously_?



emiellucifuge said:


> Can you produce any evidence that Wagner felt the need to fulfil an emotional or intellectual quota?


I already have. The pretense that the Tristan motif somehow does something "special" with regard to the cognitive process just because Wagner made such a huge deal out of it - enough to apparently justify the absurd amount of time required for it to resolve, _and_ the bizarre worship about such a trivial matter to begin with - is quota fulfillment. It is the use of a totally contrived academic concept to plant the belief that it is somehow accomplishing something "special" within our perceptual process, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Our auditory system simply doesn't work that way, and the art of music is far too nuanced to be reduced to such prosaic concepts anyway. *If it were as simple as "magical chords" and other such fictional gimmickry, then the making of great music would be a hell of a lot easier than it is.*

Wagner clearly had no understanding of this "human" element of artistic creation. For him, it was all ego-stroking gimmicks and games, and his being a talented literary writer gave him the perfect pulpit from which to convince others to fall for this hype. In fact, I can't think of any other musician in history whose musical reputation has ever benefited so much from his non-musical skills.

Furthermore, in case you are unaware, with enough repeated listening you can train yourself to like just about _anything_ within reason. It's a form of what is called 'adaptation', and it's a common psychological mechanism that is essentially just a method of self-brainwashing. That's why it often requires near-outright worship for someone to really like Wagner, and why the defenses of his music always sound so desperate and irrational. It's far more like a religion than a true form of music appreciation. In fact, I'd say that the obsessive overrating of Wagner's mediocre music is extremely similar to the "bulk-buying" of certain cult leaders' books in order to land them on bestseller lists, even though they obviously don't belong anywhere near any list of good books. Likewise, Wagner's music is so bad that the undue adulation it receives is actually creepy.

It is simply art for ego's sake… all about _him_, and never for one second about the actual _human_ listener.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Lipatti said:


> Any composer who is widely regarded as the greatest, will at the same time automatically also be regarded as the most overrated. It's just simple logic.


If you like, you can compare the tally of votes in the poll with any of the typical ranked lists, and then you can see that the trends to which I am referring only stand out _more_ clearly. For instance, some of the big names who are virtually always at or near the top of the typical ranked lists (two of the three B's, for example) actually got fewer votes for being overrated than the average, while other typically well-regarded composers like Schubert, Schumann, and Tchaikovsky scored considerably lower still for being overrated.

I find all of this stuff to be very interesting, especially considering the huge number of people who voted, and I find it even _more_ interesting that some people here are trying so very hard to change the subject. That in-and-of itself is very telling. They will avert their eyes and just completely dismiss the overwhelming results out-of-hand without even _looking_ at them(!). It's almost unbelievable.

With regard to the most overrated composers, the fact is that 1) my own independent assessments on the subject based on twenty years of experience, 2) the assessments of all of my most highly-respected colleagues, and 3) the results of the most comprehensive poll I've ever seen on the subject are all nearly identical, and there is no logical way that this can simply be dismissed as a coincidence.

The reality is that there are a lot of people out there who completely agree with my well-reasoned assessments, and those individuals here who are desperately trying to _wish_ that fact away are only doing so in vain. It would be more of a benefit to these kinds of people to instead acknowledge the possibility that these composers are indeed overrated, and to then have a mature discussion on _why_ this is so.


----------



## emiellucifuge

> I never said that anyone couldn't recognize it. I said that it can only be recognized as a strictly intellectual concept, while perceptually we cannot feel a previous chord for anywhere near long enough for it to matter in that regard (i.e. Wagner could just as easily have used _different_ chords and done so with greater musical effect).


If you have any academic studies on how long a human can 'feel' a chord I would be interested in seeing them. If what youre saying is true then most 'classical music' since the classical period has been operating under a false pretense. We can do away with Sonata forms returning to the home key, we can do away with any notion fo a tonic, we can do away with cyclical forms. Unfortunately I dont belive you are right.



> That kind of purely academic, "inhuman" approach to composition makes for really bland music, and it's no wonder that so many people agree with me about Wagner's music being so vapid and cheesy. Among my colleagues within the Jazz/African-American music communities, for example, I've never known even a single individual who finds even the slightest bit of value in Wagner's music, for the exact reasons I have described in detail.


Thats fine, its a personal preference. I dont see any value in Jazz.



> In other words, unlike most of the other heralded Romantic "greats", Wagner's music has absolutely no soul.


Well it isnt Jazz or Soul music, its opera. Wagner's philosophy operates under the purely assumption that human emotion is the prime driving force. So no there is no 'soul'.



> The other thing about this weird obsession with the Tristan motif is that it's just not that striking - as you put it - to begin with. Why do you think it is?


Doesnt sound striking to you? Perhaps youre the one over-thinking things. I cant think its striking, I feel its striking.



> It's strange. I suspect you have simply tricked yourself using the process of adaptation (see below) with respect to Tristan and Isolde.


Unfortunately for you this a false suspicion. I fell in love with Wagner's music after I first watched Tristan und Isolde.



> Regardless, you seem to be reducing your argument to Wagner's campy and pretentiously drawn-out use of one single chord that isn't really all that interesting in the first place (and that Wagner didn't even invent, by the way). Am I somehow supposed to be impressed by that?
> 
> _Seriously_?


Ive been focusing on this chord as it is one of his most important contributions to music, and is also the most obvious example to use. Sure, its just a half-diminished chord, he didnt invent that did he? No he didnt, the point (as with all music) is its context. It 'resolves' on to another dissonant chord.



> I already have. The pretense that the Tristan motif somehow does something "special" with regard to the cognitive process just because Wagner made such a huge deal out of it - enough to apparently justify the absurd amount of time required for it to resolve, _and_ the bizarre worship about such a trivial matter to begin with - is quota fulfillment. It is the use of a totally contrived academic concept to plant the belief that it is somehow accomplishing something "special" within our perceptual process, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Our auditory system simply doesn't work that way, and the art of music is far too nuanced to be reduced to such prosaic concepts anyway. *If it were as simple as "magical chords" and other such fictional gimmickry, then the making of great music would be a hell of a lot easier than it is.*


Like it or not but music is just a collection of pitches. This form of art is so rich and has produced such a vast amount of different sounds, emotions, effects and concepts because there is near infinite way to arrange these pitches over time. Context is everything. Wagner created some fascinating and passionate arrangements of pitches.

I will maintain that for me this is the most emotional music in the world. Unlike some music (i.e. Brahms) where I am presented the emotion, Wagner's music invokes the emotion within me. I again repeat that this has nothing to do with 'adaptation', as I loved it the first time.

What has any of this got to do with quotas?



> Wagner clearly had no understanding of this "human" element of artistic creation. For him, it was all ego-stroking gimmicks and games, and his being a talented literary writer gave him the perfect pulpit from which to convince others to fall for this hype. In fact, I can't think of any other musician in history whose musical reputation has ever benefited so much from his non-musical skills.


His rather arrogant personality aside, this is complete rubbish. Many of his operas are the pinnacle of 'humanity'. Tristan und Isolde (again) almost perfectly shows and makes you feel the rapture and passion of two people deeply in love.

About musicality; lets ignore this whole time-perception thing. Wagner is one of the greatest orchestrators that ever lived, he perfectly places each note and is generally incredibly skilled in creating very effective sound-worlds. 
Hes also a brilliant melodist. Many of his leit-motifs are very beautiful.


----------



## Couchie

I don't really know why you guys are giving Jacob Singer the time of day. Wagner's music has been polarizing critical opinion since day one, and Jacob Singer is just another on a very long list of anti-Wagnerian Mendelssohn-sympathizers. His views on Mozart are similarly juvenile, but also extremely common.

However, his opinion of Bach is unforgivable. I don't know what kind of misanthropic creep you have to be to pass off Bach as soulless, but if takes Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn spoon-feeding you diminished 7ths to elicit any kind of emotional response within you, thats the failure of _your_ dulled barely-there psyche, not Bach's.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Couchie said:


> However, his opinion of Bach is unforgivable. I don't know what kind of misanthropic creep you have to be to pass off Bach as soulless, but if takes Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn spoon-feeding you diminished 7ths to elicit any kind of emotional response within you, thats the failure of _your_ dulled barely-there psyche, not Bach's.


:lol: At least your post was very funny, even if not intended to be so.

I'm a bit amazed the discussion has centred a little more on polls, polls and polls, especially the ones done here at TC. Polls done here were more for the sake of fun, it seems, than taken as any survey and statistical inference on classical music listeners' preferences. The number of contributors and regulars here at TC are not necessarily, in my humble opinion, representative of what the larger, global group of consumers of fine music demands.


----------



## Toccata

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm a bit amazed the discussion has centred a little more on polls, polls and polls, especially the ones done here at TC. Polls done here were more for the sake of fun, it seems, than taken as any survey and statistical inference on classical music listeners' preferences. The number of contributors and regulars here at TC are not necessarily, in my humble opinion, representative of what the larger, global group of consumers of fine music demands.


You shouldn't feel "amazed" at all. I merely cited the recent T-C poll on top 25 composers as an example of the more correct way to sample opinion on this subject, i.e. by asking the positive question which composers people prefer rather than by asking the negative question which ones they consider to be overrated, as employed in the poll on the ABRSM forum, which has been used to assert that Mozart and Wagner are widely considered to be ovverrated. I wasn't citing the T-C poll as some kind of definitive statement on the subject.

In the ABRSM poll there were 378 responses, with the two highest scores being for Mozart (63) and Wagner (45). It looks bad superficially but people could only vote for one composer. To see how completely daft this poll was, it could be that the 45 people who voted for Wagner as their most overrated composer might consider Mozart to be most underrated, thus negating the majority of the votes for Mozart. Alternatively, the 63 people who voted for Mozart as their most overrated composer might consider Wagner as the most underrated. I'm not suggesting this is likely, but it's a possibility, and hence shows the stupidity of that poll in design.

I would agree with you that the contributors and regulars here at TC are not necessarily representative of the global group of consumers of classical music. Other statistics however tend to suggest that the T-C poll results of are not wildly out of line. Polls on one or two other forums show Mozart well out front. Wagner normally comes somewhere in the top 10. If you look at Amazon's or ArkivMusic's number of classical music recordings available, they both suggest that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are in the top 3 positions, and in the next tier are the likes of Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Jacob Singer.

Do you only feel emotion after something happens to you?

Do you not feel sad if someone tells you a very sad story, or happy for other people?


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

toucan said:


> Compared with Schubert or Chopin Brahms is heavy-handed, needing an hour and countless instruments to say less than Chopin and Schubert can say in less than a minute, using one pair of hands only. But perhaps the one who is most overrated there is Brahms' second-fiddle Dvorak, because he is Brahms' second-fiddle.


blasphemy utter blasphemy :scold:


----------



## toucan

Jacob Singer said:


> Among my colleagues within the Jazz/African-American music communities, for example, I've never known even a single individual who finds even the slightest bit of value in Wagner's music, for the exact reasons I have described in detail.


Call me blasphemous thirty times over but I find this hilarious. It reminds me of acquaintances I have in the McDonald's/Jack-in-Box community who do not find the slightest bit of taste to the cuisine of Paul Bocuse. Jazz has its legitimacy, in its own sphere, but jazz is hardly the best available preparation for the complexities of Classical Music and a Jazzman who believes Wagner has no soul is little more than a jazzman who has failed to grasp the soul of Wagnerism.


----------



## Unknown

*.*

Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Pieck

ScipioAfricanus said:


> blasphemy utter blasphemy :scold:


Agree :scold:


----------



## Lipatti

Jacob Singer said:


> If you like, you can compare the tally of votes in the poll with any of the typical ranked lists, and then you can see that the trends to which I am referring only stand out _more_ clearly. For instance, some of the big names who are virtually always at or near the top of the typical ranked lists (two of the three B's, for example) actually got fewer votes for being overrated than the average, while other typically well-regarded composers like Schubert, Schumann, and Tchaikovsky scored considerably lower still for being overrated.


I'll stick with what I said - *of course* Mozart will top almost any list of most overrated composers. Because he _is_ overrated. His name has permeated our modern pop culture beyond normality, his life and talents have consistently been ridiculously exaggerated as a result of overexposure through different media. Count in the fact that most people will know Mozart through works like Eine kleine nachtmusik, 'Elvira Madigan' or 'Alla Turca' which hardly do any justice at all to his talents, and you can maybe understand why people get fed up with this overblown image of Mozart. Regardless of how repetitive and formulaic some of the compositions of his youth may be, his total oeuvre, his great accomplishments in so many different genres and, most importantly, the emotion which is present in his music, easily make him worthy of a position among the five greatest composers ever.


----------



## Efraim

Jacob Singer said:


> _Quote:
> Originally Posted by tdc
> I also would surmise (from previous posts) you've decided you don't like the person Wagner... _
> 
> *Nope, sorry. If there was any truth to that statement then I wouldn't listen to Beethoven or Brahms either, as they were also ********. Now maybe Beethoven had his reasons for being cranky, but I don't know what the hell Brahms' problem was. In fact, probably the majority of my favorite artists were less-than-decent human beings much of the time, but I just don't see how it is relevant to the sound that comes out of my speakers.*


Mr. Singer, I like a lot your outspoken and irrespectful way of speaking (true, I like the opposit of it too, meaning the gentlemanlike nuanced understatement), irrespective of whether I agree with you or not. (As to the above, I fully agree.) Please attack _me_ too, eg for my enthusiasme for Haydn, or for my advertising Hummel and preferring his usually not overly deep music to the boredom of the very deep Franck, Bruckner, Liszt, Sibelius and the like... Or for liking your style... (Don't think this is a sarcasm: I really like it.) It would be delightful, even though I am unfortunately no match for you in arguing, English being not my mother tongue.


----------



## the_emptier

toucan said:


> Call me blasphemous thirty times over but I find this hilarious. It reminds me of acquaintances I have in the McDonald's/Jack-in-Box community who do not find the slightest bit of taste to the cuisine of Paul Bocuse. *Jazz has its legitimacy, in its own sphere, but jazz is hardly the best available preparation for the complexities of Classical Music* and a Jazzman who believes Wagner has no soul is little more than a jazzman who has failed to grasp the soul of Wagnerism.


----------



## Argus

Any composer who is rated is overrated, all the composers who aren't rated are underrated.

******* logic. How does it work?


----------



## Duke

Overrated - Schumann
He learned how to write good melodies but he didnt manage to make something out of it. His music just feels so forced. I always get the impression when listening to Schumann that there is something missing. 

I also think Liszt is overated.


Underrated - Schubert
Just so addorable and so beautful melodies. He died to early which is a shame.


----------



## Pieck

Duke said:


> Overrated - Schumann
> He learned how to write good melodies but he didnt manage to make something out of it. His music just feels so forced. I always get the impression when listening to Schumann that there is something missing.
> 
> I also think Liszt is overated.
> 
> Underrated - Schubert
> Just so addorable and so beautful melodies. He died to early which is a shame.


How can Schubert be underrated? He's regarded as one of the best composers ever. Should he be considered as the best?
And just yesterday I heard Schumann's 3rd SQ and it blew my mind! I'm surprised no one ever speaks about it. I cant stop thinking about the perfection of the 2nd mv.


----------



## Almaviva

Kopachris said:


> 4'33", actually, and yes, it does exist. Sort of.
> 
> As for my top overrated and underrated composers, I may shock you all somewhat with my choices.
> 
> *Overrated:*
> Berlioz
> Strauss


You did shock me with these two, since I love both (I suppose you're talking about Richard Strauss).

R. Strauss I'd say is appropriately highly rated; while Berlioz, if anything, is underrated.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Earlier today, this thought came to me-

In the context of of the larger, non-Classical Music listening public (even among that portion of the public which is otherwise highly educated), wouldn't it be defensible to say that just about EVERY major classical composer you can think of is _underrated?_


----------



## Polednice

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Earlier today, this thought came to me-
> 
> In the context of of the larger, non-Classical Music listening public (even among that portion of the public which is otherwise highly educated), wouldn't it be defensible to say that just about EVERY major classical composer you can think of is _underrated?_


I think it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise!


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Air said:


> I'll make the recent TC Top 25 composers (& beyond) list my "simple linear regression", since it was made by this community itself. Of course, none of this is to be taken too seriously...
> 
> *Key*
> + = Position should be raised slightly
> - = Position should be lowered slightly
> ++ = Position should be raised significantly
> -- = Position should be lowered significantly
> 
> "Significantly" becomes larger as the list goes further down.
> _*Net charge = 0.*_
> 
> 1. Beethoven -
> 2. Mozart 0
> 3. Bach +
> 4. Schubert -
> 5. Brahms 0
> 6. Wagner +
> 7. Tchaikovsky --
> 8. Haydn 0
> 9. Mahler --
> 10. Debussy 0
> 11. Handel +
> 12. Chopin 0
> 13. Dvorak --
> 14. Sibelius --
> 15. Prokofiev +
> 16. Stravinsky +
> 17. Mendelssohn -
> 18. Shostakovich -
> 19. Ravel +
> 20. Schumann ++
> 21. Richard Strauss +
> 22. Bruckner 0
> 23. Liszt 0
> 24. Verdi 0
> 25. Monteverdi 0
> 26. Schoenberg +
> 27. Bartok +
> 28. Rachmaninov --
> 29. Grieg --
> 30. Vivaldi -
> 31. Berlioz +
> 32. Puccini 0
> 33. Janacek ++
> 34. Rossini -
> 35. Scarlatti +
> 36. Rimsky-Korsakov --
> 37. Dez Prez +
> 38. Vaughan Williams 0
> 39. Saint-Saens -
> 40. Ligeti ++
> 41. Britten 0
> 42. Palestrina +
> 43. Mussorgsky --
> 44. Berg +
> 45. Webern +
> 46. Varese ++
> 47. Elgar -
> 48. Borodin -
> 49. Faure 0
> 50. Scriabin +
> 51. Rameau ++
> 52. Barber 0
> 53. Alkan +
> 54. Khachaturian --
> 55. Donizetti 0
> 56. Ockegem ?
> 57. Satie -
> 58. Xenakis +
> 59. Holst --
> 60. Enescu 0
> 61. Bellini 0
> 62. Zemlinsky +
> 63. Glazunov --
> 64. Bizet -
> 65. Ives ++
> 66. Paganini --
> 67. Biber ?
> 68. Respighi -
> 69. Telemann ++
> 70. Falla 0
> 71. Smetana --
> 72. Purcell +
> 73. Bruch --
> 74. Ginastera +
> 75. Part -
> 76. Messiaen ++
> 77. Adams -
> 78. Massenet 0
> 79. Schnittke 0
> 80. Boulez +
> 81. CPE Bach 0
> 82. Poulenc 0
> 83. Feldman +
> 84. Gluck 0
> 85. Szymanowski +
> 86. Suk -
> 87. Nielsen ++
> 88. Dufay +
> 89. Myaskovsky +
> 90. Boccherini 0
> 91. Lutoslawski 0
> 92. Spohr 0
> 93. Wellesz ?
> 94. Frescobaldi ?
> 95. Tartini --
> 96. Martinu +
> 97. Lully +
> 98. Hanson --
> 99. Takemitsu 0
> 100. Hummel +
> 
> Just realized that on the original list, "Josquin" and "des Prez" were listed as separate entities!
> 
> *Others (will only tackle the underrated for now)*
> Villa-Lobos ++
> Walton ++
> Byrd ++
> Buxtehude ++
> Medtner ++
> Carter ++
> Weber ++
> Busoni ++
> Tallis ++
> Xenakis ++
> Penderecki +
> Partch +
> Hindemith +
> Taneyev +
> Kapustin +
> Tippett +
> Roussel +
> Roslavets +
> Rubinstein +
> Kraus +
> Gubaidulina +
> Pachelbel +
> Corigliano +


This is hilarious.


----------



## Duke

Pieck said:


> How can Schubert be underrated? He's regarded as one of the best composers ever. Should he be considered as the best?
> And just yesterday I heard Schumann's 3rd SQ and it blew my mind! I'm surprised no one ever speaks about it. I cant stop thinking about the perfection of the 2nd mv.


I talk in terms of status in the world, not status within groups with high knowledge in classical music.

If you ask people on the street to mention their classical favourite composer I think almost all of them would say Beethoven or Mozart. Most people propbably don't even know who Schubert is.

I will listen to the piece you mention.


----------



## Pieck

I got you know and I think youre right, he's name really isnt well known with the public.
Have fun with the SQ :tiphat:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Air said:


> I'll make the recent TC Top 25 composers (& beyond) list my "simple linear regression", since it was made by this community itself. Of course, none of this is to be taken too seriously...
> 
> *Key*
> + = Position should be raised slightly
> - = Position should be lowered slightly
> ++ = Position should be raised significantly
> -- = Position should be lowered significantly
> 
> "Significantly" becomes larger as the list goes further down.
> _*Net charge = 0.*_
> 
> 63. Glazunov --


*Face my wrath!!!*


----------



## Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadoo

I suppose most of my underrated should be "composers ignored relatively and in desperate need of revival." Maybe that could be a topic all to its own.

CPE Bach - delicious melodies and one of the founders of the classical style 
Louis Spohr - Early to mid compositions are at worst pleasant, at best breath taking.
Anton Rubenstein - overly punished for his music not being nationalistic enough, like the "five" - though I admit he can be inconsistent at times.
Mendelssohn - I guess you'll kill me for this one. The "Mozart of the 19th century" is so much more than that Italian workhorse and the violin concerto. Even today, he's still punished by many for being a classical-romantic. 
Carl Maria Von Weber - wow, what to say...one of the first true romantics. wonderful composer not heard nearly enough in the concert hall. 

overrated -

I guess it's human nature to say that X composer is overrated when what we're really saying is that we don't like that particular composer. I don't really care for many of the late romantics, but I won't say they're overrated. I just don't care for them.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I talk in terms of status in the world, not status within groups with high knowledge in classical music.

If you ask people on the street to mention their classical favourite composer I think almost all of them would say Beethoven or Mozart. Most people propbably don't even know who Schubert is.

But let's face it... the opinions of the world or the masses are rather irrelevant. The masses would be lucky to be able to name 3 or four artists (Michelangelo, Leonardo, van Gogh, and Picasso) a couple of serious writers (Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe... perhaps Tolstoy) and a few composers (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart... and maybe Brahms). It is quite likely that they couldn't discern one from the other. Within the context of those who are serious followers of classical music, Schubert is in no way underrated. I've rarely seen him fall below the top 5... and certainly not the top 10 composers.

As for Schumann. I disagree that he is overrated. I don't think many place him above Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Handel, Haydn, or any number of others. He does, however, consistently place among the top 20 or 25 composers... and this in no way seems an exaggeration. The notion that Schumann seems "forced" is purely subjective and a great many would disagree. On the other hand, the merit of his lyrical piano works have been recognized and admired by a broad array of musicians, composers, and music lovers, the same could be said of a number of his chamber compositions, while his lieder are generally recognized as second only to Schubert's


----------



## Toccata

Duke said:


> I talk in terms of status in the world, not status within groups with high knowledge in classical music.
> 
> If you ask people on the street to mention their classical favourite composer I think almost all of them would say Beethoven or Mozart. Most people propbably don't even know who Schubert is.
> 
> I will listen to the piece you mention.


Classical music appeals to less than 5% of a typical Western country's population, so if a sample was drawn from the population at large (95% of which is irrelevant) you are guaranteed to get misleading results, like the one you just instanced.

To make any meaningful assessments, you have to take the relevant "population". If you did so it would be astonishing if Schubert is an unknown composer. I would have thought that with a typical sample of relevant people who say they enjoy classical music it would be safe to assume that, on average, they are likely to have heard of many more composers than just Mozart and Beethoven


----------



## Chris

Duke said:


> Most people propbably don't even know who Schubert is.


I doubt this is true. Some years ago Cadburys, the chocolate maker, ran a series of posters advertising their creme eggs. One of the posters depicted three composers each holding an egg. The text below Beethoven was 'Beethoven's fifth'. Schubert was holding a half eaten one and that was marked 'Schubert's unfinished'. I can't remember who the third composer was but that's probably a good thing.


----------



## Polednice

No matter how much everyone in the world loves him, brahms will forever be underrated


----------



## Toccata

Polednice said:


> No matter how much everyone in the world loves him, brahms will forever be underrated


And the proof of that statemwent, using the "scientific method", is ....?


----------



## Pieck

Polednice said:


> No matter how much everyone in the world loves him, brahms will forever be underrated


:tiphat: thank you sir


----------



## Efraim

StlukesguildOhio said:


> When someone says they think that a particular composer is underrated (or overrated as the case may be) all they're really saying is that "I happen to like Composer X more than I think everyone else does". By implication, they think they're right and everyone else is wrong.
> 
> This is essentially true (...) To suggest something is "overrated" it would seem that one would need to employ some logical arguments establishing why a given composer is far more recognized and admired than he or she deserves.


I think this is the basic truth in this matter: de gustibus non est disputandum, no valid arguing about taste issues, since taste is subjective. Nevertheless you yourself allow for some measure of objectivity, at least concerning _over_rating, while comparing Glass and Gorecky to others.

Consider that compared to Händel, Vivaldi, Scarlatti and others Bach was hardly known in his lifetime and even less after: neither the Prussian king and Gottfried van Swieten nor Schumann, Mendelssohn or Busoni succeeded in making him a concert hit; Edwin Fischer's interest for the Well Tempered Clavier before WWII was still an exception. Bach himself was possibly not fully aware of his own greatness. Today he is a demi-god. Now if with logical arguments we can grasp reality, we must say that Bach was whether underrated once or he is overrated now, meaning by the prevalent classical music community as a whole.

At a first approach taste is subjective. But is subjectivity really subjective?

Young Beethoven presented his first piano trios to some assembly of VIPs. Everybody gazed at Haydn who was by far the biggest VIP by then: what is he going to say? When I read a vivid description of this scene I was baffled (not really, but I should have been): Why? someone may like that and Haydn may not, that's all, isn't it so? After all a concert is not a medical consultation. But each of us knows that this is so only in logic or logically constructed reality but not at all in our experienced reality. ("Logic is a poor guide compared to custom", Churchill wrote.) The opinions of a big someone are accepted as objective judgments. Had Haydn declared then that Beethoven was worth nothing, B. might easily have disappeared from the musical world. Now fancying Haydn as rejecting Beethoven is not too extravagant if you think that Tchaikovsky could call Brahms a czardas-writing *******, or that Hugo Wolf wrote of him that he invented the way how to write music without ideas…

My next example will be about Hummel who is my obsessional hobby-horse last time. After discovering _by chance _his astonishing Piano Sonata in F Sharp Minor I read in my sixty years old music dictionary: "_About his Etudes Schumann says: "Who can deny that the best of these etudes sprung up from an agreeable craftsmanship (…) But … the excitement of phantasy is lacking throughout." Without question_ [the dictionary adds] _one can apply this judgment to all of Hummel's other works except for his Sonata in f sharp…_" I am pretty sure the author of this dictionary did not trouble to peep at more than one or two - if any - scores of Hummel but answered "without asking any question", as he admits, repeating a than commonplace opinion. According to this German dictionary Alexander Jemnitz, James Lyon, Marco Antonio Ingegneri, Caspar Othmayr, Johann Svendsen and scores of similar names are all "outstanding" or "important" composers, especially those who happened to be German or Austrian; Hummel is not important, in spite of his being Austrian. Now the interesting thing is that, without having any illusion about the quality of my dictionary I was sure this judgment must be true, even though Schumann spoke about Hummel's Etudes only and not about his works destined for the concert hall.

A few decades ago, even without being influenced by biased opinions, you could simply not find any record, any concert performance of Hummel. Today there are scores of Hummel-only CDs, not to speak of others, people enthusiastically put a lot of them on Youtube, other people write enthusiastic comments; therefore earlier they were artificially deprived of Hummel's music. A young Russian pianist goes so far as to declare without much ado in this very blog (in the thread "J.N.Hummel - Piano Sonata in F Minor"; she plays it there) that Hummel is her favourite composer… Not Beethoven, not Chopin, not even Schumann, but Hummel!

The same thing happened, on an even larger scale, with Haydn, whose name as that of the founding father of the whole classical music had not even been forgotten, and this might happen with other composers.

Brahms was once in complete disfavour in France, probably owing in part to mutual French-German animosity, in part to the influence of Romain Rolland's personal distaste for Brahms. Today he is played there by no means less then elsewhere.

*So in this sense it is legitimate to speak about "objective" underrating of a composer. *

Interestingly in spite of this revival of Hummel the sleeve-notes of most of the very CDs that spread his fame speak of him still condescendingly, as if looking for excuses why he did not attain to Beethovenian or Schubertian heights. But how many of the most famous composers did? Such authoritative texts can also bias your subjective feeling. - You can read almost everywhere that Hummel reached the peak of his popularity with his 1830 tour in England but immediately after his music started to be regarded as outmoded. I suspect this was originally copied from some authoritative book and is repeated now "without question", without thinking. How could his music so suddenly be felt as outmoded when according to the same authors it influenced everybody from Schubert to Liszt, including Mendelssohn and Chopin? And at a moment when these newcomers were only beginning to produce new-fashioned music? If however this is true, it must have happened so because of some bias or unfortunate circumstance. By the way Chopin and Liszt revered Hummel's music without limit.

Today I can not hear enough of Hummel, in spite of my initial bias, and am unable to understand how someone can say that his works - especially the mentioned sonata, both his piano quintets, all three his string quartets and the Fantasies Op. 18 and 123 - lack phantasy, or that he contented himself with cheap popularity achieved by flashy but not deep enough compositions. (He wrote such works too, but which of the greatest composers did not? There are very few exceptions, perhaps Bach, Anton Webern…) I find him to have incomparably more phantasy than many otherwise serious and over-famous composers, and to be often deep and serious enough.


----------



## Polednice

Toccata said:


> And the proof of that statemwent, using the "scientific method", is ....?


Go away derailer, I was making a joke. Don't take it personally that your faith is blind.


----------



## Toccata

Polednice said:


> Go away derailer, I was making a joke. Don't take it personally that your faith is blind.


A very poor one.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Wow, I almost forgot about this place. I've been busy in the studio or else I'd have dropped by sooner. I see that some people are still desperately grasping at straws to defend some of the most overrated composers in history.

Awesome.



emiellucifuge said:


> Wagner's philosophy operates under the purely assumption that human emotion is the prime driving force. So no there is no 'soul'.


But 'soul' is the ability of music to adequately convey emotion without the need for further explanation. Wagner's phony kind of flaccid, emotionally-hollow music is pretty much the definition of 'soulless'. Without the visual cues within his operas telling you when to feel this or that, it is mostly just clumsily-crafted noise. It's art, sure, but it's not very clever music.

It's also quite trendy amongst certain groups, and so people simply use adaptation to train themselves to like it. Simple.



emiellucifuge said:


> Doesnt sound striking to you?


Not in the slightest. Yaaaaawwwwwn.

Furthermore, one chord doesn't accomplish anything by itself, no matter what chord it is. It can only accomplish something if the chords _adjacent_ to it in time facilitate effective musical movement. By itself, any one chord is just a group of static noises.



emiellucifuge said:


> I will maintain that for me this is the most emotional music in the world.


Oh, brother…

Please tell me that you are joking.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Toccata said:


> In the ABRSM poll there were 378 responses, with the two highest scores being for Mozart (63) and Wagner (45). It looks bad superficially but people could only vote for one composer. To see how completely daft this poll was, it could be that the 45 people who voted for Wagner as their most overrated composer might consider Mozart to be most underrated, thus negating the majority of the votes for Mozart.


Nice try, but your logic is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because you could say the same thing about any two composers in the entire poll (or for that matter, you could say the same about _any_ 'vote for one' type of poll). In other words, people could have felt X number of things about any of the other composers in the poll, but the poll isn't measuring any of those other things. It is only measuring which composer each individual voter feels is the most overrated of the group. *Each composer had an equal chance to either be voted for or ignored on that very basis, and no amount of slippery logic can change that.*

http://www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16967

Furthermore, no other poll that anyone has ever provided addresses this subject as comprehensively as this one does (with nearly 400 respondents from a wide variety of musical backgrounds). In fact, there is no other poll that is even remotely close in that respect. In short, this is by far and away the best poll that is available on the subject, like it or not.

Lastly, the staggering results alone should be a clue that this poll is demonstrating a real trend. It's not as if Wagner and Mozart only got a few more votes for being overrated compared to everybody else. No, they actually got 3 and 4 times as many as the average, respectively, with nobody else even coming close(!). That's HUGE, and you literally couldn't ask for more definitive results. To simply dismiss these results out-of-hand is downright ludicrous. If Wagner and Mozart aren't truly believed to be overrated by huge numbers of people, then there is no way in hell that such overwhelming results could ever possibly occur, especially not with such a large number of respondents.

The fact is that this thread asks for the composers whom people believe are the most overrated, and the poll I provided does a far better job at answering that question than any poll on this much smaller and much more insular forum ever could. Furthermore, I've analyzed this subject for years now, and I've found that virtually every diverse group of modern-minded music listeners agrees completely with these results, while only the ultra-conservative groups are the ones still toeing the party line.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

So what if a particular composer is overrated?

By being overrated, I presume most of the polls' participants (like me) did not perform a thorough musical analysis of composer X's oeuvre to conclude that given the amount of historic and current resources and efforts dedicated to studying, performing and recording X's oeuvre turned out to be one big farce, but rather, most likely based their choices on their listening experiences of X's oeuvre.

So, if Mozart appears to be consistently the most overrated composer judged based on folks' listening experiences, so what? Why does his operas and piano concerti for example, appear to be standard performance repertoire for fee paying, choice-making audiences, and corporate and government subsidizes/donations alike? In other words, the results of polls indicating composer X is overrated is nothing more than expression of opinions, but not a signal of choice when it comes to actually allocating resources to studying, performing and recording X's works.


----------



## Jacob Singer

toucan said:


> It reminds me of acquaintances I have in the McDonald's/Jack-in-Box community who do not find the slightest bit of taste to the cuisine of Paul Bocuse.


What does McDonald's have to do with jazz music? Jazz is one of the most complex and nuanced forms of music ever created, whereas McDonald's is practically the lowest common denominator of food. They're like perfect opposites, and so your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

And how many "acquaintances" do you really have in the McDonald's community? Seriously, I'm curious. Or were you just making that up?



toucan said:


> Jazz has its legitimacy, in its own sphere, but jazz is hardly the best available preparation for the complexities of Classical Music


Yeah right. In the bizarro universe maybe. Much of jazz is in fact _more_ complicated harmonically than much of classical music. That's why I find that so many musicians who are good at jazz often find adapting to classical music to be quite easy. I've seen this phenomenon again and again, while those who start off with classical and then try to move on to jazz later in life often find it to be extremely difficult.

That is not to say that jazz is necessarily "better" than classical, even though much of it is indeed more advanced. I'm just pointing out that your statement is an obvious fallacy. The fact is that most classical isn't really all that complex. It is only "complex" if you consider the typical length of an average classical piece and the many sections within, but individually those sections tend to be quite simple. It's like looking at a twelve-story building made of bricks and saying that it is "complex" because it is big and has many rooms. That's not exactly the truth, since individually those rooms and those bricks are generally simple structures. Yeah, there are a _lot_ of bricks, but that doesn't really make it complex, now does it?

In contrast, much of jazz is complex even on a small scale. It tends to do a lot more in a much shorter amount of time, and many pieces of jazz music can challenge the listener (and the performer) with every single measure. The pieces tend not to be very long, but so what? I'd much rather have a series of distinct and harmonically complex pieces in succession than one long piece that only achieves complexity on the macro level (and even then only rarely does such complexity result in true musical cohesion… Beethoven's Op. 131 comes to mind).



toucan said:


> and a Jazzman who believes Wagner has no soul is little more than a jazzman who has failed to grasp the soul of Wagnerism.


Or in reality their listening skills are already way beyond the clumsy chord changes that are rampant in Wagner's music. As I said before, anyone can simply throw unconventional chords together and pretend that they've accomplished something special, especially when they have the perfect pulpit from which to preach such nonsense.

The fact is that if Wagner had lived long enough to hear real jazz music, he would truly have been humbled, whether he could have admitted it publicly or not. I'm guessing not, and that like many of his adherents he simply didn't have a good enough ear to hear how much more musical jazz music is in comparison with his own amateurish creations. Both Wagnerian music and jazz music boast complex chords, but only one of those kinds of music actually _flows_.

Even just doing a quick search, I can easily find an example of a piece of jazz music that equals or surpasses most classical music for complexity, yet flows far more efficiently than Wagner and accomplishes more in six minutes than Wagner could have accomplished in six years of his wankery:






While Wagner would no doubt have soiled himself in absolute horror at how much more artistically advanced this is compared to his own pretentious drivel, I'd wager that people like Ravel and Prokofiev would have absolutely _loved_ it.


----------



## Meaghan

I dunno about _most_, but certainly underrated: Elfrida Andree. Who's even heard of her? I feel almost cheated that I hadn't until recently. Her _Fritiof_ suite is wonderful, as is her Swedish Mass. Worthy of recognition.

edit: I just searched Andree on the forum, and it looks like all other references to her here were made by a friend and classmate of mine. Obscure!


----------



## Sid James

Do you know that toucan has been banned (& is no longer around), Jacob?


----------



## Jacob Singer

Andre said:


> Do you know that toucan has been banned (& is no longer around), Jacob?


No, I was not aware of that. Oh well, it could have been fun.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> So what if a particular composer is overrated?
> 
> By being overrated, I presume most of the polls' participants (like me) did not perform a thorough musical analysis of composer X's oeuvre to conclude that given the amount of historic and current resources and efforts dedicated to studying, performing and recording X's oeuvre turned out to be one big farce, but rather, most likely based their choices on their listening experiences of X's oeuvre.


Heaven forbid they would base their vote on their own observations rather than on something they've been programmed to believe by a VERY small group of conservative musical elites.

Don't worry, HC, Mozart isn't that bad. He is overrated, sure, but one could make an argument for him being in the top ten or twelve.

But top five? Not a chance in hell.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Jacob Singer said:


> But top five? Not a chance in hell.


:lol: Who are your top five or so then? (Are you talking about classical top five or "everything"?)


----------



## Couchie

Jacob Singer said:


> Furthermore, no other poll that anyone has ever provided addresses this subject as comprehensively as this one does (with nearly 400 respondents from a wide variety of musical backgrounds). In fact, there is no other poll that is even remotely close in that respect. In short, this is by far and away the best poll that is available on the subject, like it or not.


Puhleeeeeeaaasssse. And the sources on what I am sure was a very comprehensive literature review of every poll ever taken on this subject is where exactly?

It's on a damn ABRSM board, most likely populated with ABRSM students. You already have an enormous bias towards young people. There's also no way to check because there was no record kept of participants backgrounds. You also have bias in that it was an online poll, that it was conducted on a forum, and that it was in english, hosted in an english-speaking country, responded to by mostly english-speakers. I dare you to try the same poll on a German website sometime.

Now who are the two major opera composers on that list? Young people, even classically-inclined ones generally dislike opera. Then again, I haven't visited every website on the internet so I can't give you the irrefutable best poll ever on the subject. That opera appreciation increases with age is a common sentiment expressed here at TC though, I can tell you that.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Jacob Singer said:


> Wow, I almost forgot about this place. I've been busy in the studio or else I'd have dropped by sooner. I see that some people are still desperately grasping at straws to defend some of the most overrated composers in history.
> 
> Awesome.
> 
> But 'soul' is the ability of music to adequately convey emotion without the need for further explanation. Wagner's phony kind of flaccid, emotionally-hollow music is pretty much the definition of 'soulless'. Without the visual cues within his operas telling you when to feel this or that, it is mostly just clumsily-crafted noise. It's art, sure, but it's not very clever music.
> 
> It's also quite trendy amongst certain groups, and so people simply use adaptation to train themselves to like it. Simple.
> 
> Not in the slightest. Yaaaaawwwwwn.
> 
> Furthermore, one chord doesn't accomplish anything by itself, no matter what chord it is. It can only accomplish something if the chords _adjacent_ to it in time facilitate effective musical movement. By itself, any one chord is just a group of static noises.
> 
> Oh, brother…
> 
> Please tell me that you are joking.


Good to see you back.

It all boils down to the fact that Wagner's music does not convey emotion to you. To me it does, extremely well in fact.

Im sure your musical knowledge is advanced enough to realise that when I talk about the amazing 'tristan chord', I am in fact referring to the chord as well as its preparation and subesequent (lack of) resolution.

In fact here is concrete evidence that you are making up criticisms of my argument with no bearing in reality:



> Sure, its just a half-diminished chord, he didnt invent that did he? No he didnt, the point (as with all music) is its context. It 'resolves' on to another dissonant chord.


----------



## Webernite

I love the constant implication in Jacob Singer's posts that Wagner's music is homophonic. :lol:


----------



## Jacob Singer

emiellucifuge said:


> Im sure your musical knowledge is advanced enough to realise that when I talk about the amazing 'tristan chord',


It's about as "amazing" as watching paint dry. Oooh, and it amazingly "lacks resolution" too? Wow, what an accomplishment. A trained monkey could have created that.

Again, it's just sound effects for a visual art form. On its own, the music is incredibly lackluster. The fact that it takes so long to accomplish so little is downright pathetic.



Couchie said:


> You already have an enormous bias towards young people.


Oh really? And here I thought my bias was towards open-minded musicians, teachers, professionals, students, etc., and against the "old guard" of extremely conservative yes-men, many of whom are literally expected to toe the party line.



Couchie said:


> You also have bias in that it was an online poll, that it was conducted on a forum, and that it was in english, hosted in an english-speaking country, responded to by mostly english-speakers. I dare you to try the same poll on a German website sometime.


For one, there are a lot more English speakers in the world than there are German speakers.

Secondly, the fact that the poll is online means that people are more likely to respond *honestly* without someone in their face frowning at them for picking one of the sacred cows. That makes it even more fascinating that Schubert and Brahms and Beethoven actually got fewer votes than the average.



Couchie said:


> Young people, even classically-inclined ones generally dislike opera.
> 
> ...
> 
> That opera appreciation increases with age is a common sentiment expressed here at TC though, I can tell you that.


So what? Older people simply have more time to train themselves to like things they otherwise wouldn't... adaptation again.

Can any of you people show me a comprehensive poll of nearly 400 people to support your extremely weak counter-arguments.

No? I didn't think so.

The fact that the criticisms against these hilariously overrated composers is so very consistent should be a clue that there must be something to it. People who criticize Wagner or Mozart always do so for the same reasons every time _because those reasons are so very obvious_. On the other hand, what are the criticisms of Schubert, for example? I can't think of a single consistent one (in fact, no obvious criticism comes to mind at all). Compared to Wagner and Mozart with their glaring flaws, Schubert's music stands up FAR better to honest critique, and each subsequent generation seems to understand that reality even more clearly.

Not only does my argument make perfect sense, but I have an enormous poll to back it up.


----------



## Webernite

Schubert's music lacks contrapuntal interest?


----------



## Argus

Webernite said:


> Schubert's music lacks contrapuntal interest?


It also doesn't swing hard enough or have enough drum solos.

Seriously, has anyone ever listened to a piece of music and thought this lacks contrapunctal interest or the harmony is overly simplistic? Who thinks in such clinical ways?


----------



## Webernite

Well, I've often thought "this is just a harmonized melody line and is boring." (Not about Schubert, though.)


----------



## 1648

Argus said:


> Who thinks in such clinical ways?


 Guilty, I can't help but slip into the usual _"This bores me. WHY does it bore me?"_ train of thought whenever someone exposes me to jazz or minimal music.


----------



## nickgray

Overrated? I dunno. Stockhausen maybe? Underrated, on the other hand... boy, don't get me started on that one. Alkan, Milhaud, Schnittke, Myaskovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Atterberg, Pettersson, Langgaard, Wellesz, Brian, Berlioz (to an extent, and frankly, to a rather big extent), Field, Schmidt, Raff... And I have this funny feeling that there are hundreds, literally hundreds of brilliant composers out there who weren't lucky enough, who weren't innovative enough, who didn't write a whole lot, but who nevertheless written some brilliant music.


----------



## Couchie

Jacob Singer said:


> Oh really? And here I thought my bias was towards open-minded musicians, teachers, professionals, students, etc., and against the "old guard" of extremely conservative yes-men, many of whom are literally expected to toe the party line.
> 
> For one, there are a lot more English speakers in the world than there are German speakers.
> 
> Secondly, the fact that the poll is online means that people are more likely to respond *honestly* without someone in their face frowning at them for picking one of the sacred cows. That makes it even more fascinating that Schubert and Brahms and Beethoven actually got fewer votes than the average.


The poll is worthless. Such is apparent to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the statistics of surveys. You don't know your bias because you don't even know who took your poll. For all you know, one person with a personal vendetta agains Wagner voted 60 times. For all I know, that person was you. Useless, useless poll.



Jacob Singer said:


> So what? Older people simply have more time to train themselves to like things they otherwise wouldn't... adaptation again.


Or it could be because they become more mature and patient. Who knows? Maybe we should make an ASRBM poll on the subject, so we can know with irrefutable certainty.



Jacob Singer said:


> The fact that the criticisms against these hilariously overrated composers is so very consistent should be a clue that there must be something to it. People who criticize Wagner or Mozart always do so for the same reasons every time _because those reasons are so very obvious_. On the other hand, what are the criticisms of Schubert, for example? I can't think of a single consistent one (in fact, no obvious criticism comes to mind at all). Compared to Wagner and Mozart with their glaring flaws, Schubert's music stands up FAR better to honest critique, and each subsequent generation seems to understand that reality even more clearly.


So you think Schubert's flawless Alfonso und Estrella trumps Don Giovanni and Tristan & Isolde then?


----------



## Jacob Singer

Couchie said:


> The poll is worthless. Such is apparent to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the statistics of surveys. You don't know your bias because you don't even know who took your poll. For all you know, one person with a personal vendetta agains Wagner voted 60 times. For all I know, that person was you. Useless, useless poll.


You couldn't be more wrong with your assumptions. That forum is very strict about registering, and individuals have to personally contact an administrator before they can even get on the boards. There is no possible way that anyone could have messed with the voting as you so ridiculously suggested (like anyone would go out of their way to do such a bizarre thing anyway ). The very idea is so blatantly absurd that it is actually funny.

So your post is clearly just sour grapes. You know you can't possibly find a better poll on the subject, and you are obviously not happy about it.

:lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It's about as "amazing" as watching paint dry. Oooh, and it amazingly "lacks resolution" too? Wow, what an accomplishment. A trained monkey could have created that.

Perhaps even you yourself have achieved something of equally lasting importance? After all even a trained monkey could do it.


----------



## vamos

ahhh. great thread. see, the concept itself might be poot shag but the chance to talk about music in here is great.

anyway, *overrated*?

for me, this is just someone who is heralded but i feel a certain something against, inside of their music.

while the music may be good, i 'disagree' with it.

so, for this

*Debussy*. too fine and dandy a lot of the time. that probably sounds stupid, but whatever. I've very, very much enjoyed his music from time to time. But then another section comes up that sounds so dull and forced to my ears. I can't get around it.
*Wagner* - I'll just say I basically agree with Singer here. I find his music kind of ridiculous. I can't help but think about him as a person when I listen to it. I don't like Lord of the Rings, I don't like elves. I just basically disagree with his work. I'll admit I need to give it much more of a chance than I have. I had to chuckle when Singer called it 'pitiful.'

not exactly
*UNDERRATED*
but:

Scriabin
Messiaen - - - - > for me this guy is probably the next in the line from the Bach, Mozart, Beethoven line. just a thought. his genius is unimaginably great... you know ,that kind of thing. I think people will start to comprehend it sooner or later. the way he approaches tonality, or something. it's mind boggling. it's more based on the noise/sound of it than the rules below. I don't know what I'm talking about but this is the feeling I get. that perfection and high mindedness of the greats, for the 20th century.
Schumann

*Underrated here*
John Cage - - - - > prepared piano pieces are a stroke of genius once you get around thinking it's a gimmick. the tonal / rhythmic constructions take us into a new realm of reality existence .. something
Philip Glass - - - - > Music in 12 Parts. his work probably genuinely has more in common with Bach and Mozart than any other composer of the 20th century, that I've heard at least. I'm talking about the maths
Morton Feldman ?

more underrated
Zorn - - - > takes all genres and shows the new potential for genuine polystylistic art music of the highest order. potential is probably the key word. Shnittke


----------



## vamos

Mozart for me is just objectively and subjectively un-f with able

I don't see how you can call it overrated. Actually I can, because a few years ago I said something like, "I don't like Mozart. His music is boring / generic." I felt pretty ashamed about that statement a few months later after Mozart became one of my 'go tos.'

On some afternoon I came to feel his music was actually the greatest music ever written. At a certain point you want something that doesn't need anything from you, it also doesn't have any imperfections. Music that is just pure music and nothing more. No human touch, no emotion. But not that simple, not just ... nothing. Something that still is music at heart, and that is simple and enjoyable to hear.

Most all music has some kind of person behind it, a meaning, an idea. Something that inevitably makes it a creation of an artist.

You come to see this in everything you listen to. So, with Mozart, there is the sense that for once you are hearing something that is totally purified. So even if it is the most boring thing you may ever have heard, at least it is also the most pure and free of any ... influence. There is no dirt in that music.

You know you can put it on any time and it will fit regardless, basically.


----------



## Couchie

Jacob Singer said:


> You couldn't be more wrong with your assumptions. That forum is very strict about registering, and individuals have to personally contact an administrator before they can even get on the boards. There is no possible way that anyone could have messed with the voting as you so ridiculously suggested (like anyone would go out of their way to do such a bizarre thing anyway ). The very idea is so blatantly absurd that it is actually funny.
> 
> So your post is clearly just sour grapes. You know you can't possibly find a better poll on the subject, and you are obviously not happy about it.
> 
> :lol:


It does appear that NOW that is the case. However in the thread there are many unregistered posters towards the beginning claiming that they voted. Wagner was also apparently leading during this unregistered period.

Also a quick look through the comments shows that most of the posters are actually answering "who is your least favourite composer". It also confirms that Wagner is highly voted for because they don't like or get opera, or because he was unpleasant and an anti-Semite, etc. I couldn't find anyone using evidence from Wagner's actual work to support their accusations. The few who do actually comment on Wagner's ability are the ones praising it.

Some highlights:
_'*I voted for Wagner out of personal prejudice* (ironic that, "The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance"), but unfortunately for me *I can't bring myself to deny that his works are masterpieces*"

"I believe *there are more books written about [Wagner] than any other composer*. So definitely over-rated in my book."

"Personally voted for Wagner. Not my cup of tea, and can't quite get beyond* the personality traits* (anti-semitic bigot as A.U.K mentioned)."

"I am not huge on Wagner, *immensely talented but not my cup of tea*, also the fact that he was a roaring Bigot and anti semite is quite inconsequential, but it doesnt help..."

"Another vote for Wagner, *Just not my kind of music...sorry....*"

"It just does nothing for me -* I don't get it*"

"I voted Wagner, but sadly *not b/c of his music, but the Anit-Semitic message*."

"To be totally honest, the problem I have with jazz is I associate it with loud slimey arrogant tossers."

"[Jazz] just seems like mindless rambling really."_

I doubt any of these people have actually seen a Wagner opera.


----------



## Jacob Singer

@Couchie:

You just went through an selectively hand-picked comments that you thought you could use to obfuscate the issue (and those were the best ones you got? seriously?).

Sorry, that doesn't work. There are a hell of a lot more votes than the few examples you mentioned, and the fact is that you could use that same selective tactic with any composer being discussed in the thread. Also, at some point when they updated their forum they deactivated accounts from people who hadn't been there in a long time. That has no bearing on the poll results either, so bringing it up is totally pointless. Lastly, trying to draw any definitive correlation between the poll results and the comments is not the wisest idea, since you can't actually link comments with votes, and any attempt to do so would be unrealistic at best. No, the results of the _actual poll_ speak for themselves, and the more you try to deny that fact the more obvious it becomes.

The fact that you are so disturbed about this to go to such trouble is even more interesting than the original topic. _Are you really that emotionally invested in Wagner to go to a thread you've already dismissed out-of-hand and scour it for some magical explanation as to why the results are as they are?_ Does it really confound you _that much_ that so many people absolutely can't stand Wagner's music? It's no mystery to me, since I don't know a single living soul on this earth who can stand it, but whatever.


----------



## Vaneyes

Over/Under, Ives & Rawsthorne.


----------



## Couchie

Jacob Singer said:


> @Couchie:
> 
> You just went through an selectively hand-picked comments that you thought you could use to obfuscate the issue (and those were the best ones you got? seriously?).
> 
> Sorry, that doesn't work. There are a hell of a lot more votes than the few examples you mentioned, and the fact is that you could use that same selective tactic with any composer being discussed in the thread. Also, at some point when they updated their forum they deactivated accounts from people who hadn't been there in a long time. That has no bearing on the poll results either, so bringing it up is totally pointless. Lastly, trying to draw any definitive correlation between the poll results and the comments is not the wisest idea, since you can't actually link comments with votes, and any attempt to do so would be unrealistic at best. No, the results of the _actual poll_ speak for themselves, and the more you try to deny that fact the more obvious it becomes.


There was very little, if any, handpicking involved. I searched the topic for "Wagner" and these are what popped up. It may have missed posts if they referred to Wagner as "Jew-hater" or something and not by name. I challenge you to do the same and then refute that the posts I made don't reflect the overwhelming climate of the people who voted for Wagner. As I said, I couldn't find a single post from somebody who appeared to be both familiar with Wagner's music and actually find it overrated, but you are welcome to try. It is difficult to imagine that the people who know Wagner's music well and finds it overrated would have nothing to say on the subject, and vote, but leave no comment. It remains that I have evidence to back my case, and you have wishful thinking to back yours.



Jacob Singer said:


> The fact that you are so disturbed about this to go to such trouble is even more interesting than the original topic. _Are you really that emotionally invested in Wagner to go to a thread you've already dismissed out-of-hand and scour it for some magical explanation as to why the results are as they are?_ Does it really confound you _that much_ that so many people absolutely can't stand Wagner's music? It's no mystery to me, since I don't know a single living soul on this earth who can stand it, but whatever.


It is common knowledge that lots of people dislike Wagner's music, that has never been the issue here. The issue is whether or not he is _overrated_. Thinking something is overrated is much different than merely disliking it, it is disliking it and also thinking that others should like it less as well. You're the one that seems emotionally invested, and so can't believe that people actually like Wagner's music that you're willing to spend all this time arguing over something you think isn't worth anything.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Sorry buddy, but there were almost 400 voters in the poll. Using a sweeping generalization (based on only a tiny few comments) to simply dismiss the results is just downright illogical.

We aren't dealing with a slight margin here than can simply be rationalized away. The results are overwhelming, and no amount of nitpicking one or two votes is going to make any difference. I could nitpick some of the comments about composers I like, too. Should we subtract a couple of the votes for Beethoven or Chopin or Brahms? Should I contact the administrator in order to right such terrible wrongs?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

The results stand.


----------



## Jacob Singer

On the subject of polls…

One of the reasons why I really dislike much of the polling on this very forum is that the people who are here all the time can easily vote in each "round", whereas those of us who aren't here all the time can only get in on whichever round is current at the moment (and I couldn't care less about voting for which piano concerto is 50th or 51st, or which symphony is 99th or 100th, or _whatever_).

That kind of process has a cyclical reinforcement-type effect: the opinions of those within the core group of regulars get heavily emphasized, resulting in those outside of the "core" having less incentive to come here as often, _thus further concentrating the opinions of the core_. So each poll just appears as more of a self-affirming poll than anything else, with a relatively small number of voters mostly just reiterating the same opinions amongst themselves.

I don't see how that's a good thing for anybody. Why not just have a single round of indefinite length, and that way no one would ever have to be excluded from the voting (since there is no real need for a time limit with these kind of things)? It's not like we're voting for a president or something, where there would need to be a strict deadline for obvious reasons…

Out of all the polls on this forum, I have yet to get in on the voting for _any_ of the "TC's top recommended" polls (i.e. piano concerto poll, symphony poll, string ensemble poll, etc.). Sure, I can vote right now for which are the 51st-thru-60th concertos for keyboard, but as I mentioned I don't care about that in the slightest, since these ranked lists often become rather meaningless after the top dozen or two anyway (depending on the subject at hand).

As I see it, these kinds of polls are exclusive and not actually easy to get in on, and so I am wondering if some of the people on this thread would concede to having a problem with that. I have no doubt that a few of them would rather complain about a _much larger_ poll on another forum where literally anyone who contacts the administrator to verify their account can vote, and where no one is excluded from the voting because of limited time constraints. Seriously, if that kind of complaint doesn't have sour grapes written all over it, then I don't know what does.


----------



## Couchie

Jacob Singer said:


> Sorry buddy, but there were almost 400 voters in the poll. Using a sweeping generalization (based on only a tiny few comments) to simply dismiss the results is just downright illogical.
> 
> We aren't dealing with a slight margin here than can simply be rationalized away. The results are overwhelming, and no amount of nitpicking one or two votes is going to make any difference. I could nitpick some of the comments about composers I like, too. Should we subtract a couple of the votes for Beethoven or Chopin or Brahms? Should I contact the administrator in order to right such terrible wrongs?
> 
> Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
> 
> The results stand.


I brought forth concerns that there were likely bias in the sampling community, you brushed them aside. I found direct evidence that this bias indeed did indeed occur to some extent, you brushed it aside. Unlike you I have no vested interest in this poll, so why would I care about correcting it by subtracting votes. The bias is systemic so the size of the sample is irrelevant. Also, that size we're interested in is not 400, but the 45 votes for Wagner, of which 7 are known to be garbage.

The funny fact is, that if you had come out here and laid out a serious case for your positions on Wagner's music, we would not be having a problem right now. But no, you chose to forgo serious and well-balanced critique in favour of brash psuedo-witty generalizations far more pretentious than any Wagner performance I've ever seen. Then, when anybody dared to confront you on these eviscerating remarks, they're derided as close-minded pompous fools stuck in the 19th century despite many of them also having vast tastes including a lot of 20th century music. You're here to have fun, mock people's tastes, and see how many people you don't even know you can **** off.


----------



## 1648

If find Mr. Singer's opinion on what music can/should do and how it can/should be appreciated very conservative and very, very 19th century.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Perhaps Mr Singer could tell us what he reckons the rank order of composers, from top down, would have been if the same people who voted on the poll he refers to had been asked to vote on their top 10 composers.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Apart from Mr Singer's constant harping on about the poll on the ABRSM forum, which I think is so fundamentally flawed as to be worse than useless and actually highly deceptive, I do have some sympathy with one of his recent comments about the nature of polling here. 

I agree that the type of poll which goes on for ages, like the present one on greatest works, is sheer tedium as far as I am concerned. I cannot get into any of that at all. It is so pretentious that a small group of 10- people reckon they can come up with 100 or so long list of worthwhile works to listen to in a rank order. It is especially silly when quite a few of the active participants are self-confessed amateurs who have a highly incomplete knowledge of the repertoire and who are already struggling with musical "constipation". There are far better lists already available elsewhere.

I realise that it's only a bit of fun, but that's what they say now. Wait until it's finished, and I bet there will pressure to pin it up as a sticky. If so it should be wrapped up in brown cardboard, with a warning "DON'T TREAT ANY OF THIS AS SERIOUS; IT'S JUST FOR FUN"


----------



## Sieglinde

Overrated: 

Beethoven (maybe it's just they overuse his most popular pieces in crappy movies, advertisements or even phone rings... and one gets bored by them)
Rossini (might be just me, but I dislike opera buffas in general)
Bartók (I'm a Hungarian. He's NOT the only Hungarian composer! See below...)


Underrated:

Respighi (why isn't La fiamma more widely played? It's a very fine opera.)
Ferenc Erkel (pretty much unknown outside Hungary, but his best works compare to Donizetti or Verdi - so much beautiful music!)

Underrated in my country: 

Britten. In Hungary, he might as well not exist. And with the current borderline-Nazi government, we won't get anything for his anniversary. Which makes me


----------



## tdc

Andy Loochazee said:


> "DON'T TREAT ANY OF THIS AS SERIOUS; IT'S JUST FOR FUN"


This is exactly the mindset I've had the entire time with the classical music project. I think its a list reflecting the tastes of a handful of the posters at TC - nothing more, and yes its just for fun.


----------



## mmsbls

Andy Loochazee said:


> I agree that the type of poll which goes on for ages, like the present one on greatest works, is sheer tedium as far as I am concerned. I cannot get into any of that at all. It is so pretentious that a small group of 10- people reckon they can come up with 100 or so long list of worthwhile works to listen to in a rank order. It is especially silly when quite a few of the active participants are self-confessed amateurs who have a highly incomplete knowledge of the repertoire and who are already struggling with musical "constipation". There are far better lists already available elsewhere.
> 
> I realise that it's only a bit of fun, but that's what they say now. Wait until it's finished, and I bet there will pressure to pin it up as a sticky. If so it should be wrapped up in brown cardboard, with a warning "DON'T TREAT ANY OF THIS AS SERIOUS; IT'S JUST FOR FUN"


As you say, the classical music project is fun. That is one of the reasons I participate, and I assume one reason others do as well (but of course I don't know). One participant has called these games, and I think he's right. The other reason I participate in this and other TC polls is to see what works others like and listen more closely to those I am less familiar with. I don't believe anyone thinks there's something special about our list beyond what it is - a modest consensus of several TC members.

You bring up an interesting point when talking about a sticky thread. I don't know if the music project will generate a sticky thread. I think there was some discussion on that a bit earlier. I am not sure what TC's policy is on sticky threads. If they are to represent TC is some way, perhaps only stickys that have group blessing should exist. Or perhaps a disclaimer describing how the list was created should be put in front.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Couchie said:


> I brought forth concerns that there were likely bias in the sampling community, you brushed them aside. I found direct evidence that this bias indeed did indeed occur to some extent, you brushed it aside.


That's not even what sampling bias is. The sample is literally open to anyone who wants to be a part of it, and people can vote for any reason they choose. Just because one or two of them _may_ have voted for Wagner because he was an anti-Semite makes no difference whatsoever. There were tons and tons of people who voted, and people seem to have voted for other composers for less-than-stellar reasons too.

You can't measure that, and you can't connect comments with votes anyway, so it is totally irrelevant. Calling it sampling bias is just plain wrong.

I have news for you, Couchie: as much as you'd obviously like to, you can't control how people vote. And when people are free to vote as they choose, you can't simply come along after the fact and make excuses hoping to somehow magically change the results. As I said, there are comments about composers whom I like that may not seem like the best reasons for voting either, but it would be futile trying to argue that the results should be altered (or even more preposterous, simply disregarded) as a result. As you should have already admitted in the interest of intellectual honesty, when you have such large numbers of voters you would _expect_ such things to occur with a small percentage of votes. The fact is that given the huge number of voters, it would almost certainly be impossible _not_ to have a few votes like that here and there. Hell, even on the _tiny_ polls taken on this site, some people have strange reasons for voting the way they do. Should we throw out some of those votes too? How do we measure which reasons are valid and which reasons are invalid? Where do we draw the line? Do you see how problematic such a thing might be?

Regardless, the results of the ABRSM poll are way too definitive to get hung up on such minor trivialities anyway.



Andy Loochazee said:


> It is so pretentious that a small group of 10- people reckon they can come up with 100 or so long list of worthwhile works to listen to in a rank order. It is especially silly when quite a few of the active participants are self-confessed amateurs who have a highly incomplete knowledge of the repertoire and who are already struggling with musical "constipation".


Indeed, and some of us who would like to participate in these polls here at TC are simply shut out. I find it especially hypocritical that people would criticize a ~400-voter poll that you literally couldn't make any better if you tried, but no one ever dares criticize the ultra-exclusive and ultra-narrow polls conducted here (until someone like me comes along, that is). The hypocrisy is literally unbelievable.

And yes, this kind of polling here is stickied and labeled as "TC's Top Recommended...", making it seem as if this effort is taken very seriously, and misleading people coming to this site into believing that the results somehow represent even a moderate number of people, when they clearly don't. The poll I provided, however, _does_ represent a very large number of people, and it is free from sampling bias because it doesn't draw simply from one small exclusive group. It is completely open to the musical world at large, and the people on that forum are professionals, scholars, and students from a variety of diverse musical backgrounds. That's literally the ONLY poll of this type that can be taken seriously.

To the detractors: Have you ever heard the expression "Put your money where your mouth is"? Show me a poll on the subject that is more comprehensive than the one I provided. Show me a poll with a larger sample of people. Show me a poll with less sampling bias. Show me a poll that is more definitive.

The fact is that you can't. No one can provide a poll that does even _one_ of those things, much less all of them.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Jacob Singer said:


> To the detractors: Have you ever heard the expression "Put your money where your mouth is"? Show me a poll on the subject that is more comprehensive than the one I provided. Show me a poll with a larger sample of people. Show me a poll with less sampling bias. Show me a poll that is more definitive.
> 
> The fact is that you can't. No one can provide a poll that does even _one_ of those things, much less all of them.


Are you going to attempt an answer to the question I posed in post no 170, which is whether it is possible to infer the overall rank order of composers, from top down, if the same people who voted on the ABRSM poll had been asked to vote for their top 10 composers?

If that isn't clear, let me more specific. Suppose there was a poll on the ABRSM forum asking people to nominate their most highly regarded composers. Just looking the responses of the same people who voted in the poll you refer to, what kind of weighted rank listing do you think is implied by the same peoples' answers to the poll about most overrated composers? Can anything be said?


----------



## MusicSoundsNice

Mozart is, in my opinion, overated, alongside Beethoven. I just find their music boring 

Walton is definitely an underrated composer.


----------



## Webernite

Not sure whether I've already posted in this thread except in response to Jacob Singer. In any case, I'd say that Scriabin is underrated, and frankly, also Schoenberg - Schoenberg is underrated by people who dismiss him before they've really tried him.


----------



## 1648

Webernite said:


> Schoenberg is underrated by people who dismiss him before they've really tried him.


 I agree that Schoenberg is underrated, though not everyone who doesn't like him doesn't know or understand him - a lot of people understand him just fine, they just don't like what he says. His music is a major culmination and recapitulation of almost everything that had happened in Western classical music up to that point, if there's anything that stands in the way of appreciating Schoenberg's music then it's the reckless wealth and depth of his invention.


----------



## Webernite

1648 said:


> I agree that Schoenberg is underrated, though not everyone who doesn't like him doesn't know or understand him - a lot of people understand him just fine, they just don't like what he says. His music is a major culmination and recapitulation of almost everything that had happened in Western classical music up to that point, if there's anything that stands in the way of appreciating Schoenberg's music then it's the reckless wealth and depth of his invention.


Yeah, I didn't meant to imply that everyone who dislikes Schoenberg hasn't tried him. But there certainly are lots of people like that.


----------



## Jacob Singer

@Andy Loochazee

In assessing composers for being overrated, people simply consider whatever available ratings they know of. The poll was not dependent on any one definitive list (since there is no such thing), but rather on people's perceptions of the typical ratings. Of course, the typical "official" ratings from available sources tend to be very similar regardless, and so it's not like it's a mystery as to which composers are "supposed" to be the best (in other words, which composers people are _told_ are the best).

So for example, if you were to look at the rankings from the 2 Talk Classical polls and the Goulding and DDD lists, the rankings tend to be quite similar, and the average ranked order of the top 5 or 6 composers from those sources would look basically like this:

1st. Beethoven
2nd. (tie) Mozart/Bach
4th. Wagner
5th. (tie) Brahms/Schubert

Now let's look at the votes from the "overrated" poll in the context of those 6 typically highly-rated composers:

Beethoven (14)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Mozart (64)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bach (24)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Wagner (45)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Brahms (14)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Schubert (5)
XXXXX

So, while you might expect the typically highest-ranked composers to get the most votes for being overrated, that doesn't account for the massive discrepancy between Mozart's and Beethoven's totals, for example, or between Wagner's total and the 3 B's. In fact, Mozart got more votes than Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, and Schubert combined, while Wagner got more votes than Beethoven, Bach, and Schubert combined.

That can't merely be a coincidence, or an anomaly, especially when many individuals (including myself and my colleagues) find these results to be *exactly* as they should be.

The results make perfect sense, and considering where these composers are typically rated by the few "elites" doing the ratings, it would be difficult to stand behind any argument that Wagner and Mozart are not overrated. Again, the results can't simply be because they are all typically highly-rated to begin with, or else those other guys would have received a considerably larger share of the "overrated" votes.


----------



## Jacob Singer

For another example of a composer who is overrated in some circles, let's consider Mahler:

On the "TC Top 150 Recommended" symphonies poll, I noticed that Mahler's 2nd symphony comes in at #2 on the entire list…

What?! Are you freaking serious?!

It's utterly absurd. According that bizarre list, his symphony ranks higher than _all_ of Beethoven's symphonies except one, _all_ of Mozart's (yes, I think that Mozart wrote a few really good symphonies), Schubert's 8th and 9th, Dvořák's 9th, etc.?

How am I supposed to take that ranking seriously? It would be one thing to downplay a particular work or two here and there, but to artificially _boost_ a composer's questionable work ahead of so many other great works (works that achieve near-consensus praise, no less) is just plain wrong. I don't know anyone who would put Mahler in their list of top composers, and seeing his symphony at #2 on this list just makes me shake my head in disgust. To make matters worse, he has 5 symphonies in the top 20 on that list(!) - as many as Beethoven, and more than Mozart and Schubert combined.

Is that a joke, or what?


----------



## Pieck

Jacob Singer said:


> For another example of a composer who is overrated in some circles, let's consider Mahler:
> 
> On the "TC Top 150 Recommended" symphonies poll, I noticed that Mahler's 2nd symphony comes in at #2 on the entire list…
> 
> What?! Are you freaking serious?!
> 
> It's utterly absurd. According that bizarre list, his symphony ranks higher than _all_ of Beethoven's symphonies except one, _all_ of Mozart's (yes, I think that Mozart wrote a few really good symphonies), Schubert's 8th and 9th, Dvořák's 9th, etc.?
> 
> How am I supposed to take that ranking seriously? It would be one thing to downplay a particular work or two here and there, but to artificially _boost_ a composer's questionable work ahead of so many other great works (works that achieve near-consensus praise, no less) is just plain wrong. I don't know anyone who would put Mahler in their list of top composers, and seeing his symphony at #2 on this list just makes me shake my head in disgust. To make matters worse, he has 5 symphonies in the top 20 on that list(!) - as many as Beethoven, and more than Mozart and Schubert combined.
> 
> Is that a joke, or what?


I bet in the top 20 Schubert has 2 symphonies and I'm not sure he deserves more. Mozart IMHO same number. Although my top 20 would be quite diefferent, it was made by the tastes of a handful of people. How can you say it doesnt make sense just because you think otherwise? The list wasnt meant to be 'TC Best Symhonies' but TC Top Symphonies (a subjective list) so I guess Mahler 2nd got where it got because it is loved by a lot of people.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Pieck said:


> I bet in the top 20 Schubert has 2 symphonies and I'm not sure he deserves more. Mozart IMHO same number.


I don't think that Schubert should have more.

I just find it bizarre that Mahler has so many.


----------



## Webernite

You seem to find it bizarre when anybody likes anything that you don't get.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Webernite said:


> You seem to find it bizarre when anybody likes anything that you don't get.


Well, I was hoping that someone would try to defend Mahler. Can you do that?

Or you could just change the subject, if that's more convenient.


----------



## Webernite

Defend him against what? You haven't made any arguments.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mahler is already firmly established within the canon of Western music... as are Wagner, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, etc... As if they need to be defended from the opinions of pretentious music student. Perhaps rather than asking who is the most overrated composer here, we should be asking who has the most overrated opinion of their own opinion.:lol:

:tiphat:


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I'm sure that the place of Mahler symphonies in the orchestral repertoire will withstand 
the sage pronouncements of "overrated" made here in our little corner of cyberspace.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Webernite said:


> Defend him against what? You haven't made any arguments.


So I didn't claim that his 2nd symphony is simply nowhere good enough to be ranked #2? I guess must have imagined that. 

I could call his music full of plodding and tedious noodling, but somehow I doubt that would change your responses.


----------



## Jacob Singer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As if they need to be defended from the opinions of pretentious music student.


I am a 35 year old teacher, and I hope to always be a student, as I'm currently working on my third post-graduate degree. I am also a performer, having spent most of my adult life in the field of music.

I don't see how any of those things should matter, though, unless someone was desperately trying to change the subject. Who are you, anyway? Oh wait, I don't care. I am here to discuss composers and their works. Unless you are one of them, then it simply isn't relevant, and I'm not going to stoop to your level of name-calling.

By the way, you're treading a little close to the edge of the forum rules by blatantly calling me "pretentious". In actuality, you probably couldn't be more wrong, since I seem to be one of the only people here who is enough of a realist to challenge the pretentious notion that Mahler deserves to have just as many symphonies in the top 20 as Beethoven.

Talk about pretense.


----------



## Jules141

Overrated:

*Brahms*

Underrated:

Authur Bliss (his piano concerto *should* be standered reporteur)
Amy Beach
Joseph Holbrooke
Malcomn Arnold
David Bedford
Samuel Barber
Sergei Tanayev
Carl Neilsen


----------



## Air

I think the mystery is easily solved when we look at Jacob Singer's own top 25 list, which as much as he would hate to admit it, was posted on one of those "silly" TC Recommended Threads that he loves to deride so much.



Jacob Singer said:


> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Tchaikovsky
> 3. Chopin
> 4. Brahms
> 5. Schubert
> 6. Mendelssohn
> 7. Schumann
> 8. Liszt
> 9. Dvořák
> 10. Prokofiev
> 11. Grieg
> 12. Debussy
> 13. Ravel
> 14. Satie
> 15. Barber
> 16. Verdi
> 17. Stravinsky
> 18. Machaut
> 19. Dufay
> 20. Ockeghem
> 21. des Prez
> 22. Palestrina
> 23. Monteverdi
> 24. La Rue
> 25. Tallis


The first thing that comes to mind is - no Mozart, Bach, or Handel? It seems that the High Baroque era and the Classical era are completely nonexistent in his spectrum of appreciation, and perhaps to him, all _overrated_ too along with the likes of Mozart. And it's no surprise that Wagner, Mahler, Sibelius, and Richard Strauss don't find a place either - to him, it would probably seem "bizarre" to find these composers on any such list. They're just too "plodding and tedious" for any serious musician to rate highly, it seems. And what of all the wonderful 20th century music that follows Prokofiev and Stravinsky - the Second Viennese School, Messiaen, Ligeti, Boulez?

I find Jacob's "top 10" (9 of which are Transition/early-mid Romantic composers) quite telling. What does it tell me? That Jacob simply _prefers_, of everything he has heard so far, music from the early-mid Romantic eras - nothing more, nothing less. No list of this sort can ultimately tell us anything more than that, in my opinion, whether the sample size is a dozen folks enjoying themselves on a recommended thread or ten dozen folks who think that their judgments on which composers are overrated are so important and decisive on what everyone else around them should enjoy - "decisive" when they can't even give a logical reason for hating the composers they hate and probably haven't even heard more than a few minutes of their music in the first place.

My advice to you, buddy, is to stop tossing around the words "overrated" and "conservative" simply because you don't like certain things. You may find Mahler bizarre, but I find it even more bizarre that someone who has agreed in the past that they have "little time for the Second Viennese School and their likes" would consider the fans of Mozart "conservative" - many of whom actually appreciate music from these later eras. No, the word "conservative" is just a label trying to be used as a weapon against things you don't appreciate just because there are no other _real_ justifications for your attacks. We've asked you over and over again, and all we're told is that Late Romantic music such as Wagner and Mahler is plodding. Well, if that's so, I like this sort of plodding.

While you're at it, why don't you join us on the TC Top Recommended Keyboard Concerti thread? We're having fun there, and we don't intend to stop this fun if we can simply because our lists don't carry as much weight as the results of the next US Presidential Election might. :tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I am a 35 year old teacher, and I hope to always be a student, as I'm currently working on my third post-graduate degree. I am also a performer, having spent most of my adult life in the field of music.

Do we care? Which of your musical achievements have eclipsed those of Wagner of Mahler... after all, in your own words, even a trained monkey could do it?

I don't see how any of those things should matter, though, unless someone was desperately trying to change the subject. Who are you, anyway? Oh wait, I don't care. I am here to discuss composers and their works. Unless you are one of them, then it simply isn't relevant, and I'm not going to stoop to your level of name-calling.

By the way, you're treading a little close to the edge of the forum rules by blatantly calling me "pretentious".

Yes... instead of "name-calling" you'll stoop to the level of running to daddy when someone says the least negative thing to you... in spite of your on-going habit of snide comments directed at anyone who disagrees with your personal opinions. "Pretentious" in case you need some assistance with the meaning of the word, can refer to someone who assumes that their own opinion holds weight over that of everybody else... in spite of a lack of achievement to back up this opinion. You dislike Wagner. Fine. No skin off my nose. But then you insist upon presenting your opinions as fact. That strikes one as pretentious. The fact that no one you know likes Wagner proves nothing. More than a few here who may be as intelligent and experienced as yourself hold contrary opinions. Wagner's Ring came in at the top of this group's own opera poll. 7 of Wagner's operas make Operabase.com's list of the 55 most performed operas and another 2 make the list of the top 100. Considering the length Wagner's operas... the lack of the traditional hit arias... and the continued negative opinion of Wagner as a result of his antisemitism, this would suggest that more than a few others are of contrary opinions to your own. Then perhaps we might consider the opinion of other composers: Mahler, Bruckner, Zemlinsky, Debussy, Verdi, Delius, Richard Strauss, Arnold Scoenberg, and how many others should I name?... almost anyone following in Wagner's wake was influenced by his work in one way or another. To suggest that your opinion trumps theirs would seem once again to fit the definition of "pretentious".

Again, I'm not out to change your mind about Wagner, Mahler, or Mozart. You don't strike me as the kind open to changing your opinion or admitting that your opinion is just that: "your opinion" and not fact.

In actuality, you probably couldn't be more wrong, since I seem to be one of the only people here who is enough of a realist to challenge the pretentious notion that Mahler deserves to have just as many symphonies in the top 20 as Beethoven.

I'll leave your thoughts about the other's lack of firm grasp upon reality alone (although I might point out that again this would strike some as further proof of pretension). Personally I'd agree with you that Mahler probably doesn't deserve an equal representation among the top 20 symphonies as Beethoven... but I find no need to prove Mahler's music aimless and his admirer's ignorance at falling for such tripe.

Indeed, I'm listening to his _Das Lied von der Erde_ right now... an emotionally wrenching piece in my opinion.

:tiphat:


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Jacob Singer said:


> @Andy Loochazee
> 
> In assessing composers for being overrated, people simply consider whatever available ratings they know of. The poll was not dependent on any one definitive list (since there is no such thing), but rather on people's perceptions of the typical ratings. Of course, the typical "official" ratings from available sources tend to be very similar regardless, and so it's not like it's a mystery as to which composers are "supposed" to be the best (in other words, which composers people are _told_ are the best).
> 
> So for example, if you were to look at the rankings from the 2 Talk Classical polls and the Goulding and DDD lists, the rankings tend to be quite similar, and the average ranked order of the top 5 or 6 composers from those sources would look basically like this:
> 
> 1st. Beethoven
> 2nd. (tie) Mozart/Bach
> 4th. Wagner
> 5th. (tie) Brahms/Schubert
> 
> etc


I do not accept any of this. I seem to be wasting my time here but I will have one more go.

I have asked you twice (posts 170 and 176) to hazard a guess about the ranks that the top composers would achieve if the same people who voted in the ABRSM poll were asked instead to list their favoured composers. The actual poll didn't ask this question but asked something completely different: to name the most "overrated" composers.

You have not answered my question, but only talked around it. You have assumed that the ABRSM respondents had in mind something like the Goulding ranks, or similar, and then expressed their opinions on its acceptability from their viewpoints about the best composers. I am not arguing with this aspect, and would agree that these respondents probably did imagine something like Goulding's list or possibly one or two others that have broadly similar results.

But that is irrelevant. I'm talking about the misleading results you can get by asking the wrong question in the first place. What I am suggesting is that if these same 400 people had answered the much more direct question seeking a list of their top-rated composers it would probably have come up with a set of ranks (aggregated over all responses) broadly the same as Goulding's, with Mozart and Wagner in very high positions. This is because that's the way that all polls tend to come out provided they are based on proper sampling procedures. I have no reason to believe that the 400 respondents in the ABRSM survey was biased (it may have been but I am not assuming this), and hence there is no reason to expect a systematically different result from those respondents than that from another sample, e.g. the T-C poll on top composers. That is exactly why I asked you this question, but which you failed to answer.

The reason why the inferences you make about the status of Mozart and Wagner are wrong is because of mathematical flaws in the way you try to infer a list of genuine favourites from a purported list of favourites and asking people to list those they deem to be over-rated. You cannot do things that way, and expect to get sensible results, since you are trying to marry up two separate bits of information that do not fit with each, even though they may appear to do so superficially.

If you ask 400 classically minded people at random to list their top-rated composers it could easily come up with an aggregated ranked list that the same 400 people would criticise as having several individually highly "overrated" composers if that was the question asked in a separate poll. That's a risk and peculiarity of asking the wrong question. Only the first sampling procedure has any validity if you are trying to gauge public opinion on the top-rated composers. That question wasn't asked in the ABRSM poll, hence all the confusion and false conclusions that you have deduced from it.


----------



## Couchie

Jacob Singer said:


> That's not even what sampling bias is. The sample is literally open to anyone who wants to be a part of it, and people can vote for any reason they choose. Just because one or two of them _may_ have voted for Wagner because he was an anti-Semite makes no difference whatsoever. There were tons and tons of people who voted, and people seem to have voted for other composers for less-than-stellar reasons too.


And you assume error from votes cast with "less than stellar reasons" are randomly distributed? Utter nonsense with an anti-semite in the room. :lol:



Jacob Singer said:


> That's not even what sampling bias is. The sample is literally open to anyone who wants to be a part of it, and people can vote for any reason they choose.


The sampling bias I referred to the fact that only ASBRM forum members were sampled. This is hardly a representative sample of humanity at large. There are inherent language and age biases here. I have already spelled those out for you quite neatly. _You do not have a representative sample of the universal populace. You cannot make a universal claim._ The best you can claim from this poll is that ASBRM students who do not like Wagner will vote him as overrated. You cannot extrapolate beyond that without seriously violating basic statistical principles I had up until now assumed were just common sense.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html



Jacob Singer said:


> The fact is that given the huge number of voters, it would almost certainly be impossible not to have a few votes like that here and there. Hell, even on the tiny polls taken on this site, some people have strange reasons for voting the way they do. Should we throw out some of those votes too? How do we measure which reasons are valid and which reasons are invalid? Where do we draw the line? Do you see how problematic such a thing might be?
> 
> Regardless, the results of the ABRSM poll are way too definitive to get hung up on such minor trivialities anyway.


Yes, I agree that there's nothing that can be done now. It's too late, and the poll is garbage. What you have to do is _design surveys properly in the first place_ so people actually know what they're responding to. If you're interested in anything _definitive_, you also need an enormous, representative, and randomly sampled population. Also, we are unconcerned about votes on _this_ site because nobody is trying to say that our results are definitive, universal truths such as you plug with this poll.

Also I don't know why you insist on ending every post with a reassertion that the poll results are "definitive" or "they stand" as if you repeat it enough times it will come true...


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Couchie said:


> The sampling bias I referred to the fact that only ASBRM forum members were sampled. This is hardly a representative sample of humanity at large.


I'm fully with you in questioning Jacob Singer's statistical "evidence", but I do not believe that it is necessary to rely on alleged sampling bias to show that the results of the ABRSM survey are worthless in suggesting that Mozart and Wagner are regarded as being overrated by a majority of fans.

The ranking of the main composers according to peoples' perceptions of their greatness is what it is at any given time, and can be estimated by sampling techniques subject to margins of error. There is no need to ask people to specify the basis of their perceptions of relative greatness, other than that it is whatever factors seem relevant to each individual.

Against this ranking of composers, then to ask separately in another type of poll which composers are considered to be overrated or underrated cannot yield results which alter the ranking itself, because to do so would be entirely self-contradictory. Working on this premise, it follows logically that it is folly to gross up the results of any such separate survey about overratedness in order to argue that the underlying rank of composers list is faulty. There must, by definition, be something wrong with the latter set of results if it suggested that the underlying ranking is incorrect.

This is not to deny that there could be bias in the sample frame of the ABRSM poll, but if there is there is no way of telling whether this would make the results any worse or better in terms of shedding any light on the fundamental composer rankings, given consideration of the "law of the second best".


----------



## mmsbls

Andy Loochazee said:


> I'm fully with you in questioning Jacob Singer's statistical "evidence", but I do not believe that it is necessary to rely on alleged sampling bias to show that the results of the ABRSM survey are worthless in suggesting that Mozart and Wagner are regarded as being overrated by a majority of fans.
> 
> The ranking of the main composers according to peoples' perceptions of their greatness is what it is at any given time, and can be estimated by sampling techniques subject to margins of error. There is no need to ask people to specify the basis of their perceptions of relative greatness, other than that it is whatever factors seem relevant to each individual.
> 
> Against this ranking of composers, then to ask separately in another type of poll which composers are considered to be overrated or underrated cannot yield results which alter the ranking itself, because to do so would be entirely self-contradictory. Working on this premise, it follows logically that it is folly to gross up the results of any such separate survey about overratedness in order to argue that the underlying rank of composers list is faulty. There must, by definition, be something wrong with the latter set of results if it suggested that the underlying ranking is incorrect.
> 
> This is not to deny that there could be bias in the sample frame of the ABRSM poll, but if there is there is no way of telling whether this would make the results any worse or better in terms of shedding any light on the fundamental composer rankings, given consideration of the "law of the second best".


I agree completely with Andy here. I also agree with Couchie that the comments he posted from poll participants ought to make someone question the poll. The poll's results do of course stand for themselves, but one ought to question whether the participants were answering the question based solely on composer's music rather than other considerations. In other words, the poll clearly suggests significant number of participants believe Wagner was overrated, but this assessment might not be due to his music.

The evidence from various polling suggests that classical music listeners believe both Wagner and Mozart are top composers (likely the top 5 with Mozart probably in the top 3). This ASBRM poll ads to this the conclusion that significantly more classical music listeners think Mozart and Wagner are overrated than are the other top 5 composers (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc.). I think the interesting question is "why"? What is it about Mozart's/Wagner's music that causes this dichotomy?

With Wagner there could be several issues. One, of course, could be that he was such an awful person and people can't divorce that sentiment from their opinion of his music. The other may be that he wrote essentially exclusively for opera. I am not an opera fan, but I absolutely adore his overtures and preludes. Perhaps others who do not love opera simply don't feel someone who writes opera only can be considered great. Finally, there are those who genuinely do not like his music. His harmonies certainly stretched Romantic music, but I don't see anything strong enough to explain why Wagner's music would not resonate with large numbers of people. For me if the two reasons (personality and only opera works) do not suffice, this is a bit of a mystery.

For Mozart I think there are many people who feel that classical period music is too simple for greatness. Many people here have expressed the feeling that they used to like Mozart, but they are bored with his music now. Obviously most do not feel that way, but I can understand this general sentiment. I've always loved the statement: "Mozart is too simple for children and too hard for adults." The music seems simple, but so many see much, much more in it.

Overall I would have expected Mozart, Wagner, and Bach to be the top three overrated composers in such a poll, but I would not have expected Mozart and Wagner to get so many votes.


----------



## Noldorin

Mozart, Wagner, Bach overrated?! Incredulous. J.S. Bach is never anything but underrated, since no-one has ever rivalled his genius, not even the great Beethoven. Mozart may be a little overrated, but not really if you consider the entire collection of his works, especially the late ones, and remember he died in his early 30s. Wagner I may be inclined to agree on; but I hear you actually have to go to one of his operas before appreciating him. Many experts would disagree anyway.

Also, I originally stumbled across Air's post listing modifications to reputations of many notable composers, and was a little stunned. Sure, I agreed with some, but to demote Beethoven even slightly is ridiculous, as is to raise Wagner higher than he already is. Shostakovich down, Stravinsky up? Ugh, the former is compatibly superior to the latter. There was a few others I took objection too as well, but I suppose other people have already probably mentioned them in the many posts since. It's all subjective anyway, as we know.


----------



## DavidMahler

The most overrated is Mozart. I love his music so deeply, but I am not convinced that his legacy should be quite as enormous as it is. I feel there are about 5 composers who reach greater heights of genius than Mozart, but I do admit Mozart's music is as pure as spring water when it's great.

The most underrated composer may actually be Taneyev. In a simple twist of fate, I believe Taneyev could have been as essential to the history of russian music as Tchaikovsky. He is less known than more than a dozen russian composers outside of russia and probably at least as great as most, if not all of them.

Cesar Franck is underrated as well

Schumann, while regarded very high, should be considered greater than he is, imo


----------



## Eviticus

Just to warn you Peeyaj - calling Tchaikovsky overrated could be taken as an act of war! 

My immediate response will be to say i personally think he should be higher on the list than both Schubert and Brahms. 

My second response is to log off and sulk!


----------



## DavidMahler

Have no doubt about this. Had Schubert not died at the age of 31, an age where Beethoven had only completed 2 Symphonies, an age where Mozart had not even composed one of his truly great symphonies, nor most of his cherished operas and concertos, an age where Brahms had to complete one major work....

Had Schubert had the chance to compose for at least another 20 years, he would be considered no less a composer than Bach. 

His early death is for music history, the most tragic of all time. And even worse, his last year of composition supasses any single year of any other composer in history


----------



## brianwalker

Noldorin said:


> Shostakovich down, Stravinsky up? Ugh, the former is compatibly superior to the latter.


Mixed up the order?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Underrated: Satie. He's either dismissed as wallpaper music, or a novel, weird-for-the-sake-of-it "new music" character (well, which is it?). Either way, he's treated like a footnote. Truth is he left his fingerprints all over the next century of music, including minimalism and electronic music, and deserves as much time devoted to him as Debussy or Ravel.

Most overrated? Mozart, obviously. Can't argue his legacy (even if it's arguably more about greater cultural forces than anything individual) and technical strengths, but people talk about him in this cultish sort of way that creeps me out. Words like "divine... perfection... inhuman..." Silly stuff that doesn't reflect reality. The other two of the "big three" get similar treatment.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Overrated: 
Liszt - Can't stand the flashiness. I don't care what he did for harmony!

Underrated:
Medtner - An excellent composer who should be better known.
Janacek - Not as much as the above, but he should be played more often.
Schumann - While he is gaining ground, he should be better liked.


----------



## Oskaar

Lizst is a bit flashy, maybe. Ok. But his tone landscape suit the flashiness. I find his tone poems very revarding to listen to. I find them flashy sometimes also, but I also find some qualities that I rarely find elsewhere. Hard to describe. There is some great passion!


----------



## Lisztian

Overrated: 
Can't think of any...

Underrated:
Charles Valentin Alkan - His name has been growing, but still, I think he should be featured in the repertoire a lot more.
Sergei Rachmaninoff - Especially on this site. 26th greatest composer? (Or whatever he was). His concerti are up there for tops in the piano concerti repetoire, orchestral works are very good, solo piano works are first rate, up there with the best of them (except Rach just didn't write that much because he had to focus on other things for a long period of time), Vespers, 4 hand/two piano works, and more. I think he's a great composer, absolutely first rate.
Franz Liszt - I think THE most important musical figure of the Romantic era in a variety of ways, and probably the greatest overall musician of that time. Up there with the greatest composers of the time no matter which way you look at it, IMO.


----------



## presto

I’m just going to point out one very underrated composer.
He is regarded as one of England’s greatest composers, but I get the impression he’s not really appreciated fully outside his native country.
His name is Henry Purcell.


----------



## Lisztian

oskaar said:


> Lizst is a bit flashy, maybe. Ok. But his tone landscape suit the flashiness. I find his tone poems very revarding to listen to. I find them flashy sometimes also, but I also find some qualities that I rarely find elsewhere. Hard to describe. There is some great passion!


Absolutely! With Liszt there are certainly many works where the flashiness seems to take priority over the music (although for many of those works, that was the intention), but in the best of Liszt, he used 'flashiness' (although I wouldn't even call it that, more exploiting what the instrument in question is capable of), for an entirely musical purpose. But still, even that stuff many may find flashy! Not for everyone, perhaps. However I do think there is a great deal of Liszt which is absolutely for everyone.


----------



## trazom

DavidMahler said:


> Have no doubt about this. Had Schubert not died at the age of 31, an age where Beethoven had only completed 2 Symphonies, an age where Mozart had not even composed one of his truly great symphonies, nor most of his cherished operas and concertos, an age where Brahms had to complete one major work....


No, there's a list of Mozart's works in chronological order online. By age 31, Mozart just completed his Prague, Linz, and Haffner symphonies, 25 piano concertos, 2 string quintets, the Haydn quartets, the piano quartets and quintet for piano and winds the C minor and Coronation mass, and 3 out of his 7 'mature' operas: Idomeneo, Seraglio, and The Marriage of Figaro. With this output alone, Mozart still ranks with Schubert...easily.

About the poll Jacob mentioned with Mozart & Wagner mentioned as being the most overrated, it's also possible one member with an unhealthy obsession simply made multiple accounts to vote against them. People do this same thing on youtube..


----------



## jalex

Overrated - Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov (make that Russian Romantic music in general except Mussorgsky), Saint-Saens, Bruckner, most Minimalism (especially Holy Minimalism)

Underrated (to a greater or lesser degree) - Purcell, D Scarlatti, CPE Bach, Gluck, Weber, Schumann, Berlioz, J Strauss II, Dvorak, Webern, Britten, Shostakovich, Bartok.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> Overrated - Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov (make that Russian Romantic music in general except Mussorgsky), Saint-Saens, Bruckner, most Minimalism (especially Holy Minimalism)
> 
> Underrated (to a greater or lesser degree) - Purcell, D Scarlatti, CPE Bach, Gluck, Weber, Schumann, Berlioz, J Strauss II, Dvorak, Webern, Britten, Shostakovich, Bartok.


I would definitely not say that Shostakovich is underrated. Everyone loves his music.


----------



## Clementine

DavidMahler said:


> Had Schubert not died at the age of 31, an age where Brahms had to complete one major work....


So what do you consider his first Piano Trio, String Sextet, Piano Concerto and Piano Quintet?


----------



## jalex

violadude said:


> I would definitely not say that Shostakovich is underrated. Everyone loves his music.


Suggested on the basis of the top 25 composers thread where he was averaging about 20th place. I'd say 12-15 is fairer. Same kind of thing with Dvorak, I know people do like the music but I think he's often underestimated.


----------



## DavidMahler

Clementine said:


> So what do you consider his first Piano Trio, String Sextet, Piano Concerto and Piano Quintet?


I didn't consider the first piano concerto, you are right. The piano quintet was completed when he was 31 so i guess its fair game. The other two works are nice, but not major works in my opinion.

Good call....

I still think had Brahms died in 1864, he would not be a top 20er.


----------



## Eviticus

jalex said:


> Overrated - Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov (make that Russian Romantic music in general except Mussorgsky), Saint-Saens, Bruckner, most Minimalism (especially Holy Minimalism)
> 
> Underrated (to a greater or lesser degree) - Purcell, D Scarlatti, CPE Bach, Gluck, Weber, Schumann, Berlioz, J Strauss II, Dvorak, Webern, Britten, Shostakovich, Bartok.


Oh come on lad, you are just being silly now... Is this because i mentioned Beethoven's 9th wasn't to everyone's taste? :lol:

Tchaikovsky is definitely a top 10 composer based on the number of masterpieces attributed to him alone. Masterpieces in almost as many categories as Mozart including Symphony's, Concerto's, Overtures, Chamber, Opera, Serenades, Programme music and thats before we even mention him setting the bar for ballet. He is widely regarded as the one of the greatest melody makers in history and his orchestral skills far surpass the like of Brahms and Schubert. According to some sources he is second only to Beethoven in classical music sales and concert demand and he his more melody's engrained in to the public conciousness than the rest of the top 10 put together because his music appeals to people who don't even like classical music. And you tell us he's overrated... 

Enlighten me on those you feel are currently lower and should be ranked higher than Tchai?

PS I'd say Dvorak is rated pretty highly and deservedly so...


----------



## Sid James

jalex said:


> ...Rimsky-Korsakov...


His main contribution was in orchestration & teaching (eg. Stravinsky). I don't think he's overrated because he's not known outside Scheherazade, Capriccio Espagnole, Russian Easter Festival Ov., etc.



> ...
> ...most Minimalism (especially Holy Minimalism)
> ...


I think minimalism, or the USA brand, was good to shake up the post-1945 serialist hegemony, when minimalism became a major force after late '60's.

But in terms of Holy Minimalism, I agree. It was interesting at first, then it descended into rehash. Now there's a whole Baltic "school" of them, they have different names but all basically sound the same. Arvo Part was good until about 20 years ago, doing different/interesting things, then he just began rehashing himself ad nauseum, treating listening public with any intelligence as if they don't know what he'd doing, eg. offering rehash. WEll I for one know & I'm not amused.

Similar with others but I won't continue to be negative...



> ...
> Underrated (to a greater or lesser degree) - Purcell, D Scarlatti, CPE Bach, Gluck, Weber, Schumann, Berlioz, J Strauss II, Dvorak, Webern, Britten, Shostakovich, Bartok.


I largely agree there, except maybe the last two...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...in terms of Holy Minimalism, I agree. It was interesting at first, then it descended into rehash. Now there's a whole Baltic "school" of them, they have different names but all basically sound the same.

Hmmm... haven't I read the same thing about the Baroque, the "Classical" era, etc...?


----------



## brianwalker

Eviticus said:


> Tchaikovsky is definitely a top 10 composer based on the number of masterpieces attributed to him alone.


Prepare to reap the whirlwind.



> Masterpieces in almost as many categories as Mozart including Symphony's, Concerto's, Overtures, Chamber, Opera, Serenades, Programme music and thats before we even mention him setting the bar for ballet.


T. has one decent opera, Mozart at least four masterpieces. T.'s symphonies in no way match Mozart's, and nothing he composed even comes close to the Requiem. At most he composed one of the most overrated Piano Concertos in the repertoire, and certainly the most overrated Violin Concerto (I don't want to go into detail about how flawed this piece is, there's plenty of testimony online). What overtures, what serenades is he famous for? The 1812 overture was languid and contrived, and the slave marche beyond mediocre. His output for the solo piano is negligible, as is most of his chamber output.



> He is widely regarded as the one of the greatest melody makers in history and his orchestral skills far surpass the like of Brahms and Schubert.


The most important component of music is harmony, not melody. If making memorable melodies is the test of greatness then Guns N Roses' Sweet Child of Mine would be the greatest piece of music ever. There is nothing more damningly memorable than the opening chords to that song.

In terms of orchestration he is far below the best; Ravel, Mahler, Wagner, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, and Verdi are all leagues above him.



> According to some sources he is second only to Beethoven in classical music sales and concert demand and he his more melody's engrained in to the public conciousness than the rest of the top 10 put together because his music appeals to people who don't even like classical music. And you tell us he's overrated...
> 
> Enlighten me on those you feel are currently lower and should be ranked higher than Tchai?


That's the whole point of judging something as overrated; it sells more than it should.

If I had to rank composers until Tchaikovsky here's how I'd do it.

1. Bach
2. Wagner
3. Mozart
4. Beethoven
5. Schubert
6. Ravel
7. Stravinsky
8. Brahms
9. Mahler
10. Haydn
11. Verdi
12. Chopin
13. Debussy
14. Handel 
15. Bruckner
16. Puccini
17. Bartok 
18. Sibelius
19. Mendelssohn.
20. Schumann 
21. Rimsky-Korsakov 
22. Prokofiev/Berg 
24 Tchaikovsky, tied with Dvorak
26 Johann Strauss Jr. 
27. Albeniz 
28. Bizet 
29. Liszt
30. Monteverdi (who's quickly rising in my book) 
31. Shostakovich

If someone thinks that my ranking is "ridiculous" I'd like them nominate which composer should be *severely demoted* or promoted, defined for the sake of argument as moving at least 8 positions. The warmth of these top ten lists lets ourselves imagine that whichever favorites were excluded from the list of others are secure at no. 11 or 12, but we allow ourselves to forget that someone has to be number 20 and number 30. This is a zero sum game.

Anthony Tommasini said that a top 5 or a top 20 list would be easier than a top ten, but I think otherwise, because there would be far more and fury from those whose favorites were excluded from a top 20 list than a top 10 list. There were numerous comments imploring for the inclusion of Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky in the top 10; how would they feel if they weren't even in the top 20?

The man simply does not know how to develop an idea. His music consists of melodic bits that are glued together hoping for the best. This works best in short dance movements for the ballet, where his gifts are displayed to most advantage. Secondly there is the matter of the quality of the melodic ideas, the originality of harmony that avoids the banal and commonplace to which he is often prone. There's a reason Toscanini didn't conduct Tchaikovsky until very late into his career.



> PS I'd say Dvorak is rated pretty highly and deservedly so...


http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2003/09/unapologetic_heresy_as_usual.html


----------



## Sid James

I admit some of the issues/criticisms you raise, they are common, but let me emphasise some strong positives for Tchaikovsky:

- Bringing European trends to Russia, eg. his admiration of Mozart, love of Italy & it's music, traditions, etc.

- Yes, melody was his strong point, but if you have a gift, you may as well exploit it to the max?

- Nobody sounds like him, you can't say he's rehash, can you?

- His influence on composers who were also not much interested in the "three B's" - eg. Janacek looked towards Tchaikovsky. Just listen to_ Taras Bulba _and you'll hear exactly what Janacek did with the "lessons" he learnt from Tchaikovsky's music. Janacek wasn't interested in counterpoint either, he thought Bach was like a musical straightjacket, so does that make him weak as well?

I could go on but I hope/think you can get my point...


----------



## Lisztian

^^What does your ranking represent? How much you like the composers? How objectively great you think they are? Or what?


----------



## Sid James

^^Lists are good for filling up space here. It's just like upholstery or waffle filling up a gossip column. It's of no value, or not much value for me, esp. if employed to unsubtly ram home a point in an argument or counter another argument, etc. Basically, it's a kind of lazy thinking used in this context...


----------



## violadude

I like Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto a lot  I wouldn't say it's flawed or overrated.


----------



## brianwalker

Sid James said:


> I admit some of the issues/criticisms you raise, they are common, but let me emphasise some strong positives for Tchaikovsky:
> 
> - Bringing European trends to Russia, eg. his admiration of Mozart, love of Italy & it's music, traditions, etc.
> 
> - Yes, melody was his strong point, but if you have a gift, you may as well exploit it to the max?
> 
> - Nobody sounds like him, you can't say he's rehash, can you?
> 
> - His influence on composers who were also not much interested in the "three B's" - eg. Janacek looked towards Tchaikovsky. Just listen to_ Taras Bulba _and you'll hear exactly what Janacek did with the "lessons" he learnt from Tchaikovsky's music. Janacek wasn't interested in counterpoint either, he though Bach was like a musical straightjacket, so does that make him weak as well?
> 
> I could go on but I hope/think you can get my point...


I'm not denigrating him. I think he has his strong suits, and will admit that Swan Lake's main theme is probably one of the strongest ever, but I'm evaluating him relative to other composers. My contention isn't that he's unlistenable (he's not, I listen to him on a bi-weekly basis) but that he's vastly, stupendously, even monumentally overrated. Because declare Tchaikovsky's music to be beautiful, sensual, and sweet, full of rapturous emotions, but nothing in his oeuvre matches the tenderness of the Adagietto or Un bel di vedremo. His sixth symphony is "powerful", but compared to Strauss' best tone poems Manfred is a dwarf. His piano concerto lends itself to the virtuoso, but Ravel and Liszt outdid him on those grounds.

I don't think originality is that important. Mahler and Bruckner are in some sense rehashes of Wagner, but they're still great in their own right. I'm not big on influence either, because it's infinitely progress (it's the opposite side of the originality coin which is infinitely regressive; whoever "invented" the form is the most important, which would make Haydn more important than Beethoven because "if Haydn didn't invent the sonata and the string quartet" then Beethoven wouldn't have written the late quartets and sonatas. This reminds me of an absurd quote by some musicologist that the most influential musician of all time was the caveman that discovered rhythm.)

I think that when people make these kinds of lists and then demand recognition of them they should take the whole canon into perspective. Eviticus isn't making a "my favorite list", he's giving his nomination for what an "objective" list looks like, since he challenges anyone to list those composers who should be "higher", and that's exactly what I did. He claims that Tchaikovsky is "definitely" top ten material. My counter-assertion is that he's "definitely" not even top 20.

@Lisztian. Yes, Yes I am. If this was a purely personal list, Albeniz and Rimsky Korsakov would be a lot higher, but I take their small output into account and placed them where they are.

I'm interested to see what other members have to quibble with my list. Is any position so disagreeable that it needs to be changed by 8 or more?

------

Lists are lazy but they're also important for those without the leisure to explore culture as most members of the forum can. I grew up in a home without classical music (or any culture at all really) because my parents were first generation immigrants to the US and had little time for leisure. For most of middle and high school I was engulfed in the popular music of my day, hip hop and what not. If I could travel back in time to give my middle school self anything, what I wished for more than anything else is for an important cultural authority, say the NYTs or the WSJ, to publish a polemic defending the superiority of the great composers versus everyone else. If I had listened to Bach and Wagner sooner I would've probably taken up the piano or the french horn.

And don't tell me that it wasn't too late to start playing an instrument in college. It's patronizing and insincere.

The only thing lazier than making a list is not making a list, just like the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.


----------



## Lisztian

brianwalker said:


> I'm not denigrating him. I think he has his strong suits, and will admit that Swan Lake's main theme is probably one of the strongest ever, but I'm evaluating him relative to other composers. My contention isn't that he's unlistenable (he's not, I listen to him on a bi-weekly basis) but that he's vastly, stupendously, even monumentally overrated. Because declare Tchaikovsky's music to be beautiful, sensual, and sweet, full of rapturous emotions, but nothing in his oeuvre matches the tenderness of the Adagietto or Un bel di vedremo. His sixth symphony is "powerful", but compared to Strauss' best tone poems Manfred is a dwarf. His piano concerto lends itself to the virtuoso, but Ravel and Liszt outdid him on those grounds.
> 
> I don't think originality is that important. Mahler and Bruckner are in some sense rehashes of Wagner, but they're still great in their own right. I'm not big on influence either, because it's infinitely progress (it's the opposite side of the originality coin which is infinitely regressive; whoever "invented" the form is the most important, which would make Haydn more important than Beethoven because "if Haydn didn't invent the sonata and the string quartet" then Beethoven wouldn't have written the late quartets and sonatas. This reminds me of an absurd quote by some musicologist that the most influential musician of all time was the caveman that discovered rhythm.)
> 
> I think that when people make these kinds of lists and then demand recognition of them they should take the whole canon into perspective. Eviticus isn't making a "my favorite list", he's giving his nomination for what an "objective" list looks like, since he challenges anyone to list those composers who should be "higher", and that's exactly what I did. He claims that Tchaikovsky is "definitely" top ten material. My counter-assertion is that he's "definitely" not even top 20.
> 
> @Lisztian. Yes, Yes I am. If this was a purely personal list, Albeniz and Rimsky Korsakov would be a lot higher, but I take their small output into account and placed them where they are.
> 
> I'm interested to see what other members have to quibble with my list. Is any position so disagreeable that it needs to be changed by 8 or more?


Yes, there is, and yeah it's Liszt (obviously). I personally believe a top 20 without Liszt is just plain wrong. But I really cannot be bothered discussing it...I'm just shocked that you put Albeniz in front of him...Obviously Albeniz is one of your favourites, but do you really think he is a greater composer than Liszt?


----------



## brianwalker

Lisztian said:


> Yes, there is, and yeah it's Liszt (obviously). I personally believe a top 20 without Liszt is just plain wrong. But I really cannot be bothered discussing it...I'm just shocked that you put Albeniz in front of him...Obviously Albeniz is one of your favourites, but do you really think he is a greater composer than Liszt?


My methodology is different from most. I don't factor in historical influence, which is Liszt's usual decisive edge. I was typing out the list quickly and perhaps the bottom ten isn't as accurate as I'd like it to be, but I feel that putting Albeniz in front of Liszt is less egregious than putting say, Schumann, in front of Verdi or Haydn. I guess I just have the same special connection with Albeniz that some people here have with Schumann. The only piano works closer to me than Iberia are the WTC and Le Gaspard.

I haven't listened to all of Liszt by the way, just the Sonata, Transcendental Etudes, Annees, tone poems, two piano concertos, and rhapsodies.


----------



## Lisztian

brianwalker said:


> My methodology is different from most. I don't factor in historical influence, which is Liszt's usual decisive edge. I was typing out the list quickly and perhaps the bottom ten isn't as accurate as I'd like it to be, but I feel that putting Albeniz in front of Liszt is less egregious than putting say, Schumann, in front of Verdi or Haydn.


Okay, fair enough. I must admit I can't really comment about it because I am a stranger to most of Albeniz's music. I love his Iberia suite, but that is pretty much all i've heard. What are some other works by him that I should look into?


----------



## Sid James

Liszt & Bernstein, both polymaths, get a bit of a raw deal on these forums. But as far as the wider classical listening public is concerned, their reputation is very secure. Ask any young person and they'd know about _West Side Story_, recognise it's tunes and maybe would have even seen it live or the movie. Similar thing with Liszt in his own time, the c19th. Of course these guys were much more than just popular, their music speaks for itself, basically.

I understand brainwalker isn't pulling them down entirely, but I think that Liszt esp. was a major figure in c19th music overall, and as for Tchaikovsky, he was the bulwark of "European" trends in Russia during the late c19th. The "mighty handful" group of Russian nationalist composers said Tchaikovsky was too European, the European critics said he was too Russian. Basically, if you're an original you never can win, can you? If you try to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody, so it's best to be your own man, so to speak...


----------



## brianwalker

Lisztian said:


> Okay, fair enough. I must admit I can't really comment about it because I am a stranger to most of Albeniz's music. I love his Iberia suite, but that is pretty much all i've heard. What are some other works by him that I should look into?


http://www.amazon.com/Albéniz-Iberia-Isaac-Albeniz/dp/B0007WFWPY

La vega and other minor works you can find on this disc. Suite espanola you can find here.

http://www.amazon.com/Iberia-Navarra-Suite-Espanola-Albeniz/dp/B0000041T4

But if Iberia isn't enough to wow you, I doubt his other pieces will, since Iberia is his masterwork. Again, I didn't labor over the exact rankings in the 20 to 30 range.

Sid James, if you think I am underrating Tchaikovsky so, I'd like to see your top 30 and see how he places. The very notion of "underrated" and "overrated" implies an order of rank. If 24 is too low, what does he deserve?


----------



## Lisztian

brianwalker said:


> http://www.amazon.com/Albéniz-Iberia-Isaac-Albeniz/dp/B0007WFWPY
> 
> La vega and other minor works you can find on this disc. Suite espanola you can find here.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Iberia-Navarra-Suite-Espanola-Albeniz/dp/B0000041T4
> 
> But if Iberia isn't enough to wow you, I doubt his other pieces will, since Iberia is his masterwork. Again, I didn't labor over the exact rankings in the 20 to 30 range.
> 
> Sid James, if you think I am underrating Tchaikovsky so, I'd like to see your top 30 and see how he places. The very notion of "underrated" and "overrated" implies an order of rank. If 24 is too low, what does he deserve?


Thanks! I'm sure Hamelin will wow me with the Iberia - he tends to do that with most music


----------



## violadude

Wait, if we're going to use a list as the criteria for judging who's overrated and underrated who's list are we using?


----------



## Sid James

violadude said:


> Wait, if we're going to use a list as the criteria for judging who's overrated and underrated who's list are we using?


There's the different canons (as you would obviously know)
- musicological canon - eg. innovation, history of music, styles/trends, landmarks in this, etc.
- pedagocial/teaching canon - what is valued, taught, passed down in universites about musics
- performing canon/repertoire - incl. popularity with audience, what musicians value/regard highly across the board (the lists done by voting on radio stations or here on TC are most like this third category, imo).

Those 3 can be controversial, but then there's everyone's personal "canon." This is where it gets slippery. & this is where these kinds of personal lists that are extended by the author of the list to be kind of universal or all encompassing & "objective" which is problematic...


----------



## Clementine

brianwalker said:


> 1. Bach
> 2. Wagner
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Beethoven
> 5. Schubert
> 6. Ravel
> 7. Stravinsky
> 8. Brahms
> 9. Mahler
> 10. Haydn
> 11. Verdi
> 12. Chopin
> 13. Debussy
> 14. Handel
> 15. Bruckner
> 16. Puccini
> 17. Bartok
> 18. Sibelius
> 19. Mendelssohn.
> 20. Schumann
> 21. Rimsky-Korsakov
> 22. Prokofiev/Berg
> 24 Tchaikovsky, tied with Dvorak
> 26 Johann Strauss Jr.
> 27. Albeniz
> 28. Bizet
> 29. Liszt
> 30. Monteverdi (who's quickly rising in my book)
> 31. Shostakovich
> 
> If someone thinks that my ranking is "ridiculous" I'd like them nominate which composer should be *severely demoted* or promoted, defined for the sake of argument as moving at least 8 positions.


Having Bruckner, Puccini, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and Sibelius above Schumann is just plain wrong (in my opinion). I wont get into the rest.


----------



## Eviticus

brianwalker said:


> Prepare to reap the whirlwind.


:lol::lol::lol: What whirl wind? I barely felt a breeze



brianwalker said:


> T. has one decent opera, Mozart at least four masterpieces. T.'s symphonies in no way match Mozart's, and nothing he composed even comes close to the Requiem.


I notice you saw my post but you clearly didn't READ it which would be useful in future.

At NO point did i imply Tchaikovsky should be rated as high or higher than Mozart. So your comparisons are in vain. Tchaikovsky has two highly rated opera's btw (that's two more than Schubert). Besides, isn't the latter statement purely subjective?



brianwalker said:


> In terms of orchestration he is far below the best; Ravel, Mahler, Wagner, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, and Verdi are all leagues above him


Some great orchestrator's you mention here (in fact the only sentence you gave food for thought in your extensive post). Whether or not they were all better than Tchai i'd be interested to see the evidence. I stand down on Wagner but then Wagner is usually rated above Tchai anyway simply because he paved the way for modern music.

Most of your so called 'argument' was purely subjective twaddle so I won't even entertain it but i am interested in one other sentence:-



brianwalker said:


> That's the whole point of judging something as overrated; it sells more than it should.


Again it's purely subjective but your argument is flawed just by stating that something or someone is overwhelmingly popular. The point is it continues to appeal or touch a chord with someone and it's quite obvious by now that Tchaikovsky's music is no fad and remains poignant with the majority of classical and non classical music lovers. I don't think you understand just how important this is. The most important music is the music that touches the masses simply because more people 'feel' something about it. The snobbery of aristocracy is gone, and universal appeal should not be put down as overrated because you don't like it.

You are in a minority and minority's always bitch, whine and moan the loudest as if to compensate for the majority not agreeing with them just as children scream louder when they don't get their way.

PS The days of western sonata form are over and modern audiences (even most of todays composers) don't give a crap that someone doesn't go in to extensive development of the main theme and this is evidenced in contemporary music.


----------



## Sid James

Eviticus said:


> ...
> 
> PS The days of western sonata form are over and modern audiences (even most of todays composers) don't give a crap that someone doesn't go in to extensive development of the main theme and this is evidenced in contemporary music.


I'm not getting involved in this bunfight, but as I said about Tchaikovsky's influence on Janacek, I strongly agree with the spirit of what you say there.

I have always, since very young, heard in Tchaikovsky a kind of proto-modernism if you will. A kind of not going with the strictures and conventions of his time. In a way, he was a free spirit. The piano concertos esp. attest to this. The 3rd & final unfinished one, has dissonances and forcefullness which make me think ahead to eg. BArtok esp.

& added to that, a keen intellectual sense, this guy was a BRAIN. Just listening to what he does in that final movement of the _Little Russian _symphony, I'm amazed at the agility of mind to get that on the page. Always amazed, have been for like 20 years.

I can go on and on but I agree that Tchaikovsky was not "just" a Romantic who did this heart on sleeve gushing emotionalism, over the top, etc. Yes that was a feature of his style and expression, but he was not restricted to that. Pity, as you suggest, these people wrapped up in the gordian knots of Bachian fugues and strict (or stricter to be more precise) counterpoint and the like can't seem to see the big picture with this guy, as with many composers. Owning thousands of cd's does not necessarily go together with common sense, and in some cases, people get farther and farther away from the "guts" and basics of what music IS not what it SHOULD BE...


----------



## Eviticus

Sid - if i could like your post twice - i would.


----------



## Sid James

^^Well thanks, but it was more like a rant, but this thread seems to be the place for them. Anyway, better to argue or "rant" a point rather than provide yet another boring list. I can't understand how people rubbish composers like Tchaikovsky, Liszt, even Schumann, Mendelssohn, heaps of others. Even Schubert gets a bad wrap, because he's supposedly not as "great" as Beethoven. & I could go on, logic which is rubbery at best. In some ways, some of the opinions on this forum, probably not the majority, are like a paralell universe to common sense thinking about music, or how I think about it at least, which is nothing to do with rankings and lists but RELEVANCE to MY LIFE, in the HERE and NOW, basically...


----------



## larifari

When it comes to melodies that that one can whisper, whistle, doodle and sing (which, let`s face it, MUSIC is all about) one can stow just about anybody behind Franz Lehar.


----------



## moody

emiellucifuge said:


> Were just speculating on what we perceive to be public opinion


No, you just want everyone to know your opinions. Are you sure they care because they are too busy telling everybody their opinions


----------



## moody

Sid James said:


> ^^Well thanks, but it was more like a rant, but this thread seems to be the place for them. Anyway, better to argue or "rant" a point rather than provide yet another boring list. I can't understand how people rubbish composers like Tchaikovsky, Liszt, even Schumann, Mendelssohn, heaps of others. Even Schubert gets a bad wrap, because he's supposedly not as "great" as Beethoven. & I could go on, logic which is rubbery at best. In some ways, some of the opinions on this forum, probably not the majority, are like a paralell universe to common sense thinking about music, or how I think about it at least, which is nothing to do with rankings and lists but RELEVANCE to MY LIFE, in the HERE and NOW, basically...


Take it easy you might burst a fuffy valve, aaaand you're starting that common sense stuff again.


----------



## moody

toucan said:


> The most overrated composer of all times has to be Dmitri Shostakovich. His music is imitative to the point of fabrication & simple-minded imitations at that, yet he is placed (by some) on a foot of equality with the original, Gustav Mahler.
> 
> Tchaikovsky is a good choice, though at least (unlike Shostakovich) he is authentic - same with Sibelius, who could also have been cited here.
> 
> Compared with Schubert or Chopin Brahms is heavy-handed, needing an hour and countless instruments to say less than Chopin and Schubert can say in less than a minute, using one pair of hands only. But perhaps the one who is most overrated there is Brahms' second-fiddle Dvorak, because he is Brahms' second-fiddle.


 No wonder you're banned with ideas like this. Are you trying to convert me because I happen to like Brahms and Dvorak ? By the way what were Chopin and Schubert saying ...I'm quite annoyed at missing that. Oh. I like them also, goodness where that leaves me.


----------



## Sid James

moody said:


> Take it easy you might burst a fuffy valve, aaaand you're starting that common sense stuff again.


Yeah well I'll tone it down. I think it is becoming cliche now...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

toucan said:


> ... perhaps the one who is most overrated there is Brahms' second-fiddle Dvořák, because he is Brahms' second fiddle.
> 
> 
> moody said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder you're banned with ideas like this.
Click to expand...

Bannings don't happen for the expression of bizarre opinions, they happen for serial violations of the rules. [Well... except for spammers and slime-trolls: no second-chances there.] That said, I can echo the words of the 'Master of Bayreuth' (at least as depicted in the BBC docu-drama)- one can learn something from everyone-- in some cases, one can learn what to do... but in many cases, one can learn what NOT to do.

A person can even learn from music criticism with which one energetically disagrees. I have a special category- the "Edouard Hanslick Memorial Reverse Barometer Award" nominees. [I.e.: they say they hate it- I then hasten to investigate it...]


----------



## Rasa

> Compared with Schubert or Chopin Brahms is heavy-handed, needing an hour and countless instruments to say less than Chopin and Schubert can say in less than a minute, using one pair of hands only. But perhaps the one who is most overrated there is Brahms' second-fiddle Dvorak, because he is Brahms' second-fiddle.


I agree to this statement intuitively, but let's face it: it's probably only true because Chopin wasn't able to write for orchestra.

It comes down to this opposition: music for the audience - music for composers.


----------



## moody

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Bannings don't happen for the expression of bizarre opinions, they happen for serial violations of the rules. [Well... except for spammers and slime-trolls: no second-chances there.] That said, I can echo the words of the 'Master of Bayreuth' (at least as depicted in the BBC docu-drama)- one can learn something from everyone-- in some cases, one can learn what to do... but in many cases, one can learn what NOT to do.
> 
> A person can even learn from music criticism with which one energetically disagrees. I have a special category- the "Edouard Hanslick Memorial Reverse Barometer Award" nominees. [I.e.: they say they hate it- I then hasten to investigate it...]


That was supposed to be a joke---I should have known better!!!


----------



## moody

Sid James said:


> Liszt & Bernstein, both polymaths, get a bit of a raw deal on these forums. But as far as the wider classical listening public is concerned, their reputation is very secure. Ask any young person and they'd know about _West Side Story_, recognise it's tunes and maybe would have even seen it live or the movie. Similar thing with Liszt in his own time, the c19th. Of course these guys were much more than just popular, their music speaks for itself, basically.
> 
> I understand brainwalker isn't pulling them down entirely, but I think that Liszt esp. was a major figure in c19th music overall, and as for Tchaikovsky, he was the bulwark of "European" trends in Russia during the late c19th. The "mighty handful" group of Russian nationalist composers said Tchaikovsky was too European, the European critics said he was too Russian. Basically, if you're an original you never can win, can you? If you try to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody, so it's best to be your own man, so to speak...


When listening to, for example, his violin concerto and then, on the other hand The Nutcracker, they are so Russian you have to laugh out loud wiith pleasure.


----------



## kv466

What is this thread about again? Oh, right.

So,...most underrated composers for me are Dukas, Holst and Hummel.


----------



## brianwalker

Sid James said:


> Liszt & Bernstein, both polymaths, get a bit of a raw deal on these forums. But as far as the wider classical listening public is concerned, their reputation is very secure. Ask any young person and they'd know about _West Side Story_, recognise it's tunes and maybe would have even seen it live or the movie. Similar thing with Liszt in his own time, the c19th. Of course these guys were much more than just popular, their music speaks for itself, basically.
> 
> I understand brainwalker isn't pulling them down entirely, but I think that Liszt esp. was a major figure in c19th music overall, and as for Tchaikovsky, he was the bulwark of "European" trends in Russia during the late c19th. The "mighty handful" group of Russian nationalist composers said Tchaikovsky was too European, the European critics said he was too Russian. Basically, if you're an original you never can win, can you? If you try to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody, so it's best to be your own man, so to speak...


Someone has to get a raw deal. Rankings are and always will be a zero sum game. No matter what the variation is, there will always be champions of those who are allotted the number 20 and below spots and there will be protests. Of course, absolute consensus is impossible, but as Bach (the poster) once said, only when music gets to a very high level is it opinion. Relativism is very dangerous, a double-edged hypocritical regime used by the Whigs against all the is old and sacred.



violadude said:


> Wait, if we're going to use a list as the criteria for judging who's overrated and underrated who's list are we using?


Eviticus said Tchaikovsky is "definite top ten", so I'm using the ranking of T. as no. 10 as a starting point.



Clementine said:


> Having Bruckner, Puccini, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and Sibelius above Schumann is just plain wrong (in my opinion). I wont get into the rest.


Perhaps Sibelius deserves to be below Schumann, (where are all the people from the Sibelius appreciation society?) but all the others are arguable.



Eviticus said:


> At NO point did i imply Tchaikovsky should be rated as high or higher than Mozart. So your comparisons are in vain. Tchaikovsky has two highly rated opera's btw (that's two more than Schubert). Besides, isn't the latter statement purely subjective?


No, I didn't imply that you implied that Tchaikovsky was equivalent to Mozart, but that you implied that he was comparable in the fields you enumerated, which I averred that he is not. Nothing is purely subjective. You wouldn't stand for it if someone asserted that Rebecca Black is better than Tchaikovsky simply because you can "dance" to it.



> Some great orchestrator's you mention here (in fact the only sentence you gave food for thought in your extensive post). Whether or not they were all better than Tchai i'd be interested to see the evidence. I stand down on Wagner but then Wagner is usually rated above Tchai anyway simply because he paved the way for modern music.


Again my assertion is so saliently true it's laughable to even try to dispute it, but it's below my station to start a poll on the matter so you can always pretend otherwise. Ask anyone; Tchaikovsky's symphonies are sludgy and the orchestration for his ballets are prim but basic.

Wagner's greatness has nothing to do with his influence. Hypothetically you could remove every single composer after him and he would still be great.



> Most of your so called 'argument' was purely subjective twaddle so I won't even entertain it but i am interested in one other sentence:-


The onus is on you to contradict my arguments, which are coherent and perfectly sensible. They have been made before my musicologists and critics alike. My point regarding his patchwork of melodies and inadequacies in development still stands.



> Again it's purely subjective but your argument is flawed just by stating that something or someone is overwhelmingly popular. The point is it continues to appeal or touch a chord with someone and it's quite obvious by now that Tchaikovsky's music is no fad and remains poignant with the majority of classical and non classical music lovers. I don't think you understand just how important this is. The most important music is the music that touches the masses simply because more people 'feel' something about it. The snobbery of aristocracy is gone, and universal appeal should not be put down as overrated because you don't like it.


The Beatles recorded all of their hits in the sixties and are still immensely popular, far more popular by any measure, whether it's sales, facebook likes, cultural prominence, etc, than Tchaikovsky was, is, or probably will be.

Pride and Prejudice is immensely popular and continues to touch the hearts of millions but no sensible person would put it above 19th century masterpieces such as the Red and the Black or Madame Bovary or 20th century giants such as Ulysses or In Search of Lost Time.



> You are in a minority and minority's always bitch, whine and moan the loudest as if to compensate for the majority not agreeing with them just as children scream louder when they don't get their way.


No Eviticus, you are the minority. You put Tchaikovsky as your number one composer, while mine is Bach. More people on this forum agrees with me, as does the New York Times.

Many others in your top ten list are also highly questionable. Dvorak, Elgar, Smetana, and Mussorsky rarely, if ever, show up on any other top ten lists.

Let there be no doubt that I am *well aware* of the virtues of these composers, and I highly doubt that an exploration of their minor, more obscure works will precipitate a sudden shift in my appraisal of their genius. If you think that I am *underrating* them, at least commit yourself to the basic responsibility of deliberating why they should be ranked over composer X, Y, and Z. I'm not looking for a twenty page thesis, but a mere paragraph detailing strengths and weaknesses I might have overlooked. The latter three don't even make my top thirty, so if I am _underrating_ them, then I expect at a *semblance of an argument *why they're better than those ranked above them.



> PS The days of western sonata form are over and modern audiences (even most of todays composers) don't give a crap that someone doesn't go in to extensive development of the main theme and this is evidenced in contemporary music.


And how popular is contemporary classical music?



Sid James said:


> ^^Well thanks, but it was more like a rant, but this thread seems to be the place for them. Anyway, better to argue or "rant" a point rather than provide yet another boring list. I can't understand how people rubbish composers like Tchaikovsky, Liszt, even Schumann, Mendelssohn, heaps of others. Even Schubert gets a bad wrap, because he's supposedly not as "great" as Beethoven. & I could go on, logic which is rubbery at best. In some ways, some of the opinions on this forum, probably not the majority, are like a paralell universe to common sense thinking about music, or how I think about it at least, which is nothing to do with rankings and lists but RELEVANCE to MY LIFE, in the HERE and NOW, basically...


When did I "rubbish" any of the composers you mentioned? Again, rankings is a zero sum game. Someone has to be ranked 26, and moving your flavor of the week up will put someone else in that place.

If you truly think that my treatment of Tchaikovsky in the ranking is unjust then challenge it with a more judicious list of your own.

Here's a more expansive list, with minor changes. [Note: My blind spot is Renaissance music, so Palestrina, Purcell, Des Prez, etc, are not ranked, neither are some of the more obscure composers of the Classical era like Weber. Also, I'm only acquainted with the works of the superstar opera writers, so Donizetti, Gluck, etc, are also excluded; how horrible this would look if they were.]

1. Bach
2. Wagner
3. Mozart
4. Beethoven
5. Schubert
6. Ravel
7. Stravinsky
8. Brahms
9. Mahler
10. Haydn
11. Verdi
12. Chopin
13. Debussy
14. Handel 
15. Bruckner
16. Puccini
17. Bartok 
18. Mendelssohn
19. Schumann
20. Sibelius
21. Rimsky-Korsakov 
22. Prokofiev/Berg 
24 Berlioz
26 Tchaikovsky, tied with Dvorak
27. Liszt
28. Bizet
29. Rossini
30. Monteverdi (who's quickly rising in my book) 
31. Scriabin
32. Albeniz
33. Shostakovich
34. Webern 
35. Johann Strauss Jr.
36. Scarlatti
37. Janacek 
38. Alkan 
39. Vivaldi
40. Saint-Saëns
41. Rachmaninoff 
42. Fauré
43. Borodin 
44. Smetana
45. Mussorgsky

[I kept ranking them until all of Eviticus' top ten composers were included]

Everyone will have their plaints (I know St. Luke will find Handel's ranking unsatisfactory, and the Schumann squad will surely dismiss my placement of their hero at no. 19); I've underrated so and so; but remember, for every composer underrated there exists a corresponding overrated composer. They can't be all "underrated"; that's impossible by definition.

If anyone can come up with a vastly superior top 45 list that pleases everybody I'll eat my words and apologize. 
Even with Shostakovich ranked at number 33, no doubt many members more familiar with 20th century music will dismiss my list as that of a philistine, where's Eliot Carter, Copeland, etc.


----------



## jalex

^Berlioz at 35 is disgusting


----------



## brianwalker

Again, if my list is so disgusting, come up with something better.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> Again, if my list is so disgusting, come up with something better.


Was that more or less a personal taste list? Or an objective list?


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Was that more or less a personal taste list? Or an objective list?


My beloved Albeniz is at 32, so objective.

Of course I'm not a musicologist and I haven't studied their scores, but this is my best attempt. If it's so terrible I would be pleased to see if someone make a more judicious one.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> My beloved Albeniz is at 32, so objective.


Then I would have to agree with Jalex. Berlioz below Johann Strauss? I have absolutely nothing against "light" classical but that just doesn't make sense. May I ask what your criteria for ranking was?


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Then I would have to agree with Jalex. Berlioz below Johann Strauss? I have absolutely nothing against "light" classical but that just doesn't make sense.


Is that your only quibble with my list? Fine, I changed it. Again, once we get into the 30s I didn't put an immense amount of thought into it.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> Is that your only quibble with my list? Fine, I changed it. Again, once we get into the 30s I didn't put an immense amount of thought into it.


Well, you didn't need to change it. I was just wondering what your criteria for ranking was.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Well, you didn't need to change it. I was just wondering what your criteria for ranking was.


Berlioz and I never clicked; for all his innovation I find Strauss Jr far more enjoyable.

What criteria can we use? This is an intuitive approximation of their greatness, measured by the amount of beauty and sublimity and joy and wonder that I can detect in their music. If I valued innovation and influence and "complexity" Boulez and Schoenberg would be on it and Shostakovich wouldn't.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> Berlioz and I never clicked; for all his innovation I find Strauss Jr far more enjoyable.
> 
> What criteria can we use? This is an intuitive approximation of their greatness, measured by the amount of beauty and sublimity and joy and wonder that I can detect in their music. If I valued innovation and influence and "complexity" Boulez and Schoenberg would be on it and Shostakovich wouldn't.


Well that's what I was wondering...some people rank by the innovative-ness of the composer, some people rank by how complex the composer was, by the composers popularity, by a personal system of ranking. There are all sorts of criteria to rank by.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Well that's what I was wondering...some people rank by the innovative-ness of the composer, some people rank by how complex the composer was, by the composers popularity, by a personal system of ranking. There are all sorts of criteria to rank by.


I'm using the general, vague notion of "greatness" that people mean when they use that troublesome, unavoidable word.

Let's just use Anthony Tommasini's "criteria" as a proxy.


----------



## Eviticus

brianwalker said:


> No, I didn't imply that you implied that Tchaikovsky was equivalent to Mozart, but that you implied that he was comparable in the fields you enumerated, which I averred that he is not.


By saying Mozart had more masterpieces in a genre, therefore makes it incomparable??? News to me. I used Mozart as an example of a great composer who achieved master works in many fields. Tchaikovsky also achieved master works across a wide breadth of categories a wider breadth then say then say Brahms or Schubert -fact.



brianwalker said:


> Again my assertion is so saliently true it's laughable to even try to dispute it, but it's below my station to start a poll on the matter so you can always pretend otherwise. Ask anyone; Tchaikovsky's symphonies are sludgy and the orchestration for his ballets are prim but basic.


The only thing laughable are your statements. Tchaikovsky ballets prim or basic orchestration???????? Do you need a cochlea implant?



brianwalker said:


> Wagner's greatness has nothing to do with his influence. Hypothetically you could remove every single composer after him and he would still be great.


Er... yes it has. Innovations are like evolution - random mutations of something that are either desirable or undesirable. But evolution is nothing without natural selection. Influence is natural selection - ie the great desirable innovations are selected and carried forth. Yes Wagner was great without influence, but he certainly wouldn't be top ten without it.



brianwalker said:


> The onus is on you to contradict my arguments, which are coherent and perfectly sensible. They have been made before my musicologists and critics alike. My point regarding his patchwork of melodies and inadequacies in development still stands.


You are pointing out a so called flaw, that can be deemed insignificant why should i argue this as i explained with my point about contemporary music (not just classical) - see previous post.



brianwalker said:


> The Beatles recorded all of their hits in the sixties and are still immensely popular, far more popular by any measure, whether it's sales, facebook likes, cultural prominence, etc, than Tchaikovsky was, is, or probably will be.


Yes and Lennon/McCartney are also considered amongst the greatest melodists of all time so my point still stands. Listen carefully to many Beatles records and you will find minor flaws but people still love them regardless.



brianwalker said:


> No Eviticus, you are the minority. You put Tchaikovsky as your number one composer, while mine is Bach. More people on this forum agrees with me, as does the New York Times.
> 
> Many others in your top ten list are also highly questionable. Dvorak, Elgar, Smetana, and Mussorsky rarely, if ever, show up on any other top ten lists.


*Once again you see my posts but DO NOT READ THEM.* Firstly i made the distinction that the composers in my top 10 are my FAVOURITES. This does not mean the same thing as to how i rank greatness - this would be a different list although as i have said before, Tchaikovsky would still be definite top 10.

You are in the minority by saying Tchaikovsky is overrated and lets face facts even your distinction for overrated seems as weak as your arguments. Your distinction being something like overrated is something that sells more than it should... This is flawed because it is subjective. Overrated should be firstly something that is rated on the basis of arguments for and pretensions that can be disputed or disproved. Not because something is popular.

Your subjective list is clearly based on your tastes so as i said previously, i am not going to go in to it. The onus is actually on you to disprove Tchaikovsky's greatness (a greatness that is asserted by the masses). So far id' say you have been incredibly successful at being unsuccessful.


----------



## jalex

Eviticus said:


> Tchaikovsky also achieved master works across a wide breadth of categories a wider breadth then say then say Brahms or Schubert -fact.


I disagree.



> Yes Wagner was great without influence, but he certainly wouldn't be top ten without it.


I disagree.


----------



## brianwalker

Eviticus said:


> By saying Mozart had more masterpieces in a genre, therefore makes it incomparable??? News to me. I used Mozart as an example of a great composer who achieved master works in many fields. Tchaikovsky also achieved master works across a wide breadth of categories a wider breadth then say then say Brahms or Schubert -fact.


No, I didn't say that Mozart was incomparable in those categories, but that Tchaikovsky pales in comparison in those categories relative when compared to Mozart.



> The only thing laughable are your statements. Tchaikovsky ballets prim or basic orchestration???????? Do you need a cochlea implant?


Compared to the six names I listed his orchestration is basic. Nowhere in his oeuvre does he rise to the utter and immaculate perfection in Ravel, the cacophonous transparency in Stravinsky, or the supreme balance in Strauss; Mahler and Wagner are simply on another level. His orchestration is advanced as Haydn's, perhaps a little more, but the difference is negligible.



> Er... yes it has. Innovations are like evolution - random mutations of something that are either desirable or undesirable. But evolution is nothing without natural selection. Influence is natural selection - ie the great desirable innovations are selected and carried forth. Yes Wagner was great without influence, but he certainly wouldn't be top ten without it.


No one will agree with you there. If Edouard Hanslick were alive today even he would rank Wagner in the top ten.



> Yes and Lennon/McCartney are also considered amongst the greatest melodists of all time so my point still stands. Listen carefully to many Beatles records and you will find minor flaws but people still love them regardless.


So they're definitely superior to Tchaikovsky then? Are you seriously measuring merit with record sales?






Is this better than Swan Lake?



> * This does not mean the same thing as to how i rank greatness - this would be a different list although as i have said before, Tchaikovsky would still be definite top 10. *


*
I am contesting the bold; as I said before, even if Tchaikovsky were ranked no. 10, nay, even if he were ranked no. 15, he would still be vastly overrated.




You are in the minority by saying Tchaikovsky is overrated and lets face facts even your distinction for overrated seems as weak as your arguments. Your distinction being something like overrated is something that sells more than it should... This is flawed because it is subjective. Overrated should be firstly something that is rated on the basis of arguments for and pretensions that can be disputed or disproved. Not because something is popular.

Click to expand...

You are a far smaller minority in your evaluation of Tchaikovsky as a top ten composer. The definition of overrated is that it's more popular than other, more merited works.




Your subjective list is clearly based on your tastes so as i said previously, i am not going to go in to it. The onus is actually on you to disprove Tchaikovsky's greatness (a greatness that is asserted by the masses). So far id' say you have been incredibly successful at being unsuccessful.

Click to expand...

My opinion is backed up by argument emanating from the music, a type of argument you have yet to give. The easiest way to demonstrate the veracity of your judgment is to make an alternate top 45 list and see which one jives better with our interlocutors.

To be honest, 26 is a generous ranking.

As Kant said more than 200 years ago, aesthetics is inherently subjective, but to some degree we demand that our judgment hold some universal validity. Among the people who study music and have the capacity to enjoy the widest range of music, Tchaikovsky is held in far lower esteem than he is by you.

Of course, the consensus can change. The exhumation of Bach and Mahler decades after their death is a testament to that truth, but I doubt Tchaikovsky will undergo a sudden reevaluation any time soon, if ever. Both of the composers redeemed by time had the opposite reputation of Tchaikovsky; they were too "difficult", pedantic in the case of Bach, overwrought in the case of Mahler. The public has already plumbed the depth of his music.

I have made sensible opinions shared by many other members of the general public and the musicological class; in response you have called my arguments "subjective", and that is all that you have done, and in the process you have demonstrated how redundant and meaningless the word is.

You realize that "science" is also subjective? That there are competing interpretations of truth and language, of the most fundamental values and the most important questions of life?

The overrated-ness of Tchaikovsky is as evident as the Earth is spherical, and your assertion that Tchaikovsky is "definitely" a top ten composer is as absurd as the act of unironically joining the Flat Earth Society.

Of course I course do a composer by composer comparison and demonstrate Tchaikovsky's inferiority to every single composer ranked from 10 to 25, but I'm not a sadist.*


----------



## Couchie

Yes brianwalker, your list is crap. Wagner... only 2nd????


----------



## Eviticus

jalex said:


> I disagree.


Thought you might. :lol:


----------



## Eviticus

Brian,
It is very difficult having a debate with someone who continues to take the points I make out of context. This partly my own fault because i may not be making myself clear - so let me try again.

Tchaikovsky is consistently rated amongst the top 10 or 15 greatest composers who ever lived in countless polls and lists that try to crown winners such as the ones on here and notably DDD and lord knows how many others. Let us just take this as a fact that is separate from what you or I personally think.

The most logical question is to ask why is this the case?

In response to this i gave a good starting point in my first post:-
Masterpieces that sit amongst the great/greatest works in a wide variety of classical genres: Symphony's, Concerto's, Overtures, Chamber, Opera, Serenades, Programme music and Ballet. _Just to clarify this before you take it out of context: works that are often sited amongst the best in polls and lists over large period of time_

Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to:-

a) De-construct the above which i believe to be fact in a manner that isn't dictated by your personal taste and bias as this is something you failed to do originally and had to resort to things like it sounds languid, mediocre contrived etc.
b) Then give me one single composer *rated behind* Tchaikovsky who not only has master works in *all* of these genres, but has them rated higher in greatest lists above Tchaikovsky's works in each genre.

I'll take your silence, dismissal or failure to do this as a failure to debunk Tchaikovsky's greatness and place in the top 10.


----------



## peeyaj

Tchaikovsky a * better * orchestrator than Brahms and Schubert?

News to me...


----------



## mmsbls

Debates such as these are difficult because people have somewhat differing assumptions and musical values. It appears that brianwalker especially values compositional technique; whereas, many of us easily overlook that if there are other attributes in the work. (I would point out that Tchaikovsky's violin concerto may have technical flaws, but it's excitement, majesty, and sheer beauty apparently move violinists, conductors, and the music community in general to place it among the greatest ever - where it belongs. )



Eviticus said:


> Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to:-
> 
> a) De-construct the above which i believe to be fact in a manner that isn't dictated by your personal taste and bias as this is something you failed to do originally and had to resort to things like it sounds languid, mediocre contrived etc.
> b) Then give me one single composer *rated behind* Tchaikovsky who not only has master works in *all* of these genres, but has them rated higher in greatest lists above Tchaikovsky's works in each genre.


I'm sure there are those who would take issue with the above method as a way of properly evaluating composers, but I applaud you in finding a way to take a subjective debate and making it vastly more objective. Nicely done.

I have always felt that those (including myself) who feel that a composer is overrated are simply saying they disagree with the majority of today's classical music listeners. There's nothing right or wrong with that.


----------



## brianwalker

Eviticus said:


> Brian,
> It is very difficult having a debate with someone who continues to take the points I make out of context. This partly my own fault because i may not be making myself clear - so let me try again.
> 
> Tchaikovsky is consistently rated amongst the top 10 or 15 greatest composers who ever lived in countless polls and lists that try to crown winners such as the ones on here and notably DDD and lord knows how many others. Let us just take this as a fact that is separate from what you or I personally think.
> 
> The most logical question is to ask why is this the case?
> 
> In response to this i gave a good starting point in my first post:-
> Masterpieces that sit amongst the great/greatest works in a wide variety of classical genres: Symphony's, Concerto's, Overtures, Chamber, Opera, Serenades, Programme music and Ballet. _Just to clarify this before you take it out of context: works that are often sited amongst the best in polls and lists over large period of time_
> 
> Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to:-
> 
> a) De-construct the above which i believe to be fact in a manner that isn't dictated by your personal taste and bias as this is something you failed to do originally and had to resort to things like it sounds languid, mediocre contrived etc.
> b) Then give me one single composer *rated behind* Tchaikovsky who not only has master works in *all* of these genres, but has them rated higher in greatest lists above Tchaikovsky's works in each genre.
> 
> I'll take your silence, dismissal or failure to do this as a failure to debunk Tchaikovsky's greatness and place in the top 10.


Your sole and only assertion is that T. is great because he does well in the polls; my response is that if popularity, even if it's enduring, measures greatness, then the Beatles is indisputably superior to Tchaikovsky.

The definition of overrated is that he does better on these polls than he should; the general populace has tin ears. The DDD list means nothing. Shostakovich over Ravel, Vivaldi over Richard Strauss, Mussorgsky over Puccini, Telemann over Berg, the obscenities go on.

My main objection to your contention is that 1. you claim that all taste is subjective (the implicit judgment is that all taste is equal, thus everyone gets a vote) 2. popularity is an indicator of merit. 3. ergo, Tchaikovsky is "definitely" a top ten composer.

IF you actually believe this, which I don't think you do because this would lead to absurd conclusions, then you would have to concede that the Beatles are incontrovertibly superior to Tchaikovsky. If you make that concession this conversation would then be over.* Your move. *

The Beatles' last album was in 1970, and forty years later they're still going strong, with more than 23 million FB likes; Tchaikovsky's 300k looks paltry in comparison. They are just as "timeless" as Tchaikovsky.

There is a wealth of evidence from across the decades that Tchaikovsky is overrated; the fact that despite he sells more tickets than Bach when no respectable music critic would deign to put him on equal footings with the Master. When Anthony Tommasini was selecting his list of the ten greatest composers of all time he didn't even mention Tchaikovsky in his selection process. He did lament over his exclusion of Puccini and apologized to Mahler partisans.

The fact that Tchaikovsky has acceptable pieces in all these genres means nothing. Is Wagner inferior to Tchaikovsky simply because he only wrote operas? What about Debussy, whose reputation rests mainly on his piano works? Is Vaughan Williams better than Mahler because the latter only wrote symphonies?



mmsbls said:


> It appears that brianwalker especially values compositional technique


Form and content are inextricably one; Tchaikovsky's symphonies are more often than not a sprawling mess of melodies; his ballets have nice, even beautiful, melodies, but these melodies go nowhere; you listen to the theme of Swan lake, it disappears and you tolerate a minute of boredom, and wait for the theme to return, this time with climax-appropriate orchestration.

We know that complexity is important to great music not because of complexity itself, but because the great works of the past have shown themselves to be complex. Simple music can be incredibly breathtaking, but Greatness requires more than just a few seconds of gorgeous tunes.

To paint me as a pedant is absurd; my appraisal of Johann Strauss Jr. should prove otherwise.


----------



## mmsbls

brianwalker said:


> To paint me as a pedant is absurd.


Unless you are using a definition of pedant that I'm unfamiliar with, your posts do not strike me as pedantic.

But it does appear that you value compositional technique highly. Am I wrong?

It appears as though you believe that polls by music critics, conductors, and classical performers would differ significantly with polls on websites such as TC and DDD. Is that true? I have been looking for several years for polls of music professionals in ranking composers because of a something my wife (violinist) once told me. Do you know of any such polls?


----------



## Eviticus

brianwalker said:


> Your sole and only assertion is that T. is great because he does well in the polls;


This is the fourth consecutive post you have managed to twist my words. I never said or implied the above. I stated he does well on polls. I stated he was great - but never said he is great just because he does well on polls.

I will also take your last post as total avoidance of a and b and therefore an *epic failure* in trying to diminish a composer commonly regarded as one of the all time greats. If you cannot even diminish why a composer is great, you seriously can't attest he is overrated.

Oh well......Next!


----------



## Polednice

peeyaj said:


> Tchaikovsky a * better * orchestrator than Brahms and Schubert?
> 
> News to me...


You know my biases, and I think Tchaikovsky's orchestration is much more interesting than Brahms's.


----------



## moody

Eviticus said:


> This is the fourth consecutive post you have managed to twist my words. I never said or implied the above. I stated he does well on polls. I stated he was great - but never said he is great just because he does well on polls.
> 
> I will also take your last post as total avoidance of a and b and therefore an *epic failure* in trying to diminish a composer commonly regarded as one of the all time greats. If you cannot even diminish why a composer is great, you seriously can't attest he is overrated.
> 
> Oh well......Next!


You are battling and crusading again aren't you ?


----------



## Eviticus

moody said:


> You are battling and crusading again aren't you ?




Just defending the fort...


----------



## Dodecaplex

Eviticus said:


> Oh well......Next!


Would you like to have an argument about why Bach is one hundred quadrillion times greater than little Peter?


----------



## Sid James

Dodecaplex said:


> Would you like to have an argument about why Bach is one hundred quadrillion times greater than little Peter?


Well let me make an observation. On this and other forums, it seems all arguments seem to be settled by J.S. Bach being the greatest composer. It's a lazy argument, or imo not an argument at all.

I've had Bach and Wagner pushed in my face when another guy was clearly retreating on shaky ground in an argument about John Cage!!! I mean in real life conversation, that's as logical as switching a conversation about the merits of Jackson Pollock to say Michelangelo or Byzantine ARt or something. WTF do these things have to do with eachother? Tell me that.

Oh but you'll tell me Bach is the greatest composer. OR Wagner is. Case closed. Let's just leave it, I'm one of those people who can think...


----------



## Dodecaplex

Sid James said:


> Well let me make an observation. On this and other forums, it seems all arguments seem to be settled by J.S. Bach being the greatest composer. It's a lazy argument, or imo not an argument at all.
> 
> I've had Bach and Wagner pushed in my face when another guy was clearly retreating on shaky ground in an argument about John Cage!!! I mean in real life conversation, that's as logical as switching a conversation about the merits of Jackson Pollock to say Michelangelo or Byzantine ARt or something. WTF do these things have to do with eachother? Tell me that.
> 
> Oh but you'll tell me Bach is the greatest composer. OR Wagner is. Case closed. Let's just leave it, I'm one of those people who can think...


My post would have been a lot easier to interpret if I had put a smiley face or a devil emoticon at the end or something.

I'm not sure whether you're still just playing along or not, but I was just joking really.


----------



## Eviticus

Dodecaplex said:


> Would you like to have an *argument* about why Bach is one hundred quadrillion times greater than little Peter?


Personally i prefer healthy debates... 

I'm not really sure what a JSB vs PIT has got to do with being overrated to be honest as Bach is consistently considered one of the BIG 3 so is over and above PIT anyway.

If you want a debate on greatness between the two - i will respectfully decline mainly because i really do think most musicologists and critics would say Bach was greater and i'd probably be a foolish to disagree.

Personally speaking - I don't like Baroque music in general and I think Bach is boring. However, i would never use that as an argument to diminish Bach's greatness because that's just my taste.


----------



## brianwalker

Eviticus, you "back up" your claim to Tchaikovsky greatness again and again solely by referencing his popularity in polls, his concert sales, prominence in general society; if these factors are irrelevant to his greatness, why bring them up in a tourettic manner? Keep in mind the popularity argument is the one you keep returning to post after post.

Let me spell it out for you: *The average concert audience member has tin ears and their opinion is more or less worthless. The fact that they demand Tchaikovsky to be played over and over again is irrelevant to his greatness.* If you disagree, you are implicitly agreeing that the Beatles is greater than Tchaikovsky. You can't have it both ways, it's A or B.

I have made generic, widely acknowledged criticism of the material of Tchaikovsky's music; these claims have not been contradicted, by anyone. The onus is on you to defend the quality of his melodies and the harmonic architecture of his music.



Sid James said:


> Well let me make an observation. On this and other forums, it seems all arguments seem to be settled by J.S. Bach being the greatest composer. It's a lazy argument, or imo not an argument at all.
> 
> I've had Bach and Wagner pushed in my face when another guy was clearly retreating on shaky ground in an argument about John Cage!!! I mean in real life conversation, that's as logical as switching a conversation about the merits of Jackson Pollock to say Michelangelo or Byzantine ARt or something. WTF do these things have to do with eachother? Tell me that.
> 
> Oh but you'll tell me Bach is the greatest composer. OR Wagner is. Case closed. Let's just leave it, I'm one of those people who can think...


Eviticus is making the claim that Tchaikovsky is *definitely top ten material.* Surely in your conversation you didn't herald Cage as one of the ten greatest composers of all time? Surely you didn't assert that if influence were irrelevant Cage would be greater than Wagner?

Eviticus is using the DDD of greatest composers/greatest works as his reference; if that's the reference, then Tchaikovsky is monumentally overrated.

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-wks.html
Symphony No. 6 in B minor "Pathetique" over every single Mahler symphony, the Nutcracker at no.26, etc. On these lists Tchaikovsky is definitely the most overrated composer of all time.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html
Tchaikovsky is number 8, above Handel, Stravinsky, Mahler, Strauss, Ravel, Debussy, Verdi, Puccini, Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn.

Surely you prefer my list to DDD's?

Again Sir James, if my list offends you, I'd be more than glad to see yours. :tiphat:

This debate reminds me of Foucault and his acolytes; they make endless criticism of the "disciplinary society" and the criminal justice system; how alternatives do they offer? None. Any coward can nitpick at the status quo.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Eviticus said:


> Personally i prefer healthy debates...
> 
> I'm not really sure what a JSB vs PIT has got to do with being overrated to be honest as Bach is consistently considered one of the BIG 3 so is over and above PIT anyway.
> 
> If you want a debate on greatness between the two - i will respectfully decline mainly because i really do think most musicologists and critics would say Bach was greater and i'd probably be a foolish to disagree.
> 
> Personally speaking - I don't like Baroque music in general and I think Bach is boring. However, i would never use that as an argument to diminish Bach's greatness because that's just my taste.


It's no fun when you're being this reasonable.


----------



## Sid James

brianwalker said:


> ...
> 
> Eviticus is making the claim that Tchaikovsky is *definitely top ten material.* Surely in your conversation you didn't herald Cage as one of the ten greatest composers of all time? Surely you didn't assert that if influence were irrelevant Cage would be greater than Wagner?


I would not compare Cage to Wagner or Bach because that comparison has no use and lacks commonsense. But some jurassic dinosaurs can't accept the fact that CAge was a major composer of the post 1945 period. That is a fact, at least in terms of his influence. He influenced many composers of his time and after. He freed music from some of the confines of before and during that time. Not only conservative rigidities but also so called progressive new straightjackets, or what turned out to be that with hindsight, eg. total serialism.

Do you want more? I have no time. I don't have time to argue with some person who brings Wagner and BAch in any way into a conversation about the legacy of Cage. I don't claim any one was "greater" than any other composer, I just give them credit for what they did, how they contributed to music, etc.



> Symphony No. 6 in B minor "Pathetique" over every single Mahler symphony...


Well that would make sense since the _Pathetique_ with it's unconventional slow movement ending, influenced no doubt Mahler in his 9th, ending with a slow movt., as well as guys like Vaughan Williams doing the same thing with his 6th, composed around 1930's.

I'm talking musicologically and in terms of influence, innovation. I'm not interested in polls, lists, rankings, etc. I'm saying that giving Tchaikovsky credit for his innovations and thinking outside certain sterile straightjacket conventions. That's how I think, I don't care about other people's agendas. My own "agenda" is taking composers on their own terms as much as I can. I'm not unbiased or objective, which are rubbish terms imo. I do take on board consensus, but I don't use things to prove a point. In other words, I like to think and think around facts, not lists, dates, etc. Boring for me basically, and old style dead as a dodo musicology, bad musicology, outdated, etc...


----------



## brianwalker

Sid James said:


> I would not compare Cage to Wagner or Bach because that comparison has no use and lacks commonsense. But some jurassic dinosaurs can't accept the fact that CAge was a major composer of the post 1945 period. That is a fact, at least in terms of his influence. He influenced many composers of his time and after. He freed music from some of the confines of before and during that time. Not only conservative rigidities but also so called progressive new straightjackets, or what turned out to be that with hindsight, eg. total serialism.
> 
> Do you want more? I have no time. I don't have time to argue with some person who brings Wagner and BAch in any way into a conversation about the legacy of Cage. I don't claim any one was "greater" than any other composer, I just give them credit for what they did, how they contributed to music, etc.
> 
> Well that would make sense since the _Pathetique_ with it's unconventional slow movement ending, influenced no doubt Mahler in his 9th, ending with a slow movt., as well as guys like Vaughan Williams doing the same thing with his 6th, composed around 1930's.
> 
> I'm talking musicologically and in terms of influence, innovation. I'm not interested in polls, lists, rankings, etc. I'm saying that giving Tchaikovsky credit for his innovations and thinking outside certain sterile straightjacket conventions. That's how I think, I don't care about other people's agendas. My own "agenda" is taking composers on their own terms as much as I can. I'm not unbiased or objective, which are rubbish terms imo. I do take on board consensus, but I don't use things to prove a point. In other words, I like to think and think around facts, not lists, dates, etc. Boring for me basically, and old style dead as a dodo musicology, bad musicology, outdated, etc...


If you are totally disinterested in rankings why are you even a part of this discussion? When did I ever deny any of the qualities above that you attributed to Tchaikovsky? When did I ever claim that Tchaikovsky was "not influential or historically significant"?

Implicit in your example is an equivalence of Tchaikovsky and Cage, since both of them are, in your opinion, not worthy of being compared to Bach or Wagner, but that's exactly what Eviticus is doing, so I'm dumbfounded as to why you're taking shots at me and not him.

Attributing a Pathetique influence to Mahler's ninth is stretching it, but that's a conversation for another day.


----------



## Artemis

brianwalker said:


> Eviticus, you "back up" your claim to Tchaikovsky greatness again and again solely by referencing his popularity in polls, his concert sales, prominence in general society; if these factors are irrelevant to his greatness, why bring them up in a tourettic manner? Keep in mind the popularity argument is the one you keep returning to post after post.
> 
> Let me spell it out for you: *The average concert audience member has tin ears and their opinion is more or less worthless. The fact that they demand Tchaikovsky to be played over and over again is irrelevant to his greatness.* If you disagree, you are implicitly agreeing that the Beatles is greater than Tchaikovsky. You can't have it both ways, it's A or B.
> 
> I have made generic, widely acknowledged criticism of the material of Tchaikovsky's music; these claims have not been contradicted, by anyone. The onus is on you to defend the quality of his melodies and the harmonic architecture of his music.


This made me laugh.

So you reckon the average concert audience has tin ears and their opinion is more or less worthless, and wouldn't recognise a high quality composer from a box of mouldy bananas? And you reckon that it's valid to counter the usefulness of lasting popularity as an indicator of greatness by asserting that because the Beatles are more popular than Tchaikovsky then one is implicitly agreeing that the Beatles are greater than Tchaikovsky?

I regret to to tell that in my opinion your arguments and opinions on this topic appear to be entirely bogus. For a start, you should learn that Tchaikovsky and the Beatles are artists from completely different markets, and it makes no sense to compare the two. To do so would be like saying that a MacDonalds cheeseburger is a better meal than typical 4-course a-la-carte job from a 2 star Michelin Guide Restaurant, because the former is the more popular of the two. Here the argumunt is entirely bogus for the same reason, except perhaps that it's more obviously so.

It baffles me why so many people resort to such simplistic, yet completely invalid, comparisons to support their hostility towards popularity. Here I mean lasting popularity down the generations, not 5 minute wonders or such-like fads. Of course lasting popularity is one measure of greatness. I happen to think it's the most useful one of all, as I do not trust individual opinions on this subject especially from people I do not know or whose qualifications remain concealed. For that reason, I have no objection to opinion polls determining greatness here or any other Forum, provided the limitatations of small samples are recognised together with other inherent problems involved in tapping opinion in Forums such as this.

In my opinion the DDD lists, which you have singled out for attack, are mainly pretty good because they are based on a bit of desk research as well as member's opinions. I'm not saying they're fully reliable, but for me (and I guess for many others who have looked at them) they're a darned sight better than mere personal opinion of individuals who drift in and out places like this whose credentials are unknown. I'm not singling you out specifically as my comment applies universally.


----------



## Sid James

brianwalker said:


> If you are totally disinterested in rankings why are you even a part of this discussion? ...


I can reverse that. It's a false dichotomy. Eg. I ask you - Why don't you just talk about and discuss the actual music rather than providing these lists? What point do they serve in the context of this thread? Isn't it more useful to talk about the contributions of a composer if discussion/critiquing their importance or lack of it?

I could go on, but I won't. It is useless & I'm glad Christmas is coming up, my holiday period, I will get time out of these kinds of discussions I find kind of circular, and like a broken record. My new year's resolution will probably be just to stick to the current listening thread and composer guestbook threads, maybe the fun or "your favourite" threads, things of the sort, because things like this thread just seem like a waste of time to me. I think of composer's legacy as a whole, the big picture, largely on their own terms, in terms of esp. their strengths, the positives. I hate highbrow/lowbrow distinctions and other false dichotomies. But forget it, I can't provide yet another useless list, so I'm obviously a moron...


----------



## brianwalker

Artemis said:


> This made me laugh.
> 
> So you reckon the average concert audience has tin ears and their opinion is more or less worthless, and wouldn't recognise a high quality composer from a box of mouldy bananas? And you reckon that it's valid to counter the usefulness of lasting popularity as an indicator of greatness by asserting that because the Beatles are more popular than Tchaikovsky then one is implicitly agreeing that the Beatles are greater than Tchaikovsky?
> 
> I regret to to tell that in my opinion your arguments and opinions on this topic appear to be entirely bogus. For a start, you should learn that Tchaikovsky and the Beatles are artists from completely different markets, and it makes no sense to compare the two. To do so would be like saying that a MacDonalds cheeseburger is a better meal than typical 4-course a-la-carte job from a 2 star Michelin Guide Restaurant, because the former is the more popular of the two. Here the argumunt is entirely bogus for the same reason, except perhaps that it's more obviously so.
> 
> It baffles me why so many people resort to such simplistic, yet completely invalid, comparisons to support their hostility towards popularity. Here I mean lasting popularity down the generations, not 5 minute wonders or such-like fads. Of course lasting popularity is one measure of greatness. I happen to think it's the most useful one of all, as I do not trust individual opinions on this subject especially from people I do not know or whose qualifications remain concealed. For that reason, I have no objection to opinion polls determining greatness here or any other Forum, provided the limitatations of small samples are recognised together with other inherent problems involved in tapping opinion in Forums such as this.
> 
> In my opinion the DDD lists, which you have singled out for attack, are mainly pretty good because they are based on a bit of desk research as well as member's opinions. I'm not saying they're fully reliable, but for me (and I guess for many others who have looked at them) they're a darned sight better than mere personal opinion of individuals who drift in and out places like this whose credentials are unknown. I'm not singling you out specifically as my comment applies universally.





Bach said:


> On Wednesday of this week, I went to a concert of new works by various little known British composers. Once piece required a CD of radio-tuning noise to be played in the background whilst the ensemble played some reasonably dissonant chords in the gaps.
> 
> It suddenly struck me that the music I was listening to was rubbish. Unmitigated pretentious, meaningless ****. I then asked myself why this deserved the title of 'art music' when (for example) 'The Wall' by Pink Floyd (which has far more depth both musically, architecturally and programatically) was confined to 'pop'.
> 
> I've never believed 'classical' to be a genre - just the most artistically interesting music of its time - but, 'The Wall' will live on long after that radio tunings piece has died out and yet somehow the radio piece is classical and the Pink Floyd is not.


If the only argument you have is that they belong to "different markets", and thus makes them incommensurable, well, you can continue believing that. But in this age, with this kind of average purchasing power, Tchaikovsky's music is just as available to the general public as the Beatles. Two star Michelin restaurants are expensive and time-consuming. Listening to an entire Pink Floyd/Beatles album takes about as much effort as listening to a Swan Lake suite. In the age of YouTube and torrent and rapidshare and iTunes and spotify, the market is one and the same. This argument might have been true 40 years ago, but it's not true today. I'm sure in this day and age Tchaikovsky gets the same or more radio playtime as Pink Floyd or the Beatles.

Your only argument rests on an analogy, and your analogy is terribly flawed. If the DDD list is worth anything Pink Floyd and the Beatles are better than Tchaikovsky, just like how Swan Lake is better than the Emperor Quartet.



Sid James said:


> I can reverse that. It's a false dichotomy. Eg. I ask you - Why don't you just talk about and discuss the actual music rather than providing these lists? What point do they serve in the context of this thread? Isn't it more useful to talk about the contributions of a composer if discussion/critiquing their importance or lack of it?
> 
> I could go on, but I won't. It is useless & I'm glad Christmas is coming up, my holiday period, I will get time out of these kinds of discussions I find kind of circular, and like a broken record. My new year's resolution will probably be just to stick to the current listening thread and composer guestbook threads, maybe the fun or "your favourite" threads, things of the sort, because things like this thread just seem like a waste of time to me. I think of composer's legacy as a whole, the big picture, largely on their own terms, in terms of esp. their strengths, the positives. I hate highbrow/lowbrow distinctions and other false dichotomies. But forget it, I can't provide yet another useless list, so I'm obviously a moron...


Eviticus' "definitely top ten" assertion instigated this. It's one's duty to stomp on the declaration of patent falsities. Tchaikovsky is definitely not even top twenty.

I'm not obsessive over rankings; rarely do I ever venture into the "Beethoven vs. Mozart" threads and their elk, but one must draw a line in the sand somewhere.


----------



## Artemis

brianwalker said:


> If the only argument you have is that they belong to "different markets", and thus makes them incommensurable, well, you can continue believing that. But in this age, with this kind of average purchasing power, Tchaikovsky's music is just as available to the general public as the Beatles. Two star Michelin restaurants are expensive and time-consuming. Listening to an entire Pink Floyd/Beatles album takes about as much effort as listening to a Swan Lake suite. In the age of YouTube and torrent and rapidshare and iTunes and spotify, the market is one and the same. This argument might have been true 40 years ago, but it's not true today.
> 
> If the DDD list is worth anything Pink Floyd and the Beatles are better than Tchaikovsky.
> 
> Eviticus' "definitely top ten" assertion instigated this. It's one's duty to stomp on the declaration of patent falsities.


In view of your reply, I would suggest you are none too familiar with the concept of two products being in "separate markets", to which I alluded in my previous post.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that in the present age the average purchasing power of individual consumers enables them to acquire Tchaikovsky's music just as easily as that by the Beatles. This is plain wrong.

Let me try to explain a bit further. One product being in a separate market from another product means that the two products are not close "substitutes" for each, that is if there were a significant price rise of just one product it would not lead to a switch to the other product, this because they are not "substitutes" for each other. As evidence, it seems scarcely credible that if the price of a DVD for say Swan Lake went up against the price of a DVD of a Beatles Concert that there would be a big shift of purchasers from one to the other.

Thus, clearly the significance of lack of substitutability between products (in this case the music by Tchaikovsky and music by the Beatles) is that there is no validity in the argument that you ran that the Beatles may be considered greater than Tchaikovsky because the former are more popular. To argue this, flies in the face of commonsense and is a contradiction of the notion of these works being in separate markets.

Therefore your argument remains highly dubious.


----------



## brianwalker

Artemis said:


> In view of your reply, I would suggest you are none too familiar with the concept of two products being in "separate markets", to which I alluded in my previous post.
> 
> It has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that in the present age the average purchasing power of individual consumers enables them to acquire Tchaikovsky's music just as easily as that by the Beatles. This is plain wrong.
> 
> Let me try to explain a bit further. One product being in a separate market from another product means that the two products are not close "substitutes" for each, that is if there were a significant price rise of just one product it would not lead to a switch to the other product, this because they are not "substitutes" for each other. As evidence, it seems scarcely credible that if the price of a DVD for say Swan Lake went up against the price of a DVD of a Beatles Concert that there would be a big shift of purchasers from one to the other.
> 
> Thus, clearly the significance of lack of substitutability between products (in this case the music by Tchaikovsky and music by the Beatles) is that there is no validity in the argument that you ran that the Beatles may be considered greater than Tchaikovsky because the former are more popular. To argue this, flies in the face of commonsense and is a contradiction of the notion of these works being in separate markets.
> 
> Therefore your argument remains highly dubious.


They're not substitutes because a majority vastly prefer the Beatles over Tchaikovsky. This has nothing to do with the prices of Beatles and Swan Lake DVDs.

Your initial analogy of the Michelin restaurant and the fast food burger implies that the two aren't commensurable because they belong to totally different realms and cannot be compared, but the analogy doesn't fit because Michelin restaurant food are far more scarce and require far more time and money to acquire than a burger; if 2 star michelin restaurants were as universal and cheap and convenient (imagine some sort of futuristic technology if you will) as McDonalds, McDonalds would go out of business instantly, as would In n Out, Burger King, etc.

Obtaining a copy of Sgt. Peppers is just as costly as obtaining a copy of Swan Lake. The former hasn't gone out of business; business is still, and will continue to be, good.


----------



## Artemis

brianwalker said:


> They're not substitutes because a majority vastly prefer the Beatles over Tchaikovsky. This has nothing to do with the prices of Beatles and Swan Lake DVDs.


I don't care how you arrived at the conclusion, which I have already made to you, that the Beatles and Tchaikovsky are not substitues. The fact is that you now agree they are not substitutes. The explanation I gave for making this test is based on standard elementary economic theory, but we'll leave that aside if you have trouble with it.

Given that you now agree that the Beatles and Tchaikovsky are not substitues for each other, we may as well take some other product/service which is not a substitute for Tchaikovsky, like a fish n' chip meal for two, for example.

On this reckoning, your argument would presumably be that a fish n' chip meal for two is greater than Tchaikovsky because more people (presumably) prefer the former to the latter. This obviously sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

The point is that once it's accepted that two products are in separate markets there is no validity in making inferences about their relative greatness, since by definition they do not compete with each other, i.e. they are not substitutes.

Hence your insistence upon comparing Tchaikovsky with the Beatles, and infering that one is "greater" than other by virtue of their respective popularity, is erroneous since they can't be compared meaningfully in this fashion as they from separate areas of consumer tastes that do not compete with each other. This simple point really ought to be obvious by now.


----------



## Eviticus

Brian - with respect, i just do not see the point in carrying on this debate with you as you just don't seem to 'get' the simple points i have made so far and so i will try to end this succinctly.

It is not me alone that asserts Tchaikovsky amongst the greatest of composers - this was done by the masses and happened long, long before i ever heard a note and remains to this day. I only point to lists, polls, demand, sales and countless references that say such things as evidence to prove this - that is all. If this is something asserted by vast the majority then the onus is on those who believe his greatness is overrated to disprove it.

I have tried to get you to forget about your tastes and have a go at reducing his greatness as objectively as you can and you have failed miserably. 

In several extensive posts (most around half a page long) the best you could come up with is 'violin concerto - technical flaws' which was countered, lack of extensive development - which was countered and universal appeal not being a measure of greatness which again was countered. The rest of your posts have revolved around twisting my words, and filling the remaining 98% of your posts with padding. 

I don't like most works of other great composers such as Bach, Wagner (and much of Brahms) but i don't say they shouldn't sit amongst the greatest because my taste is separate from the respect i have for their contribution to music; even though i often don't want to hear it. You should try doing the same instead of telling us that every other list is rubbish as yours is the best and therefore your opinion is superior to most listeners with tin ears etc etc.


----------



## jhar26

Get back to talking about the subject that the thread is supposed to be about folks. I'll delete some of the recent posts *and if it ends there (!!!)* we'll pretend that nothing has happened, ok?


----------



## kv466

^^

Kindergarten Cop


Oh, this is not the 'last film you watched' thread?! Sorry,...moving along now...really, though,...things have far passed childish behavior at this point.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I would not compare Cage to Wagner or Bach because that comparison has no use and lacks commonsense.

I don't see why not. If Cage and Xenakis are still part of the Western tradition of "classical music" it seems that their remain points of valid comparison and that any artist that has the least chance of survival within the narrative of a given art-form must be able to hold his or her ground in such comparison. T.S. Eliot, in his classic essay, _Tradition and the Individual Talent_, put this much better than I:

_Tradition is a matter of (wide) significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly indispensable to anyone who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his contemporaneity.

No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead. *The necessity that he shall conform,* that he shall cohere, *is not one-sided*; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. *Whoever has approved this idea of order... will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past.*_

Within my own field, the visual arts... specifically painting... contemporary artists are most certainly discussed in comparison with various masters of the past. DeKooning is not seen as being so far removed from the past tradition of painting that he cannot be compared to the past. Critics will speak of the manner in which his brilliant color and fluid gestural brushwork was speaks of Soutine... Van Gogh... Rubens... and Titian. The elegant linear elements that weave through his works speak of artists as far removed as Picasso and even Ingres. If Xenakis and Cage cannot stand up to any comparison with the past, one might begin to question their merits as a whole.

The problem with such comparisons, is that most see them as little more than something akin to a sporting event... a measure as to who is the better man. By such standards I agree a comparison of Cage or Xenakis to Bach and Wagner is absurd. The latter artists don't stand the least chance for the simple reason that Bach and Wagner have held a place within the narrative of musical history for far longer... and as a result, their influence upon subsequent developments and individual composers of real merit is far more profound. Only time will tell as to how central Cage or Xenakis remain. No... as Eliot suggested, "comparisons" must be a two way street. One cannot judge Xenakis or Cage solely upon the standards of Bach and Wagner without being willing to look as Bach and Wagner through the goals and standards of Cage and Xenakis. It is the recognition of Bach and Wagner through contemporary ears and contemporary artists that leads us to new appreciations of their achievements and a continued relevance.

Up until the mid-1980s the innovations of Abstract Expressionism was seen as the towering development of painting since mid-century. The continued dominance of abstract painting seemed assured and no one doubted the continued importance of Pollack, Rothko, DeKooning, etc... Then Neo_Expressionism hit... and Neo-Pop... and various other movements until the Achievements of Abstract Expressionism no longer seemed as central. Certainly these artists continue to be recognized as important... but perhaps not as earth-shattering nor as likely to remain central figures to the continued narrative of painting.

The continued relevance of Cage and Xenakis will depend upon those who follow... and how they build upon their achievements... reject them... or completely ignore them.


----------



## brianwalker

@eviticus. I have compared Tchaikovsky's lyrical and orchestral merits to Puccini and Strauss, comparisons which remain unanswered to, I have pointed out the truth universally acknowledged among musicologists that Tchaikovsky's more ambitious works suffer from serious structural and developmental problems. I have pointed out repeated and from multiple angles using redutio ad absurdum why his relative popularity is not a measure of his merit. You have answered none of these statements, yet you have the chutzpah to declare my failure? What more can I do? This will be the last post on the matter between me and you, since I'm not interested in Pyrrhic victories.

@Artemis. Wagner and Bach aren't substitutes either. Nothing great is; a great lost is always an irreplaceable one. Choosing between which composer to not listen to for the rest of my life would be as painful and harrowing to me as Sophie's choice.

Just because the music originates from rival traditions doesn't mean that they can't be compared. It's more difficult and controversial, yes, but not impossible.

To me this: 



 is just as beautiful as this: 



 In fact I listen to the former far more often than the latter; the ratio is probably 100 to 1. Would you say that their artistic merit is incommensurable because they are in separate markets?

Now, if I were to claim that they cannot, strictly speaking, be compared to each other, I might win the argument, but not the hearts and minds of any sensible person. Are they deluded? What about you Eviticus? Am I a fool for loving I've Told Every Little Star more? To me, I've Told Every Little Star is _definitely_ better than Slave March.

The only difference between Linda Scott and Sgt. Peppers, besides the obvious lopsidedness in musical merits, innovation, etc, the most important difference is that Sgt. Peppers has partisans, while no one would, for a variety of reasons too many to enumerate here, defend Linda Scott.

I'm moving on. New topic: Mendelssohn's underratedness.

On amazon one of the reviewer's for the Takac Quartet's recording of Haydn's Opus 76 quartets said "(I admit shamefully that up until now my impression had been that Haydn wrote a lot of nice music, but nothing truly great.)." I've been inhaling his 3rd and 4th symphonies recently and too am ashamed that in the past Mendelssohn was, for me, just the guy who wrote that famous violin concerto, revived Bach, and was the target of Wagner's anti-semitic vitriol, etc.

In the greatest symphonist poll he has zero (!!!) votes.

I daresay that he is more underrated than the TC posterboy for underratedness, Schumann.



jalex said:


> Never mind Mendelssohn


----------



## jalex

I think Mendelssohn was too talented for his own good. He started out exceptionally well, then spent a long time writing lots of nice sounding average pieces without putting much effort in to them, then finally seemed to realise this later in life and wrote a few more brilliant things before departing.

He's also got the weakest symphony cycle on that list IMO.


----------



## jalex

brianwalker said:


>


:lol: Only in the original context. I am a great admirer of much of Mendelssohn's chamber music, as well as Elijah, the VC and the _Songs Without Words_.


----------



## joel

toucan said:


> The most overrated composer of all times has to be Dmitri Shostakovich. His music is imitative to the point of fabrication & simple-minded imitations at that, yet he is placed (by some) on a foot of equality with the original, Gustav Mahler.
> 
> Tchaikovsky is a good choice, though at least (unlike Shostakovich) he is authentic - same with Sibelius, who could also have been cited here.
> 
> Compared with Schubert or Chopin Brahms is heavy-handed, needing an hour and countless instruments to say less than Chopin and Schubert can say in less than a minute, using one pair of hands only. But perhaps the one who is most overrated there is Brahms' second-fiddle Dvorak, because he is Brahms' second-fiddle.


If you're talking about over-rated, perhaps Shostakovich could be listed. But as for over-performed, I doubt it. Aside from the 5th (and possibly the 10th symphonies), most of his major works are little-known in the United States. Tchaikovsky is over-rated and over-performed by comparison to Shostakovich.

I recall when the Columbia Masterworks and RCA Red Seal record labels released "Greatest Hits" albums with music by various composers--Johann Strauss, Beethoven, Debussy, Gershwin, Tchaikovsky, Rossini--but not by Shostakovich (correct me if I am wrong) in the 1960s/1970s. Those were cheesy to say the least (the RCA album of Johann Strauss included a fake interview with one of the members of the Strauss family!), but they did their part to introduce the works of those composers. I got the impression that Shostakovich's works were underrated and underperformed--an opinion which I hold to this day.


----------



## pluhagr

Most Overrated: Mozart
Underrated: Corigliano


----------



## peeyaj

I appreciate now the greatness of Stravinsky.. )


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Robert Schumann is definitely overrated. The first movement of his third symphony is crap! Basically homophonic all the way with no counterpoint to make it sound any good.

His wife is most definitely underrated.


----------



## Lisztian

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Robert Schumann is definitely overrated. The first movement of his third symphony is crap! Basically homophonic all the way with no counterpoint to make it sound any good.
> 
> His wife is most definitely underrated.


He's overrated because you think the first movement of one of his symphonies is crap? His symphonies, good as they are, are not his calling card. Piano music, Chamber music, and Lieder are where he shines.


----------



## Ravellian

Overrated: Felix Mendelssohn. Nearly every short biography I've read has said something to the extent of, "He was not one of the greatest composers... his compositions lacked emotional depth" yet virtually every classical music book has a segment on Mendelssohn. The only composition I've heard from him that I really like is the Violin Concerto.

Underrated: Nikolai Roslavets. He developed a method of 12-tone composition before Schoenberg that I believe works better than the Austrian composer's. His music is beautiful and sensual.. and it deserves much better recognition.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lisztian said:


> He's overrated because you think the first movement of one of his symphonies is crap? His symphonies, good as they are, are not his calling card. Piano music, Chamber music, and Lieder are where he shines.


No no, I was just giving an example.


----------



## jalex

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The first movement of his third symphony is crap! Basically homophonic all the way with no counterpoint to make it sound any good.


You've just picked one area of composition which Schumann_ chose not too explore_ in that movement (he was actually a very good contrapuntist, as can be heard in many of his solo piano works). What about the tonal complexity of that movement - a 200 hundred-odd bar development section which modulates rapidly and without respite but never touches the home key?

I should also point out that their is quite a bit of contrapuntal material in the 4th movement


----------



## Oskaar

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Robert Schumann is definitely overrated.


He is very well representated on spotify. And that is very good! Then I feel like a child in a candystore, just swimming in all his greateness! I am quite new to classical music(in depth) and I have a lot learning, listening, and exploring to do. But Scumann rarely fail for me. Music is a matter of taste, and this overrated-underrated thread may be good for one thing...discusions! We only have to remember that we are individuals with different taste. Different parameters. And different views.

You are scolared ComposerOfAvantGarde, and I have a lot of respects for your knowledge. I am absoluteley not scolared, but think I have a good ear! Keep on telling your opinions!


----------



## Guest

The more I listen to Saint Saens, the harder time I have understanding why so many people think he's so incredible. The piano concerti are extremely over-hyped, they're just stupid virtuosic showpieces. Nothing special. Anyone else agree?


----------



## jalex

Jeff N said:


> The more I listen to Saint Saens, the harder time I have understanding why so many people think he's so incredible. The piano concerti are extremely over-hyped, they're just stupid virtuosic showpieces. Nothing special. Anyone else agree?


I mostly agree. Third symphony is pretty good and so is some of the later chamber music (2nd cello sonata and 2nd violin sonata), but on the whole I think he is overrated.


----------



## UberB

I wonder if the people who think Beethoven is overrated have even bothered to listen to him beyond the 5th symphony, 6th symphony, 9th symphony, Moonlight sonata and Emperor concerto. Oh well, I guess bashing composers like Beethoven and Mozart is what's fashionable on these forums.

Listen to (and actually take the time to understand) Beethoven's late piano sonatas and string quartets, and come back and apologize. 

There are no overrated composers. I believe that all composers are indisputably great; there are just composers that we just don't understand. For example I think atonal and minimalist music are stupid but I'm not dumb enough to not realize that a) they are rooted in the music of the Classical and Romantic era and b) there must be something about them that I don't yet understand.


----------



## joebingo

emiellucifuge said:


> Under-appreciated:
> Overrated:
> 
> Tchaikovsky
> Brahms


I'm sorry for bringing up the second post in this thread, but I have to respectfully disagree. To my mind, there is no piece of music that can make me feel quite the same as the 2nd movement of Brahms' violin concerto. That oboe at the beginning is magnificent.

Tchaikovsky I can understand where you're coming from.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^I have to say I must agree with you. Welcome to TC. Do you like Ligeti?


----------



## joebingo

Thanks for the welcome  I can't say I really know Ligeti, so if you have any recordings to recommend, let me know!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I love the Kammerkonzert.


----------



## joebingo

cheers, I'll have a look for it!


----------



## moody

Jeff N said:


> The more I listen to Saint Saens, the harder time I have understanding why so many people think he's so incredible. The piano concerti are extremely over-hyped, they're just stupid virtuosic showpieces. Nothing special. Anyone else agree?


I doubt very much whether the concertii are supposed to be something special but they are good fun and certainly not stupid. I suppose that takes care of Liszt and Paganini then ?


----------



## moody

jalex said:


> I mostly agree. Third symphony is pretty good and so is some of the later chamber music (2nd cello sonata and 2nd violin sonata), but on the whole I think he is overrated.


Overrated compared with what , Lehar, Wagner, Burtwhistle ( if that's the way you spell it). You have to decide what he was aiming at which is different from say Sibelius.


----------



## moody

Jeff N said:


> The more I listen to Saint Saens, the harder time I have understanding why so many people think he's so incredible. The piano concerti are extremely over-hyped, they're just stupid virtuosic showpieces. Nothing special. Anyone else agree?


I felt I had to go back to this again.
"Our relentlessly highbrow age finds his transparency, sparkle and style teasingly devoid of heavier,more respectable virtues----the piano concertos in particular show how levity can become elevated to a seductive virtue" Bryn Morrison.
Music does not have to be serious at all times without question, some of the folk who frequent these forums might be,I think, the sort who would be a wet blanket at your party should you invite them. Lighten up! Saint- Saens is,on the whole, to be listened to for fun, he doesn't compare to Mahler any more than Raymond Chandler compares to Dickens but I like them both. Berlioz said of him :---"he knows everything but he lacks inexperience". He was a virtuoso pianist and a friend of Liszt , the organ symphony was dedicated to him.He was the first major composer to write a film score. He wrote a lot of music and it's all delightful. His chamber works are technically difficult and the latter works less accessible. All these are worth trying : His three violin concerti, two cello concerti, his organ works (he was an organist), his songs are well worth hearing. I like the symphonic poems-so professional, "Samson and Delila" and please do not forget the Carnival of the Animals, a superb piece of music.


----------



## jalex

^As an ardent admirer of Strauss II I assure you it isn't Saint-Saens' levity which puts me off. It's partly to do with his Mendelssohnian glibness and partly to do with Debussy's accusation of sentimentality.


----------



## moody

jalex said:


> ^As an ardent admirer of Strauss II I assure you it isn't Saint-Saens' levity which puts me off. It's partly to do with his Mendelssohnian glibness and partly to do with Debussy's accusation of sentimentality.


I really don't know why I bothered at all.


----------



## Eviticus

I personally find the music of saint seans quite beautiful. I didn't know he was friends with Liszt. If this is the case his music doesn't really sound anything like Liszt. It has the aesthetic quality of Chopin which is why I really like his stuff and am not a fan of Liszt (although would love to have seen him perform in concert).


----------



## moody

Eviticus said:


> I personally find the music of saint seans quite beautiful. I didn't know he was friends with Liszt. If this is the case his music doesn't really sound anything like Liszt. It has the aesthetic quality of Chopin which is why I really like his stuff and am not a fan of Liszt (although would love to have seen him perform in concert).


Well, as I indicated they had one thing in common in that the were both great pianists I bet Schlitz would have liked playing the piano concertos--perhaps he did? It's been quiet around here in your absence, perhaps Brian's been away as well.


----------



## jalex

@moody:

I don't think that SS's main aim was to be listened to for fun (is that not why he suppressed the Carnival of the Animals?).


----------



## moody

Remember he was French but they had one thing in common, they were both piano virtuosi and I think Schlitz would have loved to play the Concerti. Saint-Saens is undoubtedly underrated I think most people think he wrote Carnival of the Animals period. It,s been quiet around here in your absence, perhaps Brian's been away as well !


----------



## moody

I seem to have more or less the same message twice the forum told me the first one hadn't gone.


----------



## Eviticus

People knock 'Carnival of Animals' and Saint Seans himself seemed rather ashamed of it but segments are great. Is it me or does 'Aquarium' seem ahead of it's time?? It's certainly immitated a lot by the like of Danny Efman and many modern composers to create an eerie, watery or icy feel.


----------



## moody

jalex said:


> @moody:
> 
> I don't think that SS's main aim was to be listened to for fun (is that not why he suppressed the Carnival of the Animals?).


It was composed in 1886, Saint-Saens wanted to be considered as a serious composer and was worried that his enemies would consider it too frivolous. So he had it held up apart from the Swan segment it was eventually launched in, I believe 1922,he was right because it is his most popular work.I wonder whether you actually digested what I wrote in answer to a criticism that the piano concerti were over hyped and STUPID. I said that on the whole his music should be listened to for fun --but that does not mean that it's a sound track for the Keystone Kops, I wish I'd chosen another word ,maybe relaxation. I don't consider Samson and Delila fun except when Hollywood got hold of it, but most of his music is as opposed for instance to say Bruckner who I do not think does fun--but I'll probably be in trouble for saying that now. Can we leave it there please, I've said all I can, but perhaps you would like to write something in depth I'm sure everyone will be most interested. Incidentally, I think a high proportion of Tchaikovsky's music is fun and relaxing ,but I would not say that he is not a serious composer--especially with some one watching this probably at this moment.


----------



## Hermanberntzen

Overrated:
Johannes Brahms




Underrated:
William Byrd
Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck 
Orlando Gibbons
Robert Schumann
Edvard Grieg
Louis Couperin
Silvius Leopold Weiss

Regards,


----------



## moody

Are Grieg and Schumann really underrated and for that matter Couperin--I wouldn't have thought so.


----------



## Hermanberntzen

In some causes they are less appreciated, after my opinion.


----------



## moody

Eviticus said:


> People knock 'Carnival of Animals' and Saint Seans himself seemed rather ashamed of it but segments are great. Is it me or does 'Aquarium' seem ahead of it's time?? It's certainly immitated a lot by the like of Danny Efman and many modern composers to create an eerie, watery or icy feel.


Who Danny Efman ?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Danny Elfman. Film composer. Associated with Tim Burton.


----------



## Hermanberntzen

As Associated with Tim Burton as Johnny Depp.


----------



## Eviticus

Just for you Moody


----------



## moody

Thanks and I get your drift.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

If I were to post my overrated composer opinion someone would probably use my IP adress to track me down and subject me to ten grueling hours of Lady Gaga music so I'll just post the composers that I think are underrated:

I don't think Grieg is given enough credit for his music by many. 

I also feel that Handel is a bit left out of the conversation on this site. (I have read that he plagiarized other compositions. Could someone tell me if this is true or if the author was just a Handel high-jacker?)

I believe that Rimsky-Korsakov is often a forgotten composer as well.


----------



## xuantu

Shostakovich, anyone?

I was thinking of the word "overrated" after I sampled his No. 8 & 11 string quartets (the former is supposedly his most famous piece in this genre). These chamber works, because of their private, intimate nature, were not as closely inspected by the Soviet authority as his symphonies, and they are generally thought to reveal more truths about the composer. Indeed there is the imagery of horror, and I dare say that I heard some ugliest "howls" ever drawn from those lovely instruments, but as a listener I was completely underwhelmed. To say the very least, they were not interestingly crafted and did no justice to the medium. Where is the conversational interplay between the four instruments? Where is the rich texture that distinguishes the best works of the genre since Haydn and Beethoven? Worst of all, I did not find the emotions in these two pieces very compelling either, certainly not in a musical way; perhaps some biographical information IS necessary to complete the narrative? For once I felt the rush to concur with Pierre Boulez on his assessment on a composer's worth and claim that Shostakovich is scandalously overrated. IMHO, to place quartets such as these alongside Beethoven's monumental works as their counterparts in the 20th century (nowadays many quartets seem to take this view) would be an insult to the German master.


----------



## violadude

xuantu said:


> Shostakovich, any one?
> 
> I was thinking of the word "overrated" after I sampled his No. 8 & 11 string quartets (the former is supposedly his most famous piece in this genre). These chamber works, because of their private, intimate nature, were not as closely inspected by the Soviet authority as his symphonies, and they are generally thought to reveal more truths about the composer. Indeed there is the imagery of horror, and I dare say that I heard some ugliest "howls" drawn from those lovely instruments, but as a listener I was completely underwhelmed. To say the very least, they were not interestingly crafted and did no justice to the medium. Where is the conversational interplay between the four instruments? Where is the rich texture that distinguishes the best works of the genre since Haydn and Beethoven? Worst of all, I did not find the emotions in these two pieces very compelling either, certainly not in a musical way; perhaps some biographical information IS necessary to complete the narrative? For once I felt the rush to concur with Pierre Boulez on his assessment on a composer's worth and claim that Shostakovich is scandalously overrated. IMHO, to place quartets such as these alongside Beethoven's monumental works as their counterparts in the 20th century (nowadays many quartets seem to take this view) would be an insult to the German master.


Try the 5th one. It might be more what you are looking for. I agree that his 8th is pretty overrated.


----------



## xuantu

violadude said:


> Try the 5th one. It might be more what you are looking for. I agree that his 8th is pretty overrated.


Just heard it on Youtube. Can't really say I love it, but it does sound more like a string quartet than the 8th.

Thanks for your comment!


----------



## neoshredder

Overrated 
Tchaikovksky
Brahms
Glass
Ligeti
Schubert

Underrated
Telemann
Corelli 
Boccherini
CPE Bach
Buxtehude


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Overrated
> Tchaikovksky
> Brahms
> Glass
> *Ligeti*
> Schubert
> 
> Underrated
> Telemann
> Corelli
> Boccherini
> CPE Bach
> Buxtehude


*Ligeti* is _not_ overrated! But some Glass is. Most isn't though.


----------



## neoshredder

Overrated on this forum then. But not overrated to the public. Glass is definitely overrated. That was a no brainer for me. Tchaikovksy was borderline as I do like some of his works. Schubert and Brahms put me to sleep. Not too interesting and overrated. Just my opinion. No need to go further in depth with it.


----------



## eorrific

Sibelius is... disappointing? I've tried really, but I find his orchestration extremely clumsy (not that I understand orchestration, but I just find it very odd and not to my likings).
On the other hand, Richard Strauss is a bit underrated.


----------



## realdealblues

I don't have an overrated pick, but I do think Joly Braga Santos is underrated.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Overrated on this forum then. But not overrated to the public. Glass is definitely overrated. That was a no brainer for me. Tchaikovksy was borderline as I do like some of his works. Schubert and Brahms put me to sleep. Not too interesting and overrated. Just my opinion. No need to go further in depth with it.


I used to think Ligeti was sorta overrated. Well I might not have thought he was overrated but just I didn't think of him much. But recently (past 6 months or so) after listening to a lot of his pieces I closely I feel he is one of the most creative musical minds of the 20th century.


----------



## PetrB

emiellucifuge said:


> No thank you,
> In my previous post I gave an idea of who I believe the public values too highly and too lowly.


Ah, reminds me of a peculiar north-European trait, (perhaps unique to Nederland?) perceived as a kind of stinginess across the pond. Withholding information, or 'you missed that lecture' - even outside of academic environments.


----------



## Lenfer

neoshredder said:


> Overrated on this forum then. But not overrated to the public. Glass is definitely overrated. That was a no brainer for me. Tchaikovksy was borderline as I do like some of his works. Schubert and Brahms put me to sleep. Not too interesting and overrated. Just my opinion. No need to go further in depth with it.


I'm not saying *Glass* ins't overrated but he's not the darling of the forum like some German chap I could mention.  I can see why you said what you though. I think *Ligeti* is still pretty niche on on here I just think _CoAG_ does a good job as his champion I guess twas he he got me into *Ligeti*. 

I hate to agree as I love *Tchaikovksy* but I think he is overrated by some. I don't think his full repertoire is taken into a account though.

I think *Vaughan Williams* and *Mendelssohn* are overrated at least here in *England* but back home I get sick of *Debussy*,

*Wagner* is truly overrated in my mind he is _the_ most overrated composer, *Mozart* comes in a close second.

*Edit*:

I was not going to mention *Wagner* but he slipped in there lol. :lol:

*Edit: (No. 2)*



violadude said:


> I used to think Ligeti was sorta overrated. Well I might not have thought he was overrated but just I didn't think of him much. But recently (past 6 months or so) after listening to a lot of his pieces I closely I feel he is one of the most creative musical minds of the 20th century.


When I first started with him I thought "meh" but he grows on you quite quickly. I'm not mad keen on everything he did but then again he did so much.


----------



## violadude

Alright here's my list of underrated composers based off influence and innovation:

Guiaullme De Machaut, Josquin, Gesualdo, Palestrina, Monteverdi, Varese, "The Mannheim School of music", David Tudor, Johnathan Harvey, Steve Reich (in some circles), perhaps Louis Andriessen.

Basically, pre-Baroque music, early classical music and late 20th century/early 21st century music (especially electronic music) are all very underrated in general. That's kind of a sum up of my list there.


----------



## sybilvane

Someone might have already mentioned this, and if so, I apologize, but I would offer Charles-Valentin Alkan as a severely underrated composer--or perhaps not so much underrated as unknown. He's fabulous.


----------



## suffolkcoastal

With overrated composer it tends to be certain works rather than their whole output among these I would put:

Mahler
Ives
Mozart
Bellini
Donizetti

For underrated composers my list could go on for pages. Broadcasters and unimaginative concert programmers must take some of the blame. The most notable for me would be:

Malcolm Arnold
Atterburg
Bax
Berwald
Diamond
Enescu
Glazunov
Harris
K A Hartmann
Hoddinott
Holmboe
Honegger
Kalliwoda
Krommer
Maliperio
Martinu
Miaskovsky
A Panufnik
Piston
Puccini
Rubbra
Sessions
Robert Simpson
Tippett
Tubin
Vainberg/Weinberg
Vanhal
Vaughan Williams
Wellesz

I'd better stop now I think!


----------



## poconoron

Eviticus said:


> Tchaikovsky is definitely a top 10 composer based on the number of masterpieces attributed to him alone. _*According to some sources he is second only to Beethoven *_in classical music sales and concert demand


Where are you getting that info? A recent survey in UK shows the following ranking in sales:

Mozart - 9.1% of all sales
Beethoven - 7.5% of all sales
Bach - 5% of all sales
Tchaik
Rachmaninov
Elgar
Vivaldi
Handel
Holst
Williams

http://express-press-release.net/51... AS UK REGIONS HAVE THEIR OWN FAVOURITES.php


----------



## martijn

Underrated: 

- Jan Ladislav Dussek
- Hummel
- Zelenka

Overrated: 

- John Cage

Overrated and underrated at the same time:

- Tchaikovsky (overrated by those who consider him one of the very top composers, underrated by those snobbish types who believe that writing a good melody makes you a bad composer)

Overrated at TC:

- Bach (difficult to overestimate him, but still possible)
- Sibelius (saw him on number 14 in a list here on TC, a bit too much honour, though he is great)

Underrated at TC:

- Mozart
- Dvorak
- Verdi (on 26, that's too low)


----------



## neoshredder

Much easier to pick the underrated tbh.


----------



## mmsbls

martijn said:


> Underrated at TC:
> 
> - Mozart
> - Dvorak
> - Verdi (on 26, that's too low)


I like the thought that Mozart is underrated. In most polls/lists I see here or elsewhere, he is either 1 or 2. For me that means he's underrated.


----------



## brianwalker

neoshredder said:


> Much easier to pick the underrated tbh.


Because it doesn't offend anyone and it amounts to nothing.



brianwalker said:


> I think this is just jockeying for status.* Rankings are inherently a zero sum game, a a leg up for Puccini might mean a leg down for Wagner.* I would think of it more as the praise of Wagner as the expense of Puccini, rather than putting down Puccini intrinsically.
> 
> I definitely agree about Puccini's silly stories dragging down the reputation of his music. I think this is why Parsifal is so underrated, many audience members are put off by the religiosity and its treatment of women. (Yes I know Parsifal has had a good afterlife, enjoyed many great recordings, etc, but it's easily my favorite opera so ... it will always be underrated for me)


Most underrated arguments are equivocal about the "underrated" part and unequivocal about the "hey, this doesn't suck! It's *listenable, * but *mere listenablility* doesn't confer underratedness, because underratedness necessarily means some other work is overrated.


----------



## Operadowney

In my music school *Shostakovich* can do nothing wrong. At least here I believe he's slightly overrated.


----------



## Cnote11

I agree with Dvorak being underrated. Erik Satie as well.


----------



## neoshredder

Satie is underrated here but gets overplayed in movies I heard. He also has over 8 million views on last.fm. Way higher than Ravel. Agreed about Dvorak.


----------



## Cnote11

Satie's songs are really, really short. I think that helps boost his play count. I can, afterall, listen to around 100 Erik Satie tracks in an hour, depending on the piece.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Cnote11 said:


> Satie's songs are really, really short. I think that helps boost his play count. I can, afterall, listen to around 100 Erik Satie tracks in an hour, depending on the piece.


I can listen to one Satie piece in at least 12 hours. Guess what it is?


----------



## martijn

I can listen to 1000 pieces of Satie in one hour. But I admit I have practiced for years.


----------



## martijn

DavidMahler said:


> Have no doubt about this. Had Schubert not died at the age of 31, an age where Beethoven had only completed 2 Symphonies, an age where Mozart had not even composed one of his truly great symphonies, nor most of his cherished operas and concertos, an age where Brahms had to complete one major work....
> 
> Had Schubert had the chance to compose for at least another 20 years, he would be considered no less a composer than Bach.
> 
> His early death is for music history, the most tragic of all time. And even worse, his last year of composition supasses any single year of any other composer in history


By age 31, Mozart had already written Le Nozze, Don Giovanni, as well as Idomeneo and Die Entführung, as well as all his great concertos except for two (K595 and K622). You also forgot the great Prague symphony. So what you state is not correct. Not even to mention other works Mozart had written by then: some string quintets, his greatest 7 string quartets, and countless other masterpiece in all genres. Schubert hadn't composed so many great works when he died. Besides that, I feel the always repeated argument that Schubert would have gone much further on the road he took in his last years is a slightly false one. It's my strong belief the extraordinary creativity of Schubert showed in his last years had to do with the fact he was aware he would die soon. We don't know what he might have composed if he had lived longer, but for sure, imo, he hadn't written the Winterreise or String quintet in his last year then.


----------



## Ellyll

Dvořák is almost always underrated in the west, imo. I think it is a question language and culture. Western European composers have a leg up over Slavic ones.


----------



## martijn

It also depends on what you listen for, Ellyll. Slavic composers in general have more passion in their music (due to several things, like a greater use of rhythmical resources). However, in terms of overall structure, they are often weak, like Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin and others. Dvorak though is structurally better than those composers, and has a spontaneity of melodic gift Brahms for example lacks.


----------



## peeyaj

martijn said:


> Schubert hadn't composed so many great works when he died.


These works beg to differ. They written (or finished in the case of Great C major symphony written in 1826) at the last 18 months of his very short life.

*Adagio in E-flat for piano trio, called "Notturno"
Trio for Piano, No. 1 in B-flat, Op. 99
Winterreise
Four Impromptus for piano, Op. 90
Trio for Piano, No. 2 in E-flat, Op. 100
Four Impromptus for piano, Op. posth. 142
Fantasia in F minor for Piano duet, Op. posth. 103
Great C major Symphony
Mass, No. 6 in E-flat
String Quintet in C
Schwanengesang
D.958 Sonata in C minor for piano
D.959 Sonata in A for piano
D. 960 Sonata in B-flat for piano
Der Hirt auf dem Felsen
*



> Besides that, I feel the always repeated argument that Schubert would have gone much further on the road he took in his last years is a slightly false one. It's my strong belief the extraordinary creativity of Schubert showed in his last years had to do with the fact he was aware he would die soon. We don't know what he might have composed if he had lived longer, but for sure, imo, he hadn't written the Winterreise or String quintet in his last year then.


Not true. Schubert is aware that he was dying at least when he contracted syphillis in 1822. You can hear it at his D.784 sonata, and the great Death and the Maiden Quartet, written two years after. But Schubert is not acutely aware that he would die in 1828, in fact he was taking counterpoint lessons to Simon Sechter, a few weeks before he died. It was his wish to improve his counterpoint and harmony knowledge because he felt it was lacking. He was also planning to write another work for stage if he would survive his illness.

What Schubert would do if he was given years to live is a tantalizing question. Notwithstanding the answer, he would probably rise to the highest echelon of music given the direction he was taking.

Also, watch this.






and read:

http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/al.asp?al=CDJ33037


----------



## Cnote11

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I can listen to one Satie piece in at least 12 hours. Guess what it is?


Vexations; or, any one piece within a 12 hour time frame.


----------



## martijn

peeyaj said:


> These works beg to differ. They written (or finished in the case of Great C major symphony written in 1826) at the last 18 months of his very short life.
> 
> *Adagio in E-flat for piano trio, called "Notturno"
> Trio for Piano, No. 1 in B-flat, Op. 99
> Winterreise
> Four Impromptus for piano, Op. 90
> Trio for Piano, No. 2 in E-flat, Op. 100
> Four Impromptus for piano, Op. posth. 142
> Fantasia in F minor for Piano duet, Op. posth. 103
> Great C major Symphony
> Mass, No. 6 in E-flat
> String Quintet in C
> Schwanengesang
> D.958 Sonata in C minor for piano
> D.959 Sonata in A for piano
> D. 960 Sonata in B-flat for piano
> Der Hirt auf dem Felsen
> *
> 
> Not true. Schubert is aware that he was dying at least when he contracted syphillis in 1822. You can hear it at his D.784 sonata, and the great Death and the Maiden Quartet, written two years after. But Schubert is not acutely aware that he would die in 1828, in fact he was taking counterpoint lessons to Simon Sechter, a few weeks before he died. It was his wish to improve his counterpoint and harmony knowledge because he felt it was lacking. He was also planning to write another work for stage if he would survive his illness.
> 
> What Schubert would do if he was given years to live is a tantalizing question. Notwithstanding the answer, he would probably rise to the highest echelon of music given the direction he was taking.
> 
> Also, watch this.


It's kind of you to put a video with subtitles in my own language. What I was saying was not that Schubert hadn't written a lot of great works by the time he died, but that he hadn't written as many great works as Mozart at age 31. For me there's no doubt about that.

It's always dangerous to state: "here in this work one can hear he knows he's going to die". That's just speculation. We know he was aware he didn't have long time to live, that's all. Let's put it this way: let's say Schubert had died about 19 months earlier, what would have been his legacy? A Schubert without his string quintet, Winterreise, 9th symphony, 2 piano trios, last 3 piano sonatas. He wouldn't have been the composer he is to us now. I can't see this production in his last 19 months as a coincidence. Yes, he didn't know exactly when he would die. But he knew it would be soon enough. Even if he knew it earlier, it doesn't change it for me that his last works are the product of someone who knows he doesn't have long to live. I can't prove it, but neither can the people who say Schubert would have got better and better and more revolutionary all the time. My explanation, however, seems more plausible to me, and at least can balance the common opinion.

I feel pity for the interviewer by the way, Uchida is really terrible in this interview, whát an attitude this woman has.


----------



## peeyaj

martijn said:


> It's kind of you to put a video with subtitles in my own language. What I was saying was not that Schubert hadn't written a lot of great works by the time he died, but that he hadn't written as many great works as Mozart at age 31. For me there's no doubt about that.
> 
> It's always dangerous to state: "here in this work one can hear he knows he's going to die". That's just speculation. We know he was aware he didn't have long time to live, that's all. Let's put it this way: let's say Schubert had died about 19 months earlier, what would have been his legacy? A Schubert without his string quintet, Winterreise, 9th symphony, 2 piano trios, last 3 piano sonatas. He wouldn't have been the composer he is to us now. I can't see this production in his last 19 months as a coincidence. Yes, he didn't know exactly when he would die. But he knew it would be soon enough.


I'm going to post snippets of the excellent critical analysis of the foremost Schubert accompanist, Graham Johnson in the booklet of the CD," The Hyperion Schubert Edition, Vol. 37 - The Final Year". You can read the full text here:

http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/al.asp?al=CDJ33037



> Although it is fairly clear that Schubert had not expected to die so quickly, there is no doubt that he felt somehow marked out for death from the onset of his disease in 1822/23. But despite his awareness of living beneath the Damoclesian sword he was probably aware that *he was dying only in the last few days of his life. *When the realisation came, 'Schubert looked fixedly into the doctor's eyes' (Ferdinand Schubert later wrote), 'grasped at the wall with a feeble hand, and said slowly and seriously, "Here, here is my end!"'.


And I did not post subtitles in the video. I only found that in Youtube.


----------



## DeepR

Underrated: Scriabin

The fact that Scriabin is nowhere to be found on this top 200 of 20th century music is outrageous and absurd. 
http://www.abc.net.au/classic/content/2011/10/07/3335065.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/classic/content/2011/12/06/3384927.htm
Although I don't know how many people voted.

The Poem of Ecstasy and Poem of Fire are among the greatest pieces of art ever created, but that's just my opinion. 
If you disagree, keep listening.  (I recommend Muti and the Philadelphia Orchestra)


----------



## martijn

I will read the booklet later, I just glanced over it and already saw two statements I couldn't approve. One, that if had Schubert had lived as long as Bach, he would have more twice as many songs. Why would this be so? His output could have slowed down, like is the case with most composers. And he is called the world's greatest composer in 1828, but it's always annoying when people confuse the terms "world" and "western world". It's a big haughty.


I already assumed you just posted it, it's just funny that it was with Dutch subtitles, since I am Dutch myself.


----------



## martijn

DeepR, you are in good company, for Scriabin himself considered his works to be the greatest pieces of art ever created as well.


----------



## brianwalker

DavidMahler said:


> Have no doubt about this. Had Schubert not died at the age of 31, an age where Beethoven had only completed 2 Symphonies, an age where Mozart had not even composed one of his truly great symphonies, nor most of his cherished operas and concertos, an age where Brahms had to complete one major work....
> 
> Had Schubert had the chance to compose for at least another 20 years, he would be considered no less a composer than Bach.
> 
> His early death is for music history, the most tragic of all time. And even worse, his last year of composition supasses any single year of any other composer in history


There's no guarantee that talent and output would increase linearly or remain constant even.

Stravinsky declined. 
Richard Strauss declined. 
Mendelssohn declined. 
Wagner stayed constant or improves steadily up until his final days, as did Bach and Beethoven into old age. Beethoven has a sharp jump upwards in his final years - late quartets and others.

Mozart and Schubert? Who knows whether they would've continued to improve, stayed constant, or declined in their creativity.

If Mendelssohn had died at 20 I'm sure there would be people who said that he was the greatest of them all, and that his death was the most tragic in history.

And If Wagner had lived an extra 20 years? He had wanted to composer symphonies - what if he had an extra 20? He has just completed Parsifal and wasn't senile in the slightest. What if he had composed symphonies on the scale of Mahler or even greater?

What if someone had paid Wagner's debts early on and he could've spent more time composing? He could've composed twice as many operas if he didn't have to i. flee from his creditors ii. rehearse his own operas iii. do other things for work iv. write essays because he was insecure about the status of his work relative to Grand Opera, Meyerbeer, etc. He could've trumped everyone if that had happened, if he had 1. no debts, no worries, had a King to support him from Day 1 and 2. lived to 90.

The composers who lived to old age, Strauss and Stravinsky aside, usually produced their greatest works late - Bach, Beethoven, Verdi - Verdi was in his late 70s when he composed Falstaff.

We can speculate all day you know.


----------



## martijn

Strauss produced some great works when he was in his eighties. Beethoven didn't become old, and one could as well say that his greatest period is between 1803 and 1808 about, when he wrote many masterpieces, much more than in his last years. Bach wrote his Matthäus passion, many cantatas, the first book of the Well Tempered Clavier, the Brandenburger concertos and many other works before he was 45. Composer who reached their peak late in life, like Verdi and Haydn, possibly did so because when they were younger they had to produce works at a great speed, while later they got more freedom.


----------



## DeepR

martijn said:


> DeepR, you are in good company, for Scriabin himself considered his works to be the greatest pieces of art ever created as well.


See, now that's confidence. 
I know that he wasn't exactly modest, but do you have a source? 
Anyway, without being totally self obsessed and god in his own mind, he probably could have never reached the required state of mind to be able to create these works.


----------



## martijn

I quote here from a Dutch book I have, where a letter of Scriabin is cited: "One day there will be a time when people will travel from northpole to southpole only to hear a pause (sic!) in one of my works"

Arrogant enough?


----------



## DeepR

Arrogant, or maybe he had a twisted sense of humor. Whatever the case, his personality will never make me think less of his music. I actually find the things I read about him amusing.


----------



## martijn

As far as I understand from the book, he must have been deadly serious about such things. It's amusing indeed.


----------



## Badinerie

Ok no lecture's or suspect reasoning; Overrated first

Mahler 
Brahms
Wagner
Rossini


After a brief pause to "Hose down the fan" Underrated.

Wagner ( I Know!)
Bartok
Ravel
Honegger
Respighi
Manuel Falla
Haydn ( Doesnt get the love round here I feel he should!)


PS Richard Strauss's Early Opera's were his best but his late Lieder is best! Uh-huh!


----------



## violadude

martijn said:


> . Beethoven didn't become old, and one could as well say that his greatest period is between 1803 and 1808 about, when he wrote many masterpieces, much more than in his last years.


Beethoven might have wrote more masterpieces during the middle period, but he wrote _better_ masterpieces during the late period.


----------



## brianwalker

martijn said:


> Strauss produced some great works when he was in his eighties. Beethoven didn't become old, and one could as well say that his greatest period is between 1803 and 1808 about, when he wrote many masterpieces, much more than in his last years. Bach wrote his Matthäus passion, many cantatas, the first book of the Well Tempered Clavier, the Brandenburger concertos and many other works before he was 45. Composer who reached their peak late in life, like Verdi and Haydn, possibly did so because when they were younger they had to produce works at a great speed, while later they got more freedom.


Hey martinjn.

The point of my post was that speculation on "would haves" are ludicrous in nature and I tried to "prove" it by out-speculating them all.


----------



## jalex

It's easy to overlook how good some of Stravinsky's later works are. Agon, Threni and the Requiem Canticles especially I think are as good as anything he'd written before.


----------



## brianwalker

jalex said:


> It's easy to overlook how good some of Stravinsky's later works are. Agon, Threni and the Requiem Canticles especially I think are as good as anything he'd written before.


Those works are at least as good as Petruska or Pulcinella?

In the same way that Meistersinger is at least as good is Tannhauser? Parisfal at least as good as Tristan? Opus 132 at least as good as Opus 95?

Come!

I'm not saying the're "worthless" - it's Stravinsky, and I unlike many others love his neoclassical period, but it's evidence that his trajectory was not the "normal" trajectory.

http://www.therestisnoise.com/2010/08/berg-on-strauss-and-mahler.html


----------



## martijn

Martinjn, that´s a new variant of my name, very creative. I got your point about speculation, but that´s why I only responded to things that were actually written. 

Beethoven´s last period is a bit overrated. The c#m minor quartet and the piano sonata in c minor opus 111 are among his best works. But I also hear the annoying talk of an old man now and then in the quartets. The ninth symphony is overrated. The piano concertos, the Eroica symphony and the Appassionata sonata are right up there with Beethoven´s last masterpieces.


----------



## HexameronVI

Most overrated: Mozart, I agree, BRAHMS, Vivaldi, PHILIP GLASS, and Shostakovich

Underrated: Prokofiev (not too much, but he deserves more recognition)


----------



## martijn

Ah, if I hear Mozart and overrated one more time I pull my gun (to quote a famous phrase, to be clear).


----------



## brianwalker

martijn said:


> Martinjn, that´s a new variant of my name, very creative. I got your point about speculation, but that´s why I only responded to things that were actually written.
> 
> Beethoven´s last period is a bit overrated. The c#m minor quartet and the piano sonata in c minor opus 111 are among his best works. But I also hear the annoying talk of an old man now and then in the quartets. The ninth symphony is overrated. The piano concertos, the Eroica symphony and the Appassionata sonata are right up there with Beethoven´s last masterpieces.


Sorry I haven't had much sleep and I misread.


----------



## martijn

No it just is funny how variants of my name exist


----------



## DeepR

The only music I've heard by Philip Glass is the soundtrack to Koyaanisqatsi and I loved it as a soundtrack.


----------



## Cnote11

DeepR said:


> The only music I've heard by Philip Glass is the soundtrack to Koyaanisqatsi and I loved it as a soundtrack.


Check out Powaqqatsi. Another very good soundtrack.


----------



## DeepR

Will do.
Off topic: If you like these movies, there is a new one by Ron Fricke called Samsara (follow up to Baraka from 1992). It's only being shown on special occassions atm, but it should appear in a few cinemas at some point.


----------



## Cnote11

I quite doubt it would ever show up in my local cinema! Sometimes (All the time) I wish I lived in a relevant area.


----------



## Webernite

martijn said:


> Beethoven´s last period is a bit overrated. The c#m minor quartet and the piano sonata in c minor opus 111 are among his best works. But I also hear the annoying talk of an old man now and then in the quartets. The ninth symphony is overrated. The piano concertos, the Eroica symphony and the Appassionata sonata are right up there with Beethoven´s last masterpieces.


I sort of agree. I can see why some people rate the late works above everything else, but I think they're clearly more experimental and less well-rounded than the best masterpieces of the middle and even early periods, especially the piano sonatas. Listening to _Les Adieux_ or Op. 90, I get the feeling that "every note counts," and I don't get that feeling with Op. 101, Op. 106, Op. 110 or Op. 120, as much as I like them.


----------



## martijn

I understand it as well, but longer shorter, stranger, more bizarre, more experimental is not always better.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> By age 31, Mozart had already written Le Nozze, Don Giovanni, as well as Idomeneo and Die Entführung, as well as all his great concertos except for two (K595 and K622). You also forgot the great Prague symphony. So what you state is not correct. Not even to mention other works Mozart had written by then: some string quintets, his greatest 7 string quartets, and countless other masterpiece in all genres. Schubert hadn't composed so many great works when he died. Besides that, I feel the always repeated argument that Schubert would have gone much further on the road he took in his last years is a slightly false one. It's my strong belief the extraordinary creativity of Schubert showed in his last years had to do with the fact he was aware he would die soon. We don't know what he might have composed if he had lived longer, but for sure, imo, he hadn't written the Winterreise or String quintet in his last year then.


I understand that your main point is that Mozart had written at least as many great works as Schubert by the time of the same age as Schubert's death. I'm not so sure. If Mozart had died at the same age as Schubert there would have been quite a few missing items that are very popular and considered to be of great of importance today: Symphonies 39, 40, 41; the operas Cosi fan Tutte and The Magic Flute; Piano Concerto No 27; Clarinet Concerto; Clarinet Quintet; Requiem.

If Symphonies 39-41 are taken out, that's a big chunk of reputation lost, as it would leave Mozart with no symphonies in the top 25 positions according to the TC list of Most Recommended Symphonies. Remember that symphonies constitutes a very important category in the popular conception, far more so than the category of opera which is much more of a minority interest within classical music. The various other items mentioned, if they didn't appear in the relevant TC lists, would cause significant further damage to Mozart's reputation, for example the Clarinet Concerto is listed as item no 1 in the woodwind/brass concertos.

In view of this I'm not so sure as you appear to be that if these items never happened that Mozart's reputation would still be largely unaffected. I reckon it would fair to say that if all these items above had not been written Mozart's overall reputation would have slipped a notch or two, and probably no longer considered to be on a par with Beethoven and Bach. Which of Mozart or Schubert might then be considered to be the greater becomes a more difficult task.


----------



## science

Andy Loochazee said:


> I understand that your main point is that Mozart had written at least as many great works as Schubert by the time of the same age as Schubert's death. I'm not so sure. If Mozart had died at the same age as Schubert there would have been quite a few missing items that are very popular and considered to be of great of importance today: Symphonies 39, 40, 41; the operas Cosi fan Tutte and The Magic Flute; Piano Concerto No 27; Clarinet Concerto; Clarinet Quintet; Requiem.
> 
> If Symphonies 39-41 are taken out, that's a big chunk of reputation lost, as it would leave Mozart with no symphonies in the top 25 positions according to the TC list of Most Recommended Symphonies. Remember that symphonies constitutes a very important category in the popular conception, far more so than the category of opera which is much more of a minority interest within classical music. The various other items mentioned, if they didn't appear in the relevant TC lists, would cause significant further damage to Mozart's reputation, for example the Clarinet Concerto is listed as item no 1 in the woodwind/brass concertos.
> 
> In view of this I'm not so sure as you appear to be that if these items never happened that Mozart's reputation would still be largely unaffected. I reckon it would fair to say that if all these items above had not been written Mozart's overall reputation would have slipped a notch or two, and probably no longer considered to be on a par with Beethoven and Bach. Which of Mozart or Schubert might then be considered to be the greater becomes a more difficult task.


My sense is that something like affirmative action happens in those lists: once Mozart gets a few symphonies in, some people stop advocating his symphonies for a time to let the list get more diverse. So if we didn't have the last three, one of the others would be more likely to get on the list - just as we'd probably appreciate Haydn's Hen or Farewell symphonies more if he hadn't written the London symphonies.

I don't mean to take a side in the Mozart vs. Schubert debate, as I am an agnostic on it. Just making a point about the limits of extrapolation from the lists.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

science said:


> My sense is that something like affirmative action happens in those lists: once Mozart gets a few symphonies in, some people stop advocating his symphonies for a time to let the list get more diverse. So if we didn't have the last three, one of the others would be more likely to get on the list - just as we'd probably appreciate Haydn's Hen or Farewell symphonies more if he hadn't written the London symphonies.
> 
> I don't mean to take a side in the Mozart vs. Schubert debate, as I am an agnostic on it. Just making a point about the limits of extrapolation from the lists.


I hardly think that if we didn't have Mozart's last 3 symphonies that the next tier in quality/rating would automatically move up the list to replace them, in the manner you suggest. The next tier of Mozart's symphonies comprises Nos 38, 35, 29, 36, more or less that order, but I can't see any of these making into a top 10 list, let alone two of them making it (like Nos 40, 41).

It would be a different matter if there was a much smoother quality transition from one symphony to another among Mozart's mature symphonies (No 25 and up), but it's not the case. The last three stand out.

Therefore, if Mozart didn't have a single symphony in the top 10, and possibly only one or two in the lower reaches of the top 30, consider what this would do for his reputation. Remove also the Clarinet Concerto, Clarinet Quintet, two major operas, and the Requiem and things begin to look a bit dicey. Of course, there's still a lot of other very good material written up to age 31, but would it be enough to keep him ensconced among the top 3 composers?


----------



## science

Andy Loochazee said:


> I hardly think that if we didn't have Mozart's last 3 symphonies that the next tier in quality/rating would automatically move up the list to replace them, in the manner you suggest. The next tier of Mozart's symphonies comprises Nos 38, 35, 29, 36, more or less that order, but I can't see any of these making into a top 10 list, let alone two of them making it (like Nos 40, 41).
> 
> It would be a different matter if there was a much smoother quality transition from one symphony to another among Mozart's mature symphonies (No 25 and up), but it's not the case. The last three stand out.
> 
> Therefore, if Mozart didn't have a single symphony in the top 10, and possibly only one or two in the lower reaches of the top 30, consider what this would do for his reputation. Remove also the Clarinet Concerto, Clarinet Quintet, two major operas, and the Requiem and things begin to look a bit dicey. Of course, there's still a lot of other very good material written up to age 31, but would it be enough to keep him ensconced among the top 3 composers?


I didn't mean to imply (and I don't think I did) there would be an automatic substitution, but originally you'd used top-25, and I think some of Mozart's earlier symphonies (like the little G minor but especially the Prague) would have a better shot at getting in there if not for 40 and 41 being in there already.

And I definitely don't mean to take a position on the Mozart-Schubert fight, as I made clear.


----------



## science

I could make the same point with Schubert, I suppose: if the last three piano sonatas didn't exist, something like the reliquie sonata would be more popular.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

science said:


> I didn't mean to imply (and I don't think I did) there would be an automatic substitution, but originally you'd used top-25, and I think some of Mozart's earlier symphonies (like the little G minor but especially the Prague) would have a better shot at getting in there if not for 40 and 41 being in there already.


I can only say that I rather doubt there's much in this argument. If you confine the list to the "top 25 symphonies", I can see "Prague" possibly getting in at the lower end of the range, and at a push "Haffner" too. But I can't see either of them securing a top 10 spot as there is too much other material of better quality by other composers.

If you remove Mozart from having any symphonies in the top 10, I would imagine this would damage his reputation quite a bit, especially when combined with the loss of various other important works mentioned earlier that are very popular.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

science said:


> I could make the same point with Schubert, I suppose: if the last three piano sonatas didn't exist, something like the reliquie sonata would be more popular.


Again, I'm not sure if this is right. It's works of the calibre of D 958, 959, 960 (i.e. the last 3 piano sonatas) that help give Schubert his high reputation in the first place.

You appear to be looking at the situation as if Schubert's reputation is a given, independepent of how he acquired it. Absent these late piano sonata works and Schubert may not have acquired such a good reputation based on other material alone, in which case hardly anyone might have bothered with the likes of "Reliquie".

In this context I heard pianist Imogen Cooper say during an interview in the recent BBC Radio 3 "Schubert" festivity that her one-time tutor, Artur Rubinstein, comment that he had never come across this particular sonata (D 840, "Reliquie") until the early 1950s, even though it was in print at the time. It has become more well-known by virtue of a primary interest in other, later works in this genre by Schubert.

I would conclude that if certain highly regarded works by individual composers had not been written it doesn't follow that their second-tier works would move up automatically to replace them. There comes a tipping point when that composer's reputation is lost disproportionately with respect to removal of their famous works. You say that you didn't suggest aotomaticity of this nature but that's what it looks like, and the more you say the clearer that message seems to be.


----------



## science

You're disregarding what I wrote in order to pursue your agenda. I don't have enough patience for this kind of thing anymore.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

science said:


> You're disregarding what I wrote in order to pursue your agenda. I don't have enough patience for this kind of thing anymore.


No I'm not. This is exactly what you wrote:



science said:


> My sense is that something like affirmative action happens in those lists: once Mozart gets a few symphonies in, some people stop advocating his symphonies for a time to let the list get more diverse. So if we didn't have the last three, one of the others would be more likely to get on the list - just as we'd probably appreciate Haydn's Hen or Farewell symphonies more if he hadn't written the London symphonies.


It seems quite clear from this that you are saying that if Mozart's symphonies 39-41 hadn't been written then one or more of the earlier ones would likely have got on the list [TC's Most Recommended Symphony list] purely because that's the way people vote in this type of poll.

If I have misunderstood your point perhaps you could clarify exactly what you are saying.

If however I have understod you correctly, are you suggesting that, in the absence of Nos 39-41, Mozart's earlier symphonies would have got onto the list and obtained broadly the same rankings as Nos 39-41?

If "yes" to this, how do you reconcile this with a big quality difference between Nos 39-41 and the best of his earlier symphonies? If you don't believe there is a big quality difference between Nos 39-41 and the earlier ones, can you clarify why you believe this is the case and why evidently you are out of step with majority opinion on this matter.

If "no", what ranks do you think these currently much lower ranked symphonies might have achieved instead? If still much lower than the ranks for 39-41 taken in aggregate, how I wonder does this affect your argument, if it doesn't leave it shot to pieces?


----------



## science

Andy Loochazee said:


> No I'm not. This is exactly what you wrote:
> 
> It seems quite clear from this that you are saying that if Mozart's symphonies 39-41 hadn't been written then one or more of the earlier ones would likely have got on the list [TC's Most Recommended Symphony list] purely because that's the way people vote in this type of poll.
> 
> If I have misunderstood your point perhaps you could clarify exactly what you are saying.
> 
> If however I have understod you correctly, are you suggesting that, in the absence of Nos 39-41, Mozart's earlier symphonies would have got onto the list and obtained broadly the same rankings as Nos 39-41?
> 
> If "yes" to this, how do you reconcile this with a big quality difference between Nos 39-41 and the best of his earlier symphonies? If you don't believe there is a big quality difference between Nos 39-41 and the earlier ones, can you clarify why you believe this is the case and why evidently you are out of step with majority opinion on this matter.
> 
> If "no", what ranks do you think these currently much lower ranked symphonies might have achieved instead? If still much lower than the ranks for 39-41 taken in aggregate, how I wonder does this affect your argument, if it doesn't leave it shot to pieces?


The answer is "no" and *as I made that clear from the very beginning* you are just being antagonistic, I have no interest in yet another antagonistic discussion.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

science said:


> The answer is "no" and *as I made that clear from the very beginning* you are just being antagonistic, I have no interest in yet another antagonistic discussion.


If the answer is "no", I don't think you made that clear at the very beginning. You rather implied that Mozart's earlier symphonies which are currently less popular than those in question, namely Nos 39-41, would replace them so that Mozart's overall status would not be affected if he hadn't lived long enough to write Nos 39-41.

If you now believe that the replacement symphonies for Nos 39-41, if these hadn't been written, wouldn't achieve such high ranks, doesn't this invalidate your argument in the first place? It surely looks like it.

You accuse me of being argumentative. How convenient and what a cheek. I hardly get involved in this forum these days. That's because I've seen all this stuff umpteen times before, and mostly what I read isn't worth commenting upon. In this particular case I thought that I'd make a contribution, and it was by you who immediately jumped in to try to negate its validity.


----------



## science

Andy Loochazee said:


> You rather implied that Mozart's earlier symphonies which are currently less popular than those in question, namely Nos 39-41, would replace them so that Mozart's overall status would not be affected if he hadn't lived long enough to write Nos 39-41.


Not only didn't I imply that, but I explicitly denied it several times now, and you still act as if it's what I argued.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

science said:


> Not only didn't I imply that, but I explicitly denied it several times now, and you still act as if it's what I argued.


Then exactly how do you think Mozart's status would be affected if he hadn't written anything after 1787, roughly the same age as Schubert when he died? Are you suggesting that it wouldn't be affected as Mozart had already written enough to justify his place among the "Immortals"? I think there would be at least a question mark about this in view of the importance, collectively, of the best of these post 1787 works.


----------



## science

I'm sorry, I really don't know how or how much it would affect his status. I'm sorry I seemed to disagree with you about that. My comment was about the lists, solely about the lists. Actually I stand by what I originally wrote on that, but I'm sorry I wrote it because I'm not actually interested or opinionated on the questions you're pressing me on.


----------



## martijn

I think Mozart would have survived if he hadn't been prominent in the TC recommended symphonies list... If you say his last three symphonies stand out, you again forget the Prague symphony, which is in all respects on the same level as the last three. Of course Mozart wrote masterpieces after he was 31. But I don't think his reputation depends on those masterpieces. Le Nozze and Don Giovanni are just as good as Cosi and Die Zauberflöte, the Prague symphony is as good as the last symphonies, the Haydn quartets superior to the Pruisian quartets, the string quintets of 1787 at least as good as the last two, the main body of great concertos was written before he was 31, the Mass in C minor is on par with the Requiem. Mozart wrote different masterpieces in his last years, but not better. Would we have thought really different about Bach if we didn't have the Kunst der Fuge or the Goldberg Variations? I don't. And if Mozart had died earlier, we would have missed some masterpieces, but instead we would have said: "What he could have written if he had lived longer. Look at the enormous development he made, so sad he died just after finishing Don Giovanni".


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> I think Mozart would have survived if he hadn't been prominent in the TC recommended symphonies list... If you say his last three symphonies stand out, you again forget the Prague symphony, which is in all respects on the same level as the last three. Of course Mozart wrote masterpieces after he was 31. But I don't think his reputation depends on those masterpieces. Le Nozze and Don Giovanni are just as good as Cosi and Die Zauberflöte, the Prague symphony is as good as the last symphonies, the Haydn quartets superior to the Pruisian quartets, the string quintets of 1787 at least as good as the last two, the main body of great concertos was written before he was 31, the Mass in C minor is on par with the Requiem. Mozart wrote different masterpieces in his last years, but not better. Would we have thought really different about Bach if we didn't have the Kunst der Fuge or the Goldberg Variations? I don't. And if Mozart had died earlier, we would have missed some masterpieces, but instead we would have said: "What he could have written if he had lived longer. Look at the enormous development he made, so sad he died just after finishing Don Giovanni".


Your main point, so far as I understand it, was that Mozart composed more great works than Schubert by the age of the latter's death, 31. This is what you stated earlier in answer to "peejay". In addition, both in this thread and elsewhere you have criticised those who speculate that had Schubert lived longer he would likely have created even more masterpieces than he managed to achieve in his short life. Your most assertion appears to be that that Mozart's reputation would not be harmed materially if he hadn't composed anything after 1787, so that the lack of, for example, Symphonies 39-41 would make no real difference to his current standing.

Let's look at some of this a bit closer. Your opinions are, I trust you will accept mere opinions and not based on anything that one might call evidence. I realise that evidence is hard to come by but we're not totally bereft of it in T-C. After all, people have been engaged for past year or so compiling lists of various sorts that ought, in principle, be of some use to help answer questions of this sort. Not that I regard the results of TC's ongoing exercise on *Classical Music Project* as providing definitive rankings, it's not a bad point of reference to analyse your first and third assertions.

If we take the top 500 results from this exercise, I count a total of 30 works for Mozart and 19 for Schubert. However if we knock out all the works by Mozart written after 1787 we're left with a total 19. So things are even on this basis based on count alone.

But wait! There's more. The above is based a simple number count regardless of rank positions for the various 19 works of each composer. If we take account of rank positions by allocating a score of 501 for the top listed work, then 500 for the second, etc, all the way down to a score of 1 for the 500th listed work, guess what we get ....

Mozart's total score amounts to *4786* and Schubert's *4799*. Thus Schubert scored a higher total weighted vote than did Mozart if we take only the works completed by Mozart up to the same age as Schubert when he died. The difference is small and insignificant but at least it doesn't support your conjecture that Mozart composed more "great works" than did Schubert over the same age limit.

These calculations are subject to any validity there might be in "sciences" argument that, in the absence of some works by a particular composer, others by the same composer works would have been included instead based on his experience of T-C polling exercises. I think that if this is the case it casts yet more doubt on the validity of the voting exercises of which he has been a prominent advocate, but in any case I think that the argument is invalid for reasons I gave earlier. It's especially invalid taking account of the fact that the "Music Project" list includes 500 works, so that any works that might be upgraded on that premise are already included.

I would agree that this sort of analysis is by no means definitive but it's probably a lot more reliable than any one individual's mere opinion on the matter based on gut reaction, or in your case, probable preference for one composer (Mozart) over another (Schubert).


----------



## pasido

Art Rock said:


> Most overrated: Verdi, Handel, Monteverdi, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky
> Most underrated: Bax, Suk, Takemitsu, Barber, Respighi


I'd say Beethoven deserved the praise he got. His famous middle era works may be overrated, but his late works are pure genius. Well ahead of his time - he was writing full on dissonant music that sounded good while others were only starting to break away from the diatonic.


----------



## martijn

//Mozart’s total score amounts to 4786 and Schubert’s 4799.//

You completely won me over.


----------



## martijn

I wish I could like myself now.


----------



## jalex

Andy Loochazee said:


> Your main point, so far as I understand it, was that Mozart composed more great works than Schubert by the age of the latter's death, 31. This is what you stated earlier in answer to "peejay". In addition, both in this thread and elsewhere you have criticised those who speculate that had Schubert lived longer he would likely have created even more masterpieces than he managed to achieve in his short life. Your most assertion appears to be that that Mozart's reputation would not be harmed materially if he hadn't composed anything after 1787, so that the lack of, for example, Symphonies 39-41 would make no real difference to his current standing.
> 
> Let's look at some of this a bit closer. Your opinions are, I trust you will accept mere opinions and not based on anything that one might call evidence. I realise that evidence is hard to come by but we're not totally bereft of it in T-C. After all, people have been engaged for past year or so compiling lists of various sorts that ought, in principle, be of some use to help answer questions of this sort. Not that I regard the results of TC's ongoing exercise on *Classical Music Project* as providing definitive rankings, it's not a bad point of reference to analyse your first and third assertions.
> 
> If we take the top 500 results from this exercise, I count a total of 30 works for Mozart and 19 for Schubert. However if we knock out all the works by Mozart written after 1787 we're left with a total 19. So things are even on this basis based on count alone.
> 
> But wait! There's more. The above is based a simple number count regardless of rank positions for the various 19 works of each composer. If we take account of rank positions by allocating a score of 501 for the top listed work, then 500 for the second, etc, all the way down to a score of 1 for the 500th listed work, guess what we get ....
> 
> Mozart's total score amounts to *4786* and Schubert's *4799*. Thus Schubert scored a higher total weighted vote than did Mozart if we take only the works completed by Mozart up to the same age as Schubert when he died. The difference is small and insignificant but at least it doesn't support your conjecture that Mozart composed more "great works" than did Schubert over the same age limit.
> 
> These calculations are subject to any validity there might be in "sciences" argument that, in the absence of some works by a particular composer, others by the same composer works would have been included instead based on his experience of T-C polling exercises. I think that if this is the case it casts yet more doubt on the validity of the voting exercises of which he has been a prominent advocate, but in any case I think that the argument is invalid for reasons I gave earlier. It's especially invalid taking account of the fact that the "Music Project" list includes 500 works, so that any works that might be upgraded on that premise are already included.
> 
> I would agree that this sort of analysis is by no means definitive but it's probably a lot more reliable than any one individual's mere opinion on the matter based on gut reaction, or in your case, probable preference for one composer (Mozart) over another (Schubert).


I have no interest in joining this discussion, but I feel like I should point out the huge bias against opera in that Project. Don Giovanni clocks in quite low, and Idomeneo and Abduction don't appear at all.


----------



## martijn

Thank you Jalex, that was needed. By the way, pasido, late Beethoven is often fairly diatonic, and less chromatic than much other music of that time.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jalex said:


> I have no interest in joining this discussion, but I feel like I should point out the huge bias against opera in that Project. Don Giovanni clocks in quite low, and Idomeneo and Abduction don't appear at all.


Why call it "huge bias"? Do you have any evidence that it's not an accurate representation of how opera is generally regarded among classical music fans generally, i.e a minority interest.

I've got some news for you too. Beethoven scored 30 nominations in the Music Project's hall of fame Top 500. The bad news is that only 2 (at a stretch possibly 3) of these appear to have been composed before Beethoven reached the same age as that when Schubert he died. This is based on a quick count only. How many can you count?


----------



## martijn

Oh God, will we survive this? Call CNN, Beethoven's reputation appparently was build on a mistake. Rewrite all encyclopedias.


----------



## Webernite

Call Charles Rosen and tell him.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> Oh God, will we survive this? Call CNN, Beethoven's reputation appparently was build on a mistake. Rewrite all encyclopedias.


Was it? I never suggested anything like that. I merely pointed out that 2 or 3 of Beethoven's 30 works listed in the Top 500 works were written before he reached the age of 32. Any inference that his reputation is built on a mistake is yours entirely, and not one I would agree with.

In answer to your various interjections what have got to say about the fact that of the Top 500 works listed in the Music Project 19 were written before the same age as Schubert's death, the same as Schubert's total? No difference is made if account is taken of the perceived relative quality of the various works, which is why I did the supplementary analysis looking at ranks.

Have you an answer to this yet? It hardly supports your claim that Mozart wrote more great works than Schubert on a comparable age basis, does it? I would be interested to know what, if any, analysis you did to research that argument, or whether it was merely your opinion.


----------



## martijn

It's common knowledge that Beethoven was a "slow starter". 

Honestly, I couldn't care less for the Top 500 works. I don't need other's opinions. I have listened to and studied both Mozart and Schubert and for me there's no doubt about it: Mozart, also by age 31, was the greater composer, with more great works written up to that date. Doesn't distract by the way from my life for Schubert, who was a great genius.


----------



## violadude

Well, I think I've posted in this thread before but I think that Romantic Era composers are generally a bit overrated relative to..ya know, the rest of the history of music.

They're especially overrated compared to those eras outside of the "common practice period." That is, the music of the medieval-early Baroque and the most recent years of music, perhaps 1960s onwards.


----------



## Cnote11

Stockhausen is vastly underrated by the Baroque crowd.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> Stockhausen is vastly underrated by the Baroque crowd.


Stockhausen is vastly underrated by most people that don't like that "crappy noise stuff"


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Webernite said:


> Call Charles Rosen and tell him.


Obviously he wouldn't give a toss, and nor do I quite frankly.

I don't personally find the Music Project list to be of any value whatsoever to me. I've never looked at in detail before now. The list doesn't accord with my ranking of the various classical music works. Looking at the voting system in use, it seems to have run out of steam ages ago in terms of support from the membership here. I'm wondering what its current purpose is, other than perhaps as a learning tool to assist its few contributors rather than the general membership of T-C.

But this is not to say that the list is useles or heavily biased. It's probably as good as can be expected from this sort of exercise. I'm quite happy to refer to it to see whether it can shed light on any controversies that get raised here. I had no idea before I started what the exact results might be although I was sceptical of the assertion made that Mozart was a more prolific writer of "great works" than Schubert over the same timescale seemed to be an apropriate use of the results. It turned out that there's no significant difference based on either a simple count or weighted score using the ranks for each work.


----------



## martijn

Well I called Rosen yesterday, and he agreed with me.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> It's common knowledge that Beethoven was a "slow starter".
> 
> Honestly, I couldn't care less for the Top 500 works. I don't need other's opinions. I have listened to and studied both Mozart and Schubert and for me there's no doubt about it: Mozart, also by age 31, was the greater composer, with more great works written up to that date. Doesn't distract by the way from my life for Schubert, who was a great genius.


Fair enough. It's now clear that it's your opinion only. I think that you would be hard pressed to provide any evidence to support your opinion that Mozart wrote "more great works" than did Schubert up to the same age as Schubert when he died.

Personally, I can't see any value in individual expressions of opinion on matters like this. I find them very tedious unless they're backed up by some evidence, however sketchy it may happen to be. You offered none at all, which is why I tried to find some. Not surprisingly what I found, here under our noses, doesn't suit you. I'm a little surprised that "science" didn't pick up on it. I would guess that if the results of the "Music Project" provided clear support for your opinion then you would be happy to endorse it.


----------



## martijn

You really do your best to create a fierce debate, don't you? Just a pity I don't care and only attach value to my own opinion.


----------



## Chrythes

I think the evidence is this - he likes more works by Mozart than by Schubert!


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> You really do your best to create a fierce debate, don't you? Just a pity I don't care and only attach value to my own opinion.


Do I? Sorry if you find my persistence inconvenient. I was simply trying to get you to react to evidence that doesn't support the validity of your claim that Mozart wrote more great works than Schubert. If you don't wish to comment on the detail I provided, that's your privilege and I'll happily leave it there by saying no more.


----------



## Cnote11

If we examine this issue through the modern popular critical style of popular music, we can clearly see that Mozart is much better than Schubert.

First point: Schubert was far uglier!










I mean really?

Second point: How many records has Schubert sold? If we look at the first post on page 24 by poconoron, we see that Mozart is the top Classical seller. Schubert is not on that list.

Third/Fourth Point: Not only this, but Mozart had a more interesting personality and I hear he had a better stage show.

Victory clearly goes to Mozart.


----------



## martijn

Andy, if I have to give evidence, I can either give my own opinion, or give you the opinion of experts. To begin with the latter, while is Schubert is highly loved by great composers, conductors and players, Mozart is probably the most loved composer of all by them. I could give you many examples of this, as "evidence". And they love Mozart for many works he wrote by age 31 as well for his later masterpieces.

If you ask my opinion, I will say that Schubert's sense of structure wasn't as good as Mozart's (Rosen has written well about this issue, Schubert copying classical structures for works that are not suited for it), which makes that his works often become too long, and it takes away the tension. For me structure is the most important thing in music. And Schubert's skill in counterpoint obviously was far less than Mozart's.


----------



## jalex

Andy Loochazee said:


> Why call it "huge bias"? Do you have any evidence that it's not an accurate representation of how opera is generally regarded among classical music fans generally, i.e a minority interest.


It might be an accurate representation of taste, but it doesn't help in your (rather pointless) attempt to count the number of masterpieces composer X had written by 31; operas can be masterpieces too.



> I've got some news for you too. Beethoven scored 30 nominations in the Music Project's hall of fame Top 500. The bad news is that only 2 (at a stretch possibly 3) of these appear to have been composed before Beethoven reached the same age as that when Schubert he died. This is based on a quick count only. How many can you count?


What makes you think I care in the slightest how many works in the Project Beethoven had written by 31?


----------



## Cnote11

Ay, and I totally forgot about the relevancy argument. Go up to any random person and more than likely they can tell you who Mozart is. This cannot be said with Schubert. If Schubert were anywhere near as great as Mozart everybody would know about him. Therefore Lady Gaga is a greater composer than Schubert.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> Ay, and I totally forgot about the relevancy argument. Go up to any random person and more than likely they can tell you who Mozart is. This cannot be said with Schubert. If Schubert were anywhere near as great as Mozart everybody would know about him. Therefore Lady Gaga is a greater composer than Schubert.


Does Lady Gaga compose?


----------



## martijn

I wrote something indecent here, unfortunately I can't erase it anymore.


----------



## Cnote11

violadude said:


> Does Lady Gaga compose?


She actually does/has composed her own pieces. She went to Tisch School of Arts for music and theatre so I assume she knows at least something about music. Upon examination she has gotten some production credits on her albums, but that isn't necessarily saying much. However, I know she plays piano and I know that prior to becoming famous she composed her own songs on piano. I'm doubting she ever produced a written score, however.


----------



## martijn

She even seems to compose fugues now and then:


----------



## DeepR

I'll leave the objective part about the "greatness" of a composer to what history, books and experts have to say. Facts are always interesting and I guess one could acknowledge the general opinion of a composer as some sort of truth, but ultimately it all doesn't mean a thing to me when only my heart and soul can tell me what my favorite music is.
I personally judge composers only by their very best (= my top favorite) works. Quantity is not important. If composer X has made 15 works that I enjoy a lot, but composer Y made 2 works that I absolutely worship and obsess about, composer Y wins and is the greatest composer, at least in my mind.


----------



## peeyaj

I believe Schubert achieved greater things when he died at the age of 31, than any other composer. Mozart is a great composer in his own right, but the Mozart I know, is the Mozart who composed the last three great symphonies, the Requiem, the Clarinet Concerto and works composed at the last four years of his life.

People opinions are very different. We have just to respect them. I admire Andy for defending his own opinion and I agree with him. After all, Schubert *is* my hero.

Whatever else.. We must remember that both of these great Austrian composers died at young age; Schubert at 31 and Mozart at 35. But they created masterpieces that will be forever remembered in history.

Lastly, Schubert and Mozart had so much common to each other. They have great gifts in creating memorable melodies, both died young, Austrians and etc. Schubert admired Mozart when he was young. I'm thinking, they would be perfect as drinking buddies.


----------



## brianwalker

peeyaj said:


> I believe Schubert achieved greater things when he died at the age of 31, than any other composer. Mozart is a great composer in his own right, but the Mozart I know, is the Mozart who composed the last three great symphonies, the Requiem, the Clarinet Concerto and works composed at the last four years of his life.
> 
> People opinions are very different. We have just to respect them. I admire Andy for defending his own opinion and I agree with him. After all, Schubert *is* my hero.
> 
> Whatever else.. We must remember that both of these great Austrian composers died at young age; Schubert at 31 and Mozart at 35. But they created masterpieces that will be forever remembered in history.
> 
> Lastly, Schubert and Mozart had so much common to each other. They have great gifts in creating memorable melodies, both died young, Austrians and etc. Schubert admired Mozart when he was young. I'm thinking, they would be perfect as drinking buddies.


What do Mozart's last four years matter if even with his last four years you still rank Schubert over him?

For you, Mozart at 35 is below Schubert, so Mozart at 31 is even more below Schubert.


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I can listen to one Satie piece in at least 12 hours. Guess what it is?


Vexations. 
... and it is still going to take you about 20 minutes to get through his wondrous "Socrate," Link is 1/3 in a playlist.


----------



## Philip

Cnote11 said:


> She actually does/has composed her own pieces. She went to Tisch School of Arts for music and theatre so I assume she knows at least something about music. Upon examination she has gotten some production credits on her albums, but that isn't necessarily saying much. However, I know she plays piano and I know that prior to becoming famous she composed her own songs on piano. I'm doubting she ever produced a written score, however.


I'm probably the biggest Lady Gaga fan on this site, but i wouldn't qualify her as a composer... not by any stretch. Her latest album is almost complete trash precisely because she started co-producing her own tracks.

Writing songs doesn't make you a composer, if you ask me... Kudos to her for doing so, though. I know i'm being a.n.al about it, but i do think there's a difference between producing and composing.


----------



## brianwalker

Philip said:


> Her latest album is almost complete trash precisely because she started co-producing her own tracks.


So that's why!

Thanks for telling me. It all makes sense now.


----------



## Cnote11

Philip said:


> I'm probably the biggest Lady Gaga fan on this site, but i wouldn't qualify her as a composer... not by any stretch. Her latest album is almost complete trash precisely because she started co-producing her own tracks.
> 
> Writing songs doesn't make you a composer, if you ask me... Kudos to her for doing so, though. I know i'm being a.n.al about it, but i do think there's a difference between producing and composing.


As I stated, she wrote the music to her own songs prior to being famous. That makes her a composer. NO ARGUING ABOUT IT PHILIP! She had two produced (co) songs on her first album as well.

Are you seriously a Lady Gaga fan?


----------



## peeyaj

brianwalker said:


> What do Mozart's last four years matter if even with his last four years you still rank Schubert over him?
> 
> For you, Mozart at 35 is below Schubert, so Mozart at 31 is even more below Schubert.


No. You misunderstood me. Let's put out this way.

1. My personal favorite composer is Schubert and I admire Mozart, but not on the level of my admiration for Schubert.

2. I prefer works of Schubert when he died at the age of 31, compared to Mozart when he is composing at the same age.

3. Objectively, Mozart is a greater composer than Schubert, when he is at 35, the age when he wrote those great symphonies and Requiem. There is no question to that.

4. It came down to preference. While I admit that Mozart composed more substantial works when he died, I prefer Schubert because he is the composer who speaks closely to my heart.


----------



## Philip

Cnote11 said:


> As I stated, she wrote the music to her own songs prior to being famous. That makes her a composer. NO ARGUING ABOUT IT PHILIP! She had two produced (co) songs on her first album as well.


Yeah, according to Wikipedia, she "co-produced" the entire second album as well. But, what i got from an interview i saw, is that she was more involved in the production of the third and latest album. That's probably why Wikipedia says she was an actual "producer" as opposed to a "co-producer".



Cnote11 said:


> Are you seriously a Lady Gaga fan?


Edit: Have you ever seen a better live Pop performance?


----------



## Cnote11

You'll always be a little monster in her heart.


----------



## peeyaj

We need more Lady Gaga fans here.. ha ha ha


----------



## martijn

As great as Lady Gaga is, she hasn't composed anything at 26 that can rank with what the Spice Girls did. It's so sad they broke up some years ago, for they were in the middle of an enormous development. Had they stayed together, they would have changed the entire direction of music history.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> Andy, if I have to give evidence, I can either give my own opinion, or give you the opinion of experts. To begin with the latter, while is Schubert is highly loved by great composers, conductors and players, Mozart is probably the most loved composer of all by them. I could give you many examples of this, as "evidence". And they love Mozart for many works he wrote by age 31 as well for his later masterpieces.


This is sadly irrelevant to the issues we've been discussing recently in this thread. I'm not concerned about the general perception of Mozart and Schubert. I haven't, and wouldn't, deny that Mozart is probably higher regarded by experts and the general public interested in classical music. I don't think the difference is that great mind you, and would reckon that the gap has narrowed in favour of Schubert in recent decades.

Let me remind you that the main issue I've been trying to focus upon is your claim that Mozart wrote more masterpieces than Schubert by the age of 31. The extra 4 years that Mozart had over Schubert is significant because during that time Mozart wrote a number of high quality works that figure very prominently in the public's perception of him. I admit that it's a highly theoretical excercise but if these works are excluded the difference in favour of Mozart must narrow. I would say it narrows significantly, but that is also a matter of opinion and evidence.

To try to support my opinion I used the independently constructed "Project"results. Apart from this use I don't hold any attchment to those results, as I haven't been involved in it, although I accept it as an honest attempt to come up witha sensible list of best loved classical works by members of this Forum. I accept that one could use other similar lists but this one was obviously the most convenient. As I have explained, it shows that Mozart's list of masterpieces considered to be worthy of inclusion in a Top 500 list drops from 30 to 19 if the last 4 years of Mozart's output are excluded.

So far you have either ignored these missing works or try to sweep this under the carpet with dubious claims like the "Prague" symphony is as good as any of the last three, Nos 39-41. That's simply your opinion which I venture doesn't command wide support. The absence of these various works from Mozart's top-rated works does make a big difference to the number of "masterpieces" he is credited with. That's not just my opinion but that of the various people who contributed to the "Project" results. If you have a problem with this, may I suggest you take it up with the organisers of that work, who incidentally have been remarkably quiet throughout this discussion.



martjn said:


> If you ask my opinion, I will say that Schubert's sense of structure wasn't as good as Mozart's (Rosen has written well about this issue, Schubert copying classical structures for works that are not suited for it), which makes that his works often become too long, and it takes away the tension. For me structure is the most important thing in music. And Schubert's skill in counterpoint obviously was far less than Mozart's.


Yes, yes I'm very familiar with all. I've read all that Rosen stuff years ago, and it's well known that he wasn't particularly pro-Schubert, but others have since written in more gushing terms as Schubert's "star" has been very much on the ascendancy. What I haven't explained is that I'm as big a fan of Mozart and Beethoven as I am Schubert. I'm simply wearing my Schubert "hat" for the purpose of this particular thread in order to try to deal with various adverse comments made by you and others. [I also have a fictitious hatred of Sibelius about whom I once created a spoof thread about, but some people laughably believed it was meant to be serious. Check it out if you wish.]

Fundamentally, what your comments ignore are that:

(i) Schubert had a much more flowing, expansive style ("wandering" probably best describes it) than Mozart who stuck much more closely to rigid classical structures. It's partly a question of different time periods in which they composed, but also a highly creative genius (Schubert) trying to break into new ground whilst still very young and lacking in the financial means to set up shop doing his own thing completely. He therefore had to conform to the older style to a large extent, but he still managed to experiiment with increasing success into the newly-emerging romantic sphere. All this has led to complaints from some quarters that he was unoriginal, ill-trained and generally didn't know what he was doing. All that's old-fashioned these days. Several well-known pianists trying to get in on the act, not may succeeding as Schubert's music requires a special ability that not many have. In the realm of chamber music, in my view he was up there with the best of them, and his very best creations are in my opinion better than Mozart's and Beethoven's. In his song-writing he far outdistanced all predeceesors and hasn't been beaten. Among his orchestral works, I'm torn equally between Schubert, Beethoven, Mozart.

(ii) Your point about Schubert's skill in counterpoint is largely irrelevant, because he had such an innate ability at melodic invention that he hardly needed it. Such was the power of his melody, which swept through many of his works like no other composer could match, that a layer of counterpoint would have been superficial. I don't doubt that Schubert wanted to take lessons in counterpoint very near the end of his life. In fact we know that he struggled out of his bed a week or so before he died to take just one lesson from Sechter, but how much use he may have made of this venture into counterpoint had he taken it further and lived much longer is uncertain. It may never have figured prominently. Why he wanted to improve upon his counterpoint ability is not clear but possibly he may have used it as an excuse to get out of his brother's flat for some fresh air, or to pretend to himself that he wasn't as ill as he felt.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jalex said:


> It might be an accurate representation of taste, but it doesn't help in your (rather pointless) attempt to count the number of masterpieces composer X had written by 31; operas can be masterpieces too.


What's pointless about it? It seems very focused to me. Or do you have difficulty counting? I ask because you evidently aren't aware that the "Project" list does contain a number of operas, despite your suggestion to the contrary. The fact that it's not brimming with them is not my fault. Talk to the organisers of that venture if you think it's deficient. They will probably just tell you that opera isn't all that popular among classical fans generally.



> What makes you think I care in the slightest how many works in the Project Beethoven had written by 31?


If you hadn't made a highly irrelevant comment in regard to one of mine I wouldn't have been tempted to throw this one at you about Beethoven's lack of composing maturity at the same age as Schubert's death. I'm pretty sure you already knew it, but it wasn't primarily for your benefit that I did so rather than for other Beethoven fan-boys who may be watching and who may be less well-informed on these matters than you are.


----------



## martijn

You have way too much time, Andy.

By the way, Rosen was in general very positive about Schubert.


----------



## martijn

// Originally Posted by martjn 
If you ask my opinion, I will say that Schubert's sense of structure wasn't as good as Mozart's (Rosen has written well about this issue, Schubert copying classical structures for works that are not suited for it), which makes that his works often become too long, and it takes away the tension. For me structure is the most important thing in music. And Schubert's skill in counterpoint obviously was far less than Mozart's.//

Look Cnote, even this site can't spell my name correctly!


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jalex said:


> It might be an accurate representation of taste, but it doesn't help in your (rather pointless) attempt to count the number of masterpieces composer X had written by 31; operas can be masterpieces too.


Further on this point, which I have already addressed, I really don't understand what you are trying to get at. Of course I accept that operas can be masterpieces too. Whatever gave you the impression I thought otherwise?

I can only assume that you may have misunderstood what I did regards counting the number of works. To repeat, I took the "Music Project" list of 500 top works. This list comprises works from all genres, including opera. As is perfectly clear, I didn't create the 500 list or have anything to do with it. It has been done entiirely by other member, and the work is still ongoing. There are two Mozart operas in the top 200 works and two more in the range 300-500.

The only works by Mozart which I excluded were those written after 1787, and these included The Magic Flute and Cosi fan Tutte. There were 9 further non-opera works by Mozart written after 1787 which I also excluded, bringing his total down from 30 to 19. If perchance you don't think the 500 list contains enough operas, hence excluding some of Mozart's earlier work in this genre, that's not a problem I'm concerned with. I would have thought opera is sufficiently well represented to portray average tastes faithfully.

I trust that this clarifies the situation for you. If so, it would be interesting to hear what you have to say now that you understand the matter.


----------



## martijn

Why all this fuzz about a list with only two Mozart operas in the top 200? This list apparently is wrong. 

Q.E.D.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> Why all this fuzz about a list with only two Mozart operas in the top 200? This list apparently is wrong.
> 
> Q.E.D.


Not to mention fuss as well.

There are 11 operas altogether listed among the top 200 works, counting the "Ring" as one. In terms of percentages, this equates to roughly a 7% weight given to opera based on the various ranks in the list. I would have thought that a 7% weight for opera is about right. Although I like some of opera, it's not a major part of my listening, prefering instead either lieder, oratorio, Masses and other liturgical types of music among choral works of all descriptions.

Anyway, as I have stessed before, it's not my list and I'm definitely not trying to defend it or promote it in any way. I have simply been using it out of convenience to try to shed some light on the matter you raised about Mozart's apparently infinite greatness at almost any age. Nor do I pretend to be the unappointed Official Statistician of the Top 500 list. Please check the results for yourself before relying upon them.

I would have thought, incidentally, that some of those more closely involved with the construction of the Top 500 list might have wanted to come out and say a few useful things about it. All we seem to get is yet more and more daily grinding through the mechanical processes, adding yet more items to the bottom end of the list, without any kind of overall analysis of the results.


----------



## jalex

Andy Loochazee said:


> x


I'm not sure you understand. The Project is absolutely valueless to me. I don't care how many operas it has. I don't want to change it; I don't want anything to do with it. My sole point is that if you want to indulge in your 'which composer was best by 31' game, the list massively undervalues operas and therefore is not a reasonable point of reference.

As for the Beethoven comment, I am still absolutely clueless as to why you wrote it.


----------



## martijn

I think you would make a perfect bookkeeper. It's quite interesting how you state in every reply that you are not involved in this list, and that you don't consider it so relevant, yet you manage to mention it every time again.

For me it's clear, I don't care for this list. I've seen worse list, but it's not my list. I've my own preferences, I'm happy with that, and I'm even more happy that they are shared by many people I admire. And that's about all. Honestly I'm more interested in discussing music itself, rather than the statistics of the Top 500 list.


----------



## jalex

martijn said:


> I think you would make a perfect bookkeeper. It's quite interesting how you state in every reply that you are not involved in this list, and that you don't consider it so relevant, yet you manage to mention it every time again.


I don't see why mentioning it means I'm interested in it. I'm only metioning it in relation to something else.


----------



## martijn

Ehm Jalex, I responded to Andy. And Andy, you are free to mock my English, it's fine with me. Just remember I'm not a native speaker.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jalex said:


> I'm not sure you understand. The Project is absolutely valueless to me. I don't care how many operas it has. I don't want to change it; I don't want anything to do with it. My sole point is that if you want to indulge in your 'which composer was best by 31' game, the list massively undervalues operas and therefore is not a reasonable point of reference.


I didn't start the 'which composer was best by 31' game. So please don't refer to it as my game. I merely used the Project results to see what light it might shed on the claim by another member that Mozart composed more masterpieces than Schubert by the same age. The evidence from the Project doesn't support that contention.

I see that you find the Project is absolutely valueless to you because you consider that it massively undervalues operas. I wouldn't happen to agree with you on this issue. If however you think that it massively undervalues operas, would you be able to provide an alternative Top 200 classical works (don't bother attempting the full 500) which you think is more appropriate?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> I think you would make a perfect bookkeeper. It's quite interesting how you state in every reply that you are not involved in this list, and that you don't consider it so relevant, yet you manage to mention it every time again.


He probably doesn't like the list because it doesn't include _Fidelio._ I'm awaiting his revised list of the Top 200 works, and I expect it to be full of startling revelations.



martyn said:


> Honestly I'm more interested in discussing music itself, rather than the statistics of the Top 500 list.


I know that statistics do tend to be awkward at times especially when they don't support an argument one has been making.

Regards music discussion, I answered your previous comment about why Schubert didn't use counterpoint (i.e. he didn't need it, given the strength of his melodic ability) but you skipped over that. You also haven't responded to what I said about Schubert's style being more "wandering" and expansive than Mozart, as he attempted to make progress in the newly emerging romantic style, and this is why a straight comparison with the stricter classical structures of Mozart is not wholly relevant or useful.


----------



## jalex

Andy Loochazee said:


> I didn't start the 'which composer was best by 31' game. So please don't refer to it as my game.


It's a game you are taking part in at any rate, and taking rather seriously too.



> I see that you find the Project is absolutely valueless to you because you consider that it massively undervalues operas.


No. Once again you misunderstand. I do not care for the list in principle. The phrase which came up recently and struck a chord with me was 'lightweight pseudo-evaluative drivel'.



> I wouldn't happen to agree with you on this issue. If however you think that it massively undervalues operas, would you be able to provide an alternative Top 200 classical works (don't bother attempting the full 500) which you think is more appropriate?


Surprisingly enough, I would not care to do such a thing.


----------



## martijn

I wouldn't have skipped over your musical arguments, if you hadn't overloaded me with so much other stuff. I consider it nonsense that if one has melodic gift (and I find that Schubert's melodic gift is a bit overrated in comparison to other composers, I consider Mozart, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Mendelssohn just as good in this domain) one doesn't need counterpoint. Look at Mozart, who had some melodic gift as well, one could say, but he enhanced it with his counterpoint skills.

For me "wandering" is just an euphemism for weak structure. Whenever I listen to Schubert, I hear beautiful things, beautiful melodies, and even more so, beautiful harmonies. The passion is there for sure, but the rhythmic power of Mozart and Beethoven is absent, and Schubert re-uses long melodies in his expositions, whereas Mozart rarely does that, and whereas Haydn and Beethoven use short motives that are worked out. For me, it always causes to lower the tension in Schubert's works, something I never experience with the three classical masters. Also, Schubert's development sections are sometimes a bit lazy, with repeated sections (something which Schumann copied).

It's indeed a "problem" of romantic style, but it's a problem to which answers exist. One of the most perfect examples is Mendelssohn's violin concerto, a magnificent piece in all respects, but especially in terms of structure, where classical and romantic structures are combined to create a piece that's both romantic and still has the structural strength of the classical composers.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> I wouldn't have skipped over your musical arguments, if you hadn't overloaded me with so much other stuff. I consider it nonsense that if one has melodic gift (and I find that Schubert's melodic gift is a bit overrated in comparison to other composers, I consider Mozart, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Mendelssohn just as good in this domain) one doesn't need counterpoint. Look at Mozart, who had some melodic gift as well, one could say, but he enhanced it with his counterpoint skills.
> 
> For me "wandering" is just an euphemism for weak structure. Whenever I listen to Schubert, I hear beautiful things, beautiful melodies, and even more so, beautiful harmonies. The passion is there for sure, but the rhythmic power of Mozart and Beethoven is absent, and Schubert re-uses long melodies in his expositions, whereas Mozart rarely does that, and whereas Haydn and Beethoven use short motives that are worked out. For me, it always causes to lower the tension in Schubert's works, something I never experience in the three classical masters. Also, Schubert's development sections are sometimes a bit lazy, with repeated sections (something which Schumann copied).
> 
> It's indeed a "problem" of romantic style, but it's a problem to which answers exist. One of the most perfect examples is Mendelssohn's violin concerto, a magnificent piece in all respects, but especially in terms of structure, where classical and romantic structures are combined to create a piece that's both romantic and still has the structural strength of the classical composers.


Thanks, that's very interesting.

I don't have much to add to what I wrote earlier. I'm afraid that I can't agree with you that use of counterpoint together with strong melody can always complement each other. Sometimes if one or other is very strong then simultaneous use of the other can cause a right mess. Schubert was not ignorant of counterpoint, as he received a formal education in music, and could have used it if it had suited him. As far as I'm aware he never, or hardly ever, did so. This was because, as noted, his melodic lines were so strong that use of counterpoint as well would have over-cluttered the music. Although I admire several other composers for their melodic gifts, for me Schubert's ability to weave almost seamlessly from one very good melodic line to another is beyond compare.

I take your point about the relative lack of rhythmic power compared with Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven especially is the master in this regard. But again I'm of the opinion that this is of relative importance only. In comparison with most other top 10 composers there's no problem in this regard. If any doubt exists take the C Major "Great" Symphony, which packed full of drive and energy so much so that musicians refused to playit when they first encountered it, and even today many orchestras find it exhausting, especially in the strings.

I also take your point that a possible weakness with Schubert is that he perhaps he "wandered" a bit too far at times and didn't always know quite when to stop. In comparison with Mozart, who was very efficient and elegant and not a note out of place, Schubert's music is much looser in form and open to greater scope in artistic interpretation. That is why I'm much more fussy about who I'm listening to with regard to Schubert than I am with either Mozart or Beethoven.

I discovered long ago that I'm temperamentally much more attuned to Schubert's music than to anyone else's. It was my wife (Alice, aka member "Artemis") to whom I owe this. She is very interested in Schubert, as too is her brother, former member "Topaz". In former times I was completely besotted mainly with Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, whilst Schubert hardly got a look in. Rather like you, I was mesmerised by the sheer beauty of Mozart's music, and I liked the power and dynamism and generally faultless presentation in Beethoven's music. However eventually I rather found various things missing or lacking or indeed sometimes over-presented in their music. Schubert's music I found sufficiently different and yet still cast in very broadly the same overall late classical/verging on romantic mould which I like most of all.

One must also remember Schubert's generally impoverished circumstances, lack of fame in his own lifetime, and the chronic illness over his last 9 years and all the debilitating implications this must have had on his life and music creating abilities. All of this must have impacted on his music. But any blemishes and long-windedness etc, fade into insignificance once the overall wamth and beauty of his music is perceived. I discovered only recently that Schubert never owned a piano in his lifetime. He always had to borrow other peoples', and grab playing opportunities whenever they arose. One of his friends owned a good piano and Schubert was allowed access to it only if a curtain was pulled in a certain direction at the window in the street, indicating whether or not the piano was free for Schubert's use. This kind of frustration might well have partly accounted for the fact that he only part-finished many works, although running out of inspiration was probably the main reason.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jalex said:


> Surprisingly enough, I would not care to do such a thing.


I'm bitterly disappointed.


----------



## jalex

I'm sure you'll live.


----------



## martijn

Well, I see we mostly agree about the different features in their music. You recognize the relative absence of counterpoint and his poorer handling of structure. I recognize his great gift for harmonic audacities and melodic gift (though still I find people exaggarate in this respect). So I believe it's a matter of preference. And the differences are not that big, since you seem to admire Mozart, and I admire and love Schubert a lot. I doubt I will ever find something missing or over-present in Mozart however, I assume I will not change my current opinions, since they are stable for many years.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jalex said:


> I'm sure you'll live.


That's kind of you. But I sure am disappointed that you won't oblige. I was so looking forward to seeing your list.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> Well, I see we mostly agree about the different features in their music. You recognize the relative absence of counterpoint and his poorer handling of structure. I recognize his great gift for harmonic audacities and melodic gift (though still I find people exaggarate in this respect). So I believe it's a matter of preference. And the differences are not that big, since you seem to admire Mozart, and I admire and love Schubert a lot. I doubt I will ever find something missing or over-present in Mozart however, I assume I will not change my current opinions, since they are stable for many years.


And hopefully alll lived happily ever after. Shame about jalex's list though. Or rather non-list.


----------



## martijn

It's a free world, Andy, you will have to live with that.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

martijn said:


> It's a free world, Andy, you will have to live with that.


I know. Life can be a bitch sometimes though, and one must somehow try to overcome the sense of loss at something so passionately desired.

BTW my real surname is not "Loochazee". This is just some daft name I contrived a few years ago when Newman was up to his tricks on this board. It was simply my way of showing my contempt for all his nonsense.

The "Andy" bit is correct.


----------



## peeyaj

@Andy

I agree with you at all points. I just have to nitpick.  Schubert owned a piano at the end of his life. In early 1828, there is a concert of his music in Vienna, and it's a success. Finally, he was able to buy his own piano with the proceeds, but at the end, he was broke and penniless again..


----------



## moody

martijn said:


> As great as Lady Gaga is, she hasn't composed anything at 26 that can rank with what the Spice Girls did. It's so sad they broke up some years ago, for they were in the middle of an enormous development. Had they stayed together, they would have changed the entire direction of music history.


What a preposterous observation---they were rubbish!


----------



## moody

martijn said:


> You really do your best to create a fierce debate, don't you? Just a pity I don't care and only attach value to my own opinion.


Then why bother to join in in the first place if you know it all?


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> Does Lady Gaga compose?


No, it's more akin to decompose.


----------



## elgar's ghost

All that fuss about Lady Gaga is laughable. Goldfrapp had that clotheshorse electro-glam-pop revue act done and dead some years before AND with much better songs - only Lady Gaga's craving/talent for publicity and self-promotion maintains her irritatingly high profile.


----------



## brianwalker

Haydn is incredibly underrated, and in my opinion the most underrated composer here on TC or anywhere for that matter; he wrote too much and didn't write in the "masterpiece" style that plagued composers after Beethoven and because his works were shorter there's the bias against him. 

Also the mood of his music lacked the prerequisite angst/rebellion that has been in vogue since forever. 

His String Quartets are only second to Beethoven, he is certainly one of the greatest symphonists, far better than Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich or Schumann and matches Schubert, beneath only Mahler, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, and Mozart. 

His masses, too, are rarely played, and it had to take a Gardiner to give them a great rendition in good sound.

His melodies and his general atmosphere is joyful, and he has no interesting biography. He didn't die young, he didn't flee his debtors, he wasn't poor. They weren't superlative in orchestration (Strauss, Wagner, Bartok, Stravinsky) or rhythm (Stravinsky) or harmony (Wagner, Debussy) or perfection (Ravel) or virtuosity (Ravel again) or grandness of scope (Mahler) or ferocity and grandeur (Beethoven) or mysticism (Bruckner, Mahler) or eeriness (Bartok) but he was a great composer, all round, in technique, melody, development, etc. 

He's written some of my favorite melodies; whenever I say that to someone they'll reply with incredulity, and then I refer, of course, to the melody of a piece they've never heard before.


----------



## mmsbls

brianwalker said:


> Haydn is incredibly underrated;


One problem with this thread is that it's hard to know where people believe composers are rated. Goulding rates Haydn at 5. I would put him in the top 10. Where do you think most people actually rate Haydn?


----------



## brianwalker

mmsbls said:


> One problem with this thread is that it's hard to know where people believe composers are rated. Goulding rates Haydn at 5. I would put him in the top 10. Where do you think most people actually rate Haydn?


I'd put him in top 12 at least.

Goulding weighs things differently, but when Haydn didn't make Tommasini's top ten list no one in the comment section cared, but there were many Tchaikovsky and Shotakovich twerps inveighing against him for this "exclusion".

St. Luke once said that few question Bach's supremacy because they don't bother to listen to him, and the same could be said about Haydn's usual high position in the ranking of critics' lists.


----------



## mmsbls

brianwalker said:


> I'd put him in top 12 at least.
> 
> Goulding weighs things differently, but when Haydn didn't make Tommasini's top ten list no one in the comment section cared, but there were many Tchaikovsky and Shotakovich twerps inveighing against him for this "exclusion".
> 
> St. Luke once said that few question Bach's supremacy because they don't bother to listen to him, and the same could be said about Haydn's usual high position in the ranking of critics' lists.


Unless the sample size is large, it's hard to know what people really think. Perhaps Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich supporters are more vocal (or at least some supporters are much more vocal than Haydn supporters). When I averaged Goulding's 50 Greatest Composers mlist, The DDD composer list, the top 500 composers from the Western Kentucky site, and a list averaging TC members' picks, Haydn came in 7 just ahead of Tchaikovsky. Goulding obviously helped that ranking, but the other lists must have had Haydn relatively high for him to average 7. It sounds like you'd actually lower his ranking from that average so maybe you think he's slightly overrated?


----------



## humanbean

I do not feel safe putting any composers in the 'overrated' category until I've heard every single one of their works.

But as far as underrated (or underappreciated, rather) from a modern perspective:

Pérotin
Guillaume de Machaut
Guillaume Dufay
Solage
Johannes Ockeghem
Tomas Luis de Victoria
Marchetto Cara
John Dowland
Johann Pachelbel (for non-Canon in D works)
Giuseppe Tartini
Georg Phillip Telemann
William Boyce
Luigi Boccherini
Michael Haydn
Ignaz Pleyel
Christoph Willibald Gluck
Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf
John Field
Louis Spohr
Robert Schumann (if only for his chamber works)
Ralph Vaughan Williams


----------



## Very Senior Member

brianwalker said:


> I'd put him [Joseph Haydn] in top 12 at least.


 Haydn is well inside that limit on most reckonings, so why say he is "underrated"? Where have you seen him listed lower than 12th?


----------



## Very Senior Member

humanbean said:


> I do not feel safe putting any composers in the 'overrated' category until I've heard every single one of their works.


 You mean that if you've heard N-1 works of a composer's output and think it's rubbish you will defer judgement on that composer's overall standing until you've heard the Nth? That's a bit peculiar isn't it? Why can't you form a judgment based on less than 100% exposure? That's the way most people form their views on most things, including music. As for your list of so-called underrated composers, it looks very arbitrary to me. May I ask if you heard all the works of these composers, just in case they wrote a few lousy ones. Or doesn't your system work like that? If I may say so, I wouldn't suggest that any composer is systematically either underrated or overrated. All that any individual can say is that he/she has a different set of preferences to what they perceive as applying universally, but this doesn't imply anything about overratedness in general.


----------



## humanbean

Very Senior Member said:


> You mean that if you've heard N-1 works of a composer's output and think it's rubbish you will defer judgement on that composer's overall standing until you've heard the Nth? That's a bit peculiar isn't it? Why can't you form a judgment based on less than 100% exposure? That's the way most people form their views on most things, including music. As for your list of so-called underrated composers, it looks very arbitrary to me. May I ask if you heard all the works of these composers, just in case they wrote a few lousy ones. Or doesn't your system work like that? If I may say so, I wouldn't suggest that any composer is systematically either underrated or overrated. All that any individual can say is that he/she has a different set of preferences to what they perceive as applying universally, but this doesn't imply anything about overratedness in general.


For me, the term "overrated" when used in this context means that a composer does not deserve the recognition they get. I really haven't found any classical composers that fit that description. I do not think ANY composer in the classical "genre" can be rated highly enough in this day and age of cheap pop and rock music (those genres are ridiculously overrated by their clueless fans.) If you want me to list a few general "composers" I find overrated, I would list John Lennon, Roger Waters, Dave Grohl, Thom Yorke, Ludovico Einaudi and Karl Jenkins. I do not believe these composers deserve the recognition they get for their so called innovative or original music.

But to answer your question about listening to 100% of their works, there are a lot of people who just listen to only the major works of a composer and instantly put this label on them. Maybe I went a bit overboard by saying 100%, but what I meant to get at is that you should listen to many of the composers compositions, including both known (Fur Elise) and hardly known (Beethoven's first string trio) before you can even consider making a final judgement about a composer being overrated.

As far as underrated goes, I've found the ones on my list aren't explored very much by even avid classical listeners. There are many works by these composers that I enjoy more than the greatest works of the top 10, or 20 composers. Therefore I find that they are unappreciated, just from general observation. I am far more lenient in adding composers to an "underrated" list than an overrated one because the term "overrated" generally implies negativity towards said composer.

In the end, I think we should focus more on judging individual compositions than a composer as a whole.

EDIT: I've revised my post to be a bit more clear on my views. I have a habit of deep proofreading AFTER I've posted.


----------



## pasido

Overrated: Tchaikovsky

Underrated: Paganini, Vivaldi, Schubert

Paganini - A lot of hidden gems. Awesome violin concerto.
Vivaldi - His Four Seasons deserve their praise, and he also wrote a lot of great concertos.
Schubert - Hundreds of compositions in just ~30 years. He didn't care about anything but writing more music. His late piano sonatas are some of the best solo piano works you can listen to (ranks up there with Beethoven's late piano works), his String Quintet in C Major is one of the great masterpieces of the chamber repertoire, his lieders are at the top of the genre (Wintterreise and Die Schonne Mullerin). Also, where would we be without the Trout Quintet?


----------



## mmsbls

humanbean said:


> For me, the term "overrated" when used in this context means that a composer does not deserve the recognition they get. I really haven't found any classical composers that fit that description. I do not think ANY composer in the classical "genre" can be rated highly enough in this day and age of cheap pop and rock music (those genres are ridiculously overrated by their clueless fans.) If you want me to list a few general "composers" I find overrated, I would list John Lennon, Roger Waters, Dave Grohl, Thom Yorke, Ludovico Einaudi and Karl Jenkins. I do not believe these composers deserve the recognition they get for their so called innovative or original music.


I agree with your assessment of overrating. As I have said, anyone who states that a composer is overrated is simply saying that she likes or values the composer's music less than the average classical music listener/critic/performer likes or values that composer's music. Of the composers listed above, I recognize only one (Lennon). I knew I was a bit out of the loop of popular music (I assume they all write or wrote popular music), but I didn't know I was so far out of the loop.



humanbean said:


> As far as underrated goes, I've found the ones on my list aren't explored very much by even avid classical listeners. There are many works by these composers that I enjoy more than the greatest works of the top 10, or 20 composers. Therefore I find that they are unappreciated, just from general observation. I am far more lenient in adding composers to an "underrated" list than an overrated one because the term "overrated" generally implies negativity towards said composer.


I enjoy exploring works by lessor known composers precisely because I have listened to the vast majority of well-known composers' works and I hope to find gems in those works I have not heard. Unfortunately for me, there are exceedingly few works in "lessor" composers' output that I find as enjoyable as the greatest works of the top composers. I suppose my tastes simply are much more in line with the "average" listener/critic. But I am always thrilled to find something I quite like.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Overrated: Tchaikovsky

Why? Tchaikovsky composed a wealth of truly magnificent music, and yet in all actuality he doesn't seem to be someone whose name pops up even as much as Mahler or Bruckner or Debussy or Stravinsky in musical discussions.

Underrated: Paganini...

Perhaps... but how much more known should be be? He's really not a major composer.

Vivaldi... His Four Seasons deserve their praise, and he also wrote a lot of great concertos...

I agree that among many Vivaldi is underrated. _The Four Seasons_ may be over-played... but that is not the fault of the composer... and certainly the _Four Seasons_ is a marvelous suite of concerti grossi. Where Vivaldi has been long ignored is in the realm of his vocal music... both choral music and opera. No one should begin to think that they can dismiss Vivaldi without having listened to a range of his choral works and his operas.

Schubert... Hundreds of compositions in just ~30 years. 

Rather than suggest that Schubert is under-rated (most lists place him within the top ten composers of all time...) I will say that I agree that his cannot be over-rated (unless one attempts to place him above Bach).


----------



## moody

pasido said:


> Overrated: Tchaikovsky
> 
> Underrated: Paganini, Vivaldi, Schubert
> 
> Paganini - A lot of hidden gems. Awesome violin concerto.
> Vivaldi - His Four Seasons deserve their praise, and he also wrote a lot of great concertos.
> Schubert - Hundreds of compositions in just ~30 years. He didn't care about anything but writing more music. His late piano sonatas are some of the best solo piano works you can listen to (ranks up there with Beethoven's late piano works), his String Quintet in C Major is one of the great masterpieces of the chamber repertoire, his lieders are at the top of the genre (Wintterreise and Die Schonne Mullerin). Also, where would we be without the Trout Quintet?


Which Paganini concerto and what are the hidden gems?


----------



## Cnote11

Underrated: Tchaikovsky. You don't see him in his rightful place above Bach very often.... Vivaldi as well. Ravel is underrated. Beethoven too. He's highly-rated but not highly enough. How come we don't build 50 foot statues of him in every city?

I've never listened to Vivaldi's vocal work... I think I shall do that. Than you for the push, StLuke.


----------



## tdc

Cnote11 said:


> Underrated: Tchaikovsky. You don't see him in his rightful place above Bach very often.... .


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I think you kind of stretched your credibility in the rest of your post (and possibly all future posts) with that remark...


----------



## Cnote11

I hope people don't take it too seriously  

In all seriousness, I do think Stockhausen is rather underrated.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Overrated: Vivaldi. His concertos seem to be all the same.

Underrated: Vivaldi. His operas, cantatas and other dramatic and vocal works are absolutely marvellous! I'm pretty sure he though of himself as mainly an opera composer throughout his life.


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Overrated: Vivaldi. His concertos seem to be all the same.
> 
> Underrated: Vivaldi. His operas, cantatas and other dramatic and vocal works are absolutely marvellous! I'm pretty sure he though of himself as mainly an opera composer throughout his life.


Have you heard his Concertos with Trevor Pinnock? Great 5 cd box set. Not repetitive at all in Pinnock's Concerto selection. But I should check out his other stuff as well. Any cd recommendations?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

*****


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

*****


----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## Romantic Geek

Oooooooh...I'll join in this fracas!

*Overrated:*

Liszt - I just can't stand his early and middle period. It's too flashy for me and lacks the substance that I see in a lot of his other contemporaries. Maybe it's hidden behind the fireworks...but I simply just can't look past that aspect of his music.

Beethoven - Ha! I said it. I mean, his influence on the future of music was completely outstanding. But at the same time, I think people focus too much on Beethoven and don't look at composers like Schubert and Schumann on their own standard.

Wagner - See Liszt. I think a lot of it has to deal with the fact that I'm not a huge fan of opera (except the later minimalist opera style). At first, I found the general style of opera to be kind of boring. By the time Wagner came around, it's practically impossible to hear what's going on without actually seeing it. And let's be honest, who can sit through a 4-5 hour opera and stay on the edge of your seat? (If you can...all the power to you!)

Stravinsky - I've just never been a huge fan of Stravinsky. See the Beethoven argument. For me, it's more like Stravinsky was a jack of all trades and a master of none (maybe with the exception of his ballets). I think there are far superior composers in the neo-classical and serialist styles he composed in (as well as the other smaller styles he dabbled in.)

Schoenberg - It's well noted I'm not a huge Schoenberg fan on this board. I love Berg and Webern for their particular style. I just have a problem with Schoenberg because it mediates too much between Webern and Berg. Webern is the true master of the Second Viennese School. Berg was the one who could really apply it with a flair for tonal hints. Schoenberg's early stuff is fantastic, but I think his inner struggle of placing himself in the great lineage of German composers really hampered what would have been an excellent composer on his own right. Plus, I think of him more as a theorist 

Cage and Glass - Just...ugh. We'll leave it there.

*Underrated*

Tomas Luis de Victoria - He is my favorite Renaissance composer by far. He mastered Palestrina's style, but really did a great job text painting with the modes and dissonances he used. Just a simply fantastic composer that very often gets shunned due to his nationality (Spanish) and his limited compositional output.






Grieg - Maybe not on this board so much, but he is pretty much forgotten about in the academic music world. His solo piano works are masterful works. His songs are to par (or better) than some of the best composers of lieder in the Romantic era. And his cello sonata is just incredible!






Haydn - In my opinion, he's my favorite of the "big 3" Classical era composers. Most of the people know him for his later works, but I find the earlier I go, sometimes I can find some real gems. In fact, I just love opening my book of sonatas (of which I only own the first volume) and play through some of the pieces. Haydn had as much command of counterpoint as Beethoven and some of his works have incredible motivic nuance that often goes overlooked.






Amy Beach - Females can compose music! Really really really good music! Amy Beach is by far one of my favorite composers and the fact that she gets overlooked (often for her gender) is just outrageous. Here's an excerpt from her symphony, which she composed from age 27-29.






Edward MacDowell - Another composer who often gets overlooked. At one point, he was America's most famous composer with international recognition. Today, we mostly know him for his character piece "To a Wild Rose" which is SO uncharacteristic of the rest of his work. MacDowell was a master at the piano and his sonatas are technically challenging but incredibly thought provoking. Like this piece (which actually is the first sonata movement he ever composed, despite being a third movement.)






Ives - Ives gets a bad rap. This guy knew exactly what he was doing. And the fact is, he mastered every single style of composition. He was an incredible music talent. Considering he wasn't a full time composer, his output is incredible. The pinnacle being his 114 songs in my opinion. I love so many of them! But if you're not a huge Ives fan because of his "atonal" compositions, I just beg you to listen to this work. You'll never even know it was him!






And of course, I'm leaving a few out on each list...maybe I'll add more at some point.


----------



## neoshredder

Can we cut down to the top 3 cd's of Vivaldi's non-concerto works?


----------



## jalex

Romantic Geek said:


> Stravinsky - I think there are far superior composers in the neo-classical style


Really? I'd like to know who.


----------



## moody

ROMANTIC GEEK.
Half of what you have to say you already trotted out a few months ago.
Liszt, Who says that the "flashy" pieces you mention need to have substance? i suppose that "Tales From the Vienna Woods" has little substance, so Strauss is of little account then? Liszt was a travelling virtuoso for a long period and wrote many of these compositions to show off his technique. This was the way he got paid and the public bayed for more. But what is wrong for instance with his many transcriptions ? They are wonderfui and in many cases not flashy in any way, they served as great advertisements for other composers works, Apart from word of mouth this was the only way people would hear of these works. He had a counterpart in Paganini who also wrote music for his own use on tour, but there is certainly little substance there. But it must be realised that behind the flamboyance was one of the startling creative minds of his time. The BMinor sonata is from his middle period, do you find that lacking in substance?

Beethoven. People certainly look at Schubert and Schumann " on their own standard" whatever that might mean. But that standard is different and there is really no comparison. Why should there be?

Wagner.You are not a huge fan of opera and on the whole find it boring (extraordinary !) so why comment ?

Schoenberg. What would I know!

Stravinsky. Somebody has already questioned you on this.

MacDowell. He's OK but really nothing special, doesn't it say something that "To a Wild Rose" is his best known work?

Ives. Very interesting, very noisy and great fun---what else?

Amy Beach. Overlooked because of her gender? Not really, she's just not very interesting

The truth is that composers are not overlooked if they write music that people want to hear , so it is to no avail members raging on about their particular favourites as examples of bad treatment. Rather they should be cajoling others to listen to these composers, for if they are so special everyone will be swept away by their charms I'm sure.


----------



## Romantic Geek

jalex said:


> Really? I'd like to know who.


Poulenc for one.


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> ROMANTIC GEEK.
> Half of what you have to say you already trotted out a few months ago.
> Liszt, Who says that the "flashy" pieces you mention need to have substance? i suppose that "Tales From the Vienna Woods" has little substance, so Strauss is of little account then? Liszt was a travelling virtuoso for a long period and wrote many of these compositions to show off his technique. This was the way he got paid and the public bayed for more. But what is wrong for instance with his many transcriptions ? They are wonderfui and in many cases not flashy in any way, they served as great advertisements for other composers works, Apart from word of mouth this was the only way people would hear of these works. He had a counterpart in Paganini who also wrote music for his own use on tour, but there is certainly little substance there. But it must be realised that behind the flamboyance was one of the startling creative minds of his time. The BMinor sonata is from his middle period, do you find that lacking in substance?


I'm not a huge fan of the B minor Sonata. I think there other sonatas composed at that time that are far more interesting, but far less played than the Liszt piece because it is as technically demanding and not as popular. And for that reason, I hate the sonata more than I should.



> Beethoven. People certainly look at Schubert and Schumann " on their own standard" whatever that might mean. But that standard is different and there is really no comparison. Why should there be?


Really? Funny, whenever I read about Schubert or Schumann historically, they are always compared against Beethoven, with Beethoven ALWAYS winning that battle. Today, I think people do start to see them as separate and judge them on their own turns. But a recent book by Suzannah Clark titled "Analyzing Schubert" shows that music scholarship has constantly given Schubert the shaft, judging and analyzing his music on Beethoven's terms rather than his own. I'm publishing a review that will be available in the next issue of _Music Research Forum_.[/quote]



> Wagner.You are not a huge fan of opera and on the whole find it boring (extraordinary !) so why comment ?


Because I have an opinion, and that's the wonder about TC! I just find that people put Wagner in the discussion of the greatest of great composers. I think he was good, but not great, and therefore overrated. My opinion, you don't have to agree.



> Schoenberg. What would I know!


Whatever.



> Stravinsky. Somebody has already questioned you on this.


And answered appropriately.



> MacDowell. He's OK but really nothing special, doesn't it say something that "To a Wild Rose" is his best known work?


Actually, no it doesn't. You can ask yourself why is it his best known work? Well, let's see. It's practically one of the simplest pieces written for piano plus it is beautiful, thus making every basic anthology for beginner piano. It's not characteristic of his sonatas which are incredibly demanding works. His songs are as good as any lieder at the time. Doesn't it say something that he was America's most noted composer internationally prior to Copland? Doesn't it say something that Liszt and Wagner, both who were inspirations to MacDowell loved and promoted his music?



> Ives. Very interesting, very noisy and great fun---what else?


Beyond interesting. Not always noisy. Every piece crafted with perfection. His second symphony? The Concord Sonata? Seriously...any of his songs. Ives is in the top 3 of American song composers still today (with Rorem and Barber).



> Amy Beach. Overlooked because of her gender? Not really, she's just not very interesting


Says you. I find her music fascinating and every one that I've spent time spreading her music has really become enamored over her works. And if you prefer the later style of music, some of her latest compositions are purely atonal works, which was something revolutionary for her.



> The truth is that composers are not overlooked if they write music that people want to hear , so it is to no avail members raging on about their particular favourites as examples of bad treatment. Rather they should be cajoling others to listen to these composers, for if they are so special everyone will be swept away by their charms I'm sure.


Meh, I can think of many composers who wrote music that people wanted to hear that are never discussed anymore. Joachim Raff, one of the most famous composers of his time barely has his music played anymore. But there are other examples of this happening. Just look at old concert programs. That's where you really find how completely one-dimensional classical music has become today.

However, we're all entitled to our opinions and this thread asked "The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History - According to You." I answered that question. If you're pissed about my answer, I'm sorry. But I'm honest. I really actually do think these things. And the fact that I _offend_ people for disliking Beethoven, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg is just simply appalling. On the other hand, I'm immediately discredited for liking MacDowell and Beach. Why? Because they're American and composed before Copland?

You state that we should be cajoling others to listen to this composers. That's what I'm doing. At the same time, you just literally ripped to shreds half of my underrated composers, thus hampering said cajoling.

And sorry I was late to the battle for the most part, but I've been away for the last 6 months on this board only making sparse appearance here or there. I just wanted to get my opinion here. But apparently _you_ don't like that, so I guess I'll just hide back into anonymity (hell, maybe I'll change my handle). Because, who cares about simple discourse of music? (Or isn't that what Talk Classical is about?)


----------



## violadude

Romantic Geek said:


> I'm not a huge fan of the B minor Sonata. I think there other sonatas composed at that time that are far more interesting, but far less played than the Liszt piece because it is as technically demanding and not as popular. And for that reason, I hate the sonata more than I should.


Which sonatas are those


----------



## Webernite

Romantic Geek said:


> Schoenberg - It's well noted I'm not a huge Schoenberg fan on this board. I love Berg and Webern for their particular style. I just have a problem with Schoenberg because it mediates too much between Webern and Berg. Webern is the true master of the Second Viennese School. Berg was the one who could really apply it with a flair for tonal hints. Schoenberg's early stuff is fantastic, but I think his inner struggle of placing himself in the great lineage of German composers really hampered what would have been an excellent composer on his own right. Plus, I think of him more as a theorist


We had this conversation already, ages ago. To be honest, I don't listen to Schoenberg nearly as much as I did then, although I still like him better than Berg.


----------



## brianwalker

Webernite said:


> We had this conversation already, ages ago. To be honest, I don't listen to Schoenberg nearly as much as I did then, although I still like him* better than Berg.*


Blasphemy!



Romantic Geek said:


> Poulenc for one.


Any pieces you'd recommend?


----------



## goldie08

*brief bio*

Underrated: Joseph Boulogne









Joseph Boulogne, the Chevalier de Saint-George, was one of the most famous men in 18th century France. Born to a slave mother and a wealthy French father on the island of Guadeloupe, he was taken to Paris as a young boy. There he excelled at every endeavour - becoming a champion swordsman, violin virtuoso, composer, and later, a military commander during the French Revolution


----------



## Cnote11

Would probably be the most famous composer ever if he weren't black.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Isn't he commonly known just as "Chevalier de Saint-George?"


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> Would probably be the most famous composer ever if he weren't black.


Oh dear,here we go.


----------



## brianwalker

moody said:


> Oh dear,here we go.


You realize the dripping sarcasm?


----------



## moody

Romantic Geek said:


> Poulenc for one.


Poulenc wrote the following ballets: Les Biches, Les Maries de la Tour Eifel, Pastourelle and Les Animaux Modeles.
The only one to have had any success at all was Les Biches, I really think you should refrain from your wild claims.


----------



## moody

brianwalker said:


> You realize the dripping sarcasm?


No, I think the statement was meant---this based on what I have seen from this member.


----------



## moody

ROMANTIC GEEK.
You adopt an injured air but you are bound to attract attention when you come out with such woolly comments.
Your remarks about the Liszt sonata appear to make no sense--do you not edit your posts?
I have never come across anybody who might be taken seriously compare Beethoven and Schubert. Beethoven's symphonies are way ahead of Schubert's as are his piano sonatas, Schubert wrote no concertos. I am sure that no one compares Beethoven's lieder with Schuberts and honours are fairly even as far as chamber works are concerned.
Schubert's operas are fairly laughable whereas Beethoven's single effort is highly successful.
We've recently had a big song and dance from the Schumann supporters mafia, but in my opinion there is really no comparison symphonically. I think statistics will support that, nor can Schumann challenge on the concerto side as excellent as his piano concerto may be. His violin concerto suffers by comparison with Beethoven's ,but once again his lieder are definitely superior but not his chamber works.
But I reiterate that there is no point in comparing them as they are very different one from the other.
You say that you have an opinion on Wagner, fine but if you publish your opinion along with the statement that you are not really interested in opera it looks somewhat naive. I'm no particular fan of Wagner and thefore have not plumbed the depths so I make no statements about him.
Regarding "To a Wild Rose"---I find Rubinstein's Melody In F very attractive.
As for MacDowell, I think your comment on Raff once being popular covers the MacDowell problem, neither of them will ever be popular again.
MacDowell has been called the father of American music, this is misleading and does justice neither to the composer or the music of the United States. He was the first American born composer to become known and admired outside his own country. Unfortunately he died young and failed to develop as a major composer, his most popular music and probably his best was written for the piano.
I am sorry to read that you consider that people are offended by your statements, I can't imagine why they would be.
Neither can I understand why you should feel that you are being discredited, you are the only one who can do that. 
I tend to believe that this is all in your mind and I also think it is sad that you feel so uncomfortable at being challenged to support your beliefs---one would think that would please you.
Do not withdraw from the melee, this is what debate is all about.
I suppose I can now look forward to the attack of the Schumann clan.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

moody said:


> I have never come across anybody who might be taken seriously compare Beethoven and Schubert.


I say this with all love to Beethoven, the composer who (together with Wagner) I place at the very pinnacle of my appreciation... but there is no composer who ever lived who can breezily dismiss comparison with Schubert- particularly if one were to do an apples-to-apples time-line comparison of what they created at which stage in their lives.


moody said:


> I suppose I can now look forward to the attack of the Schumann clan.


Well, I ain't a Schumann clansman (if anything, I'm a _Wagner_ clansman) but you know, Schumann don't look so bad either, when looking at him from a time-line perspective.

Maybe someone else can run the numbers. I'm sure the exercise has been done before- compare each composer [Beethoven-Schubert-Schumann] on what they composed, at (say) half-decade intervals (e.g.: prior to age 20, age 20-24, age 25-29 & so on). If no-one else wishes to do so, I'll revisit this later. A brief review (under the constraint of time-pressure) reveals the following-

1) Up to age 20, there is no comparison whatsoever between Beethoven & Schubert, as Beethoven created nothing that has any presence in the repertoire at that stage in his life.

2) _Schumann_ (surprisingly to me) compares very favorably to Beethoven between the ages of 20-24.

3) C. ¾s of the Beethoven orchestral works we know and love were composed after the age of 31, the age at which Schubert died.


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> Poulenc wrote the following ballets: Les Biches, Les Maries de la Tour Eifel, Pastourelle and Les Animaux Modeles.
> The only one to have had any success at all was Les Biches, I really think you should refrain from your wild claims.


Note the Poulenc discussion was for neo-classicism, not the ballets.


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> ROMANTIC GEEK.
> You adopt an injured air but you are bound to attract attention when you come out with such woolly comments.
> Your remarks about the Liszt sonata appear to make no sense--do you not edit your posts?


What about them doesn't make sense? I don't like the Liszt sonata because there are other Romantic era sonatas that don't get played due to the technical demands. The Liszt sonata is "the pinnacle" of Romantic sonatas, thus most famous pianists will learn that one before the sonatas of MacDowell, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Rachmaninov, and Brahms, all which are equally as fantastic. Since that happens, I tend to hate the Liszt sonata more than I should.

For me, I only like Liszt's late period, especially his organ music. I think those are wonderful works, especially once he's subdued from his flashy style of composition.



> I have never come across anybody who might be taken seriously compare Beethoven and Schubert. Beethoven's symphonies are way ahead of Schubert's as are his piano sonatas, Schubert wrote no concertos. I am sure that no one compares Beethoven's lieder with Schuberts and honours are fairly even as far as chamber works are concerned.
> Schubert's operas are fairly laughable whereas Beethoven's single effort is highly successful.


And yet you just did it? Listen, historically the two have been compared...a lot! Seriously, just read about Schubert some time. Beethoven's symphonies above Schubert's? That's your opinion if you cast Schubert's symphonies under the light of Beethoven. I think they're fantastic works and masterpieces on their own right.

Beethoven's sonatas are ahead of Schubert's? Again, you're opinion. Lately, I've been playing through Schubert's sonatas and I think they are wonderfully fantastic. I love the abrupt modulations to distant keys and how he really challenges the concept of "sonata form" with his works. And I'll state that the B-flat major sonata is not my favorite, not even close. That's really the only sonata people know from Schubert most of the time, I think others (like his A minor) are equally as good or better.

Schubert wrote no concertos? Damn. I wonder if he would have if he didn't die at age 31!!!

Of course Schubert's lieder is better than Beethoven. And you flaunt that Beethoven's single effort of opera is highly successful? I'd really challenge that claim because otherwise I'd hear a ton about it at the one of the best opera programs in the country, and I never hear about it. More like, we never hear about Beethoven's vocal music ever. Consequently, Schubert's operas may have failed, but his overtures from them survive and make it onto programs today.

Finally, you say the chamber works are equal. Again, your opinion. I think there is no greater chamber work than Schubert's String Quartet No. 15 in G Major. For me, Schubert's chamber work got me into listening to string quartets seriously.



> We've recently had a big song and dance from the Schumann supporters mafia, but in my opinion there is really no comparison symphonically. I think statistics will support that, nor can Schumann challenge on the concerto side as excellent as his piano concerto may be. His violin concerto suffers by comparison with Beethoven's ,but once again his lieder are definitely superior but not his chamber works.
> But I reiterate that there is no point in comparing them as they are very different one from the other.


I stress again, Schumann and Beethoven have been compared historically a lot in music academia. I agree, there is no comparison symphonically. I find Schumann's large scale works to be terrible. (And actually, I really despise Schumann's piano concerto).

But I think that Schumann's lieder absolutely blow the heck out of Beethoven's. And I think his piano music may be better (in my opinion). I've been playing Schumann a lot lately. Those shorter works are gems and of course, people know Schumann's larger works. I've been focusing a lot on his exploration of harmony in his piano works, which were incredibly revolutionary at the time. Pieces beginning off-tonic, pieces ending off tonic, modulations to wacky keys. For me, Schumann's piano music is something special and really fascinating.



> You say that you have an opinion on Wagner, fine but if you publish your opinion along with the statement that you are not really interested in opera it looks somewhat naive. I'm no particular fan of Wagner and thefore have not plumbed the depths so I make no statements about him.


Trust me, I'm not naive. Just like how some don't like listening to "big band jazz" or "serialist" music, I'm just not a fan of opera. I've tried, time and time again. It hasn't worked. However, Wagner is someone I have to study in detail (for what I'm aiming to do with my music theory degree) and I just simply don't like it on the whole. I like snipets, but the endlessness, lack of cadences (or worst, overuse of deceptive cadences) drives me nuts. I think that is a fair explanation that goes beyond naivety.



> Regarding "To a Wild Rose"---I find Rubinstein's Melody In F very attractive.
> As for MacDowell, I think your comment on Raff once being popular covers the MacDowell problem, neither of them will ever be popular again.
> MacDowell has been called the father of American music, this is misleading and does justice neither to the composer or the music of the United States. He was the first American born composer to become known and admired outside his own country. Unfortunately he died young and failed to develop as a major composer, his most popular music and probably his best was written for the piano.


Actually, John Knowles Paine is "the father" of American music. Also, Paine was the first to become known outside his country. MacDowell was actually late to the party of internationally known Americans, but by the time he did become known, he was the most famous of them all. And of course his most popular music is for piano, that's about 75% of his corpus.



> I am sorry to read that you consider that people are offended by your statements, I can't imagine why they would be.
> Neither can I understand why you should feel that you are being discredited, you are the only one who can do that.
> I tend to believe that this is all in your mind and I also think it is sad that you feel so uncomfortable at being challenged to support your beliefs---one would think that would please you.
> Do not withdraw from the melee, this is what debate is all about.
> I suppose I can now look forward to the attack of the Schumann clan.


Ha, trust me, I'm not uncomfortable at being challenged. I host a variety of opinions about composers that no one likes. And I understand that.

Secondly, judging by the typical lists I see posted, I think TC has a very different musical taste than those of music academia (which is something I'm trying to fix.) At the same time, that suggests to me that many people in the TC community are just avid fans of classical music and don't read journal articles or study up on historical documents, etc. For instance, your statement that no one compares Beethoven to Schubert and Schumann is so incredulous, that it really raised my eyebrows and made me think about what other falsities have been spread here. But I'm not going to belabor that point anymore (with Schubert and Schumann). It's easy to forget something like that over the span of almost 200 years--and thus I am more forgiving.

Maybe my time here is better served to post some blogs on music topics rather than the pedantic debates of who's better/worse as a composer. I mean, I love to share my opinion, but at the same time, who cares except ourselves?


----------



## Webernite

Romantic Geek's entitled to his opinion. That's what this thread is for, after all.


----------



## Webernite

On the other hand, what kind of crazy person would put the Tchaikovsky piano sonata above Liszt's?!


----------



## TheComposer

I really think Nielsen and Hindemith are too underrated. Their orchestration is so colorful and unique. Not forgetting Tchaikovsky, "The least known of the best known composers." take a listen to some of his lesser known works and operas.

Overrated: Brahms, Mozart and to a certain extent Mahler


----------



## peeyaj

@Romantic Geek

Much I love Schubert ( I am a Schubert advocate), and I place him foremost in my heart, I would not place his nine symphonies on par with Beethoven. Only the last two Schubert's symphonies ( Unfinished and Great C major) approaches Beethoven in the symphonic form. Schubert's piano sonatas are very very great works (D.894 and D.959 are personal favorites) but I agree with Microsoft's Encarta' article that they "were only second in importance in Beethoven's. In chamber music, I prefer Schubert's works (piano trios, piano quintets, string quartets and the string quintet). Some of them are equal on Beethoven's chamber music and the Quintet in C is much superior in Beethoven's underrated String Quintet Op. 29. In Lieder, Schubert is the king here. No questions! 

In short, the general consensus is that Beethoven is the greater composer than Schubert.. But in my heart and mind, Schubert remains the best.

PS: The String quartet no. 15 is Schubert's greatest quartet. Love it to the bits..


----------



## moody

Romantic Geek said:


> Note the Poulenc discussion was for neo-classicism, not the ballets.


He wrote Sinonietta(1947), also Matelote Provencale-Variation for "La Guirlande de Campre". He also wrote five works for piano and orchestra, to which of these were you referring in your comparison to Stravinsky?


----------



## Romantic Geek

Webernite said:


> *EVERYONE* entitled to his opinion. That's what this thread is for, after all.


That's the message I'm spreading...


----------



## Romantic Geek

Webernite said:


> On the other hand, what kind of crazy person would put the Tchaikovsky piano sonata above Liszt's?!


Someone who likes Tchaikovsky more than Liszt...like me.


----------



## Romantic Geek

peeyaj said:


> In short, the general consensus is that Beethoven is the greater composer than Schubert.. But in my heart and mind, Schubert remains the best.


And that's the opinion I'm suggesting. Of course Beethoven is the great composer than Schubert. But there is nothing about Beethoven that should ever affect the status of Schubert as a composer. And that's something people often do.



> PS: The String quartet no. 15 is Schubert's greatest quartet. Love it to the bits..


It is the greatest!


----------



## mitchflorida

I would say Mahler most overrated, Richard Strauss the most under-rated


----------



## brianwalker

Webernite said:


> Romantic Geek's entitled to his opinion. That's what this thread is for, after all.


But when you try to raise your opinion above the way of opinion to the realm of truth you open yourself up to contradiction.


----------



## moody

Romantic Geek said:


> That's the message I'm spreading...


Doesn't an opinion that is published publicly need some substance?


----------



## moody

brianwalker said:


> But when you try to raise your opinion above the way of opinion to the realm of truth you open yourself up to contradiction.


Well of course you do,what else?


----------



## Romantic Geek

mitchflorida said:


> I would say Mahler most overrated, Richard Strauss the most under-rated


I'd say that's accurate for some. Some Mahler enthusiasts are a little over the top. Strauss is underrated, I agree. His lieder are wonderful. But I think they're both great composers.


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> Doesn't an opinion that is published publicly need some substance?


Nope. Especially when one's definition of substance is probably unattainable. I mean, do you want me to send you PDFs of my analyses of Liszt pieces? Hahaha...


----------



## moody

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I say this with all love to Beethoven, the composer who (together with Wagner) I place at the very pinnacle of my appreciation... but there is no composer who ever lived who can breezily dismiss comparison with Schubert- particularly if one were to do an apples-to-apples time-line comparison of what they created at which stage in their lives.Well, I ain't a Schumann clansman (if anything, I'm a _Wagner_ clansman) but you know, Schumann don't look so bad either, when looking at him from a time-line perspective.
> 
> Maybe someone else can run the numbers. I'm sure the exercise has been done before- compare each composer [Beethoven-Schubert-Schumann] on what they composed, at (say) half-decade intervals (e.g.: prior to age 20, age 20-24, age 25-29 & so on). If no-one else wishes to do so, I'll revisit this later. A brief review (under the constraint of time-pressure) reveals the following-
> 
> 1) Up to age 20, there is no comparison whatsoever between Beethoven & Schubert, as Beethoven created nothing that has any presence in the repertoire at that stage in his life.
> 
> 2) _Schumann_ (surprisingly to me) compares very favorably to Beethoven between the ages of 20-24.
> 
> 3) C. ¾s of the Beethoven orchestral works we know and love were composed after the age of 31, the age at which Schubert died.


With all due respect,because I am aware that you are careful about your statements, these "time-line" related comments are irrelevant although interesting.
If Beethoven had lived longer I wonder what his next three symphonies would have been like, not to mention his two other operas ?
I read once that Einstein couldn't speak until he was seven, i know that Mozart was giving concerts at age four.
All irrelevant, because the question must be regarding what we have before us now.
I don't even know what the TC list says about Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann's position in the table but I can guess
I have shelves of Schubert and I am crazy about his music but have never considered him a great symphonist. It would be wonderful to know what might have been ,but it really does not change the situation as to whose music is generally judged superior.
Please note that I did not post on this thread because it is of no consequence in the scheme of things. Just an excuse for people to push their little niche composers, but to say they are underrated is not legitimate just becausr X thinks it is so.
Everone is entitled to their opinion, not really if it is blatant nonsense.


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> With all due respect,because I am aware that you are careful about your statements, these "time-line" related comments are irrelevant although interesting.
> If Beethoven had lived longer I wonder what his next three symphonies would have been like, not to mention his two other operas ?
> I read once that Einstein couldn't speak until he was seven, i know that Mozart was giving concerts at age four.
> All irrelevant, because the question must be regarding what we have before us now.
> I don't even know what the TC list says about Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann's position in the table but I can guess
> I have shelves of Schubert and I am crazy about his music but have never considered him a great symphonist. It would be wonderful to know what might have been ,but it really does not change the situation as to whose music is generally judged superior.
> Please note that I did not post on this thread because it is of no consequence in the scheme of things. Just an excuse for people to push their little niche composers, but to say they are underrated is not legitimate just becausr X thinks it is so.
> Everone is entitled to their opinion, not really if it is blatant nonsense.


But clearly people's styles change over the years. Schubert never had the chance to see his style morph in the way that Beethoven did. Think about what Schubert could have written if he just lived to 40 instead of 31. (And I always think the same about many composers...) The sheer amount of compositional output from Schubert in such a short life (especially since he wasn't a naturally gifted performer) is just absolutely amazing and that part of his biography is often overlooked.


----------



## peeyaj

Romantic Geek said:


> But clearly people's styles change over the years. Schubert never had the chance to see his style morph in the way that Beethoven did. Think about what Schubert could have written if he just lived to 40 instead of 31. (And I always think the same about many composers...) The sheer amount of compositional output from Schubert in such a short life (especially since he wasn't a naturally gifted performer) is just absolutely amazing and that part of his biography is often overlooked.


I agree. It is really a shame that he was not a virtuoso pianist. I am still fawning over the unwritten Piano Concerto no. 1 in C major by Franz Schubert.

@moody

We have discussed Schubert's merit as a symphonist here in TC. And he is a great symphonist indeed!

http://www.talkclassical.com/16191-schubert-great-symphonist.html


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

peeyaj said:


> I agree. It is really a shame that he was not a virtuoso pianist. I am still fawning over the unwritten Piano Concerto no. 1 in C major by Franz Schubert.


I like no. 2 in D minor better.


----------



## moody

Romantic Geek said:


> But clearly people's styles change over the years. Schubert never had the chance to see his style morph in the way that Beethoven did. Think about what Schubert could have written if he just lived to 40 instead of 31. (And I always think the same about many composers...) The sheer amount of compositional output from Schubert in such a short life (especially since he wasn't a naturally gifted performer) is just absolutely amazing and that part of his biography is often overlooked.


I have only just realised that your avatar is MacDowell which explains a lot . It also says a lot because I didn't have the faintest idea who the gent was and I think I would recognise most well known composers.
I note that we received no reply re: Stravinsky vs. Poulenc,is one likely to materialise?
You still insist that people are adversely comparing Schubert and Schumann with Beethoven, it simply is not true among people with any sort of musical knowledge--what would be the point?
You say that one's defination of substance is unattainable, but what about all the support those books that you read would afford you? You know, the opinion of learned men and so on.
You seem to consider yourself an authority on music, but then talk about HATING Liszt----that's very teenage is it not? I can't think of a composer that I hate, that sort of feeling is not normal in a rational person surely,in my opinion of course.
In your rant about Liszt you list the sonatas of Tchaikovsky, MacDowell, Chopin and Rachmaninoff, well in my opinion the first two do not belong in the same world as the others and I do not imagine that I will be alone in that.
You keep underlining the fact that Schubert died at 31, yes, yes, we all know that,.by the way it does not follow that he would have carried on to greater glory, Rossini and Sibelius just stopped.
Beethoven's "Fidelio" has been staged at the Met three times in the last twelve years. Covent Garden three times in the last ten years. Berlin in 2010 and 2011. Vienna 20012 and coming in 2013. Munich 2011. Dresden 2010. 
This is just random I'm sure there were other places as well, not Cincinnatti though.
I am therefore surprised that " we never hear about Beethoven's vocal music ever". well "we" must be lacking in knowledge . Because although secondary to the other two composers' lieder it is performed and recorded often, have a look at the listings. famous artists include Dietrich Fischer_Dieskau, Herman Prey, Peter Schreier and Nicolai Gedda plus many others. "Fidelio" has many full recordings on record.
You quote a whole lot of pianistic terms and you speak of reading historical documents---most norrmal music lovers are not going to go to these lengths, they have better things to do. Being a music student does not make one an expert on music anymore than studying war games and reading war books makes you a General.
Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their opinion privately but once they go public they should be ready for action.
If I were to go public with the opinion that Ian (James Bond) Fleming is a superior author to Dickens I would field a lot of criticism.
If everyone merely printed out their lists with no comment from anyone else these Forums would be gone pretty quickly.
When I read some of the garbage on these pages from experts I wonder how I've staggered through over 60 years of music without their help.
Mind you having found this comparison business doubtful, I have just noticed a thread comparing "Aida" with "Tristan und Isolder" ,I have my opinion on that but will get into trouble maybe.
Finally to go back to the basic question, in my opinion MacDowell is a harmless mediocre composer and the number of recordings available rather supports that, but Liszt is certainly underrated. I know that you will be interested in Wagner's remarks regarding the B Minor sonata: "Your sonata is beautiful beyond any conception, great, pleasing, profound and noble--it is sublime just as you are yourself".


----------



## moody

peeyaj said:


> We need more Lady Gaga fans here.. ha ha ha


No we don't thanks all the same.


----------



## moody

peeyaj said:


> I agree. It is really a shame that he was not a virtuoso pianist. I am still fawning over the unwritten Piano Concerto no. 1 in C major by Franz Schubert.
> 
> @moody
> 
> We have discussed Schubert's merit as a symphonist here in TC. And he is a great symphonist indeed!
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/16191-schubert-great-symphonist.html


I've just read through your thread on Schubert the symphonist. You did not get a majority in favour of him being a great symphonist by any means at all.


----------



## mitchflorida

I just finished listening to Mahler's Second Symphony by the London Symphony Orchestra. Maybe Mahler isn't over-rated after all. Incredible . .


----------



## violadude

mitchflorida said:


> I just finished listening to Mahler's Second Symphony by the London Symphony Orchestra. Maybe Mahler isn't over-rated after all. Incredible . .


YAY a potential convert


----------



## mitchflorida

violadude said:


> YAY a potential convert


By the same token, Mahler has produced mediocre work as well. He isn't consistently brilliant, like a top rate composer such as Beethoven, Hayden, Bach, or Mozart. He doesn't belong in the highest tier, but he has sometimes put out some really great work.


----------



## jalex

mitchflorida said:


> By the same token, Mahler has produced mediocre work as well. He isn't consistently brilliant, like a top rate composer such as Beethoven, Hayden, Bach, or Mozart. He doesn't belong in the highest tier, but he has sometimes put out some really great work.


Which Mahler work is below par? Pretty much everything we have by him is of the highest order, and the only piece I have reservations about (symphony #7) still contains better material in the inner three movements than most composers will write in a lifetime. The scherzo is possibly the best ever written.

I don't buy the opinion that Part II of #8 is rubbish either.


----------



## Romantic Geek

moody said:


> I have only just realised that your avatar is MacDowell which explains a lot . It also says a lot because I didn't have the faintest idea who the gent was and I think I would recognise most well known composers.


Education!



> I note that we received no reply re: Stravinsky vs. Poulenc,is one likely to materialise?


Just listen to more Poulenc. There aren't specific pieces to highlight. I'm talking about broad styles of which most of Poulenc's music fits under the "neo-classicist" label.



> You still insist that people are adversely comparing Schubert and Schumann with Beethoven, it simply is not true among people with any sort of musical knowledge--what would be the point?
> You say that one's defination of substance is unattainable, but what about all the support those books that you read would afford you? You know, the opinion of learned men and so on.


It's just been written a lot about Beethoven's "anxiety of influence" on his later counterparts. It is _very true!_ Substance is not unattainable. I think it differs from person to person. For me, I find a lot of substance in music theory. For others, they find no substance in it. So I don't think that's a route you want to go down.



> You seem to consider yourself an authority on music, but then talk about HATING Liszt----that's very teenage is it not? I can't think of a composer that I hate, that sort of feeling is not normal in a rational person surely,in my opinion of course.
> In your rant about Liszt you list the sonatas of Tchaikovsky, MacDowell, Chopin and Rachmaninoff, well in my opinion the first two do not belong in the same world as the others and I do not imagine that I will be alone in that.


Have you listened to the MacDowell sonatas? I have a hard time believing you have. James Barbagallo has good recordings of #3 and #4. Second, I'm not an authority on music. I just have a vastly different experience than most on this board, as in that I go to conservatory and study music academically. I have no desire to perform. My work is music academia. But by no means is my opinion final. And I didn't say that I completely hate Liszt. I really really like his late period. I love his sacred organ works and his very final piano pieces. I think they're fantastic.

]quote]You keep underlining the fact that Schubert died at 31, yes, yes, we all know that,.by the way it does not follow that he would have carried on to greater glory, Rossini and Sibelius just stopped.[/quote]

Yes...but...Schubert's most celebrated string quartet was his last. His last two symphonies are by far the best (and consequently his most well known). Finally, his Piano Sonata in Bb Major was one of his last piano sonatas. Thus, I have every reason to believe that Schubert would have kept producing great music.



> Beethoven's "Fidelio" has been staged at the Met three times in the last twelve years. Covent Garden three times in the last ten years. Berlin in 2010 and 2011. Vienna 20012 and coming in 2013. Munich 2011. Dresden 2010.
> This is just random I'm sure there were other places as well, not Cincinnatti though.
> I am therefore surprised that " we never hear about Beethoven's vocal music ever". well "we" must be lacking in knowledge . Because although secondary to the other two composers' lieder it is performed and recorded often, have a look at the listings. famous artists include Dietrich Fischer_Dieskau, Herman Prey, Peter Schreier and Nicolai Gedda plus many others. "Fidelio" has many full recordings on record.


Well let's be honest here. If we're looking at Schubert, Schumann and Beethoven, I'm going to look at Beethoven's vocal works last. His vocal works are often overshadowed by his contemporaries (on both ends) and (as I stress again...in my opinion) think it is warranted. I don't think Beethoven't song cycle is any good.



> You quote a whole lot of pianistic terms and you speak of reading historical documents---most norrmal music lovers are not going to go to these lengths, they have better things to do. Being a music student does not make one an expert on music anymore than studying war games and reading war books makes you a General.
> Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their opinion privately but once they go public they should be ready for action.
> If I were to go public with the opinion that Ian (James Bond) Fleming is a superior author to Dickens I would field a lot of criticism.
> If everyone merely printed out their lists with no comment from anyone else these Forums would be gone pretty quickly.
> When I read some of the garbage on these pages from experts I wonder how I've staggered through over 60 years of music without their help.
> Mind you having found this comparison business doubtful, I have just noticed a thread comparing "Aida" with "Tristan und Isolder" ,I have my opinion on that but will get into trouble maybe.


Aye, I'm a music student now, but I've been teaching college courses the past two years and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. I'll be publishing in academic and peer-reviewed journals. In fact, my first article comes out in a few months. Who defines what the normal music lover is? I don't think there is a normal. I just happen to love music so much that I'm getting a doctorate. The amount of education I have _will_ make me an expert in certain fields of music. Again, anyone can disagree, I understand completely. I have no problem with that. But at the same time, if someone says something that contradicts academic research on a subject (and I know of this contradiction), I feel obligated to mention it. (See Beethoven compared to Schubert debate).



> Finally to go back to the basic question, in my opinion MacDowell is a harmless mediocre composer and the number of recordings available rather supports that, but Liszt is certainly underrated. I know that you will be interested in Wagner's remarks regarding the B Minor sonata: "Your sonata is beautiful beyond any conception, great, pleasing, profound and noble--it is sublime just as you are yourself".


Ziiiing. Actually, MacDowell's recording numbers have really increased a lot in the last 3 years since I've begun listening to him intensely on Naxos.

As far as Wagner's opinion, I'm not a huge fan of Wagner (and his music.) Just everything about his "ideals" of music makes me boil inside...but that's a debate for a later day.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> YAY a potential convert


But see below!!! You always have to wait for the "BUT".It's like the second shoe droppiong.


----------



## mleghorn

Underrated:
Roussel, Szymanowski, Holmboe, Wellesz, Barber, Dvorak, Hindemith, Poulenc, Tchaikovsky

Overrated:
Mendelsohn, Glass


----------



## Cnote11

Steve Reich is very underrated


----------



## Romantic Geek

mleghorn said:


> Underrated:
> Roussel, Szymanowski, Holmboe, Wellesz, Barber, Dvorak, Hindemith, Poulenc, Tchaikovsky
> 
> Overrated:
> Mendelsohn, Glass


The issue with Mendelssohn is that he peaked before he turned 20. It's not that his stuff later is bad (it certainly isn't) but nothing is as good as his octet.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Cnote11 said:


> Steve Reich is very underrated


Steve Reich is in the same city as me right now!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Romantic Geek said:


> The issue with Mendelssohn is that he peaked before he turned 20. It's not that his stuff later is bad (it certainly isn't) but nothing is as good as his octet.


Each to his or her own, of course, but I would put Mendelssohn's last string quartet on a par with the octet in terms of his chamber music. That said, the octet is an amazing composition - even more amazing for a 16 year-old.


----------



## Cnote11

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Steve Reich is in the same city as me right now!!!!!!!!!!!


For what exactly?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Cnote11 said:


> For what exactly?


Sorry I should have said same _country._ He's coming down to Melbourne from Sydney for the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra's _Metropolis New Music Festival_ this week. Steve Reich is the featured composer. He was in Sydney before giving concerts at the opera house.


----------



## clavichorder

I think Handel is kind of overrated. But I still like him.


----------



## everythingthrume

Even though I'm a staunch fan of Mozart, I agree with you that he's overrated in some way. He certainly was a child prodigy and doutless genius, but his music lacks variety and the subject matter of his opera sometimes seems ridiculous. But I love his style and his beautiful melodies.

About Tchaikovsky, I'm not a fan of his piano works. Even that famous piano concerto no. 1 is not my favorite. I'd put Grieg's piano concerto over Tchaikovsky's.

And I think not many think Liszt as great composer. He was good at translating things to piano, and that is truth, right?

I don't think there are many composers who are underrated. I think many are rather overrated. I like the absurdness of Mahler symphonies, but I certainly don't think his symphonies are the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## Romantic Geek

elgars ghost said:


> Each to his or her own, of course, but I would put Mendelssohn's last string quartet on a par with the octet in terms of his chamber music. That said, the octet is an amazing composition - even more amazing for a 16 year-old.


I was speaking more generally. Typically people view the octet as his major accomplishment. I find Mendelssohn's string quartets enjoyable (of the ones I've heard). In fact, Mendelssohn is the composer that got me into classical music.


----------



## Romantic Geek

everythingthrume said:


> I'd put Grieg's piano concerto over Tchaikovsky's.


I mean, who wouldn't? Grieg's Piano Concerto is one of--if not--the best in that genre.


----------



## mmsbls

Romantic Geek said:


> I mean, who wouldn't? Grieg's Piano Concerto is one of--if not--the best in that genre.


I personally place Grieg's concerto above Tchaikovsky, and the TC Keyboard Concerti list did as well. On the other hand, the DDD list places Tchaikovsky above Grieg, and I have always assumed most classical listeners would put Tchaikovsky higher.



Romantic Geek said:


> I was speaking more generally. Typically people view the octet as his major accomplishment. I find Mendelssohn's string quartets enjoyable (of the ones I've heard). In fact, Mendelssohn is the composer that got me into classical music.


I always thought more people viewed the violin concerto as Mendelssohn's greatest work. Some consider his violin concerto as the greatest violin concerto, and I think most would place it in the top 3. I do think Mendelssohn was perhaps the greatest composer at an early age, but I also believe he composed great works later in life (violin concerto, piano, concerto 1, Symphony 3 and 4).


----------



## Romantic Geek

mmsbls said:


> I personally place Grieg's concerto above Tchaikovsky, and the TC Keyboard Concerti list did as well. On the other hand, the DDD list places Tchaikovsky above Grieg, and I have always assumed most classical listeners would put Tchaikovsky higher.


For my listening and piano performance experience, I believe the Grieg is just a little more popular. It's actually something that the general public probably has heard in their lifetime (maybe in a commercial) whereas the Tchaikovsky doesn't have that broad base. Both are fantastic concertos though.



> I always thought more people viewed the violin concerto as Mendelssohn's greatest work. Some consider his violin concerto as the greatest violin concerto, and I think most would place it in the top 3. I do think Mendelssohn was perhaps the greatest composer at an early age, but I also believe he composed great works later in life (violin concerto, piano, concerto 1, Symphony 3 and 4).


The violin concerto is a wonderful work. It was his last large orchestral work and definitely one that shows his mastery of orchestration and composition.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Romantic Geek said:


> The issue with Mendelssohn is that he peaked before he turned 20. It's not that his stuff later is bad (it certainly isn't) but nothing is as good as his octet.


 I would be fascinated to learn more about why you think that nothing Mendelssohn wrote after the Octet is as good as that work, taking into account various works that many people regard in high esteem like for example Symphonies 3, 4, 5, the VC, Midsummer Night's Dream incidental music, various "songs without words", Elijah, Hebrides, various later string quartets, piano trio no 1, and several highly regarded organ works, to name just a few.


----------



## Kowtow

Shoot me, but I think that Beethoven was overrated. I don't think his original music was actually what we hear today. I think that much was added to it, and he was given credit. I'm still working on the underrated answer...


----------



## Very Senior Member

Kowtow said:


> Shoot me, but I think that Beethoven was overrated. I don't think his original music was actually what we hear today. I think that much was added to it, and he was given credit. I'm still working on the underrated answer...


 Which works were added to? When? By whom? How were they added to? Why should anyone want to do this? What do you think they might have gained from it? Don't bother working on the underrated answer until you've answered these questions, as I wouldn't wish to tax your brain cells too far.


----------



## Arsakes

Agree with OP on these Overrated:

a. Mozart
b. Tchaikovsky
c. Mahler
f. John Cage
g. Stravinsky

and these Underrated:

a. Monteverdi
c. Handel


Also I find Dvorak, Sibelius, Heinrich Schütz, Beriot and Khachaturian underrated.

What about Movie composers like John Williams and Hans Zimmer. Don't they deserve a mention?


----------



## Romantic Geek

Very Senior Member said:


> I would be fascinated to learn more about why you think that nothing Mendelssohn wrote after the Octet is as good as that work, taking into account various works that many people regard in high esteem like for example Symphonies 3, 4, 5, the VC, Midsummer Night's Dream incidental music, various "songs without words", Elijah, Hebrides, various later string quartets, piano trio no 1, and several highly regarded organ works, to name just a few.


OK, I'll rephrase. I do think Mendelssohn wrote works comparable to the Octet after that work. However, the Octet demonstrated pure compositional genius at such a young age. All of the works that you mention may come close to the level of the Octet, but none of them surpass it. Mendelssohn was one of the greatest compositional prodigies ever to exist. The only thing is that his voice was fairly conservative at the time he composed and thus...unlike Beethoven or Mozart...he wasn't able to make an impact with those later works.

Like I said (either in this thread or another...) Mendelssohn is one of my favorite composers. He's the one that caused me to become entrenched in classical music today. His Octet is one of the greatest compositions ever written by any composer. It's not a slight to him that his later compositions aren't at the level of that work.


----------



## brianwalker

Romantic Geek said:


> His Octet is one of the greatest compositions ever written by any composer.


Really? Really really?


----------



## Romantic Geek

brianwalker said:


> Really? Really really?


It's on the short list.


----------



## tdc

I like Mendelssohn's Octet, but prefer his Violin Concerto and Songs Without Words...Come to think of it I think I also slightly prefer his Piano Trios and Piano Sextet to that Octet as well (not sure when they were composed)... though I am usually a little biased towards chamber music featuring a piano.


----------



## Cnote11

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Sorry I should have said same _country._ He's coming down to Melbourne from Sydney for the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra's _Metropolis New Music Festival_ this week. Steve Reich is the featured composer. He was in Sydney before giving concerts at the opera house.


And you didn't go why?


----------



## brianwalker

Romantic Geek said:


> It's on the short list.


How short?


----------



## Cnote11

I believe it goes:

Wagner 
Wagner
Wagner
Wagner
Wagner
Wagner
Wagner
Wagner
Wagner
Mendelssohn's Octet

*based on statistics from the Couchie Foundation for Classical Music


----------



## Romantic Geek

tdc said:


> I like Mendelssohn's Octet, but prefer his Violin Concerto and Songs Without Words...Come to think of it I think I also slightly prefer his Piano Trios and Piano Sextet to that Octet as well (not sure when they were composed)... though I am usually a little biased towards chamber music featuring a piano.


The Lieder ohne Worte are not on the same level as the Violin Concerto and the Octet. Absolutely not. I love them too...but I'd consider them in the middle of the pack of Mendelssohn's output.


----------



## Romantic Geek

brianwalker said:


> How short?


Top 50 composition (of course in my opinion).


----------



## Very Senior Member

Romantic Geek said:


> OK, I'll rephrase. I do think Mendelssohn wrote works comparable to the Octet after that work. However, the Octet demonstrated pure compositional genius at such a young age. All of the works that you mention may come close to the level of the Octet, but none of them surpass it. Mendelssohn was one of the greatest compositional prodigies ever to exist. The only thing is that his voice was fairly conservative at the time he composed and thus...unlike Beethoven or Mozart...he wasn't able to make an impact with those later works. Like I said (either in this thread or another...) Mendelssohn is one of my favorite composers. He's the one that caused me to become entrenched in classical music today. His Octet is one of the greatest compositions ever written by any composer. It's not a slight to him that his later compositions aren't at the level of that work.


 Your last sentence contradicts your second sentence, hence you are back to where you started. I'm surprised that you consider Mendelssohn's Octet to be one of the greatest compositions written by any composer. It's good but not that good. I can think of many far better works by various others. Even confining attention to Mendelssohn's works alone, several of his later works have achieved greater notoriety and general popularity than the Octet. The notion that Mendelssohn's compositional ability peaked early and then declined over the remainder of his quite short life is basically myth. If you look at his achievements over his entire composing career there's no evidence to support that notion. Many of his mid-career and late works are just as good, if not better, than the Octet.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Very Senior Member said:


> Your last sentence contradicts your second sentence, hence you are back to where you started. I'm surprised that you consider Mendelssohn's Octet to be one of the greatest compositions written by any composer. It's good but not that good. I can think of many far better works by various others. Even confining attention to Mendelssohn's works alone, several of his later works have achieved greater notoriety and general popularity than the Octet. The notion that Mendelssohn's compositional ability peaked early and then declined over the remainder of his quite short life is basically myth. If you look at his achievements over his entire composing career there's no evidence to support that notion. Many of his mid-career and late works are just as good, if not better, than the Octet.


Let's be clear, greater notoriety and general popularity does not directly correlate with the level of composition.

I will vehemently defend my position that the Octet is his greatest work. He has comparable works (as in...great works) but I find none as masterful as his Octet. When people say that the Lieder ohne Worte are on the level of that work, I am greatly offended. They're in two entirely different leagues of composition. It would be saying that Beethoven's Egmont Overture is akin to his Symphony No. 9.


----------



## tdc

Romantic Geek said:


> *When people say that the Lieder ohne Worte are on the level of that work, I am greatly offended. They're in two entirely different leagues of composition.* It would be saying that Beethoven's Egmont Overture is akin to his Symphony No. 9.


Care to be more specific as to why? Because I don't think they are in two different leagues at all...

(Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words) _are within the grasp of pianists of various abilities and this undoubtedly contributed to their popularity. *This great popularity has caused many critics to under-rate their musical value*_.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_Without_Words

Lets not forget about Mendelssohn's sublime Organ Sonatas, which I believe were also composed later in his life, I don't believe these works to be over-shadowed by the Octet in anyway either.


----------



## Romantic Geek

tdc said:


> Care to be more specific as to why? Because I don't think they are in two different leagues at all...
> 
> (Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words) _are within the grasp of pianists of various abilities and this undoubtedly contributed to their popularity. *This great popularity has caused many critics to under-rate their musical value*_.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_Without_Words
> 
> Lets not forget about Mendelssohn's sublime Organ Sonatas, which I believe were also composed later in his life, I don't believe these works to be over-shadowed by the Octet in anyway either.


Again, I reiterate, popularity does not equate to compositional mastery. A good example would be Ravel's Bolero. I don't think anyone considers that a masterpiece. That's because it isn't. And yet, it is very popular. Mendelssohn's Lieder ohne Worte are easy and difficult at the same time. But they don't contain the musical complexity of a sonata. Very much, the works are in fact songs written for the piano. They (for the most part) lack motivic cohesiveness. Almost all of the songs are either in an incredibly standard binary or ternary form. The harmonic language in the Lieder ohne Worte is greatly diminished in comparison to Mendelssohn's other piano works and other piano works by contemporary composers. None of them highlight Mendelssohn's greatest attribute as a composer, which was his mastery of counterpoint. I'd easily put his preludes and fugues above almost every single Lieder ohne Worte.

I think those are sufficient reasons why they are on different leagues. Also, thanks for quoting that passage in Wikipedia because that's the type of statement that needs a citation (which it's lacking.) I've just added the "citation needed" tag. So thanks!


----------



## Very Senior Member

Romantic Geek said:


> Let's be clear, greater notoriety and general popularity does not directly correlate with the level of composition. I will vehemently defend my position that the Octet is his greatest work. He has comparable works (as in...great works) but I find none as masterful as his Octet. When people say that the Lieder ohne Worte are on the level of that work, I am greatly offended. They're in two entirely different leagues of composition. It would be saying that Beethoven's Egmont Overture is akin to his Symphony No. 9.


 The suggestion that Mendelssohn at the age of 16 composed his greatest work and nothing he wrote later matched up to the same high quality flies in the face of widespread acceptance that Mendelssohn wrote many great works over the remaining 20+ years of his composing career, several of which were at least as good as the Octet. It is also highly unlikely that Mendelssohn's creative talents peaked at such a tender age as 16. Most if not all of the major composers continued to improve and produce great works as they aged (in some cases among their lifetime's best), so I can't see why should Mendelssohn should be any different. I think maybe you should re-assess your opinions on this issue, as they don't really stack up against the facts. I wouldn't suggest you ask any of your esteemed post grad music college friends for their opinion on this subject because if none of then can name a famous aria/duet from Fidelio I don't have much faith in their knowledge of anything relating to the history of music.


----------



## tdc

Romantic Geek said:


> Again, I reiterate, popularity does not equate to compositional mastery. A good example would be Ravel's Bolero. I don't think anyone considers that a masterpiece. That's because it isn't. And yet, it is very popular. Mendelssohn's Lieder ohne Worte are easy and difficult at the same time. But they don't contain the musical complexity of a sonata. Very much, the works are in fact songs written for the piano. They (for the most part) lack motivic cohesiveness. Almost all of the songs are either in an incredibly standard binary or ternary form. The harmonic language in the Lieder ohne Worte is greatly diminished in comparison to Mendelssohn's other piano works and other piano works by contemporary composers. None of them highlight Mendelssohn's greatest attribute as a composer, which was his mastery of counterpoint. I'd easily put his preludes and fugues above almost every single Lieder ohne Worte.
> 
> I think those are sufficient reasons why they are on different leagues. Also, thanks for quoting that passage in Wikipedia because that's the type of statement that needs a citation (which it's lacking.) I've just added the "citation needed" tag. So thanks!


Well, I can't help but feel like there is something special and unique about the Lieder ohne Worte, that at the moment I lack the musical jargon to know how to describe...I will say they strike me as completely unique for their time. Though I appreciate this more specific answer and respect your opinion on them. At the end of the day though you yourself have admitted the Violin Concerto_ is_ in the same league as the Octet, and haven't really touched on those Organ Sonatas or late symphonies. So clearly it can be argued his works at a later age showed no real decline, and as the VC is in my mind undoubtedly his best work, I would still argue for Mendelssohn continuing to grow as an artist throughout his life.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Very Senior Member said:


> The suggestion that Mendelssohn at the age of 16 composed his greatest work and nothing he wrote later matched up to the same high quality flies in the face of widespread acceptance that Mendelssohn wrote many great works over the remaining 20+ years of his composing career, several of which were at least as good as the Octet. It is also highly unlikely that Mendelssohn's creative talents peaked at such a tender age as 16. Most if not all of the major composers continued to improve and produce great works as they aged (in some cases among their lifetime's best), so I can't see why should Mendelssohn should be any different. I think maybe you should re-assess your opinions on this issue, as they don't really stack up against the facts. I wouldn't suggest you ask any of your esteemed post grad music college friends for their opinion on this subject because if none of then can name a famous aria/duet from Fidelio I don't have much faith in their knowledge of anything relating to the history of music.


Again, you're misreading into my comments. To say that Mendelssohn didn't produce high quality work after age 16 is a fallacy. He produced many high quality works. I personally don't think any of them are as good as the octet. Many of the later works though are wonderful works and should be played a lot. Maybe the octet is the pinnacle of Mendelssohn's compositional achievements, but he definitely did not fall off the face of the earth after that composition. He was very much relevant. He just fell into the trap of not being "innovative" enough in his later style.

Also, I really appreciate that ad hominum attack on my colleagues and myself. (/sarcasm). It's very clear that there are different classical musical bubbles. The fact that a bunch of people who study music can't name an aria in Fidelio doesn't speak to anything about their comprehensive knowledge of music. For instance, some of them only study post-tonal works. Others only study early music. As we've discussed, Fidelio isn't anywhere near the top of the "Essential Works of Beethoven."

You don't have to agree with my opinion. But a lot of people are misconstruing my comments and putting words into my mouth.


----------



## Romantic Geek

tdc said:


> Well, I can't help but feel like there is something special and unique about the Lieder ohne Worte, that at the moment I lack the musical jargon to know how to describe...I will say they strike me as completely unique for their time. Though I appreciate this more specific answer and respect your opinion on them. At the end of the day though you yourself have admitted the Violin Concerto_ is_ in the same league as the Octet, and haven't really touched on those Organ Sonatas or late symphonies. So clearly it can be argued his works at a later age showed no real decline, and as the VC is in my mind undoubtedly his best work, I would still argue for Mendelssohn continuing to grow as an artist throughout his life.


They are unique. They're wonderful works. I love the Lieder ohne Worte. They're some of my favorite piano pieces to play.

I just want to clarify that I hold the Octet in the highest esteem. The VC is right behind it.


----------



## peeyaj

peeyaj said:


> I can't believe that we don't have a specific thread regarding this subject. So, I'll post this. Feel free to argue the merits of your lists, and some of us we'll be compelled to defend ours.
> 
> Here are my guilty suspects.
> 
> * Most Overrated *
> 
> a. Mozart
> 
> b. Tchaikovsky
> 
> c. Mahler
> 
> d. Liszt
> 
> e. Philip Glass
> 
> f. John Cage
> 
> g. Stravinsky
> 
> * Most Underrated *
> 
> a. Monteverdi
> 
> b. Schubert
> 
> c. Handel
> 
> d. Schoenberg
> 
> e. Debussy
> 
> Mozart created some of the most beautiful and memorable music in Classical era. I just don't understand the adulation he received today. Tchaikovsky, in my opinion, is very competent composer, but his music doesn't ''do'' me. Same to Mahler' symphonies.
> 
> On, the other hand, we can argue that Schubert is as popular as ever, but there are some, who think that he's only a ''gifted amatuer'' (that's **, btw). Monteverdi's contribution to opera was often overlooked, while Schoenberg's twelve-tone system continues to baffle listeners..
> 
> I am tempted to include LvB in the overrated, but I don't wanna die..
> 
> It's important to distinguish between ''overrated'' and ''underappreciated''.
> 
> What's in your list?


It's been a year and 5 months since I have posted this and in that span of time, I've listened and appreciated some of these composers. So, I would amend my post to reflect this. The underlined composer meant that he was removed from my list.

a. *Mozart * - Oh Mozart! You are a genius. You are now removed from the list.

b. Tchaikovsky - Tchaikovsky, I liked some of your music. But after a year listening to your symphonies and ballets, I still consider you as overrated.

c. Mahler - I'm thankful that I've heard the Titan.. I think I would place you in my "neutral" list.

d. *Liszt* - Lisztian gave some great insights about your achievements. I still don't like your tone poems, but I have gained respect for you. Congratulations!

e. Philip Glass - You love Schubert. We both love him. But still.. still.. still.. still.. still But still.. still.. still.. still.. still.. still.. still.. still.. still.. still..

f. John Cage - I never liked you.

g. *Stravinsky *- I am neutral. Petrsuhka is nice.. But the increasingly atonal stuffs, bore me to death.

*Most Underrated *

a. Monteverdi - You are not still appreciated as I would like. I think you are a genius.

*b. Schubert* - Franz!! Congrats for placing fourth in TC's Greatest list! You are also featured in BBC Radio 3 for a whole week. More people are now appreciating your genius! It's a pity that DFD died this year, but his legacy with your songs would remain forever in our hearts! I looooooooveeee you so much. ^__________^

*c. Handel* - Congrats for making on TC's top ten. I admit I have always forgotten you in my music playlist, but still, you are a helluva great composer.

d. Schoenberg - I think most people wouldn't understand your significant contributions to the history of music. People should give you more attention.

*e. Debussy* - YOU are OVERRATED!! You should be in my other list.

Now, it would be:

*Most Overrated*

Debussy

Tchaikovsky

Philip Glass

John Cage

Schumann - new

*Most Underrated*

Monteverdi

Schoenberg

Grieg - new

*Neutral*

Mahler

Stravinsky

Liszt

Handel

Addendum: Ligeti, Ravel, Bartok and Webern - Can't place them yet.


----------



## musicphotogAnimal

I'm sorry, however I feel that Wagner is highly overrated. As much as I find a sense of disgust in his personal beliefs, all he was really noted for in his passel of works that he is recognized for is the Ring Cycle which is a 15 hour salute to leitmotifs and overblown theatrics. I've never been able to understand his popularity among opera fans. The melodies are simplistic when compared to the operas of Handel and Mozart. 

I apologize to the Wagner enthusiasts in this forum, but I will never be able to understand Wagner's popularity.

As much as I love Handel's works. The one piece I could go without hearing for the rest of my life is the Messiah. Every single stinkin' YEAR!!!! You can't go anywhere without hearing the "Hallelujah" chorus. Do they think of putting on Bach's Christmas Oratorio - BVW 248? NO!!! Every ~insert perjorative of your choice~ YEAR...they put on the MESSIAH!!!!!


----------



## Very Senior Member

musicphotogAnimal said:


> As much as I love Handel's works. The one piece I could go without hearing for the rest of my life is the Messiah. Every single stinkin' YEAR!!!! You can't go anywhere without hearing the "Hallelujah" chorus.


I agree it gets a bit tedious year after year. Have you considered Mecca, or possibly Terehan? I've heard that it's not such a big hit out there. Islamabad might be slightly warmer at that time of year.


----------



## Bas

Overrated:

Strauss, Stravinsky

Underrated:

Borodin


----------



## peeyaj

Very Senior Member said:


> I agree it gets a bit tedious year after year. Have you considered Mecca, or possibly Terehan? I've heard that it's not such a big hit out there. Islamabad might be slightly warmer at that time of year.


Is this supposed to be sarcasm, VSM?


----------



## Hausmusik

toucan said:


> Compared with Schubert...Brahms is heavy-handed, needing an hour and countless instruments to say less than...Schubert can say in less than a minute, using one pair of hands only.


What a bizarre, ill-informed comment. Franz "heavenly length" Schubert commended for succinctness?! Now I've heard everything. I can think of only one Brahms work that stretches to an hour (his Requiem; his longest symphony, No. 1, clocks in at about 45 minutes), while nearly all of my favorite Schubert works take 50-60 minutes or more to perform if repeats are observed: the B flat sonata, the octet, the string quintet, the 887 quartet, the 9th symphony,the uncut second piano trio, Winterreise, the E flat mass, etc.


----------



## MJongo

musicphotogAnimal said:


> I'm sorry, however I feel that Wagner is highly overrated. As much as I find a sense of disgust in his personal beliefs, all he was really noted for in his passel of works that he is recognized for is the Ring Cycle which is a 15 hour salute to leitmotifs and overblown theatrics.


Though he may be most known for the Ring Cycle, Tristan und Isolde completely blows it away, both in musicality and conciseness.


----------



## Rapide

*Sofia Gubaidulina* (born 1931) needs more mentioning and her very original ideas in pitch.


----------



## Novelette

Whoever said Brahms was overrated, whoever said Beethoven was overrated, whoever said Schumann was overrated....



Yes, Schubert is underrated. Sometimes Liszt is overrated. I think that Mozart is overrated, except in certain genres like the Piano Quartet, Contredanse, etc.


----------



## Tristan

Overrated: Beethoven

Remember, "overrated" doesn't mean "sucks". I love Beethoven. But I also agree that people rate him more highly than he deserves. Wasn't it Wagner who said that no one should ever write a symphony again after Beethoven? That kind of overrating is ridiculous.

Underrated: Scriabin, especially in regard to his orchestral music.


----------



## Lisztian

Novelette said:


> Sometimes Liszt is overrated.


How? No one can say this around here without explaining why


----------



## KenOC

Hausmusik said:


> ...while nearly all of my favorite Schubert works take 50-60 minutes or more to perform if repeats are observed: the B flat sonata, the octet, the string quintet, the 887 quartet, the 9th symphony,the uncut second piano trio, Winterreise, the E flat mass, etc.


Of course no sane musician takes Schubert's exposition repeats. Not an opinion, of course, but a totally objective fact. :angel:


----------



## BurningDesire

Tristan said:


> Overrated: Beethoven
> 
> Remember, "overrated" doesn't mean "sucks". I love Beethoven. But I also agree that people rate him more highly than he deserves. Wasn't it Wagner who said that no one should ever write a symphony again after Beethoven? That kind of overrating is ridiculous.
> 
> Underrated: Scriabin, especially in regard to his orchestral music.


I agree only in a situation when somebody says something as ridiculous and stupid as that thing Wagner might have said X3


----------



## BurningDesire

Rapide said:


> *Sofia Gubaidulina* (born 1931) needs more mentioning and her very original ideas in pitch.


Gubaidulina is awesome


----------



## Rapide

BurningDesire said:


> Gubaidulina is awesome


She is a very versatile composer.


----------



## Pastoral

Overated or not, it's the most boring month to me when the FM station near my city does 31-days' of Mozart every January.


----------



## neoshredder

Underrated? Sibelius imo. All his Symphonies are great.  No one like him.


----------



## Rapide

neoshredder said:


> Underrated? Sibelius imo. All his Symphonies are great.  No one like him.


I don't think Sibelius is that boring, he is alright.


----------



## Aries

most underrated:

- Bruckner
- Wagner
- Furtwängler
- Scherber
- Tschaikovsky
- Rimsky-Korsakov
- Prokovief
- Shostakovic

most overrated:

- Stockhausen
- Mozart
- Chopin
- Schumann
- Mendelssohn
- Brahms
- Schönberg


----------



## jhuizinga

Obviously there are many subjective opinions on this but the essential start is by defining the basis of 'over' and 'under'. I choose the basis of 'overrated' on, first, the metric of 'exposure', which is the frequency of concert programming, and its corollary, frequency of recordings; and second, the degree that the subsequent musical world would have continued, unaltered in its course, had this composer never existed.

There are several overrated composers, but many more underrated composers.

I highlight the one very obvious composer who lies at the intersection of both of these yardsticks: Brahms.

The virtual impossibility of encountering a 'general interest' concert program (symphonic, chamber, vocal or piano recitals, too, alas!) without encountering this proto-Henry Mancini is a regrettable feature of modern life, especially in the US. A recent season at the LAPhil showed Brahms on 55% of the programs, with each symphony played (by different conductors) between 1 and 3 times (in a single season!) -- not to speak of the lugubrious 4 concerti, the 2 happy and sad overtures, and the 2 serenades. Was delighted to say good riddance to that subscription series. Is there any clearer evidence that members of the major orchestras are overpaid when season after season the standard literature never changes?

Apart from Brahms' phalanx of tiresome followers/wannabees (Dvorak, Elgar, Reger etc) nothing in Brahms' music suggests any discovery not previously uncovered by Mendelssohn, Weber or Schumann. Hence, the great music of the 20th century is never prefigured (unlike Bruckner, Liszt, obviously Wagner, Wolf etc).

As a composer who developed, from early to late age, to only a middling degree, and who praised to the skies his fellow second raters Mendelssohn (for the Hebrides overture) and J Strauss (Blue Danube waltz), it's clear Brahms is the classical world's "overpaid, oversexed, and over here".


----------



## jhuizinga

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, regardless of how uninformed it is. That's the American way which we must defend.


----------



## science

Whoever I said before, let me now add to the underrated: 

Dukas
Enescu
Faure
Janacek
Kodaly 
Martinu
Taneyev


----------



## moody

Are you having us on,Furtwaengler's music is dreadful.
As for Tchaikovsky's music being underrated,are you in a different world from the rest of us ?
This also goes for Wagner,Bruckner,Rimsky and Prokofiev.
If you think that Mozart,Chopin,Schumann,Mendessohn and Brahms are overrated I think you should look at the figures re: sales.
Could it be personal prejudice creeping in?


----------



## moody

jhuizinga said:


> Obviously there are many subjective opinions on this but the essential start is by defining the basis of 'over' and 'under'. I choose the basis of 'overrated' on, first, the metric of 'exposure', which is the frequency of concert programming, and its corollary, frequency of recordings; and second, the degree that the subsequent musical world would have continued, unaltered in its course, had this composer never existed.
> 
> There are several overrated composers, but many more underrated composers.
> 
> I highlight the one very obvious composer who lies at the intersection of both of these yardsticks: Brahms.
> 
> The virtual impossibility of encountering a 'general interest' concert program (symphonic, chamber, vocal or piano recitals, too, alas!) without encountering this proto-Henry Mancini is a regrettable feature of modern life, especially in the US. A recent season at the LAPhil showed Brahms on 55% of the programs, with each symphony played (by different conductors) between 1 and 3 times (in a single season!) -- not to speak of the lugubrious 4 concerti, the 2 happy and sad overtures, and the 2 serenades. Was delighted to say good riddance to that subscription series. Is there any clearer evidence that members of the major orchestras are overpaid when season after season the standard literature never changes?
> 
> Apart from Brahms' phalanx of tiresome followers/wannabees (Dvorak, Elgar, Reger etc) nothing in Brahms' music suggests any discovery not previously uncovered by Mendelssohn, Weber or Schumann. Hence, the great music of the 20th century is never prefigured (unlike Bruckner, Liszt, obviously Wagner, Wolf etc).
> 
> As a composer who developed, from early to late age, to only a middling degree, and who praised to the skies his fellow second raters Mendelssohn (for the Hebrides overture) and J Strauss (Blue Danube waltz), it's clear Brahms is the classical world's "overpaid, oversexed, and over here".


How terribly sad this opinion of Brahms is--lugubrious concerti,my goodness !
Have you considered why he is featured so often--could it be that people like hearing him? Management would soon notice a lack of audience if patrons were not interested.


----------



## jhuizinga

moody said:


> How terribly sad this opinion of Brahms is--lugubrious concerti,my goodness !
> Have you considered why he is featured so often--could it be that people like hearing him? Management would soon notice a lack of audience if patrons were not interested.


You've perhaps stepped unwittingly into my underlying thesis --- 'over' and 'under' -rating has no direct relation to popularity. Democracy is a political system, not a means to identify and apportion merit in the arts and sciences.

Brahms is clearly extremely popular with the public, and for a multitude of reasons. Here are two. First, performers, group and individual, incur great costs by learning and programming music that is unfamiliar to the ticket and CD buying public (I except widely advocated contemporary commissions that are the darling of the msm). Example: take two chamber programs--- one has a Faure violin sonata, one has a Brahms --- which sells more tickets?

Like Justin Bieber's audiences, most people who go to a classical music concert would like waves of familiar and obviously sentimental music to simply wash over them. A very small proportion of listeners want to or (who knows) are able to follow a hitherto unaudited musical argument.

Second, Brahms, to his credit, wrote music across genres of a sufficiently consistent quality that it's easy to simply reach to his work to fill out a program if not the season. Consider the music head of a symphonic organization -- let's call him Mr Yawn-onen. He thinks: "I need a late 19th symphony for the March 17, 2015 concert. Hmm, how about the Brahms 1st -- woops, did that last year; the 2nd? Played twice last year (but not by me -- harumph); the 3rd, I did that two years back; well, that leaves the 4th. It's settled. I'll close the second half with the Fourth, and in the first half, it'll be a grabbag of my most recent, delirious work."

A Brahms work is a 'lollipop' (albeit of a depressive flavor) offered to the masses to ensure a base level of ticket sales. I think Brahms is now the Beatles, even more so than Beethoven, and equal to Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninov in 'curb appeal'. So it's the increased commercial stakes in grabbing the dwindling classical music listener base that are driving this monochromaticism which leads to the extreme overexposure of this composer everywhere one looks in the performance world.

The next time some music administrator is looking for a piece of 12 minutes to fill out a symphonic program and reaches for the Tragic overture, why not turn to something remarkable from the astronomer-turned-composer Charles Koechlin -- his 'Vers la Voute etoilee' ('Towards the Starry Vault')? It will either immobilize you with boredom if you're a bedrock Brahmsian, or it may give you pause to think that music can also express the inexpressible.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

moody said:


> As for Tchaikovsky's music being underrated,are you in a different world from the rest of us ?
> This also goes for Wagner,Bruckner,Rimsky and Prokofiev.


I think Aries meant those composers should be appreciated even more than they already are. At least concerning one... no, two of them, I agree


----------



## moody

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think he meant those composers should be appreciated even more than they already are. At least concerning one... no, two of them, I agree


Unfotunately I am not a mind reader,so unless you mention who you might mean I can say nothing.


----------



## moody

JHUIZINGA.

Overrate : To rate or appreciate too highly.
Anything that is given too much credit or hype.

'Over' or 'under' rating must have a direct relationship to popularity. If a composer is underrated the public would look at the programme and say, "No thankyou very much !"
The cost incurred from from learning and programming music that is unfamiliar to the public is noticed particularly when no one turns up and the management team is sacked.
The BBC Proms have a habit of inserting unfamiliar or even brand new items into a popular concert. This rather proves the lengths that need to be gone to with this type of item---but of course I'm paying for the BBC so they don't care.
I think that the your premise may be a false one ,if you glance at the thread on Brahms' piano music (A Brahms Mystery)
you will find some fairly hostile opinions expressed and I find that normal with this composer. 
Audiences do want to hear music that is familiar ,why not they are paying after all. The music that you want to see included in programmes--you say not not the ultra modern--has been tried and did not catch on,that is why it's unfamiliar.
Why should a couple dress up and travel up to London to a concert that they think they might not like ? People don't go to the theatre without knowing what they are going to see I'm sure.
Experimentation is for the young and beginners and that is how they decide what catches their fancy for the future.
I have been going to concert for 67 years ,do you really think that I'm going to start messing around the way I did back then all over again.
I am unfamiliar with Koechlin's music,it may be wonderful.but if i haven't heard it up to now it can't be around much.
Incidentally,I don't know how you find Brahm' music depressing---maybe it's you and not the music.
Lastly,speaking of being immobilised with boredom,I think you perhaps meant to say : "Why don't management try something new instead of the same old stuff all the time?"
Oh, and it was terribly kind of you to translate the French title,I don't know what I would have done without that.

P.S. there is a thread running with the title : "Make Your Own Pretentious Statement On Music",do have a butchers--I've been directing one or two people in that direction
While I'm at it I will return the compliment and translate> "Butcher's Hook " = "look" Cockney rhyming slang,I know you wouldn't have the slightest idea what it might mean.


----------



## jhuizinga

moody said:


> JHUIZINGA.
> 
> Overrate : To rate or appreciate too highly.
> Anything that is given too much credit or hype.
> 
> 'Over' or 'under' rating must have a direct relationship to popularity. If a composer is underrated the public would look at the programme and say, "No thankyou very much !"
> The cost incurred from from learning and programming music that is unfamiliar to the public is noticed particularly when no one turns up and the management team is sacked.
> The BBC Proms have a habit of inserting unfamiliar or even brand new items into a popular concert. This rather proves the lengths that need to be gone to with this type of item---but of course I'm paying for the BBC so they don't care.
> I think that the your premise may be a false one ,if you glance at the thread on Brahms' piano music (A Brahms Mystery)
> you will find some fairly hostile opinions expressed and I find that normal with this composer.
> Audiences do want to hear music that is familiar ,why not they are paying after all. The music that you want to see included in programmes--you say not not the ultra modern--has been tried and did not catch on,that is why it's unfamiliar.
> Why should a couple dress up and travel up to London to a concert that they think they might not like ? People don't go to the theatre without knowing what they are going to see I'm sure.
> Experimentation is for the young and beginners and that is how they decide what catches their fancy for the future.
> I have been going to concert for 67 years ,do you really think that I'm going to start messing around the way I did back then all over again.
> I am unfamiliar with Koechlin's music,it may be wonderful.but if i haven't heard it up to now it can't be around much.
> Incidentally,I don't know how you find Brahm' music depressing---maybe it's you and not the music.
> Lastly,speaking of being immobilised with boredom,I think you perhaps meant to say : "Why don't management try something new instead of the same old stuff all the time?"
> Oh, and it was terribly kind of you to translate the French title,I don't know what I would have done without that.
> 
> P.S. there is a thread running with the title : "Make Your Own Pretentious Statement On Music",do have a butchers--I've been directing one or two people in that direction
> While I'm at it I will return the compliment and translate> "Butcher's Hook " = "look" Cockney rhyming slang,I know you wouldn't have the slightest idea what it might mean.


I don't wish to reply at length to someone who's not read what I've written any care. Suffice it to say, that for the purposes of responding to this issue of under and over -- I don't it's a democratic vote. You obviously think's popularity that is the determinant -- that's your right and good luck with you.

I certainly know better than to argue with someone who may eventually revert to the argument that I'm trying to take away their rights to which they are fully entitled by virtue of their age, battle experience, personal suffering, etc. Listen to whatever you want. Adieu et bonne chance.


----------



## moody

jhuizinga said:


> I don't wish to reply at length to someone who's not read what I've written any care. Suffice it to say, that for the purposes of responding to this issue of under and over -- I don't it's a democratic vote. You obviously think's popularity that is the determinant -- that's your right and good luck with you.
> 
> I certainly know better than to argue with someone who may eventually revert to the argument that I'm trying to take away their rights to which they are fully entitled by virtue of their age, battle experience, personal suffering, etc. Listen to whatever you want. Adieu et bonne chance.


That last paragraph is one of the most extraordinary things that Ihave had the misfortune to read on TC,I think you have a problem--did the other cnildren use to take your toys ? You take a liberty in thinking in advance of what I may say ,I certainly have never resorted to such nonsense and on the whole "civil liberties" nonsense stems mostly from your homeland.
Furthermore,you didn't translate the new bit of French stuff--that's not very nice.


----------



## Truckload

science said:


> Whoever I said before, let me now add to the underrated:
> 
> Dukas
> Enescu
> Faure
> Janacek
> Kodaly
> Martinu
> Taneyev


Is Dukas underrated? His "Apprentice" is beloved by many, including myself, and is very frequently in concerts and on classical radio. Why would you say Dukas is underrated?

Enescu, yes I can see your point. Faure wrote some incredible choral music. Hmmm . . . yes I see your point about the other names or you list, although I would not agree with all, but Dukas seems very well appreciated.


----------



## Crudblud

Truckload said:


> Is Dukas underrated? His "Apprentice" is beloved by many, including myself, and is very frequently in concerts and on classical radio. Why would you say Dukas is underrated?


_Sorceror's Apprentice_ might be popular, but how many other works of Dukas do you think most classical listeners know?


----------



## jhuizinga

Truckload said:


> Is Dukas underrated? His "Apprentice" is beloved by many, including myself, and is very frequently in concerts and on classical radio. Why would you say Dukas is underrated?
> 
> Enescu, yes I can see your point. Faure wrote some incredible choral music. Hmmm . . . yes I see your point about the other names or you list, although I would not agree with all, but Dukas seems very well appreciated.


Perhaps it's because Dukas wrote more than one piece of music. His great symphony in C is never performed: his magical opera (on the same subject used by Bartok) Ariane et Barbe Bleu is never performed, and the ballet La Péri set to Dukas's brilliant score is never danced.

Fortunately for true music lovers, these works have recorded.

In all other situations, let the vox (or do I mean box?) populi rule.

Good news: The Smallville Cultural Centeris planning to play (via pre-recorded tapes of course; the town population is only 987) an endless loop of the complete orchestral works (including the symphonies, oh bliss) of Brahms from sunset on July 3rd to the start of fireworks the following evening. Sadly, tickets are almost sold out.


----------



## neoshredder

Overrated Cage
Underrated Biber


----------



## Mahlerian

jhuizinga said:


> Good news: The Smallville Cultural Centeris planning to play (via pre-recorded tapes of course; the town population is only 987) an endless loop of the complete orchestral works (including the symphonies, oh bliss) of Brahms from sunset on July 3rd to the start of fireworks the following evening. Sadly, tickets are almost sold out.


Given that the Deutsche Grammophon Complete Brahms Edition lists 5 CDs of orchestral works, 3 of concertos, and an additional 3 of works featuring chorus and orchestra, it doesn't sound like the loop would be very repetitive...or that your attempted insult was very well thought out.


----------



## jhuizinga

Mahlerian said:


> Given that the Deutsche Grammophon Complete Brahms Edition lists 5 CDs of orchestral works, 3 of concertos, and an additional 3 of works featuring chorus and orchestra, it doesn't sound like the loop would be very repetitive...or that your attempted insult was very well thought out.[/
> 
> Sorry but you've missed the point completely but nonetheless delighted to give you an opportunity for your daily flex in the dusty archive. Don't suppose you have the individual disc timings, while you're down there, eh? No? Perhaps the UK catalogue number for the original issue LP set? Now check the brochure for mis-stapled pages and report back, please. Thanks again.


----------



## Truckload

Crudblud said:


> _Sorceror's Apprentice_ might be popular, but how many other works of Dukas do you think most classical listeners know?


I agree, not much else by Dakas is "in the mainstream." I made it a point to listen to everything else of his that has ever been recorded. I never found anything else of his that just blew me away like "Apprentice". I purchased the score of "Apprentice" and studied it many years ago. The orchestration is genius. The harmonic pallet is immensely creative, adding just the right touch of tension and release.

It must have been very frustrating for Dukas, as a composer, that he never again equaled the success of "Apprentice".


----------



## mamascarlatti

jhuizinga said:


> Perhaps it's because Dukas wrote more than one piece of music. His great symphony in C is never performed: his magical opera (on the same subject used by Bartok) *Ariane et Barbe Bleu is never performed*, and the ballet La Péri set to Dukas's brilliant score is never danced.


Never? Really?

Safer to say _rarely_. 2 productions in 2012, one in Dijon and one in Frankfurt, + this DVD:


----------



## KenOC

Here's a (possibly) underrated composer: Charles Gounod. I heard his Petite Symphonie for Winds on the radio today and played the usual guess-the-composer game, so I listened quite closely (did not guess the composer however). But what a nice work!


----------



## Benny

Brahms?? overrated?????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## AClockworkOrange

I could be completely wrong, but personally I think Josef Suk is quite underrated which is truly a pity as he has many beautiful compositions, particularly symphonies and tone poems.

Though I will be the first to say he is not in highest league of composers, Furtwangler is often written off quickly. Granted there is a lot Bruckner influence in his symphonic works but I don't think they are derivative. I suppose one could say that because his works can be viewed as divisive he is perhaps more niche than underrated but it would be nice for his works to receive a little more attention. Unfamiliarity I feel contributes to the works being underrated.

Then again, I think Carl Maria Von Weber is also quite underrated. This may be stretching the term though given his overtures and concertos, but this is more opinion than fact.

As far as overrated goes, I find this tricky because it is a very subjective view easily used to say that I like composer A over the highly regarded B and C. 

I suppose I think that Ralph Vaughan-Williams is a touch overrated though that is based more on my area and Classic FM's (what feels relentless) championing of the Lark Ascending and Folk Suites and the fact that much of his music irritates. This is just an opinion for what it is worth.


----------



## Crudblud

Truckload said:


> It must have been very frustrating for Dukas, as a composer, that he never again equaled the success of "Apprentice".


I suppose that depends on his temperament, whether he was interested in popularity or that he considered simply completing a piece to be a mark of success.


----------



## science

Truckload said:


> Is Dukas underrated? His "Apprentice" is beloved by many, including myself, and is very frequently in concerts and on classical radio. Why would you say Dukas is underrated?
> 
> Enescu, yes I can see your point. Faure wrote some incredible choral music. Hmmm . . . yes I see your point about the other names or you list, although I would not agree with all, but Dukas seems very well appreciated.


Others have answered this well enough, but I'll reply just for fun!

I'm not sure that Apprentice is all that appreciated. Famous, sure, like the Radetzky March and Pachelbel's Canon and so on. But appreciated, the way that it would be had he been German or Russian? No, not even nearly, and that's about how appreciated I think it ought to be.

Same for the piano sonata.


----------



## jhuizinga

You've missed the point. It's not about bean counting (no offense to the green eyeshade people who seem to be here in numbers) -- it's the outcome of the increased scale and commercialization of classical music. The evidence is the 117th new issue of Brahms' Third Symphony (grand total, 1,264, but please don't count) and the 18th new co-production of Carmen (at least the Carmen is interesting). Only chamber, vocal and instrumental recitals can escape this effect to some extent because their costs are lower. So for most symphonic groups, you can any flavor you want, as long as it's Brahms.

Just waiting for a pastiche opera to be commissioned based on the exciting life of Johannes, and using themes from the late piano music. A Brahms ballet has already been done, so the opera is next.


----------



## moody

jhuizinga said:


> You've missed the point. It's not about bean counting (no offense to the green eyeshade people who seem to be here in numbers) -- it's the outcome of the increased scale and commercialization of classical music. The evidence is the 117th new issue of Brahms' Third Symphony (grand total, 1,264, but please don't count) and the 18th new co-production of Carmen (at least the Carmen is interesting). Only chamber, vocal and instrumental recitals can escape this effect to some extent because their costs are lower. So for most symphonic groups, you can any flavor you want, as long as it's Brahms.
> 
> Just waiting for a pastiche opera to be commissioned based on the exciting life of Johannes, and using themes from the late piano music. A Brahms ballet has already been done, so the opera is next.


Everybody seems to be missing the point lately--have you noticed that ?


----------



## peeyaj

Brahms killing time.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Overrated 
Mozart








Underrated 
Edgard Varse







Frank Zappa








Address all corespondence to Aunty Jack care of Wollongong


----------



## matafox

I personally think Mozart wasn't really overrated, in most musical school's he's called "The Jesus of MUSIC" and I think there is reason for that, although his lifestyle was indeed dishonoring his talent, and for that I guess he may be called overrated, but not for talent.


----------



## Benny

The most underrated, I think, is Khachaturian. Whenever I say I like him they look at me as an incarnation of bad taste.
(but it's OK; when I say I don't like Beethoven's piano sonatas they look at me as if I were the Platonic idea of bad taste).


----------



## Alydon

We seem to underrate British composers: William Walton, Hubert Parry, Sir Granville Bantock and Gustav Holst - the list could go on. These composers rarely are mentioned along with the lists we have seen, yet they all composed a substantial body of work. I wonder if it is that ubiquitious phrase, 'gone out of fashion,' or are they simply overshadowed by their international contempories? I own a great many CDs of the above's music and can safely say have given me a great many hours of pleasurable listening. 
Though Irish, John Field's work is also sadly underrated, and although his work is confined to the piano, for the inventor of the nocturne never to feature (or very rarely) in a concert programme borders on the neglected rather than underrated. Field's 7 piano concertos are certainly worth investgating and for many years his 2nd was part of the standard repertoire!
If we personally think certain composers are overrated why not instead of listening to another Mahler symphony listen to Bantock's Omar Khayyam, or rather Brahms, listen to some of Parry's symphonies, then the gap might close slightly as familiarity with the underrated may lift their rating.


----------



## jhuizinga

Alydon said:


> We seem to underrate British composers: William Walton, Hubert Parry, Sir Granville Bantock and Gustav Holst - the list could go on. These composers rarely are mentioned along with the lists we have seen, yet they all composed a substantial body of work. I wonder if it is that ubiquitious phrase, 'gone out of fashion,' or are they simply overshadowed by their international contempories? I own a great many CDs of the above's music and can safely say have given me a great many hours of pleasurable listening.
> Though Irish, John Field's work is also sadly underrated, and although his work is confined to the piano, for the inventor of the nocturne never to feature (or very rarely) in a concert programme borders on the neglected rather than underrated. Field's 7 piano concertos are certainly worth investgating and for many years his 2nd was part of the standard repertoire!
> If we personally think certain composers are overrated why not instead of listening to another Mahler symphony listen to Bantock's Omar Khayyam, or rather Brahms, listen to some of Parry's symphonies, then the gap might close slightly as familiarity with the underrated may lift their rating.


Not being expert on the British composers listed, it's difficult to respond -- perhaps there are specific works you suggest are underrated? Walton's opera Troilus and Cressida, even with the advocacy of Janet Baker, seems basically uninteresting to non-Brits. Holst is a bit of a period piece -- perhaps Tippett can garner an audience outside of the UK -- A Child of our Time has great moments. Outside of song, it seems to me that the lyric gifts of the Brits are limited (not impressed with Adès's Tempest). Vaughn Williams, Butterworth, Finzi et al are pretty wonderful in song.


----------



## NewJerseyMan

Well, honestly, there's this huge pro-Germanic bias in classical music. The German and Austrian composers are considered to be geniuses, with everyone else except perhaps Debussy and Verdi relegated to an infinitely inferior plane of existence.

This is the result of the propaganda trumpeted by the German and Austrian musical theorists of the 19th century. For instance, Heinrich Schenker was a rabid Germanic (German and Austrian) supremacist; he despised all non-Germanic races, musical expressions, and cultures. He did not delve into music theory to discover; rather, he set out to prove the absolute superiority of Germanic music regardless of whatever he came across during his investigation of the European classical tradition.

In science, this would be extremely bad practice; in fact, it would render an experiment worthless due to bias. If you set out to prove something rather than investigate in a clear, detached and rational manner, then dammit, you're going to discover what you set out to prove, reality be damned. This is in fact what the Germanic musical theorists of the 19th century did, and they worked like hell to ram their bigoted notions down the throats of the worldwide European classical music community. Sadly, it worked, and probably better than they had even hoped.

So, who are the overrated and underrated composers, as far as I can tell? Practically all the Germanic composers are overrated, with the possible exception of Mozart. Bach, for all his contrapunctal genius, could not seem to write even halfway decent melodies most of the time, and his choices of harmony are often fragmented and incoherent in many of his organ works. His chamber music often suffers from the opposite problem: the harmonies are dull and stolid, lacking in creativity. To be fair, however, Bach wrote some absolutely amazing pieces where he found the right balance between stability and instability. His harpsichord music is second to none. Most of Beethoven's music is filled with rage, egomania and self-obsession; he wrote for himself and about himself, being the narcissist that he was. This is even more true of Wagner, who was exactly like a Nazi to boot. With Mozart, however, his reputation is absolutely deserved; his music expresses sweetness and utter refinement, and is usually perfectly proportioned.

Rameau is a hugely underrated composer. His Pieces De Clavecin En Concert - in particular, the last three, which represent his chamber music once he got used to writing in that form - are some of the most beautiful pieces I personally have ever heard, and I've heard quite alot of music. His opera music can be gloriously beautiful, but is admittedly more hit-and-miss than the rest of his output. Nevertheless, the beauty in some of Rameau's pieces probably has never been exceeded since he wrote them.

Rachmaninov is another HUGELY underrated composer. He is listed, usually, even below Vivaldi and Richard Strauss, which is absurd. Rachmaninov's mastery of melody, harmony and orchestration were second to none. And no music, except some of that written in the Medieval period, approaches the depth of the best of Rachmaninov's music. 

Chopin, like Rachmaninov, had a total mastery of melody and harmony, and although he did not understand orchestration (and had help from friends with his orchestral pieces), he understood how to use the overtone system better than anyone else. This is why his music has this luminescent quality that is absent from virtually all other music, save certain French pieces.

And finally, two Medieval titans, Hildegard von Bingen and Perotin, have been shamefully neglected in contemporary times. Early music is considered by almost all classical musicians to be wholly inferior to what came later. There is this pernicious idea that the changes in music have all been for the better, that we're all moving ever upward to some kind of musical utopia, and as a result, nobody performs Medieval and Renaissance music anymore, with only a few exceptions. One negative result is that we never hear the great masterpieces of Hildegard von Bingen, and to a lesser extent, Perotin (since very few of Perotin's works survived, compared to Hildegard von Bingen). Hildegard von Bingen's music is transcendental, otherworldly, pure and uplifting in every way. Its depth is beyond compare. What a shame that we rank her even below the awful Schoenberg.


----------



## violadude

jhuizinga said:


> Not being expert on the British composers listed, it's difficult to respond -- perhaps there are specific works you suggest are underrated? Walton's opera Troilus and Cressida, even with the advocacy of Janet Baker, seems basically uninteresting to non-Brits. Holst is a bit of a period piece -- perhaps Tippett can garner an audience outside of the UK -- A Child of our Time has great moments. Outside of song, it seems to me that the lyric gifts of the Brits are limited (not impressed with Adès's Tempest). Vaughn Williams, Butterworth, Finzi et al are pretty wonderful in song.


Ya, but Benjamin Britten is simply awesome.


----------



## tdc

^ So NJM, Bach was terrible at melody and harmony, but Rachmaninoff had a total mastery of melody and harmony? 
You know, I agree with you that there are many many great non-Germanic composers, but I think you'll have a hard time effectively proving your point with claims like that.


----------



## violadude

NewJerseyMan said:


> Well, honestly, there's this huge pro-Germanic bias in classical music. The German and Austrian composers are considered to be geniuses, with everyone else except perhaps Debussy and Verdi relegated to an infinitely inferior plane of existence.
> 
> This is the result of the propaganda trumpeted by the German and Austrian musical theorists of the 19th century. For instance, Heinrich Schenker was a rabid Germanic (German and Austrian) supremacist; he despised all non-Germanic races, musical expressions, and cultures. He did not delve into music theory to discover; rather, he set out to prove the absolute superiority of Germanic music regardless of whatever he came across during his investigation of the European classical tradition.
> 
> In science, this would be extremely bad practice; in fact, it would render an experiment worthless due to bias. If you set out to prove something rather than investigate in a clear, detached and rational manner, then dammit, you're going to discover what you set out to prove, reality be damned. This is in fact what the Germanic musical theorists of the 19th century did, and they worked like hell to ram their bigoted notions down the throats of the worldwide European classical music community. Sadly, it worked, and probably better than they had even hoped.
> 
> So, who are the overrated and underrated composers, as far as I can tell? Practically all the Germanic composers are overrated, with the possible exception of Mozart. Bach, for all his contrapunctal genius, could not seem to write even halfway decent melodies most of the time, and his choices of harmony are often fragmented and incoherent in many of his organ works. His chamber music often suffers from the opposite problem: the harmonies are dull and stolid, lacking in creativity. To be fair, however, Bach wrote some absolutely amazing pieces where he found the right balance between stability and instability. His harpsichord music is second to none. Most of Beethoven's music is filled with rage, egomania and self-obsession; he wrote for himself and about himself, being the narcissist that he was. This is even more true of Wagner, who was exactly like a Nazi to boot. With Mozart, however, his reputation is absolutely deserved; his music expresses sweetness and utter refinement, and is usually perfectly proportioned.
> 
> Rameau is a hugely underrated composer. His Pieces De Clavecin En Concert - in particular, the last three, which represent his chamber music once he got used to writing in that form - are some of the most beautiful pieces I personally have ever heard, and I've heard quite alot of music. His opera music can be gloriously beautiful, but is admittedly more hit-and-miss than the rest of his output. Nevertheless, the beauty in some of Rameau's pieces probably has never been exceeded since he wrote them.
> 
> Rachmaninov is another HUGELY underrated composer. He is listed, usually, even below Vivaldi and Richard Strauss, which is absurd. Rachmaninov's mastery of melody, harmony and orchestration were second to none. And no music, except some of that written in the Medieval period, approaches the depth of the best of Rachmaninov's music.
> 
> Chopin, like Rachmaninov, had a total mastery of melody and harmony, and although he did not understand orchestration (and had help from friends with his orchestral pieces), he understood how to use the overtone system better than anyone else. This is why his music has this luminescent quality that is absent from virtually all other music, save certain French pieces.
> 
> And finally, two Medieval titans, Hildegard von Bingen and Perotin, have been shamefully neglected in contemporary times. Early music is considered by almost all classical musicians to be wholly inferior to what came later. There is this pernicious idea that the changes in music have all been for the better, that we're all moving ever upward to some kind of musical utopia, and as a result, nobody performs Medieval and Renaissance music anymore, with only a few exceptions. One negative result is that we never hear the great masterpieces of Hildegard von Bingen, and to a lesser extent, Perotin (since very few of Perotin's works survived, compared to Hildegard von Bingen). Hildegard von Bingen's music is transcendental, otherworldly, pure and uplifting in every way. Its depth is beyond compare. What a shame that we rank her even below the awful Schoenberg.


Hm, your analogy to science in this thread isn't quite accurate. I see what you're saying, but when a scientist is studying biology, for instance, there is an objective reality to be discovered, which is something that doesn't really exist when you're talking about music (unless you are talking about sine waves and ratios and stuff).

But I disagree with your assessment of Bach. He may have been lacking in the melody department relative to other composers of his time but in my opinion he was one of the best of the Baroque when it came to harmony.

I can't really say anything about your assessment of Beethoven as you didn't really address his music, it seems you just addressed his character.

Rameau I definitely agree with you about. He was a great composer that more people should know about.

Not sure about how I feel about Rachmaninoff. I think he was really good at his craft and he was really good at writing music that tugged at the heart strings. He was also really good at melody writing and sustaining effective climaxes. I don't know that I would rank him about Strauss or Vivaldi though. Tough call.

I could buy what you say about Chopin. I'd be interested to hear some examples that you think demonstrate his mastery of using the overtone system.

And I most certainly agree that Hildegard Von Bingen and Perotin are extremely underrated. Even more so than Rameau. They wrote wonderfully beautiful music. What a shame that you felt the need to slander Schoenberg in the last sentence to boost them up. I like him too.


----------



## Mahlerian

NewJerseyMan said:


> Hildegard von Bingen's music is transcendental, otherworldly, pure and uplifting in every way. Its depth is beyond compare. What a shame that we rank her even below the awful Schoenberg.


Can't we love both of them? They both wrote glorious and beautiful music.

Same with Debussy, Stravinsky, Messiaen, Takemitsu, Chopin, Monteverdi, Mahler, and countless others. Talent and musical ability transcend national boundaries and styles.


----------



## jhuizinga

NewJerseyMan said:


> Well, honestly, there's this huge pro-Germanic bias in classical music. The German and Austrian composers are considered to be geniuses, with everyone else except perhaps Debussy and Verdi relegated to an infinitely inferior plane of existence.
> 
> This is the result of the propaganda trumpeted by the German and Austrian musical theorists of the 19th century. For instance, Heinrich Schenker was a rabid Germanic (German and Austrian) supremacist; he despised all non-Germanic races, musical expressions, and cultures. He did not delve into music theory to discover; rather, he set out to prove the absolute superiority of Germanic music regardless of whatever he came across during his investigation of the European classical tradition.
> 
> In science, this would be extremely bad practice; in fact, it would render an experiment worthless due to bias. If you set out to prove something rather than investigate in a clear, detached and rational manner, then dammit, you're going to discover what you set out to prove, reality be damned. This is in fact what the Germanic musical theorists of the 19th century did, and they worked like hell to ram their bigoted notions down the throats of the worldwide European classical music community. Sadly, it worked, and probably better than they had even hoped.
> 
> So, who are the overrated and underrated composers, as far as I can tell? Practically all the Germanic composers are overrated, with the possible exception of Mozart. Bach, for all his contrapunctal genius, could not seem to write even halfway decent melodies most of the time, and his choices of harmony are often fragmented and incoherent in many of his organ works. His chamber music often suffers from the opposite problem: the harmonies are dull and stolid, lacking in creativity. To be fair, however, Bach wrote some absolutely amazing pieces where he found the right balance between stability and instability. His harpsichord music is second to none. Most of Beethoven's music is filled with rage, egomania and self-obsession; he wrote for himself and about himself, being the narcissist that he was. This is even more true of Wagner, who was exactly like a Nazi to boot. With Mozart, however, his reputation is absolutely deserved; his music expresses sweetness and utter refinement, and is usually perfectly proportioned.
> 
> Rameau is a hugely underrated composer. His Pieces De Clavecin En Concert - in particular, the last three, which represent his chamber music once he got used to writing in that form - are some of the most beautiful pieces I personally have ever heard, and I've heard quite alot of music. His opera music can be gloriously beautiful, but is admittedly more hit-and-miss than the rest of his output. Nevertheless, the beauty in some of Rameau's pieces probably has never been exceeded since he wrote them.
> 
> Rachmaninov is another HUGELY underrated composer. He is listed, usually, even below Vivaldi and Richard Strauss, which is absurd. Rachmaninov's mastery of melody, harmony and orchestration were second to none. And no music, except some of that written in the Medieval period, approaches the depth of the best of Rachmaninov's music.
> 
> Chopin, like Rachmaninov, had a total mastery of melody and harmony, and although he did not understand orchestration (and had help from friends with his orchestral pieces), he understood how to use the overtone system better than anyone else. This is why his music has this luminescent quality that is absent from virtually all other music, save certain French pieces.
> 
> And finally, two Medieval titans, Hildegard von Bingen and Perotin, have been shamefully neglected in contemporary times. Early music is considered by almost all classical musicians to be wholly inferior to what came later. There is this pernicious idea that the changes in music have all been for the better, that we're all moving ever upward to some kind of musical utopia, and as a result, nobody performs Medieval and Renaissance music anymore, with only a few exceptions. One negative result is that we never hear the great masterpieces of Hildegard von Bingen, and to a lesser extent, Perotin (since very few of Perotin's works survived, compared to Hildegard von Bingen). Hildegard von Bingen's music is transcendental, otherworldly, pure and uplifting in every way. Its depth is beyond compare. What a shame that we rank her even below the awful Schoenberg.


I certainly agree with you about the academically-blessed 'superiority' of the Germanic school, particularly as a result of Schenker. The nadir of this influence is of course the preponderance of Brahms in the concert hall and recording studio -- he's a bit like Betty White, without of course her wit.

Nonetheless, as can be expected, I can only agree in part with your claims: surely Mozart is untouchable, but then so is Beethoven -- he created an art that was a reflection of the world, and not just his angst, as you suggest. I do find your comments on Bach to have validity -- he has quality and technical skill, but did not have as great an ability to look forward as backwards. In this respect, and others, Handel is his superior.

Chopin was a genius and innovator of the highest order and one of the few great composers whose work appeals to the connoisseur as well as the absolute novice listener. I don't agree at all with your assessment of Rachmaninov who is only truly great in certain if his piano works like the Études-Tableaux. Richard Strauss was so much greater a composer that it's an unfair composer. Twentieth century opera alone is unimaginable without Salome or Elektra. Rameau, indeed, is at his best in his great operas (Hippolyte et Aricie) but his endless keyboard work is much too much the sewing machine school of production.

Of course, I can't agree with you on Wagner who indelibly changed the course of music history and enabled us to hear with new sensitivity.

Nonetheless, you raise some cogent arguments about the bias against non-German music, particularly by defenders of 'absolute' music such as Hanslick and his retrograde band.


----------



## jhuizinga

The 20th century, just vacated, presents special problems. Academics naturally favor composers who 'founded' schools of followers or were 'system builders' (ie atonality). In this respect, I do think Schoenberg's reputation is disproportionately high for a composer that so few music lovers actually tolerate. Take Moses und Aron -- please take it. 

Reputations for truly individual and visionary composers are always unfairly depressed. As for the 19th century, it's hard to comprehend how anyone if sensitivity could possibly rank Brahms higher than Berlioz. In the 20th century, it's difficult to imagine that composers of movie music (Copland, Bernstein etc) or tendentious pseudo-profundities (Messaien -- take St-Francois d'Assise, please take it) could possibly be thought greater than the incomparable Swiss composer Frank Martin, who wrote so many masterpieces such as his Mass (he wrote it for himself and threw it in a drawer -- now recognized as a peerless work), the violin concerto, the extraordinary Petite Symphonie Concertante, and Golgotha.


----------



## jhuizinga

violadude said:


> Ya, but Benjamin Britten is simply awesome.


Respect, not love, is what I feel. He certainly is technically adept. However, Shostakovich is much closer to the spirit of the century for me. While Britten wrote accomplished compositions, there's not a single work that I'm ever driven to listen to, even Phaedra performed by its ineffable dedicatee.


----------



## violadude

jhuizinga said:


> Respect, not love, is what I feel. He certainly is technically adept. However, Shostakovich is much closer to the spirit if the century for me. While he wrote fine works, there's not a single work that I'm ever driven to listen to, even Phaedra performed by the ineffable dedicatee.


Do you like opera? Have you heard his string quartets?


----------



## tdc

jhuizinga said:


> I do find your comments on Bach to have validity -- he has quality and technical skill, but did not have as great an ability to look forward as backwards. In this respect, and others, *Handel is his superior*.


I respectfully disagree, and it looks like the overwhelming majority of posters here would probably also disagree with your assertion.

http://www.talkclassical.com/19152-am-i-alone-preferring.html

In this recent poll Bach collected over 4 times the votes of Handel and Telemann COMBINED. Bach's music doesn't look back or forward it is a perfect culmination of the various styles of the time and is TIMELESS.


----------



## bigshot

The amazing thing about Bach is that his music can be performed in a huge range of styles, from Stokowski transcriptions to the most acerbic HIP and still sound good, and still be Bach. I've heard Water Music and Fireworks done in a bunch of different ways, but a lot of them are profoundly wrong for the music. I don't know what the quality is in Bach's music that makes it so universal.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven valued both Handel and Mozart above Bach. If it's good enough for Ludwig, it's good enough for me!

Actually I disagree, though.


----------



## jhuizinga

tdc said:


> I respectfully disagree, and it looks like the overwhelming majority of posters here would probably also disagree with your assertion.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/19152-am-i-alone-preferring.html
> 
> In this recent poll Bach collected over 4 times the votes of Handel and Telemann COMBINED. Bach's music doesn't look back or forward it is a perfect culmination of the various styles of the time and is TIMELESS.


Thankfully questions of taste, discernment and connoisseurship are not settled by democracy. [I don't suppose you've read any political philosophy but you might start with Aristotle on drmocracy].

You're entitled to think Bach is the summum of Western music. For me, Handel is his superior in most respects except keyboard compositions. I much prefer Handelian vocal and choral counterpoint which is always dramatic and Wonderfully transparent. Bach tends to rely on thick, turgid textures that hearken back to Schütz and Buxtehude. I admit that choirs love to sing Bach because each voice is full of fun. Unfortunately, you can never really hear the lines in most representations.


----------



## jhuizinga

violadude said:


> Do you like opera? Have you heard his string quartets?


The Britten operas don't work for me [yet] -- perhaps someday. I do admire Turn and Rape [that's 2 titles, not a command] but Peter and Death are too grim. When I want to feel the disintegration of the world, I pull out Berg (yes, Germanic) but I like the books better (give me Wedekind any day over Henry James). The Britten operas, with few exceptions, seems like the composer's cathartic personal repression. A little goes a long way.

The DSCH quartets (15) are without comparison the greatest of the 20th century and are truly universal in a Beethovenian way. The Britten 3 are fine works -- perhaps the apogee of his 'absolute' music. Like all or most Brits, Britten was very literary and often polemical in his tastes. So you have to like his agenda to really become passionate. He certainly is the most agenda-d composer that I know of -- along with fellow Brit Tippett.


----------



## Mahlerian

jhuizinga said:


> The 20th century, just vacated, presents special problems. Academics naturally favor composers who 'founded' schools of followers or were 'system builders' (ie atonality). In this respect, I do think Schoenberg's reputation is disproportionately high for a composer that so few music lovers actually tolerate. Take Moses und Aron -- please take it.


Okay. It's great music. I take it willingly. Who cares what "few music lovers actually tolerate" anyway? You yourself said that music isn't a democracy. Schoenberg was a great composer. There is no question of that.



> Reputations for truly individual and visionary composers are always unfairly depressed. As for the 19th century, it's hard to comprehend how anyone if sensitivity could possibly rank Brahms higher than Berlioz. In the 20th century, it's difficult to imagine that composers of movie music (Copland, Bernstein etc) or tendentious pseudo-profundities (Messaien -- take St-Francois d'Assise, please take it) could possibly be thought greater than the incomparable Swiss composer Frank Martin, who wrote so many masterpieces such as his Mass (he wrote it for himself and threw it in a drawer -- now recognized as a peerless work), the violin concerto, the extraordinary Petite Symphonie Concertante, and Golgotha.


I will take Messiaen as well, and thank you for all the great music you've been throwing out lately. Messiaen was a highly original composer who wrote music that will last.


----------



## jhuizinga

Mahlerian said:


> Okay. It's great music. I take it willingly. Who cares what "few music lovers actually tolerate" anyway? You yourself said that music isn't a democracy. Schoenberg was a great composer. There is no question of that.
> 
> I will take Messiaen as well, and thank you for all the great music you've been throwing out lately. Messiaen was a highly original composer who wrote music that will last.[/QUOTE
> 
> Having listened broadly (ahem), I will listen to anything once or twice, you are welcome to all my discards. I'm sure you would appreciate my Varese detritus -- I played the Boulez Sony disc the other evening for fellow music cognoscenti -- and everyone agreed (Messaien lovers included) in ordering me to -- take it off! Even the most austere music of Gombert and Pierre de la Rue in the fifteenth century is exquisite pleasure -- music, not just sounds.


----------



## science

NewJerseyMan said:


> And finally, two Medieval titans, Hildegard von Bingen and Perotin, have been shamefully neglected in contemporary times. Early music is considered by almost all classical musicians to be wholly inferior to what came later. There is this pernicious idea that the changes in music have all been for the better, that we're all moving ever upward to some kind of musical utopia, and as a result, nobody performs Medieval and Renaissance music anymore, with only a few exceptions. One negative result is that we never hear the great masterpieces of Hildegard von Bingen, and to a lesser extent, Perotin (since very few of Perotin's works survived, compared to Hildegard von Bingen). Hildegard von Bingen's music is transcendental, otherworldly, pure and uplifting in every way. Its depth is beyond compare. What a shame that we rank her even below the awful Schoenberg.


What I'd question here is whether contemporary times are the ones that have neglected the likes of Hildegard and Pérotin. I'd guess that between about 1400 and about 1990 it'd've been pretty unusual to hear them, and that contemporary times are the first in a very long time for these composers to be appreciated.


----------



## bigshot

I think the Messiaen and Varese stuff I have in my collection are kind of funny in an odd sort of way. Sort of like a serious classical version of Spike Jones and his City Slickers... But not as much as Ligeti's Nouvelle Aventures. That is drop dead hilarious. If you want party music, that's it. Put it on and watch all the funny faces your guests start making. Never fails.

I forgive those three composers because at least they had a sense of humor. They just hid it behind the po face of artistic "sincerity".


----------



## Mahlerian

At the first performance of Berg's Altenberg Lieder, one critic burst into laughter at the quiet 12-note chord that began one movement. People are uncomfortable in the face of the unfamiliar. No one laughs at it anymore.



jhuizinga said:


> Even the most austere music of Gombert and Pierre de la Rue in the fifteenth century is exquisite pleasure -- music, not just sounds.


Messiaen, Varese (not my favorite 20th century composer, but I enjoy some of his music), and Schoenberg wrote music. It is no more or less music than anything from the Renaissance (which Webern studied intensively) or the Baroque, or the Romantic, or the Classical eras.

You don't have to think something is good to think it's music.


----------



## jhuizinga

Mahlerian said:


> At the first performance of Berg's Altenberg Lieder, one critic burst into laughter at the quiet 12-note chord that began one movement. People are uncomfortable in the face of the unfamiliar. No one laughs at it anymore.
> 
> Messiaen, Varese (not my favorite 20th century composer, but I enjoy some of his music), and Schoenberg wrote music. It is no more or less music than anything from the Renaissance (which Webern studied intensively) or the Baroque, or the Romantic, or the Classical eras.
> 
> You don't have to think something is good to think it's music.


Don't tease..unless you're not serious. Just who is your 20th C favorite if not Varese?

Ah, that's where you're wrong. Sounds are not music. Have you ever looked at Messaien or Varese score? Well I have.

You may think that Cage's 4'33" is the height of great music. I think it's a masturbatory fantasy by someone who had many.

Oh, I see, you think music is a game. OK. You do have a point. I'm not buying though.


----------



## bigshot

My definition of funny is if it makes someone laugh. I've never seen anyone listen to Nouvelle Aventures with a straight face. In fact, I doubt it can be done.

It's really good to put it on quietly at a party, then raise the volume a bit at a time. People have the funniest reactions when they hear the weird vocal outbursts peeking between the cracks in the room chatter. It's also fun (but a bit cruel) to put it on and then turn out all the lights.


----------



## BurningDesire

jhuizinga said:


> Don't tease..unless you're not serious. Just who is your 20th C favorite if not Varese?
> 
> Ah, that's where you're wrong. Sounds are not music. Have you ever looked at Messaien or Varese score? Well I have.
> 
> You may think that Cage's 4'33" is the height of great music. I think it's a masturbatory fantasy by someone who had many.
> 
> Oh, I see, you think music is a game. OK. You do have a point. I'm not buying though.


Okay, you had a nice solo conversation here, now do you wanna respond to Mahlerian?


----------



## Schubussy

> Don't tease..unless you're not serious. Just who is your 20th C favorite if not Varese?
> 
> Ah, that's where you're wrong. Sounds are not music. Have you ever looked at Messaien or Varese score? Well I have.
> 
> You may think that Cage's 4'33" is the height of great music. I think it's a masturbatory fantasy by someone who had many.
> 
> Oh, I see, you think music is a game. OK. You do have a point. I'm not buying though.


I really don't know how you can not hear the beauty in 'Louange à l' Éternité de Jésus', let alone how you can only hear it as random sounds.


----------



## science

jhuizinga said:


> Don't tease..unless you're not serious. Just who is your 20th C favorite if not Varese?
> 
> Ah, that's where you're wrong. Sounds are not music. Have you ever looked at Messaien or Varese score? Well I have.
> 
> You may think that Cage's 4'33" is the height of great music. I think it's a *masturbatory fantasy* by someone who had many.
> 
> Oh, I see, you think music is a game. OK. You do have a point. I'm not buying though.


Whoa.... Take it down a notch, cowboy!

I guess music can be a game - it certainly doesn't always have to be drop-dead serious. (Think of that sombre Brahms and his intellectual tour de force, the Academic Festival Overture.) But anyway, I like Cage's music (what few hours of it I've heard) as _music_. Ditto Varèse, and Messiaen. I don't know who else you want to come down on, but I'll probably like their music too if I hear it.

As for the music I like, I don't expect you or anyone to like it - if you don't, that's fine!

And as for the music I don't like, I don't expect you or anyone else not to like it - so if you do, that's fine! You can listen to new country all you want. I can't stand that. Or pop ballads. Or most smooth jazz. But I kid, I kid! (Or at least, I think I do.) And ok, if I have to pick some "classical" music that I don't enjoy much, I'll pick Bruckner. You can listen to it as much as you like, and I won't expect you not to like it, or blame you for liking it, or say terrible things about his music.


----------



## jhuizinga

bigshot said:


> My definition of funny is if it makes someone laugh. I've never seen anyone listen to Nouvelle Aventures with a straight face. In fact, I doubt it can be done.
> 
> It's really good to put it on quietly at a party, then raise the volume a bit at a time. People have the funniest reactions when they hear the weird vocal outbursts peeking between the cracks in the room chatter. It's also fun (but a bit cruel) to put it on and then turn out all the lights.


Very helpful and suggestive, thanks. Fun and cruelty are often confused.


----------



## bigshot

science said:


> if I have to pick some "classical" music that I don't enjoy much, I'll pick Bruckner. You can listen to it as much as you like, and I won't expect you not to like it, or blame you for liking it, or say terrible things about his music.


Feel free to unload on old Anton. He's a tough guy. He can take it!


----------



## bigshot

jhuizinga said:


> Fun and cruelty are often confused.


One person's fun is often another person's cruelty.


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> The amazing thing about Bach is that his music can be performed in a huge range of styles, from Stokowski transcriptions to the most acerbic HIP and still sound good, and still be Bach. I've heard Water Music and Fireworks done in a bunch of different ways, but a lot of them are profoundly wrong for the music. I don't know what the quality is in Bach's music that makes it so universal.


This isn't an objective thing. That is all your opinion. I find alot of Bach's music doesn't work very well in transcription, that alot of it works best on organ or harpsichord or cello, rather than orchestra or piano or electric bass guitar. And thats just _my_ opinion too. Besides, Bach's music doesn't appeal to everybody, so its not universal. Universality isn't something that exists in degrees.


----------



## science

bigshot said:


> One person's fun is often another person's cruelty.


Maybe so, but sometimes you scare me. Let's be friends, ok?


----------



## jhuizinga

bigshot said:


> One person's fun is often another person's cruelty.


Forgot to add at the end: 'by me'.


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> Feel free to unload on old Anton. He's a tough guy. He can take it!


Who was it who said, "Bruckner's pants looked like they were built by a carpenter."


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> This isn't an objective thing. That is all your opinion. I find alot of Bach's music doesn't work very well in transcription, that alot of it works best on organ or harpsichord or cello, rather than orchestra or piano or electric bass guitar. And thats just _my_ opinion too. Besides, Bach's music doesn't appeal to everybody, so its not universal. Universality isn't something that exists in degrees.


Corrected:

The amazing thing about Bach is that his music can be performed in a huge range of styles, from Stokowski transcriptions to the most acerbic HIP and still sound good, and still be Bach. I've heard Water Music and Fireworks done in a bunch of different ways, but a lot of them are profoundly wrong for the music. I don't know what the quality is in Bach's music that makes it so universal.*

* Except of course for BD


----------



## KenOC

I'm mostly a fan of Bach transcriptions. One of the few I don't like -- the Goldberg Variations by the Jacques Loussier Trio.


----------



## science

I'm not what you might call far enough along in my career as a listener to have heard many transcriptions of Bach, so I wonder which are favorites?


----------



## jhuizinga

science said:


> Whoa.... Take it down a notch, cowboy!
> 
> I guess music can be a game - it certainly doesn't always have to be drop-dead serious. (Think of that sombre Brahms and his intellectual tour de force, the Academic Festival Overture.) But anyway, I like Cage's music (what few hours of it I've heard) as _music_. Ditto Varèse, and Messiaen. I don't know who else you want to come down on, but I'll probably like their music too if I hear it.
> 
> As for the music I like, I don't expect you or anyone to like it - if you don't, that's fine!
> 
> And as for the music I don't like, I don't expect you or anyone else not to like it - so if you do, that's fine! You can listen to new country all you want. I can't stand that. Or pop ballads. Or most smooth jazz. But I kid, I kid! (Or at least, I think I do.) And ok, if I have to pick some "classical" music that I don't enjoy much, I'll pick Bruckner. You can listen to it as much as you like, and I won't expect you not to like it, or blame you for liking it, or say terrible things about his music.


I have a hypothesis that trained musicians (who are listeners of course) appreciate some aspects of music differently than others. My guess is that you are not a trained musician.


----------



## jhuizinga

bigshot said:


> Corrected:
> 
> The amazing thing about Bach is that his music can be performed in a huge range of styles, from Stokowski transcriptions to the most acerbic HIP and still sound good, and still be Bach. I've heard Water Music and Fireworks done in a bunch of different ways, but a lot of them are profoundly wrong for the music. I don't know what the quality is in Bach's music that makes it so universal.*
> 
> * Except of course for BD


That's been analyzed and the general thinking is that his music is primarily instrumentally-based (some think, as I do, that it's primarily keyboard-based). It has been long observed that Bach's music flows as in a 'stream' (German: der Bach). His dramatic music (if I could call it that) is not very declamatiry or rhetorical. The dramatic moments in the Passions are, in effect, layered fugue subjects set to words.

Completely different from Bach -- one could say that Bach can never be mistaken for Handel and vice versa -- the protean genius of Handel astonished all -- he dazzled and out-composed the Italians in his visits to Italy and his genius brought him mediate attention and patronage in papal level circles. Handel was the first truly international composer, who united the three musical traditions: Germanuc, Italianate, and English. He wrote preponderant masterpieces in each 'style', but it was the profound, even overwhelming rhetorical grandeur of his oratorios that Beethoven responded to -- and aspired to in the Missa Solemnis.

Even today, the universality of the genius of Handel can be witnessed by seeing audiences in Beijing weep to the magnificence of the Messiah -- just one monument of Handel to the human spirit. The common man gets it -- but a little learning can be a dangerous thing for many. Bach seldom elicits this visceral reaction -- but he is always and deservedly admired as a great composer, even if not quite in the league of Handel or Bruckner.


----------



## science

jhuizinga said:


> I have a hypothesis that trained musicians (who are listeners of course) appreciate some aspects of music differently than others. My guess is that you are not a trained musician.


I see. How much training do I need before my opinion is legitimate?


----------



## bigshot

science said:


> I'm not what you might call far enough along in my career as a listener to have heard many transcriptions of Bach, so I wonder which are favorites?


Stokowski's are amazing, especially the recordings from his tenure with the Philadelphia Orchestra.

Stokowski's background was as an organist, so he understood the structure and nature of Bach's organ works. But he was also a passionate romaticist, so he was able to translate Bach into something completely different and the same simultaneously. Wonderful stuff.


----------



## jhuizinga

Schubussy said:


> I really don't know how you can not hear the beauty in 'Louange à l' Éternité de Jésus', let alone how you can only hear it as random sounds.


10 minutes in 5 hours strongly suggests stochastic processes at work in this composer's work. Once again, there's a failure to see the real issue. You can manufacture an argument that's not been made, but you create your own logical fallacy. It's not been argued that there are NO moments of music in these works, but that these composers are overrated --even grossly so. A common characteristic of musical pedantry is the worship of alleged masterpieces whose refined and esoteric qualities, perceptible only to the initiated, all but assure that these pedants will never be confused with the musical masses. SFdA as a whole is hermetic, tedious, uninspired and hardly warrants the requisite resources of an opera company. The opera world apparently agrees -- how many productions of this beast have been staged since San Francisco some 10 years ago.

To immortalize this music in accordance with the passionate adherents of the Messaien cult, I suggest a semi-staged version with all singers and choristers in the nude. After all, SFdA is really the world's most boring oratorio, isn't it? And you have to sell tickets, don't you? Or were you thinking that Bill Gates, amidst his other inane and self-serving activities, can be persuaded to fund a series of free performances in sub-Saharan Africa?


----------



## Mahlerian

jhuizinga said:


> 10 minutes in 5 hours strongly suggests stochastic processes at work in this composer's work. Once again, there's a failure to see the real issue. You can manufacture an argument that's not been made, but you create your own logical fallacy.


For one thing, Messiaen's oeuvre runs over 30 hours, and the Louange in question is from a work that only lasts 45 minutes. There is nothing random whatsoever about any of Messiaen's music.

He wrote masterpieces like:
Oiseaux exotiques, Harawi, Trois petites liturgies, Messe de la pentacote, La Transfiguration, Quatour pour la fin du temps, Catalogue d'Oiseaux, Visions de l'Amen.

That is not mere chance.



> A common characteristic of musical pedantry is the worship of alleged masterpieces whose refined and esoteric qualities, perceptible only to the initiated, all but assure that these pedants will never be confused with the musical masses.


Not at all. Messiaen's music is extremely accessible. It's no more inaccessible than Bach; the only difference is that Bach's idiom is more familiar.



> SFdA as a whole is hermetic, tedious, uninspired and hardly warrants the requisite resources of an opera company. The opera world apparently agrees -- how many productions of this beast have been staged since San Francisco some 10 years ago.


Well, there was one released on DVD to general acclaim, of a mid-2000s production.
http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Francois-dAssise-DVD-Video/dp/B001RE9HGQ

The main reason it's not more often performed is because of the massive and rare resources required (including 3 ondes Martenot).



> It's not been argued that there are NO moments of music in these works, but that these composers are overrated --even grossly so.


I'm glad that the arbiter of musical taste has finally come to set us all straight. We've been wandering in the dark for so long...*give us guidance!*


----------



## jhuizinga

Mahlerian said:


> For one thing, Messiaen's oeuvre runs over 30 hours, and the Louange in question is from a work that only lasts 45 minutes. There is nothing random whatsoever about any of Messiaen's music.
> 
> He wrote masterpieces like:
> Oiseaux exotiques, Harawi, Trois petites liturgies, Messe de la pentacote, La Transfiguration, Quatour pour la fin du temps, Catalogue d'Oiseaux, Visions de l'Amen.
> 
> That is not mere chance.
> 
> Not at all. Messiaen's music is extremely accessible. It's no more inaccessible than Bach; the only difference is that Bach's idiom is more familiar.
> 
> Well, there was one released on DVD to general acclaim, of a mid-2000s production.
> http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Francois-dAssise-DVD-Video/dp/B001RE9HGQ
> 
> The main reason it's not more often performed is because of the massive and rare resources required (including 3 ondes Martenot).
> 
> I'm glad that the arbiter of musical taste has finally come to set us all straight. We've been wandering in the dark for so long...*give us guidance!*


Fairly typical response you have -- you declare certain works of M to be 'masterpieces' (I've declared them to be otherwise) -- yet you accuse others of ' being arbiters'. Very interesting. It doesn't feel lonely in an echo chamber, does it?


----------



## Mahlerian

jhuizinga said:


> Fairly typical response you have -- you declare certain works of M to be 'masterpieces' (I've declared them to be otherwise) -- yet you accuse others of ' being arbiters'. Very interesting. It doesn't feel lonely in an echo chamber, does it?


You've declared them to not even be music.

You've said that musicians think differently about music and see things that others don't. What about the musicians that continue to perform Messiaen's works, including all of the aforementioned? Are they not musicians?

To answer an earlier question, I have indeed seen several of Messiaen's scores: Quatour pour la fin du temps, Turangalila Symphonie, Trois Petites Liturgies, Reveil des Oiseaux, and Oiseaux exotiques. So yes, I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Nereffid

You know what, I think the only way we're going to settle this debate conclusively is if we get the names of everyone in the world who thinks Messiaen is a good composer, and the names of everyone in the world who thinks Messiaen is a bad composer.
Then we add them up.
If the "good" side has more than the "bad" side then he is clearly not overrated, because a majority thinks he's good.
If the "bad" side has more than the "good" side then he is clearly not overrated, because a majority already thinks he's bad.

And repeat for every other composer.


----------



## bigshot

I think a great way to settle it is to shift from discussing why music is or isn't good to claiming that "it's just your opinion and who are you to be the one telling all of us what to think". It's always helpful to shift the focus from the topic to the person commenting on it.


----------



## moody

jhuizinga said:


> Fairly typical response you have -- you declare certain works of M to be 'masterpieces' (I've declared them to be otherwise) -- yet you accuse others of ' being arbiters'. Very interesting. It doesn't feel lonely in an echo chamber, does it?


Somehow I don't think he's lonely at all.


----------



## moody

Nereffid said:


> You know what, I think the only way we're going to settle this debate conclusively is if we get the names of everyone in the world who thinks Messiaen is a good composer, and the names of everyone in the world who thinks Messiaen is a bad composer.
> Then we add them up.
> If the "good" side has more than the "bad" side then he is clearly not overrated, because a majority thinks he's good.
> If the "bad" side has more than the "good" side then he is clearly not overrated, because a majority already thinks he's bad.
> 
> And repeat for every other composer.


I think that's a very unusual idea.


----------



## brianwalker

I listened to the *Feierlich *movement of Schumann's Third Symphony for the first time yesterday.

I have been chastened and humbled. DavidMahler was right about Schumann.

If anyone has recommendations I'll gladly take them.


----------



## Classicallystrained

If you want to watch a fun Schoenberg parody ....


----------



## jhuizinga

Classicallystrained said:


> If you want to watch a fun Schoenberg parody ....


Brilliant -- thanks for sharing. Now we shall find who the humorless are with their knickers in a twist (KIAT).


----------



## AvantThought

Overrated: Palestrina, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Wagner

Underrated: Ives, Orlando Gibbons, most medieval composers.


----------



## Harrytjuh

Overrated: J. S. Bach, Sibelius, Tschaikovsky, Shostakovich

Underrated: Schubert, Wagner, Prokofiev


----------



## hello

Debussy? Underrated? :lol:


----------



## Aecio

Overrated: Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Schoenberg, Wagner

Underrated: Turina, Enescu, Fauré, Janacek


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> You know what, I think the only way we're going to settle this debate conclusively is if we get the names of everyone in the world who thinks Messiaen is a good composer, and the names of everyone in the world who thinks Messiaen is a bad composer.
> Then we add them up.
> If the "good" side has more than the "bad" side then he is clearly not overrated, because a majority thinks he's good.
> If the "bad" side has more than the "good" side then he is clearly not overrated, because a majority already thinks he's bad.
> 
> And repeat for every other composer.


Er, no, I don;t think that'll work, since over/under/rating presumably refers to the majority rating, not just a scale of rating. If I say that I think Messiaen is overrated, what I'm claiming is the knowledge that a majority rate him highly, and that I think his rating should be lower - ie, that the majority are wrong.


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> Er, no, I don;t think that'll work, since over/under/rating presumably refers to the majority rating, not just a scale of rating. If I say that I think Messiaen is overrated, what I'm claiming is the knowledge that a majority rate him highly, and that I think his rating should be lower - ie, that the majority are wrong.


Sorry, should have put some sort of sarcasm emoticon in that post!


----------



## starry

I'd say most composers are underrated because classical music in general is underrated by most people.


----------



## trazom

Just listened to another Mendelssohn quartet. He's one of the few than can make an entire movement sound like an exposition.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby

Overrated- Wagner, Mozart, Britten, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mahler, Berg, Thomas Ades

Underrated- Puccini (the most egregious case of neglect), Massenet, Schubert, Barber, Schoenberg, Rossini, Mascagni, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninov _(All Night Vigil is amazing)_, Joaquin Turina, Charpentier


----------



## Ukko

Toccata said:


> I'm truly disappointed that you can't point to anything specific when you refer to "public opinion" about the rank order of the top classical composers.
> 
> I rather fear that this limits the usefulness of exercises like this insofar that we all have different perceptions of what we think other people think about they they think they like, as opposed to what we think they ought to like if they have the same musical prejudices as we have.
> 
> Don't you think?


Yeah, I think. What we need here, as _Toccata_ sort of says, is a list of composers with their public opinion ratings. How you come up with that is _your_ problem. _Then_ we can proceed to enlighten the public.


----------



## Op.123

Overrated: Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Tchaikovsky
Underrated: Schumann, Dvorak


----------



## Kieran

Come on! How can Mozart be over-rated? He could write _anything _and at the highest level in every genre. In what way could he be over-rated? Serious question...


----------



## Vaneyes

I'm having an "Oy!" attack, and I'm not Jewish.


----------



## ptr

Oy, Oy, Oy, Oy!

/ptr


----------



## MagneticGhost

All of the 'greats' are great for a reason. I cannot bring myself to call any of them overrated because they are deserving of their accolades if even 20 years after their deaths people are still talking, listening and arguing about whether they are overrated.

Underrated - you could list every single female composer who ever put quill to manuscript.
I say this as a balding middle aged man who happens to have a cute avatar


----------



## Skilmarilion

I have seen Tchaikovsky classed as "overrated" numerous times in this thread without any kind of justification. Mozart, also. Rather bemusing, to say the least.

Both are composers of towering genius and phenomenal diversity. Their enduring popularity is a testament to this fact, imo.


----------



## Kieran

I'm not saying Mozart has to be adored, and when people go into a senseless reverie about him dreamily composing heavenly music without making sketches and blah blah, that aspect is the same for any artist: call them divine and you instantly over-rate them.

But as composers go, I can't see how he's over-rated. Under-appreciated, more like...


----------



## Perotin

Underrated: some composers of slavic origin, I think, Dvorak or Glazunov for example, and some opera composers like Christoph Willibald Gluck and Carl Maria von Weber
Overrated: hm, this is a tough one, I think Sibelius is somewhat overrated in anglosaxone world, but not in other parts of the world


----------



## HumphreyAppleby

Kieran said:


> I'm not saying Mozart has to be adored, and when people go into a senseless reverie about him dreamily composing heavenly music without making sketches and blah blah, that aspect is the same for any artist: call them divine and you instantly over-rate them.
> 
> But as composers go, I can't see how he's over-rated. Under-appreciated, more like...


I listed Mozart as being overrated for precisely that reason: he is often said to be the greatest composer ever, divine, etc. Wagner receives the same insane treatment. Both men were musical geniuses (Mozart perhaps more), but neither was the be all end all of music. While that extreme position may not be held by people of judicious thought, the people who most frequently rate the greatness of composers are critics, for many of whom there is no such thing. I realize that it's a series of ambiguous, subjective arguments, but it's the spirit of the thread...

As for the underrated composers, to me they are the one that were equally brilliant and wonderful, but receive very poor reception from the critical and/or academic community. To me, Puccini is the prime example (and I realize that I am in a minority here).


----------



## tdc

Lately after listening to more of his oeuvre I've realized that I personally under-rated Francois Couperin - great composer.


----------



## Kieran

HumphreyAppleby said:


> I listed Mozart as being overrated for precisely that reason: he is often said to be the greatest composer ever, divine, etc. Wagner receives the same insane treatment. Both men were musical geniuses (Mozart perhaps more), but neither was the be all end all of music. While that extreme position may not be held by people of judicious thought, the people who most frequently rate the greatness of composers are critics, for many of whom there is no such thing. I realize that it's a series of ambiguous, subjective arguments, but it's the spirit of the thread...
> 
> As for the underrated composers, to me they are the one that were equally brilliant and wonderful, but receive very poor reception from the critical and/or academic community. To me, Puccini is the prime example (and I realize that I am in a minority here).


Good post, Humphrey, and well-stated!

I was querying it from that perspective: the spirit of the thread and also, were people just not appreciating the all-encompassing range of the man and saying he's overrated just because he's popular? I tend to think he's both immensely popular and undervalued at the same time, because most people still filter him through that senseless _divine_ cliche, which is a throwback to the Romantic periods inability to engage with and appreciate the man...

:tiphat:


----------



## Picander

Most overrated: Tchaikovsky. I think most of his music is an enormous cake stuffed with... air.

Most underrated: Luigi Boccherini. Delicious.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Very simple: composers I love (Wagner, Beethoven, Schubert, Bruckner, Mahler, R. Strauss, Sibelius etc) are _underrated_, because not everyone else appreciates them as much as I do. Composers I don't like are _overrated_, because somebody else enjoys that where there is nothing to enjoy. As simple as that :lol:


----------



## HumphreyAppleby

Kieran said:


> Good post, Humphrey, and well-stated!
> 
> I was querying it from that perspective: the spirit of the thread and also, were people just not appreciating the all-encompassing range of the man and saying he's overrated just because he's popular? I tend to think he's both immensely popular and undervalued at the same time, because most people still filter him through that senseless _divine_ cliche, which is a throwback to the Romantic periods inability to engage with and appreciate the man...
> 
> :tiphat:


That's a very interesting point. His reputation actually works against a real appreciation of him on the one hand, and unduly canonizes him on the other.

I also have to agree with the poster who points out the lack of appreciation and attention given to female composers.


----------



## JimC

Burroughs said:


> Overrated: Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Tchaikovsky
> Underrated: Schumann, Dvorak


Overrated: Schumann, Dvorak
Underrated: Mozart, Wagner


----------



## Neo Romanza

JimC said:


> Overrated: Schumann, Dvorak
> Underrated: Mozart, Wagner


How in the world are Wagner and Mozart underrated? I mean seriously?!?!?


----------



## mmsbls

Neo Romanza said:


> How in the world are Wagner and Mozart underrated? I mean seriously?!?!?


Anyone saying a particular composer is over or under rated is simply saying that they personally value the composer's works differently than the "average" of the classical listening community. It's more a statement about oneself than the composer.

Having said that, I think one could argue that the TC members who have expressed a view about Wagner do slightly underrate him on average compared to other sources of ratings (various books and online lists). Such arguments might be difficult to justify given the subjective nature of all such sources, but it's not a crazy argument.

For Mozart, the argument is simple. He is undeniably and without question the greatest composer of all time including future composers. The polls here generally place him 2nd or 3rd. Therefore, he is underrated. QED.


----------



## trazom

Neo Romanza said:


> How in the world are Wagner and Mozart underrated? I mean seriously?!?!?


I WAS going to say Schumann was underrated; but it looks like Mozart and Wagner are still being underrated.


----------



## dstring

As a symphonist Brahms is overrated. He's got way too much credit for a structural development going into romantic era.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Maybe we could develop a theory for the relativity of underrating a composer.............


----------



## chalkpie

The way I see this:

overrated: most popular bullsh*t that is played on any radio station of your choice these days

underrated: any composer named on this thread and/or a plethora of jazz artists


----------



## chrisco97

How is Dvorak overrated? xD

--
*Overrated:* Bach

Even though I am slowly starting to like his music a bit more, I still do not think his music is worthy of the never-ending amount of praise he receives. Then again, we all have our opinions. 

--
*Underrated:* Dvorak

Every since I learned how to play an arrangement of the New World Symphony theme on the piano, I have been in love with Dvorak's music. He has some of the most enjoyable music out there in my opinion. It is sad he does not get more praise than he does. He wrote some amazing works.

*Underrated:* Schumann

I say he is underrated because so many people seem to dislike his works. Everything I have heard by him was awesome.

--
I would also throw Beethoven into the underrated section, but that is only because I love him so much and there is never too much praise that could be given to Beethoven in my opinion. :lol:


----------



## violadude

I think the most underrated composer of all time has got to be Claudio Monteverdi. He nearly single-handedly invented opera, brought music from the polyphonic Renaissance style to the dramatic Baroque style, helped to establish music that was much more tonally based as we know it, was just a great reformer in general and all while being excellent at writing in the old style as well! But he barely ever gets talked about in layman circles  probably because he lies just outside the Common Practice Era.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Everyone may disagree with this but...

Overrated: Beethoven
Underrated: Bruckner


----------



## handlebar

Overrated: Brahms
Underrated: Rachmaninov


----------



## Neo Romanza

Here's one I have thought for several years now:

Overrated: Copland
Underrated: William Schuman


----------



## peeyaj

*Overrated: *My least favorite composers that happens to be popular.

*Underrated*: My most favorite composers that happens to be popular.


----------



## Andreas

Overrated: Liszt
Underrated: Hovhaness


----------



## jim prideaux

new member so this is my initial response to what I have just read

Dvorak-brings a distinctly personal character to his music which reflects increasing 'national' awareness to his music (as did Smetana and later Sibelius)-whilst he may make use of the language and orchestration of Brahms it seems very dismissive to describe him as playing 'second fiddle to Brahms!

why little mention of Walton/Barber/Finzi(particularly the cello concerto)?-underrated!

Britten-am I the only one who does not get him AT ALL?

.....and finally as part of this initial attempt to 'post' anything other than a subjective 'rant' two of the most overrated composers as far as I am concerned(and this is after years of consideration) Elgar-I appreciate this may be sacrilegious to some but his incessantly melancholic nostalgia for an England fast disappearing drives me personally to distraction-Tchaikovsky-how much overwrought emotion can one take?


----------



## moody

Neo Romanza said:


> Everyone may disagree with this but...
> 
> Overrated: Beethoven
> Underrated: Bruckner


Yes, I disagree with you but it's your prerogative.


----------



## moody

jim prideaux said:


> new member so this is my initial response to what I have just read
> 
> Dvorak-brings a distinctly personal character to his music which reflects increasing 'national' awareness to his music (as did Smetana and later Sibelius)-whilst he may make use of the language and orchestration of Brahms it seems very dismissive to describe him as playing 'second fiddle to Brahms!
> 
> why little mention of Walton/Barber/Finzi(particularly the cello concerto)?-underrated!
> 
> Britten-am I the only one who does not get him AT ALL?
> 
> .....and finally as part of this initial attempt to 'post' anything other than a subjective 'rant' two of the most overrated composers as far as I am concerned(and this is after years of consideration) Elgar-I appreciate this may be sacrilegious to some but his incessantly melancholic nostalgia for an England fast disappearing drives me personally to distraction-Tchaikovsky-how much overwrought emotion can one take?


Elgar died in 1934 so "that" England was certainly not disappearing at that point.
As for melancholic nostalgia the only faintly jingoistic piece that I know is THE pomp and Circumstance March and that 's not very melancholic.
As for the overwrought stuff ,I suggest you switch to Delius.


----------



## Neo Romanza

jim prideaux said:


> Elgar-I appreciate this may be sacrilegious to some but his incessantly melancholic nostalgia for an England fast disappearing drives me personally to distraction


Of course I can't help if you personally don't like his music but I will say apart of the allure of Elgar's more serious music (not those popular _Pomp & Circumstance Marches_ which I loathe) is it contains so much heartfelt honesty. I knew someone who was a hardcore Elgar fan and he recommended me a work called _The Spirit of England_ (the Alexander Gibson performance) and, at first, I scoffed at the mere thought of even listening to something with this title, but then I actually _heard_ the music and my suspicion turned to admiration in two minutes. Elgar poured his heart out in every note and while some people may not like his music, which is completely their own right, I have to remind people to not close their ears and mind off completely. There's some glorious music to be found throughout his oeuvre.


----------



## jim prideaux

I was referring to the England frequently described as 'Edwardian' that seems ( to my ears) to be so clearly reflected in much of Elgars music-Walton however appeared to looking forward, admittedly from a slightly later chronological perspective. Interestingly enough I personally did not intend to initially equate 'melancholic nostalgia' with jingoism, more a sense of provincial pastoralism imbued with an innate conservatism-that arguably disappeared amidst the impact of World War One-only my interpretation22


----------



## Mahlerian

Neo Romanza said:


> Here's one I have thought for several years now:
> 
> Overrated: Copland
> Underrated: William Schuman


I certainly agree as far as Copland's popular works, but I think highly of some of the less well-known pieces, like the Short Symphony. Schuman deserves more recognition, though, to be sure.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Mahlerian said:


> I certainly agree as far as Copland's popular works, but I think highly of some of the less well-known pieces, like the Short Symphony. Schuman deserves more recognition, though, to be sure.


Yes, I tend to like Copland's lesser-known works as well. I always liked his _Organ Symphony_, _Piano Concerto_, _Dance Panels_, _The Tender Land Suite_, _Symphonic Ode_, _Dance Symphony_, _Orchestral Variations_, of course the _Short Symphony_, among others.


----------



## moody

jim prideaux said:


> I was referring to the England frequently described as 'Edwardian' that seems ( to my ears) to be so clearly reflected in much of Elgars music-Walton however appeared to looking forward, admittedly from a slightly later chronological perspective. Interestingly enough I personally did not intend to initially equate 'melancholic nostalgia' with jingoism, more a sense of provincial pastoralism imbued with an innate conservatism-that arguably disappeared amidst the impact of World War One-only my interpretation22


No,it was the WW11 that finished off the British Empire.
I meant that the march is considered jingoistic by some .I suppose Elgar would reflect the times he lived in just as Stauss Jr reflects the great empire that surrounded him.


----------



## Crudblud

moody said:


> No,it was the WW11 that finished off the British Empire.
> I meant that the march is considered jingoistic by some .I suppose Elgar would reflect the times he lived in just as Stauss Jr reflects the great empire that surrounded him.


World War Eleven... How long have I been asleep?


----------



## Kieran

^^That's how an empire ends, not with a bang or a whimper, but with a typo...


----------



## Cheyenne

*Underrated:* Corelli, Telemann, Couperin. Baroque seems often to suffer from the same problem that the classical era does, in that it is largely remembered for a few monumental composer, were some lesser known ones are swiftly condemned on the basis of little material - at least I did. For example: Telemann's Vocal Music, Wind Quartets and Violin Concertos made me appreciate Telemann quickly, but before that I judged him a little dull based only on a rather weak performance of Tafelmusik - frivolous on my behalf only yes, but I see the same comment repeated more often. In truth however, we are quickly fixing many of these unfair predilections, seen with the resurgence of such composers of C.P.E. Bach, Boccherini and Rameau. What a great time to be a classical listener!


----------



## moody

Crudblud said:


> World War Eleven... How long have I been asleep?


A lot has happened in that time--you are a modern Rip van Winkel.


----------



## moody

Kieran said:


> ^^That's how an empire ends, not with a bang or a whimper, but with a typo...


I'm sure I must be wrong but how would you express the Second World War ?


----------



## Kieran

moody said:


> I'm sure I must be wrong but how would you express the Second World War ?


WWII or WW2...


----------



## jim prideaux

moody said:


> I'm sure I must be wrong but how would you express the Second World War ?


funnily enough I was not even referring to world war two in my original post! on reflection I was trying to argue that the world Elgar portrayed so effectively came to a crashing end as a result of the first world war-as a native of the industrial north east where my family have lived for generations I sometimes feel that it was always an idealised image anyway
ie England is not just Malvern. the Cotswolds and Edwardian petite bourgeois refinement.


----------



## moody

Kieran said:


> WWII or WW2...


That's what I put---WW11 ,WW II. That is interesting because the first one is two number ones and the second two l's. (L's), the l's look better than the 1's.
Are you with me or have you nodded off through sheer boredom


----------



## deggial

how about WW!! ?


----------



## Raefus Authenticus

I suppose that this question requires a perception of the general popularity of composers of serious music, within the general public. That being the case, I will begin by listing the composers (in alphabetical order) that I consider to be popular with, and regularly listened to by, laymen within the environment that I am familiar with. 

Popular: 
Bach 
Beethoven 
Berlioz 
Brahms 
Chopin 
Handel 
Haydn 
Mendelssohn 
Mozart 
Puccini 
Purcell 
Rachmaninov 
Rossini 
Saint-Saens 
Schubert 
Schumann 
Shostakovitch 
Sibelius 
Stravinsky 
Johann Strauss II 
Tchaikovsky 
Telemann 
Verdi 
Vivaldi 
Wagner 
Weber 

Now, I will list composers from the above list that are overrated, in my opinion, insofar as the quality of their music is concerned: 

Beethoven 
Berlioz 
Haydn 
Mozart 
Puccini 
Purcell 
Rossini 
Saint-Saens 
Schubert 
Schumann 
Shostakovitch 
Stravinsky 
Johann Strauss II 
Tchaikovsky 
Telemann 
Verdi 
Vivaldi 
Wagner 
Weber 

Finally, here is a list of the composers that I feel are underrated: 
Biber
Frescobaldi 
Leclair 
Marais 
Morales 
Palestrina 
Pandolfi 
Victoria 
Weiss 

*None of the above lists are intended to be exhaustive.


----------



## Kieran

moody said:


> That's what I put---WW11 ,WW II. That is interesting because the first one is two number ones and the second two l's. (L's), the l's look better than the 1's.
> Are you with me or have you nodded off through sheer boredom


Never bored by you, my friend. The two _II's_ are of course Roman numerals for two, so I think that's most commonly used, as with the Popes etc, and so the two _11's_ might be mistaken for an 11, though I'm not beyond changing things around myself, as in B16 or JP2 (for popes, that is).

Okay, so now I'm coming off as a pedant, which isn't cool on a nice Bank Holiday Saturday...


----------



## Ingélou

Kieran said:


> Never bored by you, my friend.


I can't imagine *anyone* ever being *bored* (exactly) by Moody!


----------



## moody

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I suppose that this question requires a perception of the general popularity of composers of serious music, within the general public. That being the case, I will begin by listing the composers (in alphabetical order) that I consider to be popular with, and regularly listened to by, laymen within the environment that I am familiar with.
> 
> Popular:
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Berlioz
> Brahms
> Chopin
> Handel
> Haydn
> Mendelssohn
> Mozart
> Puccini
> Purcell
> Rachmaninov
> Rossini
> Saint-Saens
> Schubert
> Schumann
> Shostakovitch
> Sibelius
> Stravinsky
> Johann Strauss II
> Tchaikovsky
> Telemann
> Verdi
> Vivaldi
> Wagner
> Weber
> 
> Now, I will list composers from the above list that are overrated, in my opinion, insofar as the quality of their music is concerned:
> 
> Beethoven
> Berlioz
> Haydn
> Mozart
> Puccini
> Purcell
> Rossini
> Saint-Saens
> Schubert
> Schumann
> Shostakovitch
> Stravinsky
> Johann Strauss II
> Tchaikovsky
> Telemann
> Verdi
> Vivaldi
> Wagner
> Weber
> 
> Finally, here is a list of the composers that I feel are underrated:
> Biber
> Frescobaldi
> Leclair
> Marais
> Morales
> Palestrina
> Pandolfi
> Victoria
> Weiss
> 
> *None of the above lists are intended to be exhaustive.


Good Lord,I'm glad you've told me this--it has certainly cleared the cobwebs from my mind.


----------



## moody

deggial said:


> how about WW!! ?


Well at least it's different !!


----------



## moody

Ingenue said:


> I can't imagine *anyone* ever being *bored* (exactly) by Moody!


I suppose you're right really.


----------



## moody

jim prideaux said:


> funnily enough I was not even referring to world war two in my original post! on reflection I was trying to argue that the world Elgar portrayed so effectively came to a crashing end as a result of the first world war-as a native of the industrial north east where my family have lived for generations I sometimes feel that it was always an idealised image anyway
> ie England is not just Malvern. the Cotswolds and Edwardian petite bourgeois refinement.


No,I said it was WW II that finished it off. As for your other points maybe you should talk to Ingénue,I've just been embroiled in the North/South nonsense.
Maybe Elgar should have written something like the weird "Iron Foundry" just for the steel workers up North.
Also you had to mean the first war as Elgar had given up composing by the second--chiefly because he was dead.


----------



## Ingélou

moody said:


> No,I said it was WW II that finished it off. As for your other points maybe you should talk to Ingénue,I've just been embroiled in the North/South nonsense.
> Maybe Elgar should have written something like the weird "Iron Foundry" just for the steel workers up North.
> Also you had to mean the first war as Elgar had given up composing by the second--chiefly because he was dead.


Correction: you embroiled yourself!


----------



## Taggart

Kieran said:


> Never bored by you, my friend. The two _II's_ are of course Roman numerals for two, so I think that's most commonly used, as with the Popes etc, and so the two _11's_ might be mistaken for an 11, though I'm not beyond changing things around myself, as in B16 or JP2 (for popes, that is).
> 
> Okay, so now I'm coming off as a pedant, which isn't cool on a nice Bank Holiday Saturday...


Is the current Pontifex, then, a real speed merchant (F1)?


----------



## jim prideaux

new member and out of interest tried to make sense of 'embroilment in this north/south nonsense-can you enlighten me ?


----------



## Guest

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I suppose that this question requires a perception of the general popularity of composers of serious music, within the general public. That being the case, I will begin by listing the composers (in alphabetical order) that I consider to be popular with, and regularly listened to by, laymen within the environment that I am familiar with.
> 
> Popular:
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Berlioz
> Brahms
> [etc]
> 
> Now, I will list composers from the above list that are overrated, in my opinion, insofar as the quality of their music is concerned:
> 
> Beethoven
> Berlioz
> [etc]
> 
> Finally, here is a list of the composers that I feel are underrated:
> Biber
> [etc]
> 
> *None of the above lists are intended to be exhaustive.


So, to take an example from your lists, Bach is rated 'exactly' - neither 'under-' nor 'over-' by "laymen within the environment that I am familiar with"?

Is that a good thing for Bach or a bad?


----------



## moody

jim prideaux said:


> new member and out of interest tried to make sense of 'embroilment in this north/south nonsense-can you enlighten me ?


You live in the UK so if you really don't know it's too late to enlighten you now--ask a friend.


----------



## Ingélou

jim prideaux said:


> new member and out of interest tried to make sense of 'embroilment in this north/south nonsense-can you enlighten me ?


Jokes from northerners about southerners being rarefied creatures who speak in a posh voice; jokes from southerners about clog-wearing pigeon-fancying uncouth northerners who say 'ey-oop' & 'trouble at t'mill'.

The problem starts when the tone doesn't really give away if it's still a joke or not. Then one side suspects that s/he is being got at while the other asserts that s/he didn't mean it, honest, guv.

And let's face it, when a bloke's wearing armour, complete with visor, it's impossible to tell whether his tongue is in his cheek or not! 

btw jim, which part of the north east? I went to uni in Durham & then my husband (Taggart) got his first job there & we spent another nine years there. We just got totally conversant with the lingo when we had to leave.


----------



## jim prideaux

I was asking about the 'north south nonsense ' with specific reference to this thread-I too (referring to ingénues last post) was at university in Durham and then returned not long after to my native town at the mouth of the Wear-I am well aware of the clichés that abound with regard to this area of English life-anyway all this arose out of an attempt to explain why I continue to dislike the music of Elgar!


----------



## Ingélou

Sorry. But as you see, moody also thought you were puzzled by the north-south rivalry bit. (Okay, it is based on clichés, as also 'battle of the sexes' jokes, but I enjoy that sort of teasing!) 

I don't like Elgar all that much either, and I see where you're coming from, that when music is written about 'England' it is often the gentle rural south with its wonderful scenery and melodic folk songs, not the industrial north. And even then, given the dreadful conditions of farm labourers etc, it may not be telling the whole truth.

Interesting idea. But I can't help thinking that an 'L.S.Lowry' composer would be equally annoying, to northerners & southerners both.


----------



## Kieran

Taggart said:


> Is the current Pontifex, then, a real speed merchant (F1)?


Only when there's an F2 to make him first of the line!  Until then, he's just F...although a pal told me the Australian newspapers announced him as Frank One, which I think he certainly is a frank one...


----------



## jim prideaux

When I initially entered into this debate regarding Elgar I was also concerned with the insidious sense of nostalgia that his music seems to be imbued with-I remember using the word melancholic-I think it is this allied with an implied imagining of 'England ' that I struggle with. There are in contrast certain arguably 'English' composers and certain works that I believe, whilst reflecting their origins do not seem to 'milk it'! The cello and clarinet concertos by Finzi, the Moeran symphony and the concertos of Walton would be examples;-these worKs seem capable of presenting a more accurate image of what England might be. I also believe Elgars music seems somehow to me to foretell the demise of a generation on the fields of France but somehow portraying it as a 'noble sacrifice'-apologies for starting an ill defined rant-Anyway I would by choice prefer to extoll the virtues of Sibelius-but I am also sure that certain Finns might be equally dismissive of his portrayal of their 'national character'


----------



## Kleinzeit

no I'm good


----------



## Taggart

jim prideaux said:


> When I initially entered into this debate regarding Elgar I was also concerned with the insidious sense of nostalgia that his music seems to be imbued with-I remember using the word melancholic-I think it is this allied with an implied imagining of 'England ' that I struggle with.


Taking a different genre, it's interesting that another West Midlander, J R R Tolkien has the same sort of elegaic Englishness. And of course Vaughan Williams was also heavily connected with the area, collecting folk songs.

Maybe there are different sorts of "Englishness" just as there is a major divide in Scotland between Highland and lowland culture?


----------



## moody

jim prideaux said:


> I was asking about the 'north south nonsense ' with specific reference to this thread-I too (referring to ingénues last post) was at university in Durham and then returned not long after to my native town at the mouth of the Wear-I am well aware of the clichés that abound with regard to this area of English life-anyway all this arose out of an attempt to explain why I continue to dislike the music of Elgar!


And I was trying to explain that your stated reason was faulty.


----------



## moody

jim prideaux said:


> When I initially entered into this debate regarding Elgar I was also concerned with the insidious sense of nostalgia that his music seems to be imbued with-I remember using the word melancholic-I think it is this allied with an implied imagining of 'England ' that I struggle with. There are in contrast certain arguably 'English' composers and certain works that I believe, whilst reflecting their origins do not seem to 'milk it'! The cello and clarinet concertos by Finzi, the Moeran symphony and the concertos of Walton would be examples;-these worKs seem capable of presenting a more accurate image of what England might be. I also believe Elgars music seems somehow to me to foretell the demise of a generation on the fields of France but somehow portraying it as a 'noble sacrifice'-apologies for starting an ill defined rant-Anyway I would by choice prefer to extoll the virtues of Sibelius-but I am also sure that certain Finns might be equally dismissive of his portrayal of their 'national character'


Why don't you stop struggling with it,it seems to be causing you problems. I think I'm getting the picture regarding your outlook.


----------



## MJongo

IMO, Charles Ives composed one of the three greatest symphonies of all time (no. 4), yet he barely gets any recognition. So I'll say he's one of the most underrated.


----------



## hello

peeyaj said:


> I can't believe that we don't have a specific thread regarding this subject. So, I'll post this. Feel free to argue the merits of your lists, and some of us we'll be compelled to defend ours.
> 
> Here are my guilty suspects.
> 
> * Most Overrated *
> 
> a. Mozart
> 
> b. Tchaikovsky
> 
> c. Mahler
> 
> d. Liszt
> 
> e. Philip Glass
> 
> *f. John Cage*
> 
> g. Stravinsky


I'd say Cage is one of the most under appreciated. Seems like his only composition people ever talk about is 4'33", and it's usually the butt of a joke.


----------



## Cheyenne

Elgar's Cello Concerto is great, that's all I know! 
I certainly massively overrated Haydn for a very long time. What a wonderful composer!


----------



## TudorMihai

Overrated: Johann Strauss II, Brahms, Verdi, Puccini, Haydn, Stravinsky, Glass
Underrated: Corelli, Handel, Korngold, Raff, Mahler, Bruckner, Holst, Elgar, Sibelius


----------



## Vesteralen

Sorry...this thread always brings out the worst in me...

proceed


----------



## violadude

TudorMihai said:


> Overrated: Johann Strauss II, Brahms, Verdi, Puccini, Haydn, Stravinsky, Glass
> Underrated: Corelli, Handel, Korngold, Raff, Mahler, Bruckner, Holst, Elgar, Sibelius


Who overrates J Strauss? I thought everyone was under the impression that he was nothing more than a catchy "pops-calssical" composer.

And I probably wouldn't say that Mahler is underrated. I think certain works of his are underrated and he might be overrated for the wrong reasons sometimes, if such a thing is possible.


----------



## peeyaj

Mahler is an unusual case. He is a composer who is overrated and underrated at two different spectrum.


----------



## neoshredder

Overrated: Xenakis, Stockhausen, Cage, Zappa, Nono, and Berio.
Underrated: Albinoni, Corelli, Boccherini, Stamitz, Hummel, and Fields.


----------



## Garlic

I see what you did there...............


----------



## TitanisWalleri

Respighi is definitely the most underrated composer of all time. Period. His ability to compose color has been nearly been unrivaled.


----------



## Crudblud

neoshredder said:


> Overrated: Xenakis, Stockhausen, Cage, Zappa, Nono, and Berio.
> Underrated: Albinoni, Corelli, Boccherini, Stamitz, Hummel, and Fields.


Points for subtlety! .


----------



## Cheyenne

TitanisWalleri said:


> His ability to compose color has been nearly been unrivaled.


Well, that was unintentionally hilarious :lol:


----------



## Vesteralen

Overrated: Every composer I don't care for that someone on this site likes or that gets a good critical review somewhere

Underrated: Every composer I like that someone on this site doesn't like or that gets panned somewhere


There. That about sums it up. :tiphat:


----------



## neoshredder

Vesteralen said:


> Overrated: Every composer I don't care for that someone on this site likes or that gets a good critical review somewhere
> 
> Underrated: Every composer I like that someone on this site doesn't like or that gets panned somewhere
> 
> There. That about sums it up. :tiphat:


Close. But it's more like someone on this site overrates a certain Composer and someone that underrates a certain Composer.  Thus why the terms overrated and underrated are used.


----------



## annie

Overrated: Muffin
Underrated: Ice cream.

What's the average age to post opinions on classical music these days?


----------



## Cheyenne

annie said:


> What's the average age to post opinions on classical music these days?


Hey now, let's not correlate those sort of things with age.


----------



## jennie

I think Prokofiev, Grieg, Debussy and Rachmaninoff should be household names the same way Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are


----------



## Dimitri

Overrated: Mahler
Underrated: John Williams, Rachmaminoff, Saint-Saens


----------



## Dimitri

Overrated: Mahler
Underrated: Saint-Saens, John Williams, Rachmaninoff


----------



## aleazk

Underrated: John Cage, Alberto Ginastera, Georg Friedrich Haas.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Who overrates J Strauss? I thought everyone was under the impression that he was nothing more than a catchy "pops-calssical" composer.


J Strauss is a wonderful composer who just happened to work in the format of the waltz, while other composers wrote piano sonatas or symphonies. Von Suppe, Walteufel and Offenbach are also excellent composers who worked in different musical forms than a lot of classical music.


----------



## LFTBR

Overrated: Bruckner
Underrated: John Harbison


----------



## Cosmos

Overrated:
Mozart
Tchaikovsky
Liszt
Haydn
Dvorak
Sibelius

Underrated:
Medtner
Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern
Smetana
Scriabin
Mendelssohn
Schubert

I did this based on my opinions of these composers v.s. how highly regarded they are by the general public. 

The worst offender is Mozart, who wrote some ok melodies but can never keep me interested. Then there's Tchaikovsky, who has some gems hidden among his overplayed and exhausted works *cough cough the first piano concerto and the ballets*. Liszt has some brilliant moments in the endless sea of his superficial salon pieces. Haydn....ugh just no he wrote over 100 symphonies and no surprise they're all dull. Well at least we have the Creation. I like Dvorak's 9th mainly for the melodies and the bangs and booms. But his other works don't hit me the same way. Sibelius starts out nice, but then his music moves veeeeeeeeeeeeeery slow.

Medtner isn't remembered too much because his music was very conservative (Romantic sounding music during the first half of the 1900's) but he has an amazing skill of craftsmanship. IMO, he wrote the second best set of piano sonatas ever, his first and third violin sonatas are wonderful, and his piano concertos...ah! I cannot even describe. The Second Viennese School wrote a lot of thought provoking music. It's also interesting to look into their early works, back before they adopted the atonal style. Smetana is what everyone makes Dvorak out to be: a Czech composer full of spirit. His music really drives foreword. Remember how I said Medtner's sonatas were the second best set? Well the best set of piano sonatas comes from Scriabin. His music is rich with emotion and mysticism...very other-worldly. Finally, Mendelssohn and Schubert are two great composers who excelled in a variety of genre (also, Schubert's lieder are top notch)


----------



## TudorMihai

Dimitri said:


> Underrated:John Williams


Hmm, yes and no. As a film score composer his contribution is unquestionable. You rarely find someone who doesn't know the music for Jaws, Star Wars, E.T., Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park or Harry Potter. He created some scores that will never be equaled and he will always influence future generations.

However, his classical works are rarely performed so yes, he is underrated as a classical composer. His concertos are quite rarely performed, not to mention his symphony. It's interesting that someone who's a film music star is so underrated as a classical composer.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

this post is very good fun


----------



## rborganist

I must respectfully disagree about Brahms; to call him overrated is probably the result of listening only to the orchestral music; listen to the lieder, the organ music, the chamber music, the Requiem (especially his use of counterpoint). Those who consider Verdi overrated probably have not really listened to him beyond the most familiar excerpts; go beyond the operas to his string quartet, his songs, and of course, the Requiem. In my opinion, Philip Glass is overrated; I have tried on several occasions to listen to one or another of is pieces, and I find them crashing bores. On the other hand, I very much enjoy John Adams' music including "Short Ride in a Fast Machine" and "Christian Zeal and Activity". My introduction to his music, and my favorite of his is still "The Chairman Dances." I do agree with the person who considered Samuel Barber underrated; the man had a prodigious gift for melody. I would consider Vivaldi underrated, especially by those who say that he wrote the same concerto 500 times. The problem is that unless you go to a library and actually check out cds of Vivaldi's music, most classical radio stations will play "The Four Seasons" almost to the exclusion of the rest of his music, thus giving us a mistaken impression.
I would have to list as overrated: Philip Glass, Arnold Schoenberg, and Alban Berg. I would consider as underrated (in no particular order): Erik Satie, Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein (go beyond the stage works and listen in particular to the Chichester Psalms), and Giuseppe Verdi. Few people understood human psychology better than Verdi, especially parent-child relationships. This is not an exhaustive list; they are just the ones which first come to mind.


----------



## Dimitri

TudorMihai said:


> Hmm, yes and no. As a film score composer his contribution is unquestionable. You rarely find someone who doesn't know the music for Jaws, Star Wars, E.T., Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park or Harry Potter. He created some scores that will never be equaled and he will always influence future generations.
> 
> However, his classical works are rarely performed so yes, he is underrated as a classical composer. His concertos are quite rarely performed, not to mention his symphony. It's interesting that someone who's a film music star is so underrated as a classical composer.


Agreed, although I was more referring to tendencies in classical circle to outright reject his work, often without having heard more than his most popular hits.


----------



## DeepR

Cosmos said:


> Underrated:
> Scriabin


His orchestral music is another story, but I get the feeling that at least in piano circles he is not that underrated anymore(?). I see his music being programmed for piano recitals, not very often, but it's not uncommon either. His name pops up on several different piano forums quite frequently. Quite a lot of amateurs, like me, learn to play a bit of his music, usually not the sonatas (obviously), but the shorter pieces like Etudes and Preludes. I'd say he is among the most popular piano composers outside of the usual suspects that everyone and their mother knows.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Cosmos said:


> Overrated:
> Mozart
> Tchaikovsky
> Liszt
> Haydn
> Dvorak
> Sibelius
> 
> Underrated:
> Medtner
> Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern
> Smetana
> Scriabin
> Mendelssohn
> Schubert
> 
> I did this based on my opinions of these composers v.s. how highly regarded they are by the general public.
> 
> The worst offender is Mozart, who wrote some ok melodies but can never keep me interested. Then there's Tchaikovsky, who has some gems hidden among his overplayed and exhausted works *cough cough the first piano concerto and the ballets*. Liszt has some brilliant moments in the endless sea of his superficial salon pieces. Haydn....ugh just no he wrote over 100 symphonies and no surprise they're all dull. Well at least we have the Creation. I like Dvorak's 9th mainly for the melodies and the bangs and booms. But his other works don't hit me the same way. Sibelius starts out nice, but then his music moves veeeeeeeeeeeeeery slow.
> 
> Medtner isn't remembered too much because his music was very conservative (Romantic sounding music during the first half of the 1900's) but he has an amazing skill of craftsmanship. IMO, he wrote the second best set of piano sonatas ever, his first and third violin sonatas are wonderful, and his piano concertos...ah! I cannot even describe. The Second Viennese School wrote a lot of thought provoking music. It's also interesting to look into their early works, back before they adopted the atonal style. Smetana is what everyone makes Dvorak out to be: a Czech composer full of spirit. His music really drives foreword. Remember how I said Medtner's sonatas were the second best set? Well the best set of piano sonatas comes from Scriabin. His music is rich with emotion and mysticism...very other-worldly. Finally, Mendelssohn and Schubert are two great composers who excelled in a variety of genre (also, Schubert's lieder are top notch)


Haydn overrated? Ask people on the street if they know him - most have maybe 'heard' of him but few could tell you a piece by him, whereas this is definitely not the case for Mozart, Bach or Beethoven.


----------



## science

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Haydn overrated? Ask people on the street if they know him - most have maybe 'heard' of him but few could tell you a piece by him, whereas this is definitely not the case for Mozart, Bach or Beethoven.


I honestly don't think the "person on the street" would be able to name a work by Mozart or Bach either. If you went around asking random people to name a work by Mozart, I suspect an above average answer would be something like "The Four Seasons" or "Adagio." With Beethoven, you've got the 9th Symphony, and that's probably pretty well-known, but beyond the symphonies (9 and 5), and maybe the Moonlight Sonata, and maybe even Für Elise - both of which would be misattributed as often as not - that'd be it.

You go around asking any question like this - what's Dante's greatest work? what are the four Gospels? what did Plato believe? who sculpted _The Thinker_? what was the Copernican Revolution? who wrote _Paradise Lost_? what is Protestantism? who was allied to Stalin in World War Two? name any classical Chinese work of literature? who was Voltaire? - and you're going to discover something disappointing really quickly! The world is full of people who think Africa is a country, who would think it's funny that there are places named Hamburg and Sandwich, who would guess that Florence Nightingale was a singer, who think that Frankenstein was the monster, who couldn't tell you whether a star system is bigger than a galactic cluster, or what language most people speak in Morocco (let alone India), or what the H in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O stands for.

Given all that, the fact that representative government is the least oppressive form of government in the history of civilization should inspire deep reflection on the nature of humanity.

Anyway, get away from the universities and the cultural centers and go out and ask the taxi drivers and kindergarten teachers and construction workers and bank tellers and janitors and nail painters and soda machine repairers and electricians and homeless people and police officers, the people who consider Harlequin novels as literature and who don't know that there are _Game of Thrones_ books, and ask them to name a work by Bach or Mozart, and you'll see!

I didn't realize the extent of this until I was reading a book titled _The Reformation_, and two guys just making friendly conversation asked what it was about, and I responded that it was just a book about the Reformation, and they asked what that was, and I spent about a second wondering how to explain it without seeming at all arrogant! I told someone about it - a college educated person - and the response was, "You jerk. I don't know what the Reformation is either." Ok, well, then, that's the world! Out of university means no more allusions to Kierkegaard in casual conversation.


----------



## science

... BTW, all that being said, my assumption on the internet is generally that no one here is ignorant of anything that I've already heard of! 

When I'm wrong, I figure they can either google it or ask, and either way I shouldn't be presumptuous enough to think I know something they don't.


----------



## violadude

science said:


> I honestly don't think the "person on the street" would be able to name a work by Mozart or Bach either. If you went around asking random people to name a work by Mozart, I suspect an above average answer would be something like "The Four Seasons" or "Adagio." With Beethoven, you've got the 9th Symphony, and that's probably pretty well-known, but beyond the symphonies (9 and 5), and maybe the Moonlight Sonata, and maybe even Für Elise - both of which would be misattributed as often as not - that'd be it.
> 
> You go around asking any question like this - what's Dante's greatest work? what are the four Gospels? what did Plato believe? who sculpted _The Thinker_? what was the Copernican Revolution? who wrote _Paradise Lost_? what is Protestantism? who was allied to Stalin in World War Two? name any classical Chinese work of literature? who was Voltaire? - and you're going to discover something disappointing really quickly! The world is full of people who think Africa is a country, who would think it's funny that there are places named Hamburg and Sandwich, who would guess that Florence Nightingale was a singer, who think that Frankenstein was the monster, who couldn't tell you whether a star system is bigger than a galactic cluster, or what language most people speak in Morocco (let alone India), or what the H in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O stands for.
> 
> Given all that, the fact that representative government is the least oppressive form of government in the history of civilization should inspire deep reflection on the nature of humanity.
> 
> Anyway, get away from the universities and the cultural centers and go out and ask the taxi drivers and kindergarten teachers and construction workers and bank tellers and janitors and nail painters and soda machine repairers and electricians and homeless people and police officers, the people who consider Harlequin novels as literature and who don't know that there are _Game of Thrones_ books, and ask them to name a work by Bach or Mozart, and you'll see!
> 
> I didn't realize the extent of this until I was reading a book titled _The Reformation_, and two guys just making friendly conversation asked what it was about, and I responded that it was just a book about the Reformation, and they asked what that was, and I spent about a second wondering how to explain it without seeming at all arrogant! I told someone about it - a college educated person - and the response was, "You jerk. I don't know what the Reformation is either." Ok, well, then, that's the world! Out of university means no more allusions to Kierkegaard in casual conversation.


Your rant reminded me of this video.


----------



## Kieran

violadude said:


> Your rant reminded me of this video.


It's even funnier when you look at how they spelt "New Zeland" and "Budhist" in the subtitles...


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> It's even funnier when you look at how they spelt "New Zeland" and "Budhist" in the subtitles...


Of all the things that might worry me about that video...!


----------



## ethanjamesescano

under rated:
Francisco Tarrega
Andres Segovia (as a composer)
Gaspar Sanz
Fernando Sor

Over rated:
Bach
Beethoven
Mozart


----------



## neoshredder

ethanjamesescano said:


> under rated:
> Francisco Tarrega
> Andres Segovia (as a composer)
> Gaspar Sanz
> Fernando Sor
> 
> Over rated:
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Mozart


You forgot Vivaldi, Handel, Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Wagner, Grieg, Chopin, Debussy, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. lol


----------



## Guest

Underrated : Gérard Grisey, Philip Glass, Iannis Xenakis, Mahler.

Grisey because is unknow and spectral music is not for the profane.
Glass because he's classified as pop, boring or whatever.
Xenakis because the concept of his music remain mostly unknown from the public.
Mahler because in my years at the University he was the most underrated, he and Glass.


----------



## mtmailey

BEETHOVEN is overrated to often to much he is good but not that great.Dvorak makes great music but he is not talked about often.His symphony no.9 sounds better BEETHOVEN symphony 9.


----------



## ssdei

Debussy is definitely greatly overated and inflated.


----------



## nightscape

Faure should get a little more love.

I always thought that Grieg was a bit undervalued, perhaps because he didn't write an excessive amount of orchestral music and only one concerto early in his career.

Dvorak is one of my favorites and I wish more people new his lesser known works like his tone poems which are some of the most orchestrally interesting pieces he's composed, and later in life.

I'll admit that I didn't even like the name Ravel because of Bolero, which I find to be obnoxious. However, after listening to things like Daphnis and Chloe and Ma mère l'oye, I completely underestimated the old boy.

It's bizarre that anyone can claim that Beethoven is _overrated_. A bit overplayed and overweight in comparison to other composers, perhaps, but certainly not overrated. He deserves to be lauded, admired, studied and ubiquitous.


----------



## Borodin

Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms etc. all overrated.

Russian romantic music is underrated.


----------



## moody

ethanjamesescano said:


> under rated:
> Francisco Tarrega
> Andres Segovia (as a composer)
> Gaspar Sanz
> Fernando Sor
> 
> Over rated:
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Mozart


A fascinating post indeed.


----------



## moody

nightscape said:


> Faure should get a little more love.
> 
> I always thought that Grieg was a bit undervalued, perhaps because he didn't write an excessive amount of orchestral music and only one concerto early in his career.
> 
> Dvorak is one of my favorites and I wish more people new his lesser known works like his tone poems which are some of the most orchestrally interesting pieces he's composed, and later in life.
> 
> I'll admit that I didn't even like the name Ravel because of Bolero, which I find to be obnoxious. However, after listening to things like Daphnis and Chloe and Ma mère l'oye, I completely underestimated the old boy.
> 
> It's bizarre that anyone can claim that Beethoven is _overrated_. A bit overplayed and overweight in comparison to other composers, perhaps, but certainly not overrated. He deserves to be lauded, admired, studied and ubiquitous.


Grieg was basically a miniaturist.


----------



## moody

neoshredder said:


> You forgot Vivaldi, Handel, Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Wagner, Grieg, Chopin, Debussy, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. lol


You are so right to point this out !


----------



## moody

Cheyenne said:


> Elgar's Cello Concerto is great, that's all I know!
> I certainly massively overrated Haydn for a very long time. What a wonderful composer!


I'm not sure what you mean here.


----------



## moody

jennie said:


> I think Prokofiev, Grieg, Debussy and Rachmaninoff should be household names the same way Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are


I thought they were,but what do you mean by household names--which households ?


----------



## lucidity

ethanjamesescano said:


> under rated:
> Francisco Tarrega
> Andres Segovia (as a composer)
> Gaspar Sanz
> Fernando Sor


Welllll...compared to the big names like Beethoven or Mozart, for sure. Doubtful anyone on the street would know those guitarists. But in the world of classical guitar Sor and Tarrega ARE the big names. I doubt few are more esteemed by classical guitarists. I bet thousands of students are plucking through their works as I type.


----------



## changeup

How can someone be underrated if I, as a classical newbie, actually know and listen to his music?


----------



## starry

moody said:


> Grieg was basically a miniaturist.


Not that doing smaller pieces is a bad thing of course.


----------



## Rhombic

Hilariously overrated: Mozart, the "Strauss (Waltz) family" and Schumann
Quite overrated: Brahms, Mendelssohn, Verdi and Tchaikovsky
Slightly overrated: Beethoven, Haydn, John Cage, Mahler and Ravel
----
Slightly underrated: Hummel, da Palestrina, Nielsen, Tomás Luis de Victoria and Schubert
Quite underrated: Manuel de Falla, Arnold Bax, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Borodin and Xenakis
Hilariously underrated: Lyatoshynsky, Myaskovsky, Matteo da Perugia, Francesco Landini, John Dunstaple


----------



## Blancrocher

*Post has been deleted*


----------



## hpowders

Underrated based on his terrific 12 piano sonatas, I have to say Vincent Persichetti.


----------



## aleazk

Overrated: 1850-1900
Underrated: 1950-


----------



## shangoyal

science said:


> I honestly don't think the "person on the street" would be able to name a work by Mozart or Bach either. If you went around asking random people to name a work by Mozart, I suspect an above average answer would be something like "The Four Seasons" or "Adagio." With Beethoven, you've got the 9th Symphony, and that's probably pretty well-known, but beyond the symphonies (9 and 5), and maybe the Moonlight Sonata, and maybe even Für Elise - both of which would be misattributed as often as not - that'd be it.
> 
> You go around asking any question like this - what's Dante's greatest work? what are the four Gospels? what did Plato believe? who sculpted _The Thinker_? what was the Copernican Revolution? who wrote _Paradise Lost_? what is Protestantism? who was allied to Stalin in World War Two? name any classical Chinese work of literature? who was Voltaire? - and you're going to discover something disappointing really quickly! The world is full of people who think Africa is a country, who would think it's funny that there are places named Hamburg and Sandwich, who would guess that Florence Nightingale was a singer, who think that Frankenstein was the monster, who couldn't tell you whether a star system is bigger than a galactic cluster, or what language most people speak in Morocco (let alone India), or what the H in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O stands for.
> 
> Given all that, the fact that representative government is the least oppressive form of government in the history of civilization should inspire deep reflection on the nature of humanity.
> 
> Anyway, get away from the universities and the cultural centers and go out and ask the taxi drivers and kindergarten teachers and construction workers and bank tellers and janitors and nail painters and soda machine repairers and electricians and homeless people and police officers, the people who consider Harlequin novels as literature and who don't know that there are _Game of Thrones_ books, and ask them to name a work by Bach or Mozart, and you'll see!
> 
> I didn't realize the extent of this until I was reading a book titled _The Reformation_, and two guys just making friendly conversation asked what it was about, and I responded that it was just a book about the Reformation, and they asked what that was, and I spent about a second wondering how to explain it without seeming at all arrogant! I told someone about it - a college educated person - and the response was, "You jerk. I don't know what the Reformation is either." Ok, well, then, that's the world! Out of university means no more allusions to Kierkegaard in casual conversation.


This is the single greatest post I have read so far on TalkClassical, and that's saying a lot. And you are so right about Kierkegaard and university.


----------



## starry

I don't know why anyone would worry that much about the overrating of musicians who were very good. Better to concentrate on those who are just average and who get overrated, but that happens much more in popular music perhaps.


----------



## stevenski

Under-rated: Medtner
Enescu
Moszkowski(NOT just a "salon " composer)
Bruch, apart from the obvious works
Parry( master symphonist)


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> I don't know why anyone would worry that much about the overrating of musicians who were very good. Better to concentrate on those who are just average and who get overrated, but that happens much more in popular music perhaps.


The answer is presumably because if it's a "zero-sum game" they must specify a few so-called "overrated composers" in order to make way for a higher ranking of their so-called "underrated composers". Otherwise, the whole would be lop-sided and fall over.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, all these so-called "underrated" and "overrated composers" are nothing of the sort. They are simply manifestations of where some people disagree with the majority viewpoint of others. There are bound to be minority views, and this all we are getting each time someone new responds. They may as well something like: "I know I'm in a tiny minority, but I don't like Mozart (or whovever)". Some people, however, try to make a virtue out of their minority views and suggest that the rest of us are weird in liking said composer so much.


----------



## hpowders

aleazk said:


> Overrated: 1850-1900
> Underrated: 1950-


Greatest post I've read! You follow my main credo "Keep it pithy!!!


----------



## mmsbls

I've said earlier that I believe the definition of an overrated composer is simply a composer that the rater likes less than the average classical music listener does. What else could it possibly mean? An underrated composer could be one whom the rater likes more than the average classical music listener or possibly a composer who most simply don't know (and therefore can't rate). 

What I find interesting is how my view of composers has changed since I began listening to vastly more composers and works. I have found that my "ratings" continue to more closely approach those of the vast majority of lists I have seen. I now hear why others view Messiaen as a phenomenal composer, why Haydn is truly a "top 10" composer, why so much of Stravinsky's music is wonderful rather than so-so. I never believed that Stravinsky was not a great composer, only that I did not appreciate what others clearly did.


----------



## Itullian

yea, Strauss, Mahler, Bruckner, Puccini, Wagner
all overrated


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> Overrated: 1850-1900
> Underrated: 1950-


Maybe another way to put that is:

1700-1950: rated (known)
1950- : unrated (unknown)


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> What I find interesting is how my view of composers has changed since I began listening to vastly more composers and works. I have found that my "ratings" continue to more closely approach those of the vast majority of lists I have seen. I now hear why others view Messiaen as a phenomenal composer, why Haydn is truly a "top 10" composer, why so much of Stravinsky's music is wonderful rather than so-so. I never believed that Stravinsky was not a great composer, only that I did not appreciate what others clearly did.


I think that I have made the same point as yours on a previous occasion. If I haven't I certainly agree with it.

I found that as my listening experience increased, the more closely my preferences aligned with the results one typically sees in composer polls, at least over the first 25-30 composers or so. On the few occasions when there might have been a big divergence, I took that as a challenge to acquaint myself better with those composers, and I never found that kind of activity was unsuccessful.

I now enjoy a very wide range of composers across most time periods and genres. For me the main composers I was not all that keen on were Grieg and Prokofiev. Now I rate them much more highly having looked more deeply into their output, and having read up on them. I do quite a bit of reading about composers and have had a long fascination with some of them.


----------



## tdc

mmsbls said:


> What I find interesting is how my view of composers has changed since I began listening to vastly more composers and works. I have found that my "ratings" continue to more closely approach those of the vast majority of lists I have seen. I now hear why others view Messiaen as a phenomenal composer, why Haydn is truly a "top 10" composer, why so much of Stravinsky's music is wonderful rather than so-so. I never believed that Stravinsky was not a great composer, only that I did not appreciate what others clearly did.


The more I've listened I've also realized there is a good reason why composers that typically rank high are there, but also believe that the lists omit and/or rank lower some of the more recent great composers, so there is a bit of a lag time in how these lists evolve. I've also found the more I listen the less I care about rankings and that my personal favorite composers have nothing to do with the composers on those lists and where they rank.


----------



## hpowders

There are so many underrated composers. Franz Schmidt, William Schuman, Vincent Persichetti, and Peter Mennin come immediately to mind.

If you haven't yet heard Franz Schmidt's 4th Symphony, you are in for a treat.


----------



## tdc

tdc said:


> The more I've listened I've also realized there is a good reason why composers that typically rank high are there, but also believe that the lists omit and/or rank lower some of the more recent great composers, so there is a bit of a lag time in how these lists evolve. I've also found the more I listen the less I care about rankings and that my personal favorite composers have nothing to do with the composers on those lists and where they rank.


To continue with this thought I think there is something flawed with the notion of ranking composers numerically, because they excel in different areas and in fact strive for different things. I think if a composer has reached the status of 'great' (whatever that means) they are great composers, the numbers game doesn't mean much to me. Some composers achieve extraordinary things so certainly deserve a lot of accolades like Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. But how do you in fairness compare someone like Debussy or Stravinsky to them? Different composers from different times with different musical objectives. Stravinsky and Debussy were not trying to do the same things as Bach Beethoven or Mozart, so I don't think they be judged or ranked in comparison or whether or not they accomplished any of the same things as those three.


----------



## aleazk

hpowders said:


> There are so many underrated composers. Franz Schmidt, William Schuman, Vincent Persichetti, and Peter Mennin come immediately to mind.
> 
> If you haven't yet heard Franz Schmidt's 4th Symphony, you are in for a treat.


If I read Vincent Persichetti one more time I'm going to explode, hpowders! 

Are you familiar with a guy called CoAG and his Ligeti obsession, later Sibelius obsession, etc.?


----------



## mmsbls

tdc said:


> The more I've listened I've also realized there is a good reason why composers that typically rank high are there, but also believe that the lists omit and/or rank lower some of the more recent great composers, so there is a bit of a lag time in how these lists evolve.


I agree that recent composers are not ranked well in these polls. There are probably several reasons for this, but perhaps the main one is simply lack of familiarity with the musical style and the music itself. In some sense a separate poll of contemporary or maybe post 1950 composers would make sense although there would be far fewer voters. and I suspect that voters would agree less.



tdc said:


> But how do you in fairness compare someone like Debussy or Stravinsky to them? Different composers from different times with different musical objectives. Stravinsky and Debussy were not trying to do the same things as Bach Beethoven or Mozart, so I don't think they be judged or ranked in comparison or whether or not they accomplished any of the same things as those three.


I think these polls (at least on TC) really determine the most liked composers rather than the greatest. Given that we are voting for those we enjoy the most, comparing composers from different eras is not too much different from comparing Mozart and Haydn.


----------



## starry

Partita said:


> I think that I have made the same point as yours on a previous occasion. If I haven't I certainly agree with it.
> 
> I found that as my listening experience increased, the more closely my preferences aligned with the results one typically sees in composer polls, at least over the first 25-30 composers or so. On the few occasions when there might have been a big divergence, I took that as a challenge to acquaint myself better with those composers, and I never found that kind of activity was unsuccessful.
> 
> I now enjoy a very wide range of composers across most time periods and genres. For me the main composers I was not all that keen on were Grieg and Prokofiev. Now I rate them much more highly having looked more deeply into their output, and having read up on them. I do quite a bit of reading about composers and have had a long fascination with some of them.


The more you listen to many composers, including lesser known ones, the more likely you are to rate them higher. Though I don't see it as a ranking contest anyway. As nobody will ever hear all the music that has been written any ranking is purely based on what someone has heard or hasn't heard, and so I don't see why such lists would be of much interest to others.


----------



## hpowders

aleazk said:


> If I read Vincent Persichetti one more time I'm going to explode, hpowders!
> 
> Are you familiar with a guy called CoAG and his Ligeti obsession, later Sibelius obsession, etc.?


Sorry. It's just when I find an unexpected treasure, I want to shout it out and share it!
I've been studying his 12 piano sonatas for almost 3 weeks now. Nothing but Persichetti.
The dog runs away!


----------



## mmsbls

starry said:


> As nobody will ever hear all the music that has been written any ranking is purely based on what someone has heard or hasn't heard, and so I don't see why such lists would be of much interest to others.


Since such lists are generated often on TC, other websites, and in books, evidently there is significant interest in these lists. I think there are 2 clear reasons why people might be interested.

1) Comparisons
Many consider it fun to compare their own lists with those of others or to the collective list. Are there outrageous votes on anyone's list? Did one's favorites make the top of the collective list? Etc. While the results might depend on which works one has heard, the comparisons do not. One can compare one's list to others independently of whether one has heard many or few works.

2) Suggestions
People want to expand their listening by including more composers (or more works). Newcomers might be interested in the entire list. Almost any list of composers will contain information that could be useful to newcomers since it is almost certainly generated by those with more experience. Those with more experience might be comfortable with the composers at the top, but they may want to look at composers a bit further down the list.

Suggestions will be useful to the extent that an individual's tastes tend to agree with the collective tastes of those making the list. While some don't fall into this category, the majority seem to. If this were not true, lists would be much "flatter" (votes would be distributed over a much wider range of composers). I, for example, have found that my tastes seem very close to those expressed in all the lists I've seen. Such lists can be wonderfully useful to people like me.

I suppose those with experience would hope that most voters have heard at some representative works of the composers. On TC it seems as though people who discuss composers tend to know works in common so it's likely that people are voting based on at least some (perhaps small) set of common works.


----------



## starry

I think it's mainly comparisons, it really isn't hard for newcomers to find out what the famous works are. But some will like what you like and others won't, doesn't change what you like really. And no list or poll proves anything beyond this forum. I think people just like trumpeting their own likes/dislikes, and most really just care about their own choices rather than others.


----------



## hpowders

I can't speak for anyone else but I like sharing my discoveries so others may perhaps be as delighted as I've been. Nothing selfish about it.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> Sorry. It's just when I find an unexpected treasure, I want to shout it out and share it!
> I've been studying his 12 piano sonatas for almost 3 weeks now. Nothing but Persichetti.
> The dog runs away!


Which one is your favorite?


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> Which one is your favorite?


I love the wittiness of his smaller sonatas, #'s 5,6 7,8 and 9. Very approachable with unexpected musical twists, like a modern day Haydn. These 5 make me smile.

I like #10 too, his longest sonata. Also approachable, but more serious than #'s 5-9. His "big" statement.

#1 is a bit difficult because it's expressionistic, probably trying to impress the powers that be, and #11 is tough too because it's atonal. Still listening a lot to those. In #12 he composes so the notes in one hand are a mirror image of the notes of the other hand. Haven't made up my mind yet on these three.

#'s 2-4 don't do much for me. I believe he's still experimenting here, not having found his true voice yet. #3 is a ringer for "Copland Americanism". Think US nationalism! Written during WW2.

My single favorite is probably #9, a nine minute gem with four distinct parts played in one continuous movement.
However, I will arrange #5-9 to play continuously.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> I love the wittiness of his smaller sonatas, #'s 5,6 7,8 and 9. Very approachable with unexpected musical twists, like a modern day Haydn. These 5 make me smile.


Perischetti? Like a later-day Haydn? Must have my people look into that...


----------



## PetrB

For me, all the composers you have named as both over- and under- rated are composers whose work with which I am well familiar. I'm sure this is the same for many a listener who has taken the time to investigate music beyond works of 'the three B's,' or that handful which make but a tiny thumbnail sketch of composers through the time-line of music history.

You've fallen into the common notion that those handful of "big names" given in the most cursory of general music appreciation classes are somehow 'the greatest.' Of those far too often mentioned to the neglect of many others is of course, J.S. Bach and Beethoven. Those handful of 'over-rated' are more 'over-mentioned' to the neglect of others, which does not equate to 'over-rated,' just over-hyped to the 101 music appreciation crowd.

This makes for very dubious polls of little or no merit.


----------



## Morimur

*Underrated*


Mauricio Kagel 
Osvaldo Golijov
Cristóbal Halffter
Raymond Scott
Aribert Reimann

_I am sure there are quite a few._


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> I love the wittiness of his smaller sonatas, #'s 5,6 7,8 and 9. Very approachable with unexpected musical twists, like a modern day Haydn. These 5 make me smile.
> 
> I like #10 too, his longest sonata. Also approachable, but more serious than #'s 5-9. His "big" statement.
> 
> #1 is a bit difficult because it's expressionistic, probably trying to impress the powers that be, and #11 is tough too because it's atonal. Still listening a lot to those. In #12 he composes so the notes in one hand are a mirror image of the notes of the other hand. Haven't made up my mind yet on these three.
> 
> #'s 2-4 don't do much for me. I believe he's still experimenting here, not having found his true voice yet. #3 is a ringer for "Copland Americanism". Think US nationalism! Written during WW2.
> 
> My single favorite is probably #9, a nine minute gem with four distinct parts played in one continuous movement.
> However, I will arrange #5-9 to play continuously.


I agree with you. I think Persichetti's best sonatas are the short and sweet ones. There's lots of inventiveness packed into those things. I do really like #1 too. I don't really like #3 or 4. I think he was a little over his head somehow in those ones. #2 is alright. #s 10-12 are interesting but I have to listen to them more.


----------



## starry

hpowders said:


> I can't speak for anyone else but I like sharing my discoveries so others may perhaps be as delighted as I've been. Nothing selfish about it.


Fine, and how many people listen to something someone mentions or even bother talking about what someone mentions? Hardly anyone really will have interest unless it's something already of interest to them. And that's fine as everyone has their own interests I suppose, and there's many thousands of classical works that people have access to on the internet and can listen to. Most people here won't have time to play much of the youtube videos either as they already have their listening schedule. That's why there's much more actual conversation with general discussion about music or about pieces that most people will already know as part of the core repertoire.


----------



## science

starry said:


> Fine, and how many people listen to something someone mentions or even bother talking about what someone mentions? Hardly anyone really will have interest unless it's something already of interest to them. And that's fine as everyone has their own interests I suppose, and there's many thousands of classical works that people have access to on the internet and can listen to. Most people here won't have time to play much of the youtube videos either as they already have their listening schedule. That's why there's much more actual conversation with general discussion about music or about pieces that most people will already know as part of the core repertoire.


I've been introduced to quite a bit of music during my years here, not least through the "classical music project" (an activity that you probably despise) but probably most through the "current listening thread." I follow up all kinds of stuff from those - granted, not everything, but not nothing either.


----------



## norman bates

Rhombic said:


> Hilariously underrated: Lyatoshynsky


Never heard before. What are your favorite works of him?


----------



## hpowders

starry said:


> Fine, and how many people listen to something someone mentions or even bother talking about what someone mentions? Hardly anyone really will have interest unless it's something already of interest to them. And that's fine as everyone has their own interests I suppose, and there's many thousands of classical works that people have access to on the internet and can listen to. Most people here won't have time to play much of the youtube videos either as they already have their listening schedule. That's why there's much more actual conversation with general discussion about music or about pieces that most people will already know as part of the core repertoire.


So far, two or three. But I am learning too. One poster placed Ligeti in his top 5, so I will expose myself to Ligeti's music to see if I like it too.

The thing is this forum includes those who love classical music or are just getting into it and want to learn more, otherwise why are they here? They could just as easily be on a car forum or cooking forum.

I believe this is a general problem what you described. You can recommend things-music, restaurants, movies, etc; 'til you are blue in the face and nobody listens. They may say "Thanks. I must try that," but never do.
I don't know how many classical pieces I have recommended to my brother to listen to. He has never gotten back to me on any of it.


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> I agree with you. I think Persichetti's best sonatas are the short and sweet ones. There's lots of inventiveness packed into those things. I do really like #1 too. I don't really like #3 or 4. I think he was a little over his head somehow in those ones. #2 is alright. #s 10-12 are interesting but I have to listen to them more.


I feel I've done okay liking 5 or 6 out of 12 sonatas. I didn't know what to expect before first hearing.


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> *Fine, and how many people listen to something someone mentions*


a fair amount.



starry said:


> *Hardly anyone really will have interest unless it's something already of interest to them.*


That depends, I'm curious, imagine a number of others are, so I click on a lot of recommends when there is a Youtube link.



starry said:


> *Most people here won't have time to play much of the youtube videos either as they already have their listening schedule.*


Listening schedule? That sounds a bit rare, and a bit OCD to me, and a killer for allowing curiosity to have you clicking on a recommended Youtube vid to at least get some notion of 'what kind of music' a piece by a composer is.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> To continue with this thought I think there is something flawed with the notion of ranking composers numerically, because they excel in different areas and in fact strive for different things. I think if a composer has reached the status of 'great' (whatever that means) they are great composers, the numbers game doesn't mean much to me. Some composers achieve extraordinary things so certainly deserve a lot of accolades like Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. But how do you in fairness compare someone like Debussy or Stravinsky to them? Different composers from different times with different musical objectives. Stravinsky and Debussy were not trying to do the same things as Bach Beethoven or Mozart, so I don't think they be judged or ranked in comparison or whether or not they accomplished any of the same things as those three.


None of these lists need any numerical rankings or positioning: to try and rate any of those 'great' composers one over the other would require multiple sets of criteria, all of which no one could possibly agree upon.


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> I've been introduced to quite a bit of music during my years here, not least through the "classical music project" (an activity that you probably despise) but probably most through the "current listening thread." I follow up all kinds of stuff from those - granted, not everything, but not nothing either.


I agree wholeheartedly. The main reason I participate in list of works threads ("classical music project", TC Top Recommended...) is to get suggestions for new music to hear. The top nominations do not help much since I know the works, but eventually we always get to works that I either have not heard or have not heard in awhile. I have enormously benefited from suggestions that I ultimately liked or loved.


----------



## arpeggio

*All the time*



starry said:


> Fine, and how many people listen to something someone mentions or even bother talking about what someone mentions? Hardly anyone really will have interest unless it's something already of interest to them. And that's fine as everyone has their own interests I suppose, and there's many thousands of classical works that people have access to on the internet and can listen to. Most people here won't have time to play much of the youtube videos either as they already have their listening schedule. That's why there's much more actual conversation with general discussion about music or about pieces that most people will already know as part of the core repertoire.


Like 'science' and many others here, I am all the time being introduced to music I am not familiar with. I mentioned this in another thread.


----------



## jlaw

I think Boccherini, Vivaldi, JCF Bach are underrated, Haydn, Shostakovich, Mahler are overrated.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Itullian said:


> yea, Strauss, Mahler, Bruckner, Puccini, Wagner
> all overrated


I'm ROL-LING with that cascading sarcasm. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

I'm in deeply moved agreement.


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> Fine, and how many people listen to something someone mentions or even bother talking about what someone mentions? Hardly anyone really will have interest unless it's something already of interest to them. And that's fine as everyone has their own interests I suppose, and there's many thousands of classical works that people have access to on the internet and can listen to. Most people here won't have time to play much of the youtube videos either as they already have their listening schedule. That's why there's much more actual conversation with general discussion about music or about pieces that most people will already know as part of the core repertoire.


There are lots of good recommendations to be found on the site which must of potential value to many people.

However, personally I don't use this site for recommendations, as I already have more material than I can cope with, having gone way over the top after several spending sprees over many years.

That's not to say I don't occasionally buy more CDs. Sometimes I might hear something new on the radio, and if I like it I'll go back and record it. I find this to be a satisfactory way of adding new material.


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> I agree with you. I think Persichetti's best sonatas are the short and sweet ones. There's lots of inventiveness packed into those things. I do really like #1 too. I don't really like #3 or 4. I think he was a little over his head somehow in those ones. #2 is alright. #s 10-12 are interesting but I have to listen to them more.


I'm also liking number 10, his biggest sonata. It has a beautiful andante. An unexpected surprise!


----------



## southwood

Under rated:

Buxtehude.
Schutz.
Nielsen.

Overrated:

Brahms (vastly).
Shostakovich.
Beethoven (great but not as great as he is made out).
Mozart (same).
Vaughan Williams.


----------



## Panjandrum

Most underrated composer? If you're talking about the 20th century, it has to be Franz Schmidt.


----------



## Roi N

Haydn is underrated - and will always be - because he deserves the No. 1 spot, no less. If beethoven's cycle of 32 sonatas is astounding, what might one say about the 62 by Herr Haydn? Many of his sonatas are far surperior than any (No. 31, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62 to name but a few).
His 68 quartets - who even came _near_ that number? And the complexity of them - the developments of Op. 20 and 33 (all twelve of them) are unbelieveable, the Harmonies of Op. 50 (especially the B-Flat), the greatness of Op. 76 and the youth of Op. 1, 2, 9 & 17. 
Though he isn't that well-known for his concerti, one should listen to three of them - the trumpet concerto, the piano concerto No. 11 in D and the first cello concerto (C Major). His piano concerto rivals the very best of Mozart. His cello concerto is probably the best in the genre (though Dvorak's concerto comes close), and his trumpet concerto is the best in the whole trumpet repertoire.
And to top it all, he has 106 symphonies. _106_. I think the closest is Mozart with 41 (some will say he has about 50). Haydn's sheer genius is evident in the 'Paris' and 'London' sets. These twelve symphonies top any of any other composer. No introductions are better. No melodies are finer. No developments are greater. This is the pinacle of music as a whole.
So until he gets that first place, he is underrated.

(P.S, his brother, Michael Haydn, is also greatly underrated. He was good too.)


----------



## hpowders

Roi N said:


> Haydn is underrated - and will always be - because he deserves the No. 1 spot, no less. If beethoven's cycle of 32 sonatas is astounding, what might one say about the 62 by Herr Haydn? Many of his sonatas are far surperior than any (No. 31, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62 to name but a few).
> His 68 quartets - who even came _near_ that number? And the complexity of them - the developments of Op. 20 and 33 (all twelve of them) are unbelieveable, the Harmonies of Op. 50 (especially the B-Flat), the greatness of Op. 76 and the youth of Op. 1, 2, 9 & 17.
> Though he isn't that well-known for his concerti, one should listen to three of them - the trumpet concerto, the piano concerto No. 11 in D and the first cello concerto (C Major). His piano concerto rivals the very best of Mozart. His cello concerto is probably the best in the genre (though Dvorak's concerto comes close), and his trumpet concerto is the best in the whole trumpet repertoire.
> And to top it all, he has 106 symphonies. _106_. I think the closest is Mozart with 41 (some will say he has about 50). Haydn's sheer genius is evident in *the 'Paris' and 'London' sets. These twelve symphonies top any of any other composer.* No introductions are better. No melodies are finer. No developments are greater. This is the pinacle of music as a whole.
> So until he gets that first place, he is underrated.
> 
> (P.S, his brother, Michael Haydn, is also greatly underrated. He was good too.)


If you are referring to the Paris and London Symphonies collectively, they are 18, not 12. (6 Paris; 12 London).


----------



## hpowders

I would also submit the name Franz Schmidt as the most underrated composer. He wrote some very interesting symphonies and chamber music which deserve to be heard much more often.

Most overrated: choose from among:

Rossini, R Strauss, Liszt.


----------



## Morimur

As far as art music is concerned, there are infinitely more underrated composers than overrated ones.


----------



## mmsbls

Lope de Aguirre said:


> As far as art music is concerned, there are infinitely more underrated composers than overrated ones.


I agree completely with this. In fact it's one of the rare cases where someone uses the term "infinitely" without exaggeration. I feel there really are no overrated composers. The more I listen to works of the "great ones", the more I believe they fully deserve the respect the community gives to them.

As I have gone from knowing a small number of composers to a much larger number, there is no composer who has fallen in my estimation. Every one has increased my appreciation (some enormously) such that I consider them better and better. Mozart did not grow by much since my initial view was so high, but many others have grown significantly (Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg, Haydn, etc.)


----------



## Blake

Mozart is overrated. Wait, never-mind… that was someone else who said that. I actually love Mozart.


----------



## Roi N

hpowders said:


> If you are referring to the Paris and London Symphonies collectively, they are 18, not 12. (6 Paris; 12 London).


I was referring only to the London, though my sentence may have been misleading. I regret any confusion caused by the error.


----------



## lostid

underrated .......

Ries
Raff
Martinu
Massenet
Messiaen
Bloch
Glinka
Medtner
Taneyev
Bruch
Weber
Dussek
Elsner (that Messa)
Suk
.
.
.
.
many more


----------



## randomnese

emiellucifuge said:


> Under-appreciated:
> 
> Boulez
> Varese
> Stockhausen
> Xenakis
> Ligeti
> The 2nd Viennese school
> Wagner (!)
> 
> Overrated:
> 
> Tchaikovsky
> Brahms


Tchaikovsky/Brahms = rated just right in my book!

Underrated:
Glazunov
Carter
Stockhausen
Rimsky-Korsakov
Prokofiev
Copland

Overrated:
Mahler
Wagner
Schoenberg
Chopin
Liszt


----------



## Valuesoftheory

Well, I cannot believe that anyone would consider Tchaikovsky overrated. His first piano concerto is one of the best ever written! as for Stravinsky, his symphony of psalms is one of my favourite pieces ever, next to Prokofiev's third piano concerto! for my overrated pick, I will go with Bach. I love Bach, and of course he was one of the best composers ever to walk this earth, but for the love of God everyone, not every single cantata he ever wrote was a masterpiece. Stop recommending them to me, I have already heard his twenty best!


----------



## Guest

Valuesoftheory said:


> Well, I cannot believe that anyone would consider Tchaikovsky overrated. His first piano concerto is one of the best ever written!


There you go...you just did it!


----------



## musicrom

Underrated:

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov!!!
Max Bruch
Mikhail Glinka
Bedrich Smetana
Jean Sibelius

Overrated:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (only by a bit, I don't like his music enough to consider him the best classical composer ever)
Igor Stravinsky
George Frideric Handel
Ralph Vaughan Williams (maybe I need to listen to more of his music, but I don't remember ever being into any of his pieces)
Richard Wagner


----------



## Deontologist

Who underrates Schubert and Debussy?

Agree that Schönberg is generally underrated.

Can Mozart and Tchaikovsky really be overrated?

Believe César Franck too underrated.


----------



## hpowders

Most over-rated: a tie between Vivaldi and Bruckner.

Most under-rated: Haydn. Still so shockingly unappreciated, given his supreme genius.


----------



## Antiquarian

Overrated: Pachelbel - Only because it seems that every sampler editor seems to put his Canon in C Major in the mix.

Underrated: Albert Roussel - Everyone should listen to his 3rd Symphony at least once.


----------



## mmsbls

hpowders said:


> Most under-rated: Haydn. Still so shockingly unappreciated, given his supreme genius.


Where do you think most people rate Haydn and where do you think he should be rated? Goulding's book, Classical Music, puts him at #5, and 2 recent TC polls put him at #7. I can imagine thinking he should be a bit higher, but shockingly unappreciated? Is that possible for someone rated so highly?


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Where do you think most people rate Haydn and where do you think he should be rated? Goulding's book, Classical Music, puts him at #5, and 2 recent TC polls put him at #7. I can imagine thinking he should be a bit higher, but shockingly unappreciated? Is that possible for someone rated so highly?


Haydn usually comes in at #4 or #5 in most of the polls I've seen. On another forum, he's at #4. Either position seems fair enough. Other composers should be so "undervalued"!


----------



## hpowders

mmsbls said:


> Where do you think most people rate Haydn and where do you think he should be rated? Goulding's book, Classical Music, puts him at #5, and 2 recent TC polls put him at #7. I can imagine thinking he should be a bit higher, but shockingly unappreciated? Is that possible for someone rated so highly?


I just saw a thread on TC where they seem to be struggling, comparing CPE Bach's ability as a composer to Haydn!! Haydn seems to be winning by a thin hair! THAT is shockingly under-appreciated.

Also, quite a few times on TC, I've seen folks overwhelmingly consider Mozart WAY above Haydn. Maybe a little, but not by a lot, in my opinion.

Of course Haydn never had a fancy schmancy movie made about him either. I will have to live with that fact.


----------



## Roi N

musicrom said:


> [/LIST]
> 
> Overrated:
> 
> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (only by a bit, I don't like his music enough to consider him the best classical composer ever)
> Igor Stravinsky
> George Frideric Handel
> Richard Wagner


Mozart isn't overrated. He isn't Haydn, but he is a true genius nontheless. And Handel? Handel is amazing. His oratorios are unbelieveable (Messiah and Israel in Egypt are really amazing).
but other than that you are dead-on. Stravinsky is horribly overrated. Modern music is just bad. Wagner is too. One should listen to Mozart's operas and Haydn's Creation to understand what choral stage music truly is.


----------



## hpowders

I agree. Handel and Mozart are not over-rated. They were both incredible geniuses and they are both well-appreciated as such.

I also agree about Stravinsky being over-rated. His total oeuvre does not compete in quality, say, with Prokofiev's, in my opinion.

I also agree that Haydn reigns supreme.


----------



## shadowdancer

Since stating who I think is overrated can start a huge flamewar, I prefer to keep my opinion only for the underrated: 
Haydn and Bartok


----------



## Winterreisender

Off the top of my head, I would say Buxtehude is underrated. I find many of his organ works every bit as enthralling as Bach's, and the same can be said about many of his cantatas. But sadly, only a very meager number of Buxtehude cantatas have made it onto disc (as far as I'm aware?), so I can't fully pass judgement. But if a complete box set were to be released, I know I'd certainly buy it.

I would possibly mention Grieg as underrated as well. Grieg receives a lot of praise for a small number of works, but much good stuff can be found if one delves a little deeper into the solo piano, chamber and vocal music. 

As for overrated? Bruckner, maybe. And Richard Strauss...


----------



## Chronochromie

I'll go with underrated only: Cesar Cui, Anton Bruckner, Joachim Raff, Jules Massenet, maybe Glazunov.


----------



## scratchgolf

hpowders said:


> Of course Haydn never had a fancy schmancy movie made about him either. I will have to live with that fact.


In fact he did. A little film called Haydn Seek starring Robert DeNiro. Don't think it did too well at the box office though.


----------



## scratchgolf

But now I'll actually contribute to the thread. I've seen many names thrown around as both overrated and underrated. This is puzzling to me but we certainly all have different tastes in music. A name I've seen a few times listed as overrated is Vivaldi. I've said it before that people write him off as "entry level classical music" and even here on this site, under the top 50 string concertos, he appears twice with "The Four Seasons" and "L'estro Armonico", yet they are actually 16 different concertos. Every other concerto on the list is a single work. This reminds me of my buddy Science pointing out that many people don't realize Africa is a continent, not a county. We don't lump all 5 of Beethoven's piano concertos into one piece so why Vivaldi? Yes, they share an Opus # and have a theme but they are individual works. Had I participated, I'd have nominated Vivaldi's Concerto 6 from L'estro Armonico by itself. Having said this, and because a few of his works are so mainstream that people who don't know classical music know them, I feel some may rate Vivaldi as overrated because he's a household name and that threatens membership in "The Club". Be careful of praising Vivaldi too heavily, and chastise him whenever possible, lest ye be exposed as a newbie and shunned by the classical music Illuminati. And for God's sake, don't actually explore his catalog! You may take a shine to some of his works and be banished for life!

So my nomination for underrated composer goes to Vivaldi. Forever damned by the popularity of a 4 concerto work that's actually pretty damned good. (He wrote some other stuff too and I've heard it's also pretty damned good. I'd listen but I'm currently on a big Pachelbel listening binge. Anyone familiar with Canon in D? Whoa, you should check it out!)

*Funny side note. A few months back I was browsing top ten composer lists and an "expert" had a list where he claimed one of Bach's best known works was Pachelbel's Canon. Someone in the comment section of his blog had to correct him. I'd be very cautious taking any recommendations from this fellow. Here's the link. The first comment at the bottom holds the correction.
http://historylists.org/people/top-10-most-famous-classical-music-composers.html


----------



## Morimur

Underrated:

Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji
Frederic Rzewski
Michael Finnissy
Robert Ashley
György Kurtág
Hans Kox
Heinz Holliger


----------



## Blancrocher

Speaking solely with respect to my own attitudes, I'd say Schubert is overrated (since he's my favorite composer, and this can hardly be justified on aesthetic grounds) and Pachelbel is underrated (usually for humorous purposes).


----------



## violadude

Adhering to the true definition of overrated as being a composer that receives more praise than they deserve (as opposed to the popular definition of a composer that everyone else likes that I don't) I really don't think any composer is really all that overrated. Most composers I can think of that receive high amounts of praise are pretty well deserving of that praise I think, personal taste aside. I think sometimes individuals can make overrated statements about certain composers or pieces (for example, I think rating Shostakovich's symphonies as the best cycle of the 20th century is overrating them a little) but for the most part I think all composers that are praised highly are praised highly for good reason. 

There's also a distinction to be made between the "serious" classical music community and the "casual" classical music community. If you keep this distinction between these two groups in mind and only consider the tastes of the "serious" classical music community then Pachabel really isn't overrated at all and is perhaps more on the underrated side. Usually the only ones that tend to overrate his canon are those that don't really listen to classical music seriously (sure there are serious listeners that enjoy that piece, but they are less likely to overrate it like a casual listener might). 

On the underrated side, I might mention a few names. For example, I think a good portion of the serious classical music community tend to overlook Mussorgsky, especially in the case of those that don't enjoy opera. Some of his best writing is found in Boris Gudonov. And if you don't enjoy vocal music in general then about half of his small oeuvre is lost to you.

There are many pre-Haydn composers that I think tend to be underrated by serious listeners. It depends on who you talk to I guess but I think many people overlook and underrate Rameau, Monteverdi and Biber. 

I could say that "scary atonalists" like Schoenberg are somewhat underrated among the classical music community at large (the serious + the casual) but I think among academic circles and among serious and intelligent listeners (like the TC community  ) those composers tend to receive their due acknowledgements, even from those that don't particularly like their music.

Of course, I have my pet composers that I really like that hardly anyone listens to much (like Isang Yun, for example). However, while I think it would be great if more people listened to these composers, I can't really claim them to be underrated in terms of deserving a greater objective status as good as I think they are.


----------



## dgee

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Underrated:
> 
> Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji
> Frederic Rzewski
> Michael Finnissy
> Robert Ashley
> György Kurtág
> Hans Kox
> Heinz Holliger


Not sure about others but I've been very impressed by Holliger's work as a composer - probably underrated him without knowing his work due to his oboe career!


----------



## albrecht

Overrated: Mozart, though he's really good, but personally, I think his style is monotonous (when it comes to his symphonies).
underrated: Anton Bruckner..


----------



## hpowders

New entry for most overrated: Rachmaninoff.
May have worked in those wishy washy Hollywood romances of the 1940's, but times have changed.
Music is dated.


----------



## Vesteralen

Overrated: The concept behind this thread

Underrated: Violadude's post #869


----------



## DeepR

hpowders said:


> New entry for most overrated: Rachmaninoff.
> May have worked in those wishy washy Hollywood romances of the 1940's, but times have changed.
> Music is dated.


Time to explore his music beyond the piano concerto's then.


----------



## Guest

Vesteralen said:


> Overrated: The concept behind this thread
> 
> Underrated: Violadude's post #869


Thanks for drawing my attention to violadude's post, which I like a great deal.


----------



## violadude

Thanks guys!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

So, it appears that 'underrated' is loosely synonymous with 'I like it more than you do' and 'overrated' is loosely synonymous with 'I like it less than you'.

Violadude's posting (#869) is a good attempt to redress this. He is much better educated than I am in a musical sense and could therefore articulate his rationale for the 'rating' of a particular composer much better than I could, but I would still be reluctant (although not resistant) to accept his suggestion that Shostakovich's symphonies be overrated if considered the best cycle of the C20th - and I cannot come up with a better reason than 'I like them better than any other cycle that I know'.

I suspect that for many of us that it is still a question of personal taste whether we regard a composer as under/over-rated


----------



## Headphone Hermit

aarghh!

I was just about to delete my post after reading the first couple of pages of the thread (where war broke out about a similar argument) .... and then found two people 'liked' it within a couple of minutes. Yikes!


----------



## Guest

Headphone Hermit said:


> I suspect that for many of us that it is still a question of personal taste whether we regard a composer as under/over-rated


Taste may well be part of the equation. A desire to be 'controversial' or (one of my pet hates) 'outrageous' or provocative may well be another part.


----------



## violadude

Headphone Hermit said:


> So, it appears that 'underrated' is loosely synonymous with 'I like it more than you do' and 'overrated' is loosely synonymous with 'I like it less than you'.
> 
> Violadude's posting (#869) is a good attempt to redress this. He is much better educated than I am in a musical sense and could therefore articulate his rationale for the 'rating' of a particular composer much better than I could, but I would still be reluctant (although not resistant) to accept his suggestion that Shostakovich's symphonies be overrated if considered the best cycle of the C20th - and I cannot come up with a better reason than 'I like them better than any other cycle that I know'.
> 
> I suspect that for many of us that it is still a question of personal taste whether we regard a composer as under/over-rated


Yes, the matter of one composer being overrated or underrated is still somewhat reliant on opinion, I would say. I think there is a certain level of objectivity you can apply to the examination of this question though and I think some people when faced with the question of overrated or underrated definitely lean a little bit too much in the "gut feeling" direction rather than a little bit more of a sober analysis.

As for Shostakovich's symphonies I understand that many people like them a lot, and that's great. I can see someone saying that he wrote some of the best symphonies of the 20th century and I think that's probably a valid statement. But ultimately, I think his cycle is just a little too inconsistent in quality to say that it is the best complete cycle of the 20th century. There are a wealth of other 20th century symphonic cycles that many people haven't given much of a listen to such as those by Lutoslawski, Hartmann, Henze, Norgard, Szymanowski. While I might not agree that ALL of the symphonic cycles by the composers I just listed are as good as Shostakovichs', I think someone claiming that Shostakovich's symphonies are the best of the 20th century without having examined at least some of the cycles I mentioned is a bit premature. Now sure, you don't necessarily have to listen to every single symphony by every single composer to make a judgement call on which ones are the best...but composers like Henze or Lutoslawski are pretty major and to ignore their cycles when making that judgement call is a mistake in my opinion. And on top of all that, there are the symphony cycles by composers like Prokofiev and Vaughn-Williams and while they may not be as "dark" and "emotional" as Shostakovich's symphonies are, I think they definitely can stand up to them in terms of quality and are both more consistent than his cycle, imo.

I do realize one could point out that Shostakovich was working around certain conditions when writing his symphonies and that is the reason for their inconsistent quality. I definitely don't deny that but unfortunately it really doesn't have any baring on the quality of the symphonies that we do in fact have to examine. Any speculation that his symphonies might have been better under different circumstances, however valid that speculation might be, is simply conjecture and we can't really say one way or the other.

I also have some reasons as to why I think Shostakovich's symphonies are overrated that have a little more to do with my personal tastes, so one could probably disregard these points more easily but I'll make them anyway. I think certain symphonies within Shostakovich's cycle are definitely overrated (imo, of course). One of these being the 5th symphony, which I know is blasphemous to say in some circles. My reason is that, while the first 3 movements are pretty good, the finale is just banal beyond belief. The only reason I think it's considered a good finale is because of the biographical background of its composition, the fact that it is "banality with a purpose". This is where my personal taste comes in. I don't really care about background information when I'm judging the quality of music. If something is written badly, to me, it's just written badly. Anything about the conditions of the composition or the secret meaning behind the banality are secondary to me. If you are the type of person that puts more stock in the background of the composition or the meaning why the composer wrote this or that, then I can see why you wouldn't mind the banality of the finale of the 5th symphony but it's just my personal opinion that I don't really care why it was written that way, I just don't think it sounds good. I think you can write banality well (Mahler does it all the time) but I don't think Shostakovich achieved that effect here.

And a final reason I think his symphonies are a little overrated, and this one is the most subjective, is that I feel Shostakovich sometimes relies too heavily on familiar gestures. I AM on shaky ground here because all composers have personal stylistic gestures and techniques that stamp their compositions as their own, but when I listen to a lot of Shostakovich I start feeling like his are a little bit too obvious. I get that feeling of "oh, he's doing this thing again" and it starts to feel like he's just going through the standard Shostakovich motions after a while. I feel the same way about later Penderecki but with Penderecki it grates on my nerves a lot more. It doesn't bother me nearly as much in Shostakovich's music, but I definitely hear it and so it just keeps me from accepting that his symphony cycle is the best of the 20th century because I don't get this feeling from most other composers of this time period.

Whew, sorry that was a longer post than I was expecting it to be.


----------



## Vesteralen

In the final analysis it comes down to a question of "Why does it matter?"

If we were talking only about living or very obscure composers, I might concede that it does matter if they are underrated. It could affect the availability of their music to the public at large.

But, if you look back over people's' responses to this question, most of the candidates for underrated are at least moderately well-known dead composers and there is no shortage of recorded music of their outputs.

As to overrated composers - the question I ask myself is. "Even if it were possible to be completely objective about it (which I doubt), why should I care?" Am I so insecure in my own tastes that the fact that 990 out of a thousand critics and/or forum members might think Shostakovich wrote the best symphonies of the 20th century is going to lead me to stop listening to composers I like more and devote myself to Shosty? It won't change my opinion one jot. Maybe other people are different.


----------



## violadude

Vesteralen said:


> In the final analysis it comes down to a question of "Why does it matter?"
> 
> If we were talking only about living or very obscure composers, I might concede that it does matter if they are underrated. It could affect the availability of their music to the public at large.
> 
> But, if you look back over people's' responses to this question, most of the candidates for underrated are at least moderately well-known dead composers and there is no shortage of recorded music of their outputs.
> 
> As to overrated composers - the question I ask myself is. "Even if it were possible to be completely objective about it (which I doubt), why should I care?" Am I so insecure in my own tastes that the fact that 990 out of a thousand critics and/or forum members might think Shostakovich wrote the best symphonies of the 20th century is going to lead me to stop listening to composers I like more and devote myself to Shosty? It won't change my opinion one jot. Maybe other people are different.


Ya, there aren't many serious implications with regards to this question, but it's kind of fun to see people's nominations just for the sake of knowing them. I think it's fun anyway.


----------



## Vesteralen

violadude said:


> Ya, there aren't many serious implications with regards to this question, but it's kind of fun to see people's nominations just for the sake of knowing them. I think it's fun anyway.


Believe it or not, I like fun too.

Maybe I would get more fun out of this thread if it was titled "Which composers would you like to see get a little more / a little less attention?"

Maybe the responses would seem a little less smug to me.


----------



## violadude

Vesteralen said:


> Believe it or not, I like fun too.
> 
> Maybe I would get more fun out of this thread if it was titled "Which composers would you like to see get a little more / a little less attention?"
> 
> Maybe the responses would seem a little less smug to me.


Ya probably. That might get more honest answers too.


----------



## Ingélou

One of the most underrated composers that I have discovered recently: Willem de Fesch. He is fabulous.


----------



## BRHiler

violadude said:


> the finale is just banal beyond belief. The only reason I think it's considered a good finale is because of the biographical background of its composition, the fact that it is "banality with a purpose". This is where my personal taste comes in. I don't really care about background information when I'm judging the quality of music. If something is written badly, to me, it's just written badly. Anything about the conditions of the composition or the secret meaning behind the banality are secondary to me.


As always, it is personal preference, and you did a great job of explaining your personal preferences and I respect them.

But, to me, there needs to be a balance between what was written and why it was written.

Without knowing the background of Shostakovich's life around the time of the 5th symphony, the piece is not nearly as effective. Knowing he was in very real danger of being arrested and would most likely die, he had to do something fast to get back on the good side of Stalin. But he also had to stay true to himself, and hence we get the "banal" last movement, which, I personally find more frightening than I do triumphant.

As beautiful and tragic as Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony is, would it be nearly effective without knowing what he was going through the time of writing it, and how little time he had left on this earth? Knowing all of the background makes what is already a gut-wrenching finale even more so!

So, to me, I like knowing why composers wrote what, why, and how they did. I forget where I read this recently, but when Russian composers write tremolos in the strings, it's supposed to emulate the sound of crying and extreme sadness. Hence, why Shostakovich used a lot of tremolos in the 3rd movement of Symphony #5.


----------



## jonesg

Frankly, I never though Bedrich Smetana got enough credit within the classical music community. His oeuvre is largely glossed over by most people; the only works of his that people seem to remember are Ma Vlast and The Bartered Bride. And in regards to his Czech representationalism, he suffers the misfortune of being eclipsed by the much more prominent Dvorak. Smetana may not be a _phenomenal_ composer, but he's far more than just a two-trick pony. I always direct people towards his String Quartets and his Piano compositions in argument of his talent. And even if you do think he's a two-trick pony, I think Ma Vlast and The Bartered Bride are pretty damned good.

Considering his genius, I'm not sure if Mozart can ever really be "over-rated," except in terms of diverting attention away from other composers, and dominating the musical landscape of reigning popular taste. I would make the same case for Tchaikovsky (my guilty pleasure) who I'd argue was the greatest melodist since Mozart.


----------



## Harrytjuh

Overrated: Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Sibelius

Underrated: Bartók and Hindemith


----------



## stevens

Overrated: Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bartok, Mahler, Brahms, 

Underrated: Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Buxtehude, Sweelinck,


----------



## Bulldog

Underrated: Weckmann, Scheidemann, Froberger, Gade, Miaskovsky and Weinberg.

Most underrated: Louis Couperin.


----------



## Serge

Most overrated: Haydn.

Most underrated: Bruckner.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Serge said:


> Most overrated: Haydn.
> 
> Most underrated: Bruckner.


Haydn is definitely not overrated. I don't know where you got that from, hehe.


----------



## hpowders

I have that exactly in reverse:

Most overrated: Bruckner

Most underrated: Haydn

Too many folks assume Haydn is just a second-rate Mozart. Wildly untrue, stemming from ignorance.


----------



## mikey

BRHiler said:


> As beautiful and tragic as Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony is, would it be nearly effective without knowing what he was going through the time of writing it, and how little time he had left on this earth? Knowing all of the background makes what is already a gut-wrenching finale even more so!


I somehow think this depends on the composer. Mozart is well known for having written some of his darkest pieces in the happiest part of his life and vice versa. I think the Pathetique would speak for itself even if we didn't know what was happening with Tchaik (although no one really knows for sure anyway).
With Shosta, I do agree and think it's beneficial to know of his circumstances, unless it's something specific; probably more for the performer than the listener. One would hope the music can speak for itself (cliché time!)


----------



## revdrdave

Most overrated for me is Rachmaninov...all those notes! BUT, now that I've discovered Sviatoslav Richter and I've listened to him play Rachmaninov...well, somehow all those notes are maybe beginning to make a little more sense.

Most underrated...thanks to Talk Classical, I'm not sure there _is_ an underrated composer. Every composer, no matter how obscure, has champions in this group and generates a fair amount of appreciation, for which I'm grateful because I've been introduced to a lot of interesting music as a consequence. Forced to choose, however, I might say Faure. Or Juaquin Turina.


----------



## spradlig

There are a few I consider overrated, but I'll keep it to myself.

Here are some I consider underrated. They're are all popular composers, but they're frequently criticized, while other composers are rarely criticized for some reason. I see some of them are on many people's "overrated" lists. Sometimes there is some truth behind the criticisms, but IMHO the composers' flaws are not severe enough to seriously damage their music. :tiphat:

Shostakovich
Brahms
Schumann 
Dvorak
Bruckner
R. Strauss
Tchaikovsky


----------



## spradlig

One more who I think is over-criticized: Schubert.



spradlig said:


> There are a few I consider overrated, but I'll keep it to myself.
> 
> Here are some I consider underrated. They're are all popular composers, but they're frequently criticized, while other composers are rarely criticized for some reason. I see some of them are on many people's "overrated" lists. Sometimes there is some truth behind the criticisms, but IMHO the composers' flaws are not severe enough to seriously damage their music. :tiphat:
> 
> Shostakovich
> Brahms
> Schumann
> Dvorak
> Bruckner
> R. Strauss
> Tchaikovsky


----------



## ClassicalComposer09

In my opinion the most overrated composer is W. A. Mozart. And the underrated composers are Fr. Schubert, Brahms, I. Stravinsky, and Shostakovich.


----------



## isorhythm

Where are you all finding people who underrate Schubert? I get the sense he's (correctly) rated very, very highly.


----------



## Nereffid

isorhythm said:


> Where are you all finding people who underrate Schubert? I get the sense he's (correctly) rated very, very highly.


I would agree, but I think it's fair to say that arguably his most significant contribution to music - his songs - isn't as popular (or as highly rated, if you like) as his symphonies and chamber music. I think this reflects the lower popularity of songs generally rather than being something specific to Schubert.
So to someone who values Schubert's songs very highly, the (relative) lack of attention given them might be interepreted as a (relative) lack of attention to Schubert overall.


----------



## Sloe

Nereffid said:


> I would agree, but I think it's fair to say that arguably his most significant contribution to music - his songs - isn't as popular (or as highly rated, if you like) as his symphonies and chamber music. I think this reflects the lower popularity of songs generally rather than being something specific to Schubert.
> So to someone who values Schubert's songs very highly, the (relative) lack of attention given them might be interepreted as a (relative) lack of attention to Schubert overall.


I would say his most popular songs have as much attention as his symphonies.
Both his songs and symphonies have much more attention than his operas.


----------



## Woodduck

I can't see Schubert as underrated in any respect. As a composer of songs, he is acknowledged to be unparalleled. His late (if anything in Schubert can be "late") chamber works and piano sonatas rank among the masterpieces of their kind. His last two symphonies are standard repertoire and unique in the literature. His masses are well-regarded among Romantic choral works. His operas may be underrated purely as music, though as theater works they probably merit their present rating (not very high).

I'd say Schubert is rated just about right: as a first-rate musical genius whose early death was probably music's greatest loss.


----------



## Nereffid

Sloe said:


> I would say his most popular songs have as much attention as his symphonies.


From people who value songs as much as symphonies, yes.
But in general classical listeners (those on TC, at any rate) seem not to value songs as much as symphonies, regardless of the composer.

Looking at the various polls I've done over the past several months, Winterreise is certainly a popular work but definitely not as popular as the 8th and 9th symphonies and the best-known chamber music.


----------



## Sloe

Nereffid said:


> From people who value songs as much as symphonies, yes.
> But in general classical listeners (those on TC, at any rate) seem not to value songs as much as symphonies, regardless of the composer.
> 
> Looking at the various polls I've done over the past several months, Winterreise is certainly a popular work but definitely not as popular as the 8th and 9th symphonies and the best-known chamber music.


Are you saying the users on talk classical are representative of all people who listens to classical music?


----------



## Nereffid

Sloe said:


> Are you saying the users on talk classical are representative of all people who listens to classical music?


No. Are you saying they're not? 

If you and I are going to make confident-sounding statements about the popularity of Schubert's songs, the least we can do is offer _some_ sort of data that might support our claims!


----------



## helenora

could you, please, help me identify what music is it starting from 4:12. since the beginning it's Schubert's 8, first movement, but later on, what's that, I was listening to this program about Leo Tolstoi and now this music which starts from approx. 4:10 keeps "playing" in my mind, I'm sure I knew it, and now can't figure out what it could be. Please, help. I'm a newbie, so I don't know which thread should I have posted it..... sorry


----------



## Nereffid

helenora said:


> could you, please, help me identify what music is it starting from 4:12. since the beginning it's Schubert's 8, first movement, but later on, what's that, I was listening to this program about Leo Tolstoi and now this music which starts from approx. 4:10 keeps "playing" in my mind, I'm sure I knew it, and now can't figure out what it could be. Please, help. I'm a newbie, so I don't know which thread should I have posted it..... sorry


"Nimrod" from Edward Elgar's _Enigma Variations_.
The correct procedure is to post a new thread in the "Identifying Classical Music" subforum: http://www.talkclassical.com/identifying-classical-music/


----------



## helenora

Goodness, It's Elgar! Oh, probably it was a right thread for this post, kinda underrated composer I think. Thank you very much Nimrod! I'll be listening to Enigma Variations right now. and thank you I've found the right thread as well for future


----------



## Sloe

Woodduck said:


> His operas may be underrated purely as music, though as theater works they probably merit their present rating (not very high).


I mentioned these as something he made a lot of that is not performed, played, recorded and mentioned as much as his symphonies songs and other works. Overrated and underrated they are at least performed sometimes.


----------



## Becca

Once again I was going to stay away from this but along with the thread about living composers, I feel the need to add this...

Despite having heard some of his works and even been at concerts where he conducted them...

Most overrated (in MY opinion) ... Pierre Boulez

Now I think that I will take a break from this forum.


----------



## Ilarion

Imho, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji (born Leon Dudley) has written considerable amounts of music that should one should become acquainted with:


----------



## jmaloney

most overrated

1.Prokofiev
2.Vivaldi
3.Shostakovich

most underrated
1.Hindemith
2.Rubbra
3. Domenico Scarlatti
4.Purcell (yes I know he's highly rated but not enough)
5. Britten (ditto)


----------



## Gustav Mahler

Liszt and Paganini are WAY overrated. They were virtuoso players on the first place, And then they decided to compose, And it shows in their music. Sometimes (Very often) in there music you can hear just virtuosic passages without any meaning AT ALL, Just to put on a show.

I think Schumann is VERY underrated. He was one of the greatest composers with most soul. His music is filled with so much beauty, Pain and passion.

Maher may be a little underrated, But he is quite popular nowdays, So maybe not.

Chopin may be a little overrated. The great pianist Igor Levit defined his music as "Dumb". Wagner called him "A composer for one hand" And I can relate to that. Almost no counterpoint. His music can be a little repetitive (He has a very persistent style) Though one cannot dismiss its beauty.

Schubert's symphonies may be a little overrated. He didn't know how to write for an orchestra quite well, Since he has never seen an orchestra perform his works.
His unfinished and 9th symphonies are spectacular.


----------



## Epilogue

To talk about Liszt _and _Paganini as if their compositions were of remotely comparable importance is absurd.

And, of course, "put[ting] on a show" _is_ a meaning.



Gustav Mahler said:


> Chopin... Almost no counterpoint.


If there was ever an excuse for saying something so utterly wrong, it expired when Charles Rosen published _The Romantic Generation_.



Gustav Mahler said:


> Wagner called him "A composer for one hand"


Classy as always. What he meant, of course, was, as usual, "Please don't notice how much I stole from him."

re Schubert's symphonies, I would say he knew how to write for an orchestra just fine; the problem is that what he was writing was boring. In any case, I agree that we could stand to hear less of all except the last two.

-----

I'm not sure anybody is underrated any more. The major critical tendency of our time is to say that everybody who we thought wasn't all that good actually is.

Mahler is overrated.


----------



## Woodduck

Epilogue said:


> Classy as always. What he meant, of course, was, as usual, "Please don't notice how much I stole from him."


What did Wagner "steal" from Chopin? I'm quite familiar with both composers and have heard no examples of theft. And how much did he "steal" from other composers? More than most composers "steal"?


----------



## Epilogue

Woodduck said:


> What did Wagner "steal" from Chopin? I'm quite familiar with both composers and have heard no examples of theft.


https://books.google.com/books?id=jUs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA128



Woodduck said:


> And how much did he "steal" from other composers? More than most composers "steal"?


Eh, maybe a bit more. Not that this diminishes the greatness of what he did with what he stole.


----------



## Woodduck

Epilogue said:


> https://books.google.com/books?id=jUs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA128
> 
> Eh, maybe a bit more. Not that this diminishes the greatness of what he did with what he stole.


Nothing I see in that study indicates anything close to theft of Chopin's material or style. Chromaticism was "in the air," and Weber (one of Wagner's idols) was experimenting with it in _Euryanthe._ It seems likely that Wagner heard Liszt play Chopin and that his ears perked up. Wagner took chromatic harmony well beyond any precedent, however.

The soft "B" section of the prelude to Act 3 of _Tristan_, with its falling chromaticism, sounds Chopinesque. There are a couple of motivic reminiscences of Berlioz's _Romeo et Juliette_ in _Tristan_, but they are quite transformed. The _Ring_ utilizes the "watery" arpeggios of Mendelssohn's _Fair Melusine_ overture, there's a momentary reminiscence of Liszt's _Faust Symphony_ in _Die Walkure_, and there's some bit of Liszt in _Parsifal_ in addition to the ubiquitous "Dresden Amen." Certainly there are Lisztian qualities elsewhere, and the influence was mutual.

None of this seems unusual to me. Wagner was influenced as all composers were influenced, and he was remarkable in his ability to forge an innovative art out of the musical language of his time. Compared with the remarkably original effect of Wagner's style, which threw music into a virtual tailspin, his gleaning a few crumbs from the tables of others pales to insignificance.


----------



## Epilogue

Woodduck said:


> Wagner took chromatic harmony well beyond any precedent, however... the remarkably original effect of Wagner's style, which threw music into a virtual tailspin...


Oh great, another one.


----------



## Woodduck

Epilogue said:


> Oh great, another one.


Another what (or is it dangerous to ask)?


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> Another what (or is it dangerous to ask)?


Don't even bother.


----------



## Epilogue

He already did!


----------



## Gustav Mahler

Is it too dangerous to say that Chopin's music is a little dumb sometimes?
Also what is so utterly wrong about saying Chopin had almost no counterpoint?
It is EXACTLY what Wagner said (Though in other words, And he said it more politely), And I guess you are above Wagner? (Though Wagner was utterly wrong about the Jew's music, See Mahler)


----------



## Gustav Mahler

And Epilogue, No offense, But it seems like you are deliberately opposing my opinions, You could agree sometimes, It won't hurt your ego that much


----------



## Epilogue

Gustav Mahler said:


> Is it too dangerous to say that Chopin's music is a little dumb sometimes?


No, just dumb.



Gustav Mahler said:


> Also what is so utterly wrong about saying Chopin had almost no counterpoint?


The part where you say Chopin had almost no counterpoint.



Gustav Mahler said:


> You could agree sometimes, It won't hurt your ego that much


My ego is indestructible.

Though of course agreeing with somebody who's wrong would hurt my _self respect_ - almost as much as using a smiley face.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

Got you, Epilogue!
Did you know that someone who described Chopin as dumb too, Was no other than the great pianist Igor Levit?
I guess you know better than him to? According to you he is just a dumb pianist who knows nothing.
So until now, You called Wagner and Igor Levit dumb.
Also, I think it is really not musical to call Schubert's symphonies boring. Boring, Really?
They are full with the most wonderful melodies ever written. They may not be orchestrated very well, Or have a good development, But boring to me is something a 10 years old girl would say when she listens to it on the radio.
In the meantime, Read this and maybe contact Igor Levit and tell him he his dumb.
He might want to take theory lessons from you, Because you are of course superior to him with your vast knowledge and your opinions are the only truth!
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/sep/01/igor-levit-the-leaner-meaner-piano-machine


----------



## TwoPhotons

Woodduck said:


> What did Wagner "steal" from Chopin? I'm quite familiar with both composers and have heard no examples of theft. And how much did he "steal" from other composers? More than most composers "steal"?


I personally don't think Wagner "stole" anything from Chopin but I can imagine that somebody might bring up the left hand runs in Chopin's Op.25 No.7 (see from 1:34 here) as sounding similar to the string runs in the Tristan prelude. If anything though Wagner's subconscious saw that as a "yearning" figure and was merely inspired, but did not steal because we're talking about entirely different notes here. Also, is it just me or does 1:13-1:26 sound strangely Wagnerian? I will say though that nothing I've heard from Wagner made me think "Huh, this is just like how Chopin would've written it!"

As for counterpoint, no counterpoint is better than bad counterpoint...


----------



## Epilogue

> Did you know that someone who described Chopin as dumb too, Was no other than the great pianist Igor Levit?
> I guess you know better than him to? According to you he is just a dumb pianist who knows nothing.


- _You're_ calling _Chopin_ dumb and saying you know better than _him_.

Have fun flailing!

(And of course Chopin was a vastly greater pianist than Igor Levit, not that it matters. For that matter, the aforementioned Charles Rosen was a better pianist than Levit, not that that matters either - and also an actual distinguished critic, which Levit of course isn't, which does matter.)

- Yeah, well, "I think it is really not musical to call Schubert's symphonies boring" sounds to me like something a particularly obsequious 8 year old boy would say - which maybe isn't a coincidence!

By the way, nice latent misogyny in specifying "a 10 year old _girl_."


----------



## Gustav Mahler

It's because I find girls less musical.


----------



## Epilogue

Gustav Mahler said:


> It's because I find girls less musical.


Quoted for posterity.

So, moderators, any recommendations for how to adequately respond to this without breaking the rules?


----------



## Epilogue

Oh, and I notice you've decided to just quietly ignore the fact that you just cut off your own leg.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

Why do you keep fighting? Let everyone have their opinion. Never call someone's opinion "Utterly wrong". How can an opinion in matters of taste in music be wrong?
I know enough about music. You don't have to try to degrade others by saying they are utterly wrong the whole time.
Respect the others, They will respect you.


----------



## Epilogue

So now calling a composer's work "dumb" is okay, but calling your opinion "utterly wrong" isn't? Yeah, right - as usual, the artist is nothing, and _you're_ everything.

(And your "opinion" is, objectively, utterly wrong. Chopin's counterpoint may be good or bad - it's magnificent, but never mind - but it's objectively there.)

I'm not going to "respect" where there's nothing to respect.


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from discussing other members. Discuss their views, argue their points, disagree as you wish, but do not use ad-homs in your posts. This thread has been fun for members for a long time. Let's keep it going that way.


----------



## Epilogue

How about telling other members what they should write? Because GM initiated this last exchange with a paragraph of that.


----------



## mmsbls

Epilogue said:


> How about telling other members what they should write? Because GM initiated this last exchange with a paragraph of that.


It's simple. If you feel someone has violated the Terms of Service, report the post. Otherwise:



> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

I said my OPINION about the composer's work. Needless to say that I referred to a little part of his work, And not to him in general.
He is a spectacular composer in my opinion. even composers dislike their own compositions sometimes.
he didn't want to publish some of his work that has been published.
He doesn't have enough counterpoint to my taste. 
That is all. And he does hardly have counterpoint compared to other composers, And no, Not Bach-Bach, Brahms Schumann etc. 
His pieces are evolving around one melody and accompaniment almost the whole time. The counterpoint is very subtle.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

I seek no fights. Let's get over this.
I am sorry if I offended you, Because if I did it is only because I felt offended.
And for the record, I don't think Chopin's music is dumb. I adore its beauty and I play it a lot.
I just said it to see how you will respond to a great's pianist opinion, And not only mine.
Now, Where were we?


----------



## Epilogue

Gustav Mahler said:


> I said my OPINION about the composer's work.


Okay, so just tell yourself that everything I wrote about you is my OPINION of you.



Gustav Mahler said:


> He doesn't have enough counterpoint to my taste.
> That is all. And he does hardly have counterpoint compared to other composers


Wrong. If you can't find it, go read some criticism by someone who can.

(Or maybe "very subtle" is your way of admitting he does have a whole lot of counterpoint after all.)



Gustav Mahler said:


> I am sorry if I offended you


You didn't offend me. But if you're going to get offended by me, stop doing the same things yourself before you complain about them.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

I have NEVER said he had no counterpoint.
I do know how to find counterpoint. I do know how to analyze music, And I do know quite a few things about music, Don't underestimate me.
I have learned counterpoint for two years, Thank you very much. I learned composition too, And also played Chopin quite a lot.
Chopin has a main melody line, Which is clearly the source and the inspiration for the piece.
The counterpoint is merely a melody itself, But rather a contradicting line to support the melody (which many time is based on the same reoccurring rhythm.)
Even when it can be called a melody, You cannot focus on it as a "theme" or something which is rather significant, It is to support the main melody line.
This is why I call it subtle counterpoint. It is not like the counterpoint Beethoven uses in his piano sonata-He can take the theme in another voice from time to time while the main voice plays another theme. It is more diverse.
Chopin music is based mainly on one line of melody, And there may be a counterpoint to SUPPORT it.
While Beethoven, Brahms Schumann and more use counterpoint as a way of making more layers.
Chopin seems to support the one layer his music has, Which is the melody. It all supports that. It all comes from the melody line.
I am not talking about his fugue by the way.
This is why I called his counterpoint subtle, And why Wagner stated so brilliantly that Chopin is a composer for one right hand.
By the way, I am not talking about the sonatas, But about the Mazurkas, Nocturnes, Waltzes and polonaises. I haven't gotten to his sonatas yet.


----------



## violadude

Of course Chopin has counterpoint, it's pretty silly to say that it doesn't. Chopin was one of the first (if not the first) to pioneer the piano technique of burying rhythmically complex layers of counterpoint in his sixteenth note runs. Bach did something similar, but Chopin took it to a new level.


----------



## Epilogue

Gustav Mahler said:


> I do know how to find counterpoint.


Judging by the post which I'm now quoting, you think "counterpoint" means stating the same theme in different voices.



Gustav Mahler said:


> I do know how to analyze music, And I do know quite a few things about music, Don't underestimate me.


Oh, I don't think I am.



Gustav Mahler said:


> And why Wagner stated so brilliantly that Chopin is a composer for one right hand.


You're painting a very clear picture of the kind of person you are, but after the fun times with Woodduck yesterday, I think I may be at the point where saying what that is would get me banned.



Gustav Mahler said:


> I haven't gotten to his sonatas yet.


Goodnight, folks.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

No, I don't think counterpoint means "Starting the same theme in different voices".
Counterpoint is having some equality between lines. He might have used the rules of counterpoint, But most of the times it is only supporting the main melody. Having a rhythmically rich melody line and a pretty static counterpoint is very common in is music.
This is not what equality is. How would you respond to that?
Again-He uses the rules of counterpoint, But it is not really counterpoint in its basic definition.
Maybe you would like to say what a kind of a person I am? Supporting great musician's opinions is not wrong.
I assumed that his sonatas may have had more counterpoint as of the seriousness of their nature. What is wrong with this statement?
Violadude: I didn't say he doesn't have counterpoint, Don't put words in my mouth.
Don't get personal and call my opinion silly.


----------



## Epilogue

Gustav Mahler said:


> a pretty static counterpoint


Wrong.



Gustav Mahler said:


> I assumed that his sonatas may have had more counterpoint as of the seriousness of their nature. What is wrong with this statement?


First that the nocturnes and even more so the mazurkas and polonaises are often supremely serious and contain some of the most ingenious contrapuntal writing by anybody ever.

Second that you're presuming to blather about Chopin without even knowing some of his most important works.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

So I do you seriously respond to Wagner's claim? (Don't claim he stole from Chopin, Give a straight answer)


----------



## Epilogue

Ugh, _*listen to yourself*_. Earnestly repeating your God's leaden joke as if it contains the meaning of life. Wagner's negative criticisms are always beneath contempt - though interesting for what they reveal about his own insecurities - except when concerning a composer such as Gounod with regard to whom he genuinely felt little or no envy or anxiety of influence.


----------



## Epilogue

Actually, that's not quite true - for example, his assertion that Schumann's piano works can only be played effectively with obbligato pedal isn't the debunking that he wanted it to be, but it does point out an important quality of the music.


----------



## hpowders

Most overrated: Schubert, Liszt and Bruckner.

Most underrated: J.S. Bach. Still too many who haven't experienced The Word from this greatest of all composers.


----------



## Epilogue

J. S. Bach is simultaneously overrated and underrated - in the boring *** way that he's usually played these days, the music isn't quite all that great, but he's better than the way he's played.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

First of all, There are many spectacular interpreters of Bach today-Including my favorite-András Schiff and also the newcomer Igor Levit who played the partitas so beautifully.
Bach may be the greatest composer to ever live (He is on the top with Mozart). 
I agree that Bach today is played by some very technically, Which is terrible. His music is full of emotions and spirit. Those are not technical etudes.
And why without pedal? Today we have a wonderful device we can use that they didn't have back then.
Murray Perahia is one of the greatest interpreters of Bach that also holds this opinion. I have seen him playing live a few times by the way, And he is absolutely fantastic, Especially his Beethoven.
I also have a more personal story that includes him, But this is for another time.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

hpowders said:


> Most overrated: Schubert, Liszt and Bruckner.
> 
> Most underrated: J.S. Bach. Still too many who haven't experienced The Word from this greatest of all composers.


I completely agree about Liszt and Bruckner. Schubert has too many beautiful pieces, But some is overrated, Like some of his symphonies.

Oh, Bach, The god of music! As Beethoven said himself-Not a fountain (Bach in German) but a sea we have here! 
He will be underrated even if the whole world would listen to his music 24/7 and learn to appreciate his music-
Because it is beyond human.
It is infinite. It is immortal.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

Epilogue said:


> Ugh, _*listen to yourself*_. Earnestly repeating your God's leaden joke as if it contains the meaning of life. Wagner's negative criticisms are always beneath contempt - though interesting for what they reveal about his own insecurities - except when concerning a composer such as Gounod with regard to whom he genuinely felt little or no envy or anxiety of influence.


Good to know that Wagner sayings are a joke for you, Especially when it is not a general "Chopin 'sucks'" criticism, 
But rather a detailed one with a reason. 
He said he is a composer for one right hand.
I very much agree with it.
You can try to degrade Wagner and me, Or you can just state your opinion.
Try to say "I don't agree", Without calling Wagner and me a joke.


----------



## violadude

Gustav Mahler said:


> Good to know that Wagner sayings are a joke for you, Especially when it is not a general "Chopin 'sucks'" criticism,
> *But rather a detailed one with a reason.
> He said he is a composer for one right hand.*
> I very much agree with it.
> You can try to degrade Wagner and me, Or you can just state your opinion.
> Try to say "I don't agree", Without calling Wagner and me a joke.


You're right, that is very detailed.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

Did I say VERY detailed? 
It has a detail. He has a reason for this criticism and for any average musician this short but deep statement would be sufficient in order to understand the criticism.
Let's agree to disagree, Shall we? It is leading to nowhere.


----------



## Guest

Gustav Mahler said:


> Sometimes (Very often) in there music you can hear just virtuosic passages without any meaning AT ALL, Just to put on a show.


Interesting thought. It's one reason why I'm not keen on piano concertos - much of the contents seems to me to be an opportunity for the soloist to demonstrate virtuosity.

But I'm not sure that that means it has no meaning, though I don't accept that a display of virtuosity _is _meaning.

(And yes, I genuinely mean 'I'm not sure.')


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> Interesting thought. It's one reason why I'm not keen on piano concertos - much of the contents seems to me to be an opportunity for the soloist to demonstrate virtuosity.
> 
> But I'm not sure that that means it has no meaning, though I don't accept that a display of virtuosity _is _meaning.
> 
> (And yes, I genuinely mean 'I'm not sure.')


Well, _no_ music "means" anything other than the meaning we impose on it. One person's empty virtuosity is another person's outpouring of the soul.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Well, _no_ music "means" anything other than the meaning we impose on it.


Or the composer attributes or alludes to it. It's not just the listeners who may create meanings for themselves that aren't really in the music.

Even so, my response to this piece or that creates a meaning for me - certainly not for anyone else - and I find a less tangible personal meaning in piano concertos than in a symphony. I find a musical shape, a progression, a texture, an impression or atmosphere, a narrative, a compulsion - whatever (but not an extra-musical meaning - I must emphasise that) - in a symphony that I don't find in concertos where the various flashy runs and trills (in the concertos I've experienced) get in the way.


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> Or the composer attributes or alludes to it. It's not just the listeners who may create meanings for themselves that aren't really in the music.


For sure. I was using "we" in its broadest sense.


----------



## sam93

I guess the term "overrated" is subjective, but I'll go ahead and contribute. I've never managed to get into Brahms, as a pianist I find his piano works hollow (if that makes any sense). I've tried and tried to get into his symphonies but I just don't like them. 

I also find Liszt bugs me somewhat. Don't get me wrong, I love his music but many, many times a beautiful idea gets hidden under layer upon layer of bombastic virtuosity which in my opinion, can undermine some of his works. 

Finally, I'd like to point out to people who say Chopin is overrated. I think he is only "rated" by pianists, I guess I have a soft spot for him as a pianist. Although his output is a fraction of his contemporaries, and he was exclusively a composer for the piano, his sense of melody is very much deserving of all the praise.


----------



## Morimur

Bartók and Lutosławski — underrated


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Mozart is positively overrated.


----------



## LHB

Overrated: *Schumann*, Grieg, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Sibelius, Rossini, Mahler, Mussorgsky, Reich, Riley, Holst, Strauss, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Reger, Dukas, Liebermann, Khachaturian, Pachelbel, Strauss II, Boccherini, Respighi, Corelli, Telemann, Satie, and Handel (except the keyboard suites).


----------



## Bayreuth

Bruckner overrated?? I don't think so. He is relatively unknown in most of the non-germanic countries of the world. If anything he is pretty much underrated, IMO. 

And Bach being underrated?? Jesus Christ... Common, people, we all know that he is the father of all of this, wether we like his music or not (and I don't think I've ever hear of someone that decisively does not like Bach's music). He is widely recognized as the most important composer of all times by those who know about music. If you check out any ranking of best works in any classical music genre in which he wrote anything you'll see several of his works in the top 10-top 20. His Mass in B minor is almost unanimously considered "the best piece of music ever written". I think he is, hands down, the most interpreted composer in history. What else do we need to do? Build churches in his honor? I like Back and I seem to never get tired of him, but saying that Bach is underrated is like saying that Shakespeare, Newton or Michelangelo are underrated. It's just crazy; a figure can only be underrated if there is an imbalance between quality and recognition, and in Bach's case it just doesn't happen, no matter how much you like/dislike him: he is every bit as good as he is recognized.

That being said:
Schumann, Telemann, Ravel and Stravinski are overrated in my opinion. 
Mendelsshon, Prokofiev, Smetana, Scriabin and Berlioz seem underrated to me.


----------



## Dim7

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Mozart is positively overrated.


Hahaha, good one!


----------



## Morimur

Dim7 said:


> Hahaha, good one!


This concise version of Amadeus is better than the original.


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> This concise version of Amadeus is better than the original.


Goofy, stupid film I could never sit through.


----------



## Strange Magic

Goofy, fun film I thoroughly enjoyed. A cartoon, and clearly meant to be one. I wonder how many were encouraged to find out more about the man and his music? Quite a few, I should think.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

I find Schnittke a very underrated composer.


----------



## DeepR

OldFashionedGirl said:


> I find Schnittke a very underrated composer.


First piece I should listen to?


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> First piece I should listen to?


Early symphony or SQ.


----------



## GreenMamba

DeepR said:


> First piece I should listen to?


...or the Piano Quintet.


----------



## mmsbls

OldFashionedGirl said:


> I find Schnittke a very underrated composer.


I agree that Schnittke is probably under appreciated by a high percentage of classical listeners. On TC he has a rather good following. In the recent Post-1950 list he had 10 entries out of 200 second only to Ligeti.



DeepR said:


> First piece I should listen to?


You might wish to look at the link for the Post-1950 list of recommended works (above).


----------



## JD Reyes

I don't think that a truly genius composer like Bach of Mozart can be overrated. That being said, there will always be someone who disagrees – perhaps violently so – with your opinion. 

Overrated: Richard Wagner
Underrated: Leopold Kozeluch


----------



## Open Lane

I seriously dislike a lot of liszt's orchestral music. I don't know if he would be considered over rated, because i do not know if he broke any barriers creatively but my least favorite of all of the "famous" composers is without a douvt vivaldi. His music makes me feel ill lol.

One of my favorite composers who is not necessarily a household name is schubert. Also, i have a lot of love for prokofiev and chopin.


----------



## poconoron

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Mozart is positively overrated.


Tell that to these people:

_For one moment in the history of music all opposites were reconciled; all tensions resolved; that luminous moment was Mozart. 
- (Phil Goulding)

Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music. 
- (Tchaikovsky)

A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.
- (Goethe)

Mozart is happiness before it has gotten defined.
- (Arthur Miller)

A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me.
- (Franz Schubert)

Mozart is the musical Christ.
- (Tchaikovsky)

Mozart creates music from a mysterious center, and so knows the limits to the right and the left, above and below. He maintains moderation.
- (Karl Barth)

Mozart's music always sounds unburdened, effortless, and light. This is why it unburdens, releases, and liberates us. 
- (Karl Barth)

Mozart's music is so beautiful as to entice angels down to earth.
- (Franz Alexander von Kleist)

Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. 
- (Georg Solti)

How can such a disproportionately large number of people have a definite, and unusually positive relationship to Mozart?
- (Wolfgang Hildesheimer)

Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
- (George Szell)

Mozart's music is an invitation to the listener to venture just a little out of the sense of his own subjectivity.
- (Karl Barth)

Mozart never did too little and never too much; he always attains but never exceeds his goal.
- (Grillparzer)

Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters.
- (Artur Schnabel)

Mozart's mental grip never loosens; he never abandons himself to any one sense; even at his most ecstatic moments his mind is vigorous, alert, and on the wing. He dives unerringly on to his finest ideas like a bird of prey, and once an idea is seized he soars off again with an undiminished power.
- (W. J. Turner)

It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart. 
- (Karl Barth)

Mozart's music represents neither the prolonged sigh of faith that characterizes so much of the music written before his time, nor the stormy idealism which cloaks most music after him. Rather he is that mercurial balance of the skeptic and the humane. Like him, and in him, we can always discover new worlds.
- (Joseph Solman)

Most wrote everything with such ease and speed as might at first be taken for carelessness or haste. His imagination held before him the whole work clear and lively once it was conceived. One seldom finds in his scores improved or erased passages. 
- (Franz Niemetschek)

The riddle of Mozart is precisely that "the man" refuses to be a key for solving it. In death, as in life, he conceals himself behind his work.
- (Wolfgang Hildesheimer)

Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath, for no sooner is one inclined to reflect upon a beautiful inspiration than another appears, even more splendid, which drives away the first, and this continues on and on, so that in the end one is unable to retain any of these beauties in the memory. 
- (Karl Ditters von Dittersdordf)

If any fault had to be found in Mozart, it could surely be only this: that such abundance of beauty almost tires the soul, and the effect of the whole is sometimes obscured thereby. But happy the artist whose only fault lies in all too great perfection.
- (Music reviewer)

Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?
- (Robert Schumann)

If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity.
- (Johannes Brahms)

Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day!
- (Rossini)

Before Mozart, all ambition turns to despair.
- (Charles Gounod)

Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head.
- (Chopin)

What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient.
- (Camille Saint-Saens)

*The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. 
- (Richard Wagner)*

In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct.
- (Edvard Grieg)

Together with the puzzle, Mozart gives you the solution. 
- (Ferruccio Busoni)

I find consolation and rest in Mozart's music, wherein he gives expression to that joy of life which was part of his sane and wholesome temperament.
- (Peter Tschaikovsky)

Mozart tapped the source from which all music flows, expressing himself with a spontaneity and refinement and breathtaking rightness.
- (Aaron Copland)

Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard.
- (Gabriel Faure)

Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another. 
- (Claudio Arrau)

Mozart's music is free of all exaggeration, of all sharp breaks and contradictions. The sun shines but does not blind, does not burn or consume. Heaven arches over the earth, but it does not weigh it down, it does not crush or devour it. 
- (Karl Barth)

The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen.
- (Wanda Landowska)

I never heard so much content in so short a period. 
- (Pinchas Zukerman)

Mozart 's music is very mysterious.
- (W. J. Turner)

Mozart resolved his emotions on a level that transformed them into moods uncontaminated by mortal anguish, enabling him to express the angelic anguish that is so peculiarly his own. 
- (Yehudi Menuhin)

Designing an opera by Mozart is like doing something for God-it's a labor of love.
- (Maurice Sendak)

I my dreams of heaven, I always see the great Mozart gathered in a huge hall in which they are reside. Only Mozart has his own suite. 
- (Victor Borge)

Mozart's joy is made of serenity, and a phrase of his music is like a calm thought; his simplicity is merely purity. It is a crystalline thing in which all the emotions play a role, but as if already celestially transposed. Moderation consists in feeling emotions as the angels do.
- (Andre Gide)

Mozart said profound things and at the same time remained flippant and lively.
- (Michael Kennedy)

Mozart began his works in childhood and a childlike quality lurked in his compositions until it dawned on him that the Requiem he was writing for s a stranger was his own.
- (Will and Ariel Durant)

Mozart touched no problem without solving it to perfection. 
- (Donald Tovey)

Mozart's music is the mysterious language of a distant spiritual kingdom, whose marvelous accents echo in our inner being and arouse a higher, intensive life.
- (E. T. A. Hoffmann)

The best of Mozart's works cannot be even slightly rewritten without diminishment. 
- (Peter Shaffer)

Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it-that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed. 
- (Albert Einstein)

Most of all I admire Mozart's capacity to be both deep and rational, a combination often said to be impossible.
- (Allan Bloom)

Sometimes the impact of Mozart's music is so immediate that the vision in the mind remains blurred and incomplete, while the soul seems to be directly invaded, drenched in wave upon wave of melancholy.
- (Stendhal)

Mozart combined high formality and playfulness that delights as no other composition in any other medium does.
- (Roy Blount, Jr.)

It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion. 
- (Leonard Bernstein)

In Mozart's music, all intensity are crystallized in the clearest, the most beautifully balanced and proportioned, and altogether flawless musical forms.
- (Phil Goulding)

The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to paly because of the quantity of notes; grown ups avoid him because of the quality of notes. 
- (Artur Schnabel)

There are three thing in the world I love most: the sea, Hamlet, and Don Giovanni.
- (Gustave Flaubert)

Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles. 
- (George Snell)

Mozart has reached the boundary gate of music and leaped over it, leaving behind the old masters and moderns, and posterity itself.
- (A. Hyatt King)

Mozart, prodigal heaven gave thee everything, grace and strength, abundance and moderation, perfect equilibrium.
- (Charles Gounod)

Who has reached the extreme limits of scale with the same infallible precision, equally guarded against the false refinement of artificial elegance and the roughness of spurious force? Who has better known how to breathe anguish and dread into the purest and most exquisite forms? 
- (Charles Gounod)

It is a real pleasure to see music so bright and spontaneous expressed with corresponding ease and grace.
- (Brahms)

Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece.
- (Saint Saens)

Mozart was able to do what he wished in music and he never wished to so what was beyond him.
- (Romain Rolland)

I listened to the pure crystalline notes of one of Mozart's concertos dropping at my feet like leaves from the trees.
- (Virgil Thompson)

What was evident was that Mozart was simply transcribing music completely finished in his head. And finished as most music is never finished. Displace one note and there would be diminishment. Displace one phrase and structure would fall. I was staring through the cage of those meticulous ink strokes at Absolute Beauty. 
- (Peter Shaffer)

Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it. 
- (Leonard Bernstein)

Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's-the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering--a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages. 
- (Leonard Bernstein)

21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece. 
- (George Szell)

What a picture of a better world you have given us, Mozart!
- (Franz Schubert)_


----------



## GreenMamba

I'm guessing all those quotes are why Abraham Lincoln considers Mozart overrated.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

But he's a wonderful composer, hence "positively overrated".


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I think Tchaikovsky goes a bit overboard in his quotes:



poconoron said:


> Tell that to these people:
> 
> _For one moment in the history of music all opposites were reconciled; all tensions resolved; that luminous moment was Mozart.
> - (Phil Goulding)
> 
> Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.
> - (Tchaikovsky)
> 
> A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.
> - (Goethe)
> 
> Mozart is happiness before it has gotten defined.
> - (Arthur Miller)
> 
> A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me.
> - (Franz Schubert)
> 
> Mozart is the musical Christ.
> - (Tchaikovsky)
> 
> Mozart creates music from a mysterious center, and so knows the limits to the right and the left, above and below. He maintains moderation.
> - (Karl Barth)
> 
> Mozart's music always sounds unburdened, effortless, and light. This is why it unburdens, releases, and liberates us.
> - (Karl Barth)
> 
> Mozart's music is so beautiful as to entice angels down to earth.
> - (Franz Alexander von Kleist)
> 
> Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces.
> - (Georg Solti)
> 
> How can such a disproportionately large number of people have a definite, and unusually positive relationship to Mozart?
> - (Wolfgang Hildesheimer)
> 
> Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
> - (George Szell)
> 
> Mozart's music is an invitation to the listener to venture just a little out of the sense of his own subjectivity.
> - (Karl Barth)
> 
> Mozart never did too little and never too much; he always attains but never exceeds his goal.
> - (Grillparzer)
> 
> Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters.
> - (Artur Schnabel)
> 
> Mozart's mental grip never loosens; he never abandons himself to any one sense; even at his most ecstatic moments his mind is vigorous, alert, and on the wing. He dives unerringly on to his finest ideas like a bird of prey, and once an idea is seized he soars off again with an undiminished power.
> - (W. J. Turner)
> 
> It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart.
> - (Karl Barth)
> 
> Mozart's music represents neither the prolonged sigh of faith that characterizes so much of the music written before his time, nor the stormy idealism which cloaks most music after him. Rather he is that mercurial balance of the skeptic and the humane. Like him, and in him, we can always discover new worlds.
> - (Joseph Solman)
> 
> Most wrote everything with such ease and speed as might at first be taken for carelessness or haste. His imagination held before him the whole work clear and lively once it was conceived. One seldom finds in his scores improved or erased passages.
> - (Franz Niemetschek)
> 
> The riddle of Mozart is precisely that "the man" refuses to be a key for solving it. In death, as in life, he conceals himself behind his work.
> - (Wolfgang Hildesheimer)
> 
> Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath, for no sooner is one inclined to reflect upon a beautiful inspiration than another appears, even more splendid, which drives away the first, and this continues on and on, so that in the end one is unable to retain any of these beauties in the memory.
> - (Karl Ditters von Dittersdordf)
> 
> If any fault had to be found in Mozart, it could surely be only this: that such abundance of beauty almost tires the soul, and the effect of the whole is sometimes obscured thereby. But happy the artist whose only fault lies in all too great perfection.
> - (Music reviewer)
> 
> Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?
> - (Robert Schumann)
> 
> If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity.
> - (Johannes Brahms)
> 
> Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day!
> - (Rossini)
> 
> Before Mozart, all ambition turns to despair.
> - (Charles Gounod)
> 
> Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head.
> - (Chopin)
> 
> What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient.
> - (Camille Saint-Saens)
> 
> *The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts.
> - (Richard Wagner)*
> 
> In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct.
> - (Edvard Grieg)
> 
> Together with the puzzle, Mozart gives you the solution.
> - (Ferruccio Busoni)
> 
> I find consolation and rest in Mozart's music, wherein he gives expression to that joy of life which was part of his sane and wholesome temperament.
> - (Peter Tschaikovsky)
> 
> Mozart tapped the source from which all music flows, expressing himself with a spontaneity and refinement and breathtaking rightness.
> - (Aaron Copland)
> 
> Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard.
> - (Gabriel Faure)
> 
> Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another.
> - (Claudio Arrau)
> 
> Mozart's music is free of all exaggeration, of all sharp breaks and contradictions. The sun shines but does not blind, does not burn or consume. Heaven arches over the earth, but it does not weigh it down, it does not crush or devour it.
> - (Karl Barth)
> 
> The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen.
> - (Wanda Landowska)
> 
> I never heard so much content in so short a period.
> - (Pinchas Zukerman)
> 
> Mozart 's music is very mysterious.
> - (W. J. Turner)
> 
> Mozart resolved his emotions on a level that transformed them into moods uncontaminated by mortal anguish, enabling him to express the angelic anguish that is so peculiarly his own.
> - (Yehudi Menuhin)
> 
> Designing an opera by Mozart is like doing something for God-it's a labor of love.
> - (Maurice Sendak)
> 
> I my dreams of heaven, I always see the great Mozart gathered in a huge hall in which they are reside. Only Mozart has his own suite.
> - (Victor Borge)
> 
> Mozart's joy is made of serenity, and a phrase of his music is like a calm thought; his simplicity is merely purity. It is a crystalline thing in which all the emotions play a role, but as if already celestially transposed. Moderation consists in feeling emotions as the angels do.
> - (Andre Gide)
> 
> Mozart said profound things and at the same time remained flippant and lively.
> - (Michael Kennedy)
> 
> Mozart began his works in childhood and a childlike quality lurked in his compositions until it dawned on him that the Requiem he was writing for s a stranger was his own.
> - (Will and Ariel Durant)
> 
> Mozart touched no problem without solving it to perfection.
> - (Donald Tovey)
> 
> Mozart's music is the mysterious language of a distant spiritual kingdom, whose marvelous accents echo in our inner being and arouse a higher, intensive life.
> - (E. T. A. Hoffmann)
> 
> The best of Mozart's works cannot be even slightly rewritten without diminishment.
> - (Peter Shaffer)
> 
> Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it-that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed.
> - (Albert Einstein)
> 
> Most of all I admire Mozart's capacity to be both deep and rational, a combination often said to be impossible.
> - (Allan Bloom)
> 
> Sometimes the impact of Mozart's music is so immediate that the vision in the mind remains blurred and incomplete, while the soul seems to be directly invaded, drenched in wave upon wave of melancholy.
> - (Stendhal)
> 
> Mozart combined high formality and playfulness that delights as no other composition in any other medium does.
> - (Roy Blount, Jr.)
> 
> It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion.
> - (Leonard Bernstein)
> 
> In Mozart's music, all intensity are crystallized in the clearest, the most beautifully balanced and proportioned, and altogether flawless musical forms.
> - (Phil Goulding)
> 
> The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to paly because of the quantity of notes; grown ups avoid him because of the quality of notes.
> - (Artur Schnabel)
> 
> There are three thing in the world I love most: the sea, Hamlet, and Don Giovanni.
> - (Gustave Flaubert)
> 
> Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles.
> - (George Snell)
> 
> Mozart has reached the boundary gate of music and leaped over it, leaving behind the old masters and moderns, and posterity itself.
> - (A. Hyatt King)
> 
> Mozart, prodigal heaven gave thee everything, grace and strength, abundance and moderation, perfect equilibrium.
> - (Charles Gounod)
> 
> Who has reached the extreme limits of scale with the same infallible precision, equally guarded against the false refinement of artificial elegance and the roughness of spurious force? Who has better known how to breathe anguish and dread into the purest and most exquisite forms?
> - (Charles Gounod)
> 
> It is a real pleasure to see music so bright and spontaneous expressed with corresponding ease and grace.
> - (Brahms)
> 
> Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece.
> - (Saint Saens)
> 
> Mozart was able to do what he wished in music and he never wished to so what was beyond him.
> - (Romain Rolland)
> 
> I listened to the pure crystalline notes of one of Mozart's concertos dropping at my feet like leaves from the trees.
> - (Virgil Thompson)
> 
> What was evident was that Mozart was simply transcribing music completely finished in his head. And finished as most music is never finished. Displace one note and there would be diminishment. Displace one phrase and structure would fall. I was staring through the cage of those meticulous ink strokes at Absolute Beauty.
> - (Peter Shaffer)
> 
> Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.
> - (Leonard Bernstein)
> 
> Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's-the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering--a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages.
> - (Leonard Bernstein)
> 
> 21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece.
> - (George Szell)
> 
> What a picture of a better world you have given us, Mozart!
> - (Franz Schubert)_


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Underrated: Pauline Oliveros
Overrated: Stockhausen


----------



## alan davis

In the 66 pages above, has Scriabin been mentioned? Definitely underrated in my humble opinion.


----------



## aleazk

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Underrated: Pauline Oliveros
> Overrated: Stockhausen


The composer of pieces like Oktophonie and Luzifers Abschied simply can't be overrated, only can be underrated because these pieces touch the supremum of the ordered set (where the order relation is genius). The guy was just a friggin' musical genius. Boulez and Ligeti agree with this opinion, in case my modest opinion is not enough for you


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

aleazk said:


> The composer of pieces like Oktophonie and Luzifers Abschied simply can't be overrated, only can be underrated because these pieces touch the supremum of the ordered set (where the order relation is genius). The guy was just a friggin' musical genius. Boulez and Ligeti agree with this opinion, in case my modest opinion is not enough for you


Yeah well...your opinion is just WRONG lol

I actually prefer Boulez and Ligeti and Oliveros to Stockhausen. That's all I can say. But I do really like his music.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Abraham Lincoln said:


> But he's a wonderful composer, hence "positively overrated".


Looks as if you (and a number of other contributors to this thread) need to get someone to explain the concept of 'overrated' to you


----------



## DeepR

alan davis said:


> In the 66 pages above, has Scriabin been mentioned? Definitely underrated in my humble opinion.


Yes. Of course he is. When we had a rating topic for composers some years ago, I personally took care of it that Scriabin ended somewhere around position 50, by giving the maximum amount of points to Scriabin every turn. 
He would probably be rated higher if he had lived longer and composed in more different styles. He is generally rated highly among piano enthusiasts.


----------



## DavidA

Dim7 said:


> Hahaha, good one!


Amadeus is a good film as lng as one realises that much of it is sheer fiction. Although it gives us a caricature of Mozart the man, however, it does emphasise the absolute genius of the music. Which is, of course, what we listen to.


----------



## Dim7

DeepR said:


> He would probably be rated higher if he had lived longer and composed in more different styles. He is generally rated highly among piano enthusiasts.


The relative underrating of Scriabin is understandable for this reason.


----------



## Ariasexta

Overrated:All Modern composers(1850--current)

Underrated: All composers before W.A.Mozart.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ariasexta said:


> Overrated:All Modern composers(1850--current)
> 
> Underrated: All composers before W.A.Mozart.


I haven't listened to music from before the 1920s for something like a month. Where can I go from here? At the moment I am stuck on electroacoustic music and contemporary British composers.


----------



## Guest

I can hear an axe grinding.


----------



## Ariasexta

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I haven't listened to music from before the 1920s for something like a month. Where can I go from here? At the moment I am stuck on electroacoustic music and contemporary British composers.


I checked about Britten on wiki and it says he is 20th century "classical"composer. I do not agree with the idea that anyone composes with classical instruments can be called classical. There are so many classical composers then, more than it should be.

I respect your choices heartily, you seem to be enthusiastic about your own field. Modern music is too controversial I cannot help but generalize a lot of them. As a matter of fact, old music is truly underrated, maybe some people do not like them, due to lack of performance and rediscoveries, old music is underrated from the start, even before to be critically rated.


----------



## Ariasexta

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I haven't listened to music from before the 1920s for something like a month. Where can I go from here? At the moment I am stuck on electroacoustic music and contemporary British composers.


Electroacoustic music can be awesome, I like Sakuraba Motoi. I had heard an awesome piece of drum playing for a movie theme from an australian musician but I forgot about his name and the name of the movie, only remember the heroine was called Miss Parker,it is like 20 years ago.


----------



## LHB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I haven't listened to music from before the 1920s for something like a month. Where can I go from here? At the moment I am stuck on electroacoustic music and contemporary British composers.


No wonder you're stuck lol. Those are probably some of the least accessible genres. Try Feldman or Scelsi.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ariasexta said:


> I checked about Britten on wiki and it says he is 20th century "classical"composer. I do not agree with the idea that anyone composes with classical instruments can be called classical. There are so many classical composers then, more than it should be.
> 
> I respect your choices heartily, you seem to be enthusiastic about your own field. Modern music is too controversial I cannot help but generalize a lot of them. As a matter of fact, old music is truly underrated, maybe some people do not like them, due to lack of performance and rediscoveries, old music is underrated from the start, even before to be critically rated.


Hmmm, with all the crossover between popular and church music of the Renaissance and earlier I could basically say exactly the same thing about early music. What do you recommend? You do seem keen on early stuff but I don't know much unfortunately.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

LHB said:


> No wonder you're stuck lol. Those are probably some of the least accessible genres. Try Feldman or Scelsi.


If Scelsi sounds anything like David Dunn (b. 1953, California, for some reason Google always wants to give me music by a David Dunn born in the 80s who writes pop music) then I'm in! Apparently he was an assistant to Harry Partch.....another underrated composer.

Underrated: David Dunn the sound artist and composer of electronic/electroacoustic music.
Overrated: David Dunn the singer songwriter.


----------



## cort

*Overrated*

Mozart - I love Mozart..,.,He should be rated highly - just not in the top three for me.
Tchaikovsky 
Puccini
Stravinsky
Mahler - many shots of genius - but repetitive
Shostakovich - not as many shots of genius - very repetitive

*Under-rated*

Haydn - should be in the top 5 of anyone's list but rarely is
Britten - so good in so many areas.
Mendelssohn - definitely under-appreciated
Rossini - carried Italian opera for several decades. 
Berlioz 
Strauss - isn't top tier but I don't he's given sufficient credit.
Prokofiev - I don't him that well but I'm always a bit startled by him when I hear him.

For me most ratings of Bach, Beethoven, Verdi, Schubert, Brahms - they're about right - they are amongst the top composers.


----------



## Gouldanian

Most overrated: Beethoven (yes... Great composer? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean he can't be overrated)

Most underrated: Bach (people have great respect for his output but he doesn't get the full admiration he deserves)


----------



## violadude

Gouldanian said:


> Most overrated: Beethoven (yes... Great composer? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean he can't be overrated)
> 
> Most underrated: Bach (people have great respect for his output but he doesn't get the full admiration he deserves)


I'm wondering if it's even possible for Bach to get more admiration than he already has.


----------



## trazom

violadude said:


> I'm wondering if it's even possible for Bach to get more admiration than he already has.


Well, we haven't built altars and started making ritualistic sacrifices to him yet.


----------



## Guest

trazom said:


> Well, we haven't built altars and started making ritualistic sacrifices to him yet.


Not all of us, yet, that is.


----------



## Gouldanian

violadude said:


> I'm wondering if it's even possible for Bach to get more admiration than he already has.


Hmm... I remember Ashkenazy saying once that Bach's music wasn't on the menu in Russian concert halls until GG went over there in the late 50's and performed the Goldbergs. He said: ''We all knew Mr. Bach, of course, and had great respect for him, but his music wasn't really played here because there was no interest, not until this unknown young man came over here and performed his music in a way no one thought possible before''.

Also, I think that Beethoven in general is more recognized than Bach in the general population. Every single kid knows Beethoven. Not many know Bach.

The point is, I would have expected Bach to be regarded as the undisputed wonder of classical music, and he's not. Not for everyone.


----------



## Guest

There's a reason Mauricio Kagel opted to write a large scale satirical oratorio entitled _Sankt-Bach-Passion_


----------



## Guest

Gouldanian said:


> Bach (people have great respect for his output but he doesn't get the full admiration he deserves)


How do you measure the level of admiration he gets?


----------



## Gouldanian

MacLeod said:


> How do you measure the level of admiration he gets?


Well it's just a personal opinion. Had I mentioned somewhere that I was stating a *fact* I would've had to provide evidence.


----------



## Guest

Gouldanian said:


> Well it's just a personal opinion. Had I mentioned somewhere that I was stating a *fact* I would've had to provide evidence.


Even an opinion is based on _something_, isn't it?


----------



## arpeggio

Opinion: I hate Verdi.
Fact: Verdi is one of the greatest opera composers in history.


----------



## Gouldanian

MacLeod said:


> Even an opinion is based on _something_, isn't it?


Based on my perception.

In one's perception several conscious and unconscious elements come into play. One can try to decipher most of these elements with a retrospective analysis of experiences lived, events witnessed, opinions heard from others, etc.

I don't believe that such an in depth psycho-analysis is agreeable for this kind of exchange of opinions.


----------



## Gouldanian

arpeggio said:


> Opinion: I hate Verdi.
> Fact: Verdi is one of the greatest opera composers in history.


Fact: Verdi is one of the greatest opera composers in history.

Opinion: Verdi is *the* greatest opera composer in history.


----------



## Guest

Gouldanian said:


> I don't believe that such an in depth psycho-analysis is agreeable for this kind of exchange of opinions.


"This kind of exchange" being distinct from one that might be supportable by some kind of justification?



Gouldanian said:


> *Opinion*: Verdi is one of the greatest opera composers in history.
> 
> Opinion: Verdi is the greatest opera composer in history.





arpeggio said:


> *Fact*: I hate Verdi.
> *Opinion*: Verdi is one of the greatest opera composers in history.


Fixed these for you. :tiphat:


----------



## Gouldanian

MacLeod said:


> "This kind of exchange" being distinct from one that might be supportable by some kind of justification?
> 
> Fixed these for you. :tiphat:


You fixed them for arpeggio!


----------



## Nereffid

Hey, we're 1,000 posts into this thread. Maybe someone should go back and tally up the scores to see who gets the most votes for underrated and overrated. Then the composers that the most people agree are underrated get to be called overrated, and vice versa...
Assuming there's no overlap between the two, which of course there will be...


----------



## GreenMamba

Gouldanian said:


> Also, I think that Beethoven in general is more recognized than Bach in the general population. Every single kid knows Beethoven. Not many know Bach.


Is that true? My impression is they know Beethoven, Mozart and Bach. They don't necessarily know their works well, but they know the composers. Certainly I don't think it's a huge gap of 'everyone knows Beethoven' vs. 'few know Bach.'


----------



## cort

Agreed - Verdi is indeed the greatest opera composer in history.


----------



## Ferrariman601

The most overrated in my opinion - Beethoven. 
The most underrated - Michael Haydn.


----------



## Mahlerian

cort said:


> *Overrated*
> 
> Mahler - many shots of genius - but repetitive


Wow!

You've discovered some new Mahler works? I can't wait to hear them, even if they aren't in his mature style, where he tended to repeat absolutely nothing without changing it significantly, where even recapitulations always display the impact of the development that preceded them.

Of course, the mature Mahler was one of the least repetitive composers I know, but I am looking forward to learning more about his early development.


----------



## Blancrocher

In the context of this forum--which houses the most appalling group of obsessive music addicts I've ever encountered--I would say that every composer who ever lived is egregiously overrated. With one exception, perhaps: Pachelbel is routinely defamed on the basis of a single work despite the generally impressive quality of his oeuvre. I'm aware that I bear much of the blame for that.


----------



## Dim7

Mahlerian said:


> Wow!
> 
> You've discovered some new Mahler works? I can't wait to hear them, even if they aren't in his mature style, where he tended to repeat absolutely nothing without changing it significantly, where even recapitulations always display the impact of the development that preceded them.
> 
> Of course, the mature Mahler was one of the least repetitive composers I know, but I am looking forward to learning more about his early development.


It turns out that the entire oeuvre of Philip Glass is in fact early unpublished works of Mahler. Glass just confessed that to me in a PM on a Britney Spears forum we both visit.


----------



## Gouldanian

Mahlerian said:


> Wow!
> 
> You've discovered some new Mahler works? I can't wait to hear them, even if they aren't in his mature style, where he tended to repeat absolutely nothing without changing it significantly, where even recapitulations always display the impact of the development that preceded them.
> 
> Of course, the mature Mahler was one of the least repetitive composers I know, but I am looking forward to learning more about his early development.


Oh you haven't heard the new repetitive work by Mahler? You are going to love this! (he is now composing with the new stage name ''Steve Reich'')


----------



## TwoPhotons

Mahler's first ever composition:

*"György Ligeti - Musica Ricercata[1/11]"
*






(composed in 1860 when Mahler was 4 months old)

I'll let you know when I find some more of his sketches.


----------



## Schubussy

Underrated - Schnittke, Poulenc

Overrated - Not really a big Schumann fan...


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Nereffid said:


> Hey, we're 1,000 posts into this thread. Maybe someone should go back and tally up the scores to see who gets the most votes for underrated and overrated. Then the composers that the most people agree are underrated get to be called overrated, and vice versa...
> Assuming there's no overlap between the two, which of course there will be...


Haha! It would be like a boiling pot of porridge (or one of those lava lamps from the 60s) .... as soon as a particular composer drops out of the top 10, there would be a deluge of squeals that they were 'under-rated' and as soon as he/she got back into the top-ten, there would be a gaggle of sneers that they are now 'over-rated' :lol:


----------



## musicrom

Nereffid said:


> Hey, we're 1,000 posts into this thread. Maybe someone should go back and tally up the scores to see who gets the most votes for underrated and overrated. Then the composers that the most people agree are underrated get to be called overrated, and vice versa...
> Assuming there's no overlap between the two, which of course there will be...


I don't know why I did this... but I did. I tried to go quickly so I probably missed a bunch of stuff, but it took me a while anyways.

_Most Overrated (# underrated) _:
Mozart - 27 (1)
Tchaikovsky - 19 (6)
Brahms - 18 (4)
Beethoven - 17 (2)
Wagner - 15 (5)
Mahler - 14 (2)
Cage - 11 (2)
Liszt - 10 (1)
Schumann - 10 (10)
Shostakovich - 9 (4)
Stravinsky - 9 (1)

_Most Underrated (# overrated)_
Dvorak - 13 (5)
Schumann - 10 (10)
Haydn - 8 (6)
Schubert - 8 (6)
Bruckner - 7 (6)
Grieg - 7 (1)
Rachmaninoff - 7 (2)
Barber - 6 (0)
Prokofiev	- 6 (3)
Rimsky-Korsakov - 6 (1)
Scriabin - 6 (1)
Tchaikovsky - 6 (19)
Weber - 6 (1)

*Net Overrated:
*Mozart - 26
Beethoven - 15
Brahms - 14
Tchaikovsky - 13
Mahler - 12
Wagner - 10
Cage - 9
Liszt - 9
Stravinsky - 8
Glass - 7

*Net Underrated:
*Dvorak - 8
Grieg - 6
Barber - 6
Weber - 5
Scriabin - 5
Rimsky-Korsakov - 5
Rachmaninoff - 5
Hummel - 5
Faure - 5
Enescu - 5


----------



## Stirling

Most over rated:
anything that the reader feels overplayed

Most under rated:
composers who no one knows but should be played more, but we cannot because we have never heard of them.


----------



## Nereffid

musicrom said:


> I don't know why I did this... but I did. I tried to go quickly so I probably missed a bunch of stuff, but it took me a while anyways.
> 
> _Most Overrated (# underrated) _:
> Mozart - 27 (1)
> Tchaikovsky - 19 (6)
> Brahms - 18 (4)
> Beethoven - 17 (2)
> Wagner - 15 (5)
> Mahler - 14 (2)
> Cage - 11 (2)
> Liszt - 10 (1)
> Schumann - 10 (10)
> Shostakovich - 9 (4)
> Stravinsky - 9 (1)
> 
> _Most Underrated (# overrated)_
> Dvorak - 13 (5)
> Schumann - 10 (10)
> Haydn - 8 (6)
> Schubert - 8 (6)
> Bruckner - 7 (6)
> Grieg - 7 (1)
> Rachmaninoff - 7 (2)
> Barber - 6 (0)
> Prokofiev	- 6 (3)
> Rimsky-Korsakov - 6 (1)
> Scriabin - 6 (1)
> Tchaikovsky - 6 (19)
> Weber - 6 (1)
> 
> *Net Overrated:
> *Mozart - 26
> Beethoven - 15
> Brahms - 14
> Tchaikovsky - 13
> Mahler - 12
> Wagner - 10
> Cage - 9
> Liszt - 9
> Stravinsky - 8
> Glass - 7
> 
> *Net Underrated:
> *Dvorak - 8
> Grieg - 6
> Barber - 6
> Weber - 5
> Scriabin - 5
> Rimsky-Korsakov - 5
> Rachmaninoff - 5
> Hummel - 5
> Faure - 5
> Enescu - 5


Bravo!
Thought there might be a bit more overlap than that, but it's fun to see from the first 2 lists that Schumann is widely regarded as being simultaneously overrated and underrated.


----------



## musicrom

Nereffid said:


> Bravo!
> Thought there might be a bit more overlap than that, but it's fun to see from the first 2 lists that Schumann is widely regarded as being simultaneously overrated and underrated.


Indeed. My count has a total of 264 different composers having been mentioned, with a lot less overlap on underrated composers, unsurprisingly. As I said, I tried to go quickly, so I only counted clear votes and skipped through a lot of the heated debate, possibly missing some of the overlap.

I'm kind of surprised that Dvorak's in the lead for underrated - I feel that he's generally rated where he should be, as one of the best composers of the Romantic era. Hard for me to think of him as underrated.


----------



## Mahlerian

musicrom said:


> Indeed. My count has a total of 264 different composers having been mentioned, with a lot less overlap on underrated composers, unsurprisingly. As I said, I tried to go quickly, so I only counted clear votes and skipped through a lot of the heated debate, possibly missing some of the overlap.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that Dvorak's in the lead for underrated - I feel that he's generally rated where he should be, as one of the best composers of the Romantic era. Hard for me to think of him as underrated.


I'm a little surprised that Schoenberg and Bruckner didn't end up in the top 11 for being voted overrated, given how divisive they are.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Bravo!
> Thought there might be a bit more overlap than that, but it's fun to see from the first 2 lists that Schumann is widely regarded as being simultaneously overrated and underrated.


Schumann must be the nexus of the universe!


----------



## GreenMamba

The problem is, people say a composer is underrated and this causes him to become overrated. It's an unstable topic (and a long one).


----------



## musicrom

Mahlerian said:


> I'm a little surprised that Schoenberg and Bruckner didn't end up in the top 11 for being voted overrated, given how divisive they are.


Both of them weren't too far off. By my count:

Schoenberg has gotten 7 votes for overrated (and 5 for underrated).
Bruckner has gotten 6 votes for overrated (and 7 for underrated).


----------



## KetchupOnIce

Most overrated: 
Verdi
Vivaldi
Most underrated:
Handel
Haydn
Corelli
Berlioz


----------



## gellio

Most Overrated: Verdi

Most Underrated: Mozart (based on what I'm reading here). He was without a doubt the greatest composer who ever lived, so I don't know how he can be on anyone's overrated list.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

gellio said:


> Most Overrated: Verdi
> 
> Most Underrated: Mozart (based on what I'm reading here). He was without a doubt the greatest composer who ever lived, so I don't know how he can be on anyone's overrated list.


"Without a doubt", huh?


----------



## Blake

DiesIraeCX said:


> "Without a doubt", huh?


Well, close to "without a doubt."


----------



## mmsbls

gellio said:


> Most Underrated: Mozart (based on what I'm reading here). He was without a doubt the greatest composer who ever lived, so I don't know how he can be on anyone's overrated list.


Mozart is my favorite composer, but I wouldn't quibble with anyone placing him anywhere in the top 3. Many polls of musical communities or lists generated numerous ways place him along with Beethoven and Bach at the top.

So based on the results of this thread, I would agree that he may likely be underrated here.


----------



## Blake

GreenMamba said:


> The problem is, people say a composer is underrated and this causes him to become overrated. It's an unstable topic (and a long one).


The real problem is that "underrated" and "overrated" are personal abstractions. A composer's popularity is what it is...


----------



## Woodduck

If a composer's music is really underrated, it's probably just neglected or unknown for one reason or another. If overrated, it's only because everything is subject to the whims of fashion, whether social or ideological.

If all you know of Grieg is _Peer Gynt_ and "Jeg elsker dig," good works though they are, you will underrate him. You need to hear his chamber works and his extensive body of songs and piano music. If you are a fervent apologist for 12-tone or neoclassical music in the 1930s, you'll probably underrate Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and Vaughan Williams. You may need to live into the late 20th century to see them in perspective. If you do live in that time, you may overrate Mahler, whom you may have underrated before from lack of exposure to good performances, or minimalism, because it sounds fresh and new, or anything else that's fashionable for any reason.

In the long run, things get rated more or less the way they should be rated.


----------



## Dim7

Mozart is neither over- nor underrated and not even correctly rated as I believe such a thing doesn't exist. However I do think he is over-"overrated"-rated, if that makes any sense (it doesn't).


----------



## Becca

Based on the previously posted statistics...

Most over under-rated composers are
Schumann
Tchaikovsky

I won't even attempt the most under over-rated composers


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Overrated: Alma Deutscher

Come at me with your e-hatchets guys, I'm ready.


----------



## KenOC

The air is thick with dismembered pieces of straw men! Did anybody seriously "rate" little Alma's music, say it was the equivalent of Art of the Fugue or something? I must have missed that part.

But many find it pretty amazing that a little girl can write this stuff and play it as well. Anybody who says otherwise is an old pooperoo, a true musical Scrooge.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

I think Alma Deutscher is an old pooperoo.


----------



## Klassic

Most underrated composer= we don't actually know his or her name; beautiful work has been lost.


----------



## gprengel

The most underated composer and one of my favourites is Beethoven's pupil *Ferdinand Ries*, especially for his wonderful piano concertos like:


----------



## StringWatch

Good day, 

Personally, and I'm not saying his music is bad as such, of course, I fand Mahler the most overrated. Apart from symphony 6 I've yet to find anything else by him that I truly enjoy from start to finnish. Just too soppy. No offence to all the many people who obviously enjoy it very much but I don't. 

As for underrated, probably almost all composers apart from the well known (to the mainstream) ones. I saw a quizz show they other week (Univerisity Challenge, which always has a classical music round) and the contestands had not even heard of Nielsen, for example.


----------



## omega

StringWatch said:


> I saw a quizz show they other week (Univerisity Challenge, which always has a classical music round) and the contestands had not even heard of Nielsen, for example.


Well, this is quite a pitty, but it is reality... I do think Nielsen is too underrated, given his contributions.


----------



## vallaths

Honestly one composer I feel to be massive under rated is Dvorak, especially his early symphonies which actually first got me into classical music in the first place. Rachmaninoff's music often is also largely under appreciated, many of his short piano pieces are absolutely gorgeous. I would also say Mendelssohn is underrated, I see very little about him.

Schumann was right, Wagner and Liszt are over rated, as is Tchaikovsky, a few singular works have elevated him massively.


----------



## Woodduck

vallaths said:


> Honestly one composer I feel to be massive under rated is Dvorak, especially his early symphonies which actually first got me into classical music in the first place. Rachmaninoff's music often is also largely under appreciated, many of his short piano pieces are absolutely gorgeous. I would also say Mendelssohn is underrated, I see very little about him.
> 
> Schumann was right, Wagner and Liszt are over rated, as is Tchaikovsky, a few singular works have elevated him massively.


Dvorak is not underrated for the works that get played, but much of his music doesn't get the play it deserves.

Liszt is also well-known for only a portion of his very large output, which ranges from masterpieces to junk. He's probably both under- and over-rated.

Anyone who thinks Wagner is overrated doesn't know him well enough. Schumann died too soon to discover that.


----------



## Chronochromie

I think Berlioz's operas are underrated. Any of them can stand with Wagner's best.



vallaths said:


> Schumann was right, Wagner and Liszt are over rated, as is Tchaikovsky, a few singular works have elevated him massively.


Schumann didn't even live to see Tristan und Isolde.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

'Prebaroque' music is still 'premusic' for the average audience that thinks Beethoven's 5th Piano Concerto should be taken seriously. 

This could perhaps be solved via the following travesty:

Take the average Renaissance choral piece, give the vocal lines to the strings and prominent lines to woodwinds, brass choir for climaxes, perhaps a little harmonic tinkering and other creative licenses and you get a whole era of quasi-romantic adagios to play.


----------



## isorhythm

Beethoven's fifth piano concerto should be taken seriously....

The travesty you described is Barber's _Adagio_.

(Which I also like.)


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Chronochromie said:


> I think Berlioz's operas are underrated. Any of them can stand with Wagner's best.


We probably agree - Berlioz operas are worthy of greater attention and the long neglect of _Les Troyens_ for many decades after its completion is a clear example of what 'underrated' means in practice. I love Berlioz' operas. I love Wagner's operas. However they are different phenomena and it is difficult to directly compare them directly as works of art.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I think Rimsky-Korsakov is still somewhat underrated - I mean, his great operas are rarely even played outside Russia, and that's a shame, the music in them is expertly crafted (some of the finest orchestral craftsmanship I've heard yet), with lively, bright melodies and very colourful descriptions of Russian tales. They're really a treasure trove, I'm delving into May Night, Kashchey the Immortal and the Golden Cockerel at the moment, and they're just brilliant.


----------



## Orfeo

^^^
Overrated or overplayed? Sometimes there's a distinction and sometimes, the matter gets murky and confusing. As what HaydnBearstheClock mentions, aptly so, there are plenty of composers, like Rimsky-Korsakov, whose (selected) works are grossly overplayed, and yet the bulk of their oeuvres is little known, if at all. I think Rimsky-Korsakov is mostly underrated. His operas are his chief accomplishments, and yet they're vastly unknown in comparison with the three orchestral showpieces (and that does not even include "Antar"). And somehow these composers get ranked accordingly.

Tchaikovsky is both underrated and overrated. True, he is judged mostly by the strength of our knowledge of his symphonies, his ballets, overtures (chiefly Romeo and Juliet) and concerti (with some exception to the Second Piano Concerto). But his operas, songs, chamber as well as instrumental works are still taking the back seat. 

Schumann, to my mind is not overrated, but plenty of composers, famous in their days, are underrated now and are saved chiefly by recordings: Bax, Glazunov, Stojowski, Schmidt, Stanford, Parry, the list goes on.

A brief assessment on Dvorak. When taking into account his contribution in the development of Czech music, and sheer artistry and quality of his music (the craftsmanship, the melodic invention, etc.), he ought to be ranked alongside Wagner, Tchaikovsky, and Brahms. And yet he is not, somehow being well known for about a handful of his works. Therefore, he is underrated in the final analysis.

Subjectivity meets objectivity, which is what it comes down to, for better or worse.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Orfeo said:


> ^^^
> Overrated or overplayed? Sometimes there's a distinction and sometimes, the matter gets murky and confusing. As what HaydnBearstheClock mentions, aptly so, there are plenty of composers, like Rimsky-Korsakov, whose (selected) works are grossly overplayed, and yet the bulk of their oeuvres is little known, if at all. I think Rimsky-Korsakov is mostly underrated. His operas are his chief accomplishments, and yet they're vastly unknown in comparison with the three orchestral showpieces (and that does not even include "Antar"). And somehow these composers get ranked accordingly.
> 
> Tchaikovsky is both underrated and overrated. True, he is judged mostly by the strength of our knowledge of his symphonies, his ballets, overtures (chiefly Romeo and Juliet) and concerti (with some exception to the Second Piano Concerto). But his operas, songs, chamber as well as instrumental works are still taking the back seat.
> 
> Schumann, to my mind is not overrated, but plenty of composers, famous in their days, are underrated now and are saved chiefly by recordings: Bax, Glazunov, Stojowski, Schmidt, Stanford, Parry, the list goes on.
> 
> A brief assessment on Dvorak. When taking into account his contribution in the development of Czech music, and sheer artistry and quality of his music (the craftsmanship, the melodic invention, etc.), he ought to be ranked alongside Wagner, Tchaikovsky, and Brahms. And yet he is not, somehow being well known for about a handful of his works. Therefore, he is underrated in the final analysis.
> 
> Subjectivity meets objectivity, which is what it comes down to, for better or worse.


I really can't find a reason why Korsakov's operas are so little known - the only way I can explain it is the fact that they're sung in Russian and that they deal with specifically Russian tales, which may seem foreign to some listeners. But listeners of Verdi also mostly don't know Italian, so I guess that argument goes out the window . And if one assumes that it's the mystical and specifically Russian nature of the subject matter, one can retort that Wagner's operas are specifically Germanic. I guess it remains a mystery, since Korsakov's operas are imo brilliant from all perspectives.

I don't think that Dvorak is underrated. His symphonies are hugely popular in Germany, for eg, as are works such as the Stabat Mater. Dvorak is a great genius and he is generally never looked as anything less that that.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

F. J. Haydn is still somewhat underrated imo, but this is changing as Haydn's symphonies, oratorios, quartets, sonatas, masses and trios are getting played more and more.


----------



## isorhythm

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> F. J. Haydn is still somewhat underrated imo, but this is changing as Haydn's symphonies, oratorios, quartets, sonatas, masses and trios are getting played more and more.


He definitely is. Too often seen as just a lesser Mozart.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

isorhythm said:


> He definitely is. Too often seen as just a lesser Mozart.


Haydn is a universe. The guy wrote so much brilliant music that I just can't help but be in awe of the guy.


----------



## Orfeo

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I really can't find a reason why Korsakov's operas are so little known - the only way I can explain it is the fact that they're sung in Russian and that they deal with specifically Russian tales, which may seem foreign to some listeners. But listeners of Verdi also mostly don't know Italian, so I guess that argument goes out the window . And if one assumes that it's the mystical and specifically Russian nature of the subject matter, one can retort that Wagner's operas are specifically Germanic. I guess it remains a mystery, since Korsakov's operas are imo brilliant from all perspectives.
> 
> I don't think that Dvorak is underrated. His symphonies are hugely popular in Germany, for eg, as are works such as the Stabat Mater. Dvorak is a great genius and he is generally never looked as anything less that that.


This phenomenon is hard to explain, I agree. Massenet's operas, for instance, are quite as brilliant and even more emotionally penetrating, and yet they rarely make the stage, with some exception with Werther.

I also agree with you that Dvorak is a genius, but when you compare him with, say, Tchaikovsky or even Brahms, he is not so well known or performed. He is far from being a niche composer, but he is not as elevated as he should be.


----------



## Morimur

Underrated:

Nicolas Gombert
Olivier Greif


----------



## nbergeron

Wow, so many people are listing Tchaikovsky as overrated. I'd actually consider him underrated. I mean everybody knows The Nutcracker and the waltz from Sleeping Beauty but I haven't encountered a whole lot of people who rave about him like they do Debussy or Schubert. I find his music as deep and enjoyable as any of the Romantics.


----------



## KetchupOnIce

I think Anton Eberl and Joseph Woelfl are both incredibly underrated, and I blame Beethoven for this. Eberl's E flat symphony, Op. 33 was compared favorably to Beethoven's 3rd. Woelfl's Op. 25 sonata is truly incredible.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Overrated: Mahler

Underrated: As we are probably still living in the post-modern era, we are incapable of underrating anybody.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Mily Balakirev is probably somewhat underrated, I mean his 1st Symphony is an excellent work. Need to get more acquainted with his other works.


----------



## Orfeo

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Mily Balakirev is probably somewhat underrated, I mean his 1st Symphony is an excellent work. Need to get more acquainted with his other works.


His piano sonatas are well worth knowing, as are his symphonic poems (Tamara & Russia). His Suite in B is a very fine listening and his incidental score to "King Lear" is compelling. I myself wished he had written more, but his legacy as one of Russia's musical pathfinder is firmly intact, and deservedly so.
-->http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Pian...145809&sr=1-1&keywords=balakirev+piano+sonata

I would, if I am you, avoid the Naxos recordings of the orchestral works to go straight to Svetlanov's traversal with is famed USSR Symphony Orchestra (now the Symphony Orchestra of the Russian Federation) under Melodiya.

Enjoy!


----------



## Casebearer

There are too many pages to check out if anybody mentioned him but in my opinion Ludovico Einaudi is overrated to the point of embarrassment. Underrated are Bartók and Schnittke.


----------



## hpowders

Most over-rated:

Schubert-repetitive and dull beyond belief.

Dvorak-so saccharine, I break out in acne.

Liszt-razzle-dazzle without saying much that's profound.

Chopin-it all sounds the same to me.

Debussy-sleep inducing music at its finest.

Bruckner-simply because his music needs a great conductor to make it sound convincing.

Most under-rated:

Haydn-because he had the supreme bad luck to be a contemporary of Mozart.


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> Schubert-repetitive and dull beyond belief.


It could be a coincidence, but shortly after the last time a forum member said something like this they were attacked by what witnesses claim was a baseball-bat-wielding house wearing a balaclava in the Stupid Thread Ideas parking lot.


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> It could be a coincidence, but shortly after the last time a forum member said something like this they were attacked by what witnesses claim was a baseball-bat-wielding house wearing a balaclava in the Stupid Thread Ideas parking lot.


I'll take my chances. :lol:

One man's Schubert is another man's Mendelssohn. I just thought of that one!! :tiphat:


----------



## Orfeo

hpowders said:


> Most over-rated:
> *Bruckner-simply because his music needs a great conductor to make it sound convincing. *


So Herbert von Karajan, Jochum, Wand, Barenboim, Horenstein, Giulini did not do the trick for you?


----------



## Harold in Columbia

hpowders said:


> Liszt-razzle-dazzle without saying much that's profound.


To paraphrase something Stalin didn't really say, razzle-dazzle has a profundity all of its own.



hpowders said:


> Debussy-sleep inducing music at its finest.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure you just haven't heard much by Debussy.


----------



## GioCar

hpowders said:


> Schubert-repetitive and dull beyond belief.


I'm pretty sure you just haven't heard much by Schubert either.


----------



## hpowders

Orfeo said:


> So Herbert von Karajan, Jochum, Wand, Barenboim, Horenstein, Giulini did not do the trick for you?


Karajan and Giulini are fine. It just proves my point. Bruckner's music needs a great conductor to make it sound ultra-convincing.


----------



## violadude

In my opinion, Faure is slightly underrated, on TC at least. I don't hear him mentioned that much. His Requiem is one of my favorites and he wrote some damn fine chamber and piano music as well. I also really love his famous "Pavane", the choir and orchestra version.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

violadude said:


> In my opinion, Faure is slightly underrated, on TC at least. I don't hear him mentioned that much. His Requiem is one of my favorites and he wrote some damn fine chamber and piano music as well.


And songs!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chronochromie

violadude said:


> In my opinion, Faure is slightly underrated, on TC at least. I don't hear him mentioned that much. His Requiem is one of my favorites and he wrote some damn fine chamber and piano music as well. I also really love his famous "Pavane", the choir and orchestra version.


Absolutely. Another underrated French composer is Poulenc. The Mozart of the 20th century if there ever was one.


----------



## violadude

Chronochromie said:


> Absolutely. Another underrated French composer is Poulenc. The Mozart of the 20th century if there ever was one.


Poulenc is great. His Trio for Oboe, Bassoon and Piano is one of my favorite "comfort food" pieces.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Chronochromie said:


> The Mozart of the 20th century if there ever was one.


Never. Mozart was perceived in his time as one of the most complicated, difficult important composers. Poulenc was perceived in his as one of the simplest, most pleasant important composers. And on the other hand, Mozart was more popular in his own time.


----------



## Chronochromie

Harold in Columbia said:


> Never. Mozart was perceived in his time as one of the most complicated, difficult important composers. Poulenc was perceived in his as one of the simplest, most pleasant important composers. And on the other hand, Mozart was more popular in his own time.


Well, music was generally much more complex in the 20th century than in Mozart's time. Besides, both Poulenc and Mozart have that seemingly effortless, natural quality to their music imo.


----------



## Piwikiwi

violadude said:


> In my opinion, Faure is slightly underrated, on TC at least. I don't hear him mentioned that much. His Requiem is one of my favorites and he wrote some damn fine chamber and piano music as well. I also really love his famous "Pavane", the choir and orchestra version.


I agree, I love his Nocturnes which are really unique and surprisingly complex


----------



## micro

Most underrated: George Enescu for sure!
Most overrated: many 20th century composers but if I choose just one it would be Stravinsky.


----------



## Bulldog

micro said:


> Most underrated: George Enescu for sure!


I like the way you think.


----------



## hpowders

Most over-rated: Anton Bruckner

Most under-rated: William Schuman


----------



## Omnimusic

Underrated and overrated composers? 

I think that it is difficult to rank them, but two composers come to my mind, which I think are underrated: First- Ferrandini. His "Il pianto di Maria" is a masterpiece, which deserves far more attention. Certain parts of this piece go well beyond the standard baroque language. Mozart and his father visited him in Italy, and I think that Mozart picked up ideas which he later used in his Requiem. Compare the pieces!
Another underrated composer is Cherubini. Beethoven was deeply impressed by his work. Listen to the Medea ouverture (preferably conducted byToscanini). There are clear similarities in style with the Egmont ouverture!

Overrated? Well-many many modern composers (John Cage,Stockhausen or Steve Reich for example)


----------



## Nevum

Most overrated: Aaron Copland
Most underrated: Louise Farrenc


----------



## Pugg

Omnimusic said:


> Underrated and overrated composers?
> 
> I think that it is difficult to rank them, but two composers come to my mind, which I think are underrated: First- Ferrandini. His "Il pianto di Maria" is a masterpiece, which deserves far more attention. Certain parts of this piece go well beyond the standard baroque language. Mozart and his father visited him in Italy, and I think that Mozart picked up ideas which he later used in his Requiem. Compare the pieces!
> Another underrated composer is Cherubini. Beethoven was deeply impressed by his work. Listen to the Medea ouverture (preferably conducted byToscanini). There are clear similarities in style with the Egmont ouverture!
> 
> Overrated? Well-many many modern composers (John Cage,Stockhausen or Steve Reich for example)


And let's not forget Xenaxis


----------



## clavichorder

Some composers are rated more highly based on localized preferences of style(romanticism or classicism, for example), that the favorer would have be universal qualities of all music. Music is organized sound. Enjoyment of Romanticism is a common thing that brings listeners to classical music. I believe elements of romanticism can be read into many composers, and those that contain the most of it along with the most 'intellectual rigor'(which often contains more imitation rather than real connection to the essence of music). Also, due to the conductor and pianists tendency to be educated with these movements in mind, we hear performances by plenty of professionals that only point towards the romantic, the classical, the etc in said music.

Here is a very 'underrated' composer. He's really original, not in 'consistent personal style' so much as in attitude and personality:


----------



## Klassic

Hard to believe my friends, but this is true. The most underrated composers in history are Ludwig Van Beethoven and Gustav Mahler (perhaps Bach should also be included on this list).


----------



## Pat Fairlea

violadude said:


> Poulenc is great. His Trio for Oboe, Bassoon and Piano is one of my favorite "comfort food" pieces.


Oh yes, that trio is brilliant as is his wind sextet. I'm often pleasantly surprised by a Poulenc work I haven't heard before. Definitely under-rated.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Most overrated: God
Most underrated: Garbage


----------



## Gordontrek

Overrated: John Ca....err, Dmitri Shostakovich
Underrated: Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov


----------



## worov

Overrated: John Cage

Underrated : Lowell Liebermann


----------



## Klassic

worov said:


> Underrated : Lowell Liebermann


He is indeed a quality composer.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Overrated: Schumann
Underrated: Prokofiev, Ravel


----------



## Klassic

Haydn67 said:


> Overrated: Schumann,Beethoven
> Underrated: Prokofiev, Ravel


That you think Beethoven is overrated sums up your entire career as a music critic. Beethoven is almost like magic.


----------



## Klassic

Haydn67 said:


> Overrated: Schumann,Beethoven
> Underrated: Prokofiev, Ravel


Oh dear, I did not realize this was your first post on TC. My apologies, welcome to TC, not everyone is as forward as me, there are lots of pleasant people on here.


----------



## Nereffid

Klassic said:


> Oh dear, I did not realize this was your first post on TC. My apologies, welcome to TC, not everyone is as forward as me, there are lots of pleasant people on here.


And I'm sure some of them think Beethoven's overrated too!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Klassic said:


> That you think Beethoven is overrated sums up your entire career as a music critic.


It'll be as successful as Debussy's?


----------



## Templeton

I don't really want to comment on overrated composers, as one man's meat is another man's poison. There are composers' works, which I struggle to fully appreciate but I wouldn't necessarily view them as overrated.

However, no such problems with highlighting underrated composers, with my two primary choices being the Austrians, Franz Schmidt and Joseph Marx, both composing across several genres.

Schmidt's second and fourth symphonies are tremendous, with the second, in particular, being in my top three favourite works. I was fortunate enough to see the Vienna Philharmonic performing it live in 2015 and without doubt, it was one of the most invigorating experiences of my entire life.

Joseph Marx is now largely forgotten but in his time, was considered to be a great. Wilhelm Furtwängler wrote of him:

_'You are the senior exponent of Austrian musicians, the responsible spokesman of his generation, and the leading force of Austrian music'._

His 'Eine Herbstsymphonie' is simply glorious but very rarely performed. Well worth searching for.


----------



## helenora

agree with overrated : Ca.....err, etc 

underrated: Porpora . Beautiful music , still regarded as Haydn teacher ( but not as a valuable composer per se) while Haydn himself is recognized as a "father" of classical type of symphony, yet when compared with Beethoven the same words are used " Beethoven's teacher" and Beethoven gets all credits, there are other examples of this "teacher - student" paradigm in musical history.....

very curious indeed


----------



## Genoveva

I hesitate to use the words "underrated composer" but there are several I like who hardly seem to get much mention, if any. One I'll mention here is Karl Amadeus Hartmann (1905-1963). 

For some inexplicable reason, his works have largely fallen below the "radar", although there does seem to be growing interest in his symphonies. I haven't got all that far in my collection of his works but what I have acquired so far I'm very content with.

Probably his best works are his symphonies. There is an excellent CD containing his symphonies Nos 1-6 featuring the Bamberg Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Ingo Metzmacher. 

Probably the best known of these is Symphony No 2 "Adagio". It's an excellent work of only some 15 minutes. Another very good one is Symphony No 4, which is longer at about 33 minutes. 

These works are worth checking out especially for anyone who reckons they have they are likely to want and don't yet know this composer.


----------



## Chronochromie

Underrated: Cage. While he is not one of my favorites, when he gets talked about in here it all turns to cheap 4'33'' jokes, and those who don't like him either don't know or never mention his other works, like his charming early Satiesque piano works or his wonderful Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano.


----------



## helenora

addendum to my post above is that most of baroque and renaissance composers are highly underrated NOW. Although they were not underrated in their own life time, such people as Lully, Handel, Buxtehude, Rameau, etc, earlier than 17th century, many , many more, but now they are almost thrown away from typical classical music listening list. They became more like rarities , sort of exotic choices of a snob listener's list, someone who is picky or obsessed with a particular style. For the vast majority of CM music listeners CM reduced itself to basically 2 centuries : 18th and 19th with obvious tendency towards Romanticism. At least that's what I've been observing for many years....


----------



## KenOC

I think we have to remember that most composers of historic times were known only in particular locales. Bach was largely unknown outside of his immediate geographic vicinity. Even Beethoven's Eroica wasn't performed in Italy until (wait for it) 1860. That's over half a century after it was written.

It's a different world today, and saying somebody is "rated highly" has a quite different meaning than it had when the composers were alive.


----------



## Genoveva

helenora said:


> addendum to my post above is that most of baroque and renaissance composers are highly underrated NOW. Although they were not underrated in their own life time, such people as Lully, Handel, Buxtehude, Rameau, etc, earlier than 17th century, many , many more, but now they are almost thrown away from typical classical music listening list. They became more like rarities , sort of exotic choices of a snob listener's list, someone who is picky or obsessed with a particular style. For the vast majority of CM music listeners CM reduced itself to basically 2 centuries : 18th and 19th with obvious tendency towards Romanticism. At least that's what I've been observing for many years....


It's inevitable that the centre of gravity of interest in classical music has moved forward in time over the past few hundred years. I would guess that in 100 years time the focal point will have moved forward yet further, possibly beyond the Romantic era to Impressionism and later. One thing's for sure: none of us will be around to care.


----------



## helenora

Genoveva said:


> It's inevitable that the centre of gravity of interest in classical music has moved forward in time over the past few hundred years. I would guess that in 100 years time the focal point will have moved forward yet further, possibly beyond the Romantic era to Impressionism and later. One thing's for sure: none of us will be around to care.


ัyes, it looks quite obvious. Yet there is a tendency for revival of an interest for earlier music , perhaps as a contra movement , as opposite to a mainstream.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Genoveva said:


> It's inevitable that the centre of gravity of interest in classical music has moved forward in time over the past few hundred years. I would guess that in 100 years time the focal point will have moved forward yet further, possibly beyond the Romantic era to Impressionism and later.


I dunno. In the visual arts the focal point never seems to move beyond the High Renaissance. And in English literature Shakespeare obviously isn't going anywhere.

Maybe one can talk about _secondary_ focal points, though. Like, we'll always hear a lot of Beethoven (unless we stop listening to classical music entirely), but maybe we'll gradually hear less of Dvorak and more of Ravel. Or maybe that's already happening. And then maybe our grandchildren (assuming we have any grandchildren) will hear less of Ravel and more of Terry Riley.


----------



## Genoveva

Magnum Miserium said:


> I dunno. In the visual arts the focal point never seems to move beyond the High Renaissance. And in English literature Shakespeare obviously isn't going anywhere.
> 
> Maybe one can talk about _secondary_ focal points, though. Like, we'll always hear a lot of Beethoven (unless we stop listening to classical music entirely), but maybe we'll gradually hear less of Dvorak and more of Ravel. Or maybe that's already happening. And then maybe our grandchildren (assuming we have any grandchildren) will hear less of Ravel and more of Terry Riley.


I guess that the really big names like Beethoven, Mozart, Bach (several others too) will continue to be popular for a long time yet, indefinitely in fact. Those aside, on the premise that you can't get a quart into a pint pot I was speculating on the fact that as the supply of classical music expands some of it is likely to create its own demand. To the extent that this happens it will displace attention that would otherwise have been given to various other historical composers, and hence the focal point of average composition date may be expected to shift forward in time. I accept that I may be wrong, but that's my guess.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid

Magnum Miserium said:


> I dunno. In the visual arts the focal point never seems to move beyond the High Renaissance. And in English literature Shakespeare obviously isn't going anywhere.
> 
> Maybe one can talk about _secondary_ focal points, though. Like, we'll always hear a lot of Beethoven (unless we stop listening to classical music entirely), but maybe we'll gradually hear less of Dvorak and more of Ravel. Or maybe that's already happening. And then maybe our grandchildren (assuming we have any grandchildren) will hear less of Ravel and more of Terry Riley.


I could dispute that - in recent days it's arguable that more attention has been given to contemporary art than the old masters (which, if true, is quite unfortunate - I personally love High Rennaisance Holbeins and also much of the art of the Dutch Golden Age).
But I do concur with the idea of classical music being biased towards classicism forwards. And much of the spotlight on the earlier music seems to be put on the vocal works: they're important, but we can't forget that that was only one part of their motley world of music! And it's sad to see masters like Sweelinck, Buxtehude et. al. be forgotten (at least relatively) by the general classical-music listening public.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

bioluminescentsquid said:


> And much of the spotlight on the earlier music seems to be put on the vocal works: they're important, but we can't forget that that was only one part of their motley world of music! And it's sad to see masters like Sweelinck, Buxtehude et. al. be forgotten (at least relatively) by the general classical-music listening public.


Frescobaldi! ..


----------



## Kunhuo

Friedrich Nietzsche must surely be the most underrated?


----------



## Razumovskymas

Where are these ratings everybody is talking about?


----------



## Kunhuo

Kunhuo said:


> Friedrich Nietzsche must surely be the most underrated?


This was a bit sarcastic, but he has some unique melodies, and I don't totally dislike his other works. I think he made his music inaccessible for us, or/and it is inaccessible just because we can't understand it.

I'm kind of new to this genre, but here's my very subjective top list so far. (not trying to be objective)

1. Bach
2. Grieg
3. Tchaikovsky
4. Chopin
5. Wagner
6. Mahler
7. Beethoven
8. Mozart
9. Nietzsche

That's pretty much what I listened to; minimum ten pieces from each. You will probably look down upon how high I placed Chopin and Tchaikovsky, but the few others on that list just didn't make a great impression.


----------



## PeterKC

Underrated:

St.Saens
Ives
Nielsen
deFalla
Granados
Enescu
Kodaly

Underrated and virtually unknown:

Atterberg
Stenhammar
Parry
Bowen
Antheil
Von Einem
Wolf Ferrari
Lloyd
Tcherpenin
Mennin


----------



## hpowders

^^^I know Mennin. I like his 7th Symphony very much.


----------



## ArtMusic

*Leopold Kozeluch* (1747-1818) is an under rated composer. He is a very fine composer.


----------



## hpowders

Most over-rated: Bruckner, Schubert.

Most under-rated: Schuman, Persichetti, Copland, Ives, Schmidt.


----------



## Bettina

Templeton said:


> I don't really want to comment on overrated composers, as one man's meat is another man's poison. There are composers' works, which I struggle to fully appreciate but I wouldn't necessarily view them as overrated


I agree with this. I prefer not to say anything negative about composers, so I will remain silent (in other words, perform 4'33") on that part of the question! :lol:

As for the question about underrated composers, I think that is a very productive topic that could encourage all of us to make new musical discoveries. Here is my list of underrated composers (some of them are fairly well-known, and others are quite obscure):

Ferdinand Ries
Charles-Valentin Alkan
Joaquin Turina
Anatoly Liadov
Cyril Scott
Charles Tomlinson Griffes
Alfredo Casella
Selim Palmgren
Gabriel Grovlez
Deodat de Séverac 
Raoul Laparra


----------



## starthrower

75 pages? The OP Peeyaj is long gone. He didn't like people referring to him as Peejay. The truth is, there is no official rating system for composers.


----------



## Heck148

for me - most overrated = rachmaninoff

underrated - Schuman, Mennin, Diamond, Hanson


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Klassic said:


> That you think Beethoven is overrated sums up your entire career as a music critic. Beethoven is almost like magic........Oh dear, I did not realize this was your first post on TC. My apologies, welcome to TC, not everyone is as forward as me, there are lots of pleasant people on here.


In looking back over several threads, I just came across your comments quoted above. The fact that for some time I had not appreciated Beethoven and Schumann's music as much as many other listeners should have not given me justification for claiming they were responsible for overrating those composers. I failed to properly and intelligently organize my thoughts before rushing to such a self centered and unfair assumption. In a very recent post on this site I indicated I was beginning to come around once again to a greater appreciation of Beethoven. As for Schumann, though he has never been a particular favorite of mine, I have always enjoyed works such as his First and Third Symphonies, Piano Concerto and Scenes From Childhood....I hope this has scotched any hard feelings I may have been responsible for creating.


----------



## Nereffid

musicrom said:


> I don't know why I did this... but I did. I tried to go quickly so I probably missed a bunch of stuff, but it took me a while anyways.
> 
> _Most Overrated (# underrated) _:
> Mozart - 27 (1)
> Tchaikovsky - 19 (6)
> Brahms - 18 (4)
> Beethoven - 17 (2)
> Wagner - 15 (5)
> Mahler - 14 (2)
> Cage - 11 (2)
> Liszt - 10 (1)
> Schumann - 10 (10)
> Shostakovich - 9 (4)
> Stravinsky - 9 (1)
> 
> _Most Underrated (# overrated)_
> Dvorak - 13 (5)
> Schumann - 10 (10)
> Haydn - 8 (6)
> Schubert - 8 (6)
> Bruckner - 7 (6)
> Grieg - 7 (1)
> Rachmaninoff - 7 (2)
> Barber - 6 (0)
> Prokofiev	- 6 (3)
> Rimsky-Korsakov - 6 (1)
> Scriabin - 6 (1)
> Tchaikovsky - 6 (19)
> Weber - 6 (1)
> 
> *Net Overrated:
> *Mozart - 26
> Beethoven - 15
> Brahms - 14
> Tchaikovsky - 13
> Mahler - 12
> Wagner - 10
> Cage - 9
> Liszt - 9
> Stravinsky - 8
> Glass - 7
> 
> *Net Underrated:
> *Dvorak - 8
> Grieg - 6
> Barber - 6
> Weber - 5
> Scriabin - 5
> Rimsky-Korsakov - 5
> Rachmaninoff - 5
> Hummel - 5
> Faure - 5
> Enescu - 5


For some mild amusement, here's the results of my composer polls (% of voters who said they liked each composer) attached to musicrom's lists of most over- and underrated composers:

_Most Overrated_:
Mozart - 27 (85%)
Tchaikovsky - 19 (81%)
Brahms - 18 (85%)
Beethoven - 17 (91%)
Wagner - 15 (71%)
Mahler - 14 (90%)
Cage - 11 (30%)
Liszt - 10 (71%)
Schumann - 10 (76%)
Shostakovich - 9 (84%)
Stravinsky - 9 (84%)

_Most Underrated_
Dvorak - 13 (81%)
Schumann - 10 (76%)
Haydn - 8 (80%)
Schubert - 8 (82%)
Bruckner - 7 (72%)
Grieg - 7 (85%)
Rachmaninoff - 7 (82%)
Barber - 6 (not done yet)
Prokofiev	- 6 (87%)
Rimsky-Korsakov - 6 (69%)
Scriabin - 6 (not done yet)
Tchaikovsky - 6 (81%)
Weber - 6 (note done yet)

Average % of people who like the 10 composers most widely regarded as overrated: 76.4% (or 81.8% if we remove Cage as an outlier)
Average % of people who like the 10 composers most widely regarded as underrated: 79.5%

So it seems that the composers many people think are underrated are actually about as popular as the composers thought to be overrated! :lol:


----------



## PeterKC

Bettina said:


> I agree with this. I prefer not to say anything negative about composers, so I will remain silent (in other words, perform 4'33") on that part of the question! :lol:
> 
> As for the question about underrated composers, I think that is a very productive topic that could encourage all of us to make new musical discoveries. Here is my list of underrated composers (some of them are fairly well-known, and others are quite obscure):
> 
> Ferdinand Ries
> Charles-Valentin Alkan
> Joaquin Turina
> Anatoly Liadov
> Cyril Scott
> Charles Tomlinson Griffes
> Alfredo Casella
> Selim Palmgren
> Gabriel Grovlez
> Deodat de Séverac
> Raoul Laparra
> 
> Yes indeed on Casella!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Nereffid said:


> So it seems that the composers many people think are underrated are actually about as popular as the composers thought to be overrated! :lol:


Dare one suggest the overrated/underrated issue is rather pointless? After learning a good lesson, yes.


----------



## Becca

Repeat after me ...

The composer <fill-in-blank> is one of my favorites so I don't understand why he/she is not highly rated.

_...and..._

I have never cared for <fill-in-blank> and don't understand why he/she is so highly rated.


----------



## hpowders

Still over-rated to these ears: Schubert, Bruckner, Vairgnah (Brooklyn pronounciation).

Under-rated: Copland, Persichetti, Schuman, the Elgar of Elgar's Violin Concerto.


----------



## Simon Moon

Becca said:


> Repeat after me ...
> 
> The composer <fill-in-blank> is one of my favorites so I don't understand why he/she is not highly rated.
> 
> _...and..._
> 
> I have never cared for <fill-in-blank> and don't understand why he/she is so highly rated.


Exactly!

To make the claim that a particular composer is overrated or underrated is arrogant. As if any one here has the authority to claim that someone else's favorite composer is overrated.

I could never be arrogant enough to claim that any of the composers that I don't personally like, are overrated.

Overrated and underrated are ridiculous tems for something as subjective as music.


----------



## tdc

Simon Moon said:


> Exactly!
> 
> To make the claim that a particular composer is overrated or underrated is arrogant. As if any one here has the authority to claim that someone else's favorite composer is overrated.
> 
> I could never be arrogant enough to claim that any of the composers that I don't personally like, are overrated.
> 
> Overrated and underrated are ridiculous tems for something as subjective as music.


I know where you are coming from and I generally avoid posting in threads like this. However, I'm not sure I agree that there is no such thing as overrated and underrated and that music is 100% subjective.

For example I think one could make an argument that in his time Bach's music was underrated in comparison to Telemann's music. I also think if one analyzes the music of these two composers there is more that sets them apart than merely subjective opinion.

That being said there is nothing wrong with preferring Telemann's music, because we all have our personal tastes, but at the same time I think there is a reason that you will not come across any lists ranking composers that have Telemann in the top three.


----------



## hpowders

Haydn67 said:


> Dare one suggest the overrated/underrated issue is rather pointless? After learning a good lesson, yes.


Your post in under-rated, unfortunately.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

hpowders said:


> Your post in under-rated, unfortunately.


...And so goes the merry-go-round :lol:


----------



## southwood

Still the most over rated after all these years. (Really there's no competition IMHO) = Brahms.
Still most under rated after all these years -= Buxtehude.


----------



## chromatic owl

I know that many of you would probably kill me for the following statement, but in my opinion Shostakovich is the only composer comparable to Bach in terms of greatness and mastery, hence the most underrated. 
I agree on Brahms as the most overrated composer. Doesn't mean I don't like him, though.


----------



## Pugg

chromatic owl said:


> I know that many of you would probably kill me for the following statement, but in my opinion Shostakovich is the only composer comparable to Bach in terms of greatness and mastery, hence the most underrated.
> I agree on Brahms as the most overrated composer. Doesn't mean I don't like him, though.


We are not aggressive, each members has his / her right to a own opinion.


----------



## starthrower

I'll never understand the popularity of Glass and Adams, but if people love them, good for them.


----------



## hpowders

Haydn67 said:


> ...And so goes the merry-go-round :lol:


Sometimes I get the distinct feeling that people come here just to kill time rather than have pertinent, significant, vibrant, stimulating debates and discussions.

That feeling, however, usually recedes after a slice or two of rum-cake....light on the cake.


----------



## jdec

Brahms the most overrated?? no way! he is one of the great masters.


----------



## chromatic owl

He is, but I believe there are a great many composers who deserve the same respect as Brahms. Why does he get so much more attention? 

Self-marketing I suppose. The same with Beethoven and Wagner. Which of course does not lessen their achievements as composers.


----------



## southwood

jdec said:


> Brahms the most overrated?? no way! he is one of the great masters.


You are entitled to your opinion but, really, I hardly enjoy any of his works, certainly not the symphonies and piano concertoes. I am with George Bernard Shaw on the German Requiem. How is he so popular ?

But, if you like him, that's your privilege.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

hpowders said:


> Sometimes I get the distinct feeling that people come here just to kill time rather than have pertinent, significant, vibrant, stimulating debates and discussions.
> 
> That feeling, however, usually recedes after a slice or two of rum-cake....light on the cake.


Not sure how you interpreted my comment. I was responding with levity, and assume we're on the same frequency here.


----------



## arnerich

southwood said:


> You are entitled to your opinion but, really, I hardly enjoy any of his works, certainly not the symphonies and piano concertoes. I am with George Bernard Shaw on the German Requiem. How is he so popular ?
> 
> But, if you like him, that's your privilege.


I don't like Brahms either.... I love him!


----------



## John13

Underrated i think Vivaldi and this because all people know the four seasons but very few know anything else. This means that most people have the false perception that he just created one good piece of work and nothing more
Overrated i think Brahms. I dont say that he wasnt great but when people say that Brahms was one of the three Bs(the other being Bach and Beethoven) i cringe a bit


----------



## Woodduck

John13 said:


> Underrated i think Vivaldi and this because all people know the four seasons but very few know anything else. This means that most people have the false perception that he just created one good piece of work and nothing more
> Overrated i think Brahms. I dont say that he wasnt great but when people say that Brahms was one of the three Bs(the other being Bach and Beethoven) i cringe a bit


I agree that "the three Bs" thing is a bit silly, and that Brahms is not quite on the same plane of staggering, incomprehensible creative genius as Bach or Beethoven (or Mozart or Wagner). But "overrated"? When I listen to one of his chamber works for piano and strings I can only ask, "How can you overrate this?"


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Woodduck said:


> I agree that "the three Bs" thing is a bit silly, and that Brahms is not quite on the same plane of staggering, incomprehensible creative genius as Bach or Beethoven (or Mozart or Wagner). But "overrated"? When I listen to one of his chamber works for piano and strings I can only ask, "How can you overrate this?"


Agreed. I would put Brahms above Wagner but I would never say Wagner is overrated.

Not just his chamber music. I feel the same way about all of his major orchestral pieces(minus the early serenades).


----------



## arnerich

I will say this about Brahms, his piano concerto no. 2 is truly one of the greatest pieces ever conceived. My life would have gone in an entirely different direction if I had never heard it.


----------



## John13

Woodduck said:


> I agree that "the three Bs" thing is a bit silly, and that Brahms is not quite on the same plane of staggering, incomprehensible creative genius as Bach or Beethoven (or Mozart or Wagner). But "overrated"? When I listen to one of his chamber works for piano and strings I can only ask, "How can you overrate this?"


I love Brahms but for me its also a matter of how much a composer influenced future generations. WHile Bach,Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner certainly left a legacy Brahms did not


----------



## Bettina

John13 said:


> I love Brahms but for me its also a matter of how much a composer influenced future generations. WHile Bach,Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner certainly left a legacy Brahms did not


I disagree. I think that Brahms actually did leave an important legacy, with regard to his influence on the Second Viennese School (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern). In fact, Brahms' motivic techniques were instrumental (pardon the pun! ) in the development of serialism. Schoenberg wrote an article about this, "Brahms the Progressive."


----------



## cimirro

Bettina said:


> I disagree. I think that Brahms actually did leave an important legacy, with regard to his influence on the Second Viennese School (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern). In fact, Brahms' motivic techniques were instrumental (pardon the pun! ) in the development of serialism. Schoenberg wrote an article about this, "Brahms the Progressive."


well remembered!


----------



## Woodduck

Bettina said:


> I disagree. I think that Brahms actually did leave an important legacy, with regard to his influence on the Second Viennese School (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern). In fact, Brahms' motivic techniques were instrumental (pardon the pun! ) in the development of serialism. Schoenberg wrote an article about this, "Brahms the Progressive."


What you say is true, but it's hard to say that there's much that's audibly "Brahmsian" about that "school", at least with regard to qualities that people outside academia would be conscious of or care about. I think that Schoenberg's calling Brahms "progressive" was in part a bid to paint himself as a "traditionalist" (which he liked to do more and more as he got too old to call himself a "radical").

On the other hand, Brahms did do interesting, fresh things with rhythm (although even here Beethoven had anticipated his rhythmic displacements), and his influence on composers who stood firm against the Wagnerian tsunami - and even on some whose style represented an integration of both conservative and radical streams - was widespread in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Dvorak, Jenner, Herzogenberg, Taneyev, Juon, Fuchs, Reinecke, Catoire, Gernsheim, Rontgen, Bruch, Stanford, Parry, Elgar, Richard Strauss, Thuille, Dohnanyi... It is not a negligible list.

We really need to beware of thinking of the history of music as a succession of major innovators and trends, and recognize that its more "conservative" streams are no less important and powerful in determining the continuity of the art and the nature of what people enjoy and listen to.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> What you say is true, but it's hard to say that there's much that's audibly "Brahmsian" about that "school", at least with regard to qualities that people outside academia would be conscious of or care about. I think that Schoenberg's calling Brahms "progressive" was in part a bid to paint himself as a "traditionalist" (which he liked to do more and more as he got too old to call himself a "radical").
> 
> On the other hand, Brahms did do interesting, fresh things with rhythm (although even here Beethoven had anticipated his rhythmic displacements), and his influence on composers who stood firm against the Wagnerian tsunami - and even on some whose style represented an integration of both conservative and radical streams - was widespread in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Dvorak, Jenner, Herzogenberg, Taneyev, Juon, Fuchs, Reinecke, Catoire, Gernsheim, Rontgen, Bruch, Stanford, Parry, Elgar, Richard Strauss, Thuille, Dohnanyi... It is not a negligible list.
> 
> We really need to beware of thinking of the history of music as a succession of major innovators and trends, and recognize that its more "conservative" streams are no less important and powerful in determining the continuity of the art and the nature of what people enjoy and listen to.


I agree with your over all sentiment in regards innovation/conservative, but that said I think if we look at late Romanticism in general (early Schoenberg, Mahler, Nielsen, Sibelius, R Strauss etc) most of these composers have a sound that is very similar to Brahms, in some ways closer to Brahms than Beethoven, I think.

Brahms late piano works are also very distinct from other music in the Romantic era. Influence can be a hard thing to pin point, but I have no doubt that so-called 'conservative' composers like Bach and Brahms have had a major impact on music.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I agree with your over all sentiment in regards innovation/conservative, but that said I think if we look at late Romanticism in general (early Schoenberg, Mahler, Nielsen, Sibelius, R Strauss etc) most of these composers have a sound that is very similar to Brahms, in some ways closer to Brahms than Beethoven, I think.
> 
> Brahms late piano works are also very distinct from other music in the Romantic era. Influence can be a hard thing to pin point, but I have no doubt that so-called 'conservative' composers like Bach and Brahms have had a major impact on music.


I don't know about Mahler, Sibelius and Strauss sounding Brahmsian - they don't to me (except for Strauss's early chamber music) - but Beethoven was a Classicist who evolved a personal idiom which no one could imitate, while Brahms was a true Romantic trying to perpetuate Classical ideals. They are in that respect opposites. Brahms can actually sound Wagnerian at times, something I never noticed till someone pointed it out to me.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> I don't know about Mahler, Sibelius and Strauss sounding Brahmsian - they don't to me (except for Strauss's early chamber music) - but Beethoven was a Classicist who evolved a personal idiom which no one could imitate, while Brahms was a true Romantic trying to perpetuate Classical ideals. They are in that respect opposites. Brahms can actually sound Wagnerian at times, something I never noticed till someone pointed it out to me.


Some good points.

On reflection I think Mahler sounds most like an extension of Beethoven, R Strauss sounds mostly influenced by Wagner, but to me Nielsen and Sibelius both sound closer to Brahms than Wagner or Beethoven. (Although I hear some Wagner in Sibelius).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

tdc said:


> Some good points.
> 
> On reflection *Mahler sounds most like an extension of Beethoven*, R Strauss sounds mostly influenced by Wagner, but to me Nielsen and Sibelius both sound closer to Brahms than Wagner or Beethoven. (Although I hear some Wagner in Sibelius).


Interesting observation. I hear nothing alike between the two composers.


----------



## tdc

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Interesting observation. I hear nothing alike between the two composers.


In ways they sound very different, that is why I used the word 'extension'. As Woodduck pointed out Beethoven's style was not really one that could be duplicated effectively, however I think both Mahler and Beethoven's music focused much on personal struggle and both composers music was filled with striking contrasts so that many moods could be incorporated into one piece. Both composers were also quite adept at using loudness or crashing, banging however you want to phrase it for dramatic effect.


----------



## Pugg

John13 said:


> I love Brahms but for me its also a matter of how much a composer influenced future generations. WHile Bach,Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner certainly left a legacy Brahms did not


I also don't agree with you, like Bettina I do think he left a great legacy.
Welcome to Talk Classical by the way.


----------



## Nevum

Most overrated - Aaron Copland
Most underrated - Louise Farrenc


----------



## Pugg

Nevum said:


> Most overrated - Aaron Copland
> Most underrated - Louise Farrenc


Unknown is unloved.


----------



## Nevum

Pugg said:


> Unknown is unloved.







She deserves to be known and loved


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Pugg said:


> Unknown is unloved.


This begs for a new thread: Most Unknown Composers


----------



## Phil loves classical

I would say Brahms is the most overrated composer. Other than his chamber works, his music sounds superficial and pretentious. I thought I was alone thinking that, until I read what Tchaikovsky and Britten said about him. First Several minutes of his 4th symphony and Violin Concerto are prime examples of him jumping from one theme to the next, with no natural cohesion between his phrases. Some critics have called him a modernist because of this, but he is no Bartok, who explores sound with striking but natural progression. Brahms music is very naive in this way, using the early romantic language, but trying to do things differently with it that doesn't work, or at least sounds very forced. His musical ideas are not very impressive. The slow movement of his 2nd Symphony is pure "meaningless twaddle". I'm sure I may be accused of not being open minded with Brahms. I can accept the classical and romantic, and the modern, but his is for me an uncomfortable mix, which in my ears is the product of someone less talented, than original. But moving on to his chamber works, that is where Brahms excels, and his music is more natural and expressive, especially his Clarinet Quintet. But of the 3 Supposedly Great B's: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, he is the lowliest.


----------



## jailhouse

Over - Mozart
Under - Schnittke


----------



## pcnog11

Most overrated: Johannes Brahms

Most underrated: John Field


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> First Several minutes of his 4th symphony and Violin Concerto are prime examples of him jumping from one theme to the next, with no natural cohesion between his phrases.


Wrong.

This is an excellent and informative video (thanks twoflutesonetrumpet) of Bernstein analyzing Brahms 4th. You could learn something.


----------



## Phil loves classical

*Brahms Symphony 4, first movement*

Here is a link for full analysis by Bernstein: 




A journey from the first "passionate theme" to a "fanfare", a "tango", some "canons" a "sudden quiet": it all made to impress. My problem with all this is that they are all connected through the slim technical devices, rather than thematic development or transitions. It is all very ambitious what Brahms tries to do, linking these things technically. But For me that is what separates true genius of Mozart and Beethoven from Brahms. It seems Brahms is incapable of progression thematically, but only technically. One composer (can't recall who), has this criteria of true genius, that it have this certain tastefulness or approachableness, which I agree to. Bernstein's statement near the end that there is this awesome statement beyond a simple technical device coming at the right place right time, and all of this I can agree if I listen to the music on its own terms, but can't in context of what I believe in thematic cohesion, which even modern composers like Stravinsky, Bartok, Schnittke, etc. observe, which makes music enjoyable to me. When I force myself to appreciate Brahms in his own terms, which I have done on occasion, I am not enjoying music.



tdc said:


> Wrong.
> 
> This is an excellent and informative video (thanks twoflutesonetrumpet) of Bernstein analyzing Brahms 4th. You could learn something.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is a link for full analysis by Bernstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A journey from the first "passionate theme" to a "fanfare", a "tango", some "canons" a "sudden quiet": it all made to impress. My problem with all this is that they are all connected through the slim technical devices, rather than thematic development or transitions. It is all very ambitious what Brahms tries to do, linking these things technically. But For me that is what separates true genius of Mozart and Beethoven from Brahms. It seems Brahms is incapable of progression thematically, but only technically. One composer (can't recall who), has this criteria of true genius, that it have this certain tastefulness or approachableness, which I agree to. Bernstein's statement near the end that there is this awesome statement beyond a simple technical device coming at the right place right time, and all of this I can agree if I listen to the music on its own terms, but can't in context of what I believe in thematic cohesion, which even modern composers like Stravinsky, Bartok, Schnittke, etc. observe, which makes music enjoyable to me. When I force myself to appreciate Brahms in his own terms, which I have done on occasion, I am not enjoying music.


To me Brahms 4th is one of the best symphonies by any composer. Just because you fail to hear thematic development, it doesn't mean it's not there. In fact, Brahms is one of the best thematic developers.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Going to try to refine my argument. Just one more stab on this topic of Brahms Symphony 4, if I may. From the passionate theme to fanfare, and then the pizzicatos. The language is too familiar: early romantic, but the associations of these themes and motifs are, in my own words, incongruous with each other. For example the first time in the piece I notice a problem (in my mind) is there is no logical connection between the triumphant fanfare with the previous passionate, melancholy theme. No build up. That is ok, and intriguing, if the work and language is supposed to be modern, which is it was not intended, as Brahms was a neo-Classicist. If the language was more modern, then like the Rite of Spring, these juxtapostions would work. It is instead a hodge podge of older sounding themes that conflict with each other than building towards something substantial.


----------



## arnerich

Phil loves classical said:


> Going to try to refine my argument. Just one more stab on this topic of Brahms Symphony 4, if I may. From the passionate theme to fanfare, and then the pizzicatos. The language is too familiar: early romantic, but the associations of these themes and motifs are, in my own words, incongruous with each other. For example the first time in the piece I notice a problem (in my mind) is there is no logical connection between the triumphant fanfare with the previous passionate, melancholy theme. No build up. That is ok, and intriguing, if the work and language is supposed to be modern, which is it was not intended, as Brahms was a neo-Classicist. If the language was more modern, then like the Rite of Spring, these juxtapostions would work. It is instead a hodge podge of older sounding themes that conflict with each other than building towards something substantial.


I disagree with your assessment of the Brahms 4th.


----------



## Nevum

Phil loves classical said:


> I would say Brahms is the most overrated composer. Other than his chamber works, his music sounds superficial and pretentious. I thought I was alone thinking that, until I read what Tchaikovsky and Britten said about him. First Several minutes of his 4th symphony and Violin Concerto are prime examples of him jumping from one theme to the next, with no natural cohesion between his phrases. Some critics have called him a modernist because of this, but he is no Bartok, who explores sound with striking but natural progression. Brahms music is very naive in this way, using the early romantic language, but trying to do things differently with it that doesn't work, or at least sounds very forced. His musical ideas are not very impressive. The slow movement of his 2nd Symphony is pure "meaningless twaddle". I'm sure I may be accused of not being open minded with Brahms. I can accept the classical and romantic, and the modern, but his is for me an uncomfortable mix, which in my ears is the product of someone less talented, than original. But moving on to his chamber works, that is where Brahms excels, and his music is more natural and expressive, especially his Clarinet Quintet. But of the 3 Supposedly Great B's: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, he is the lowliest.


Hmmmm... Brahms superficial and overrated? No thanks.


----------



## Phil loves classical

One composer I would say is underrated is Bruckner. For me his 8th and 9th Symphonies are "genuinely" stirring stuff. Guess you know which Romantic group I'm in favour of. Ravel is also underrated to me. He works are of great artistry, sophistication, and there is nothing run-of-the-mill, which is why he didn't write prolifically.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is a link for full analysis by Bernstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A journey from the first "passionate theme" to a "fanfare", a "tango", some "canons" a "sudden quiet": it all made to impress. My problem with all this is that they are all connected through the slim technical devices, rather than thematic development or transitions. It is all very ambitious what Brahms tries to do, linking these things technically. But For me that is what separates true genius of Mozart and Beethoven from Brahms. It seems Brahms is incapable of progression thematically, but only technically. One composer (can't recall who), has this criteria of true genius, that it have this certain tastefulness or approachableness, which I agree to. Bernstein's statement near the end that there is this awesome statement beyond a simple technical device coming at the right place right time, and all of this I can agree if I listen to the music on its own terms, but can't in context of what I believe in thematic cohesion, which even modern composers like Stravinsky, Bartok, Schnittke, etc. observe, which makes music enjoyable to me. When I force myself to appreciate Brahms in his own terms, which I have done on occasion, I am not enjoying music.


The fact is you claimed the first few minutes of Brahms Symphony no. 4 had no natural cohesion, I linked you to a video that explains how everything in the first movement flowers from a small germ of an idea. I don't know how a piece could have more natural cohesion than that.

I do understand what you are saying to an extent and I respect your opinion. I used to think similarly but through time I have come to enjoy Brahms for exactly what he is and I wouldn't change a thing about that symphony. If one composers approach stands out in marked contrast to how other composers structure their works it is not necessarily a bad thing nor a weakness. In this case it is just a part of his compositional personality. If it is not to your tastes that is fine, but it is not a flaw in the music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

That is the crux of it: flowering from a small "germ of an idea". Whether you buy it or not depends on your view of absolute music of which Brahms was an advocate, which obviously I don't. By not accepting the premise in the first place, it invokes strong negative feelings when he goes on and continues about it. For me it is just all wrong. Anyway, it's been fun sharing these negative feelings. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## arnerich

Phil loves classical said:


> Whether you buy it or not depends on your view of absolute music of which Brahms was an advocate, which obviously I don't.


If you're not an advocate of absolute music I could understand why you wouldn't like Brahms.


----------



## gellio

Overrated: Sondheim
Underrated: Lloyd Webber

I'm happy to play this game relating to musical composers, not so with classical composers.


----------



## Bettina

Phil loves classical said:


> That is the crux of it: flowering from a small "germ of an idea". Whether you buy it or not depends on your view of absolute music of which Brahms was an advocate, which obviously I don't. By not accepting the premise in the first place, it invokes strong negative feelings when he goes on and continues about it. For me it is just all wrong. Anyway, it's been fun sharing these negative feelings. Thanks for your patience.


How do you feel about Brahms' vocal music? German Requiem, as well as his many songs, etc. That type of genre certainly isn't absolute. The presence of a text makes the music somewhat programmatic. Perhaps that side of Brahms' output would mesh better with your musical preferences.


----------



## Pugg

gellio said:


> Overrated: Sondheim
> Underrated: Lloyd Webber
> 
> I'm happy to play this game relating to musical composers, not so with classical composers.


In that case I would swap these two.


----------



## gellio

Pugg said:


> In that case I would swap these two.


Of course, you're right. You're always right. Seriously, overall I do not like Sondheim. However, I consider Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods perhaps the two greatest musicals ever written, and I love them both. But, I'm still knee deep in Verdi.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bettina said:


> How do you feel about Brahms' vocal music? German Requiem, as well as his many songs, etc. That type of genre certainly isn't absolute. The presence of a text makes the music somewhat programmatic. Perhaps that side of Brahms' output would mesh better with your musical preferences.


I can bear his chamber works a lot more. His Clarinet Quintet is a masterpiece (I'd say his only one). German Requiem, not so much. Prefer Masses by Haydn, Mozart, Berlioz, and Faure. There was also a thread on another website on which Composer was greater: Mozart or Beethoven. Lots of fun arguing that one.


----------



## hpowders

At last viewing, I believe Mozart was listed as sixth favorite composer by TC members.

IMO, Mozart should never, ever leave the top three.

Therefore, as far as TC is concerned, Mozart is seriously under-rated.


----------



## Pugg

Phil loves classical said:


> I can bear his chamber works a lot more. His Clarinet Quintet is a masterpiece (I'd say his only one). German Requiem, not so much. Prefer Masses by Haydn, Mozart, Berlioz, and Faure. There was also a thread on another website on which Composer was greater: Mozart or Beethoven. Lots of fun arguing that one.


We had that discussion more then once.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Ok, moving on from Brahms, another composer I can't stand is Chopin. A few of his little pieces have their moments, but on the whole, didn't he write a lot of trivial garbage? May sound like a musical snob, but have a feeling his music was only targeted to the mainstream public and not for the connoisseur.


----------



## lehnert

Overrated:
Ravel, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky

Underrated:
Dobrzyński, Noskowski, Schubert

If you haven't heard any of Dobrzyński's or Noskowski's works, I can recommend the following:

1. A nocturne by Dobrzyński that I think is just as good as the ones Chopin wrote:





2. A symphonic poem by Noskowski with some very tasty themes:


----------



## hpowders

Over-rated: Bizet. A one-hit wonder.

Under-rated: Copland. Doesn't get the recognition he deserves.


----------



## Bettina

hpowders said:


> Over-rated: Bizet. A one-hit wonder.


I would actually consider Bizet underrated. Many of his other works are almost as good as _Carmen_, but they are rarely ever performed. For instance, his excellent operas _Les pêcheurs de perles_ and _Djamileh _ are sadly neglected.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> We really need to beware of thinking of the history of music as a succession of major innovators and trends, and recognize that its more "conservative" streams are no less important and powerful in determining the continuity of the art and the nature of what people enjoy and listen to.


I've tried to make that point in a number of these lengthy debates, to no avail. Schoenberg was an arch-conservative in some ways, and was indeed greatly influenced by Brahms, as were Reinecke and Fuchs (very obviously!) and the other composers you list. You could have listed many more. Reger's clarinet sonatas, that a friend recently recorded, are a direct product of those of Brahms.

Your metaphor of a stream is perfect, I've used it too. Our culture progresses like a mighty flowing river fed by greater and lesser tributaries that mingle together and continue to make their influence felt. There are always both radical and reactionary feeder streams, even if one predominates over the other at any one moment. But even the most radical or reactionary trends ultimately merge into the river and remain as just one element of many, persisting but also to some extent receding. The second Viennese school is now much closer to Brahms' time, and in some ways his aesthetic, than our own.


----------



## Tchaikov6

lehnert said:


> Overrated:
> Ravel, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky


I'm just curious, what do you feel is overrated about these composers? Tchaikovsky and Ravel are two of my favorite composers and I feel that they have all the qualities of a "great" composer. I wouldn't say they are underrated, but definitely not overrated.

As for my picks, I definitely agree that Bruckner is a bit overrated. And, to be honest, I feel that Mozart is a bit overrated. His melodies are beautiful, and most of his music is of very high quality, but to be regarded at the level of Beethoven or Bach is a bit too much in my opinion. Some great underrated composers are Arriaga (I believe if he had lived longer he could have been an amazing composer) and Respighi, for his colorful orchestral works and amazing piano concerto.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

This thread is overrated. All composers are rated just right and if you don't agree then you need to adjust your rating system.


----------



## Chronochromie

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This thread is overrated. All composers are rated just right and if you don't agree then you need to adjust your rating system.


All composers are rated incorrectly . If only they'd let me fix that. :devil:


----------



## dzc4627

Underrated:
Bruckner 
Mahler
Mendelssohn



Overrated: 
Boulez
Cage
Messiaen 
John Williams
John Adams
Debussy 
Villa Lobos
Haydn


----------



## dzc4627

Phil loves classical said:


> One composer I would say is underrated is Bruckner. For me his 8th and 9th Symphonies are "genuinely" stirring stuff. Guess you know which Romantic group I'm in favour of. Ravel is also underrated to me. He works are of great artistry, sophistication, and there is nothing run-of-the-mill, which is why he didn't write prolifically.


I'd agree with you that Bruckner is underrated, however Brahms is incredible, especially in his symphonic output. Brahms' sound to me is totally unique in its' sophisticated passion and development. It definitely isn't as "epic" as Bruckner, or as inward. Well, I mean, I like Bruckner much more than Brahms so at this point if I were to go on I'd be just telling why that is.


----------



## Chronochromie

dzc4627 said:


> Underrated:
> Mahler


:lol:

(Mahler is one of my favorites, but seriously?)


----------



## lehnert

Tchaikov6 said:


> I'm just curious, what do you feel is overrated about these composers? Tchaikovsky and Ravel are two of my favorite composers and I feel that they have all the qualities of a "great" composer. I wouldn't say they are underrated, but definitely not overrated.


I can't stand anything written by Ravel (maybe except his Introduction and Allegro for Harp, Flute, Clarinet and String Quartet) and I never understood what people liked about him.

In case of Tchaikovsky, he was definitely a competent composer and lately I've been particularly enjoying his Souvenir de Florence. However, I feel that many of his works are too homophonic to be considered interesting. I think his symphonies get way more attention than they deserve, I can't really get into any them. That's why I called Tchaikovsky overrated.


----------



## hpowders

Over-rated: Pre-HIP J.S. Bach and all the dismal, dull, uninspired performances of that time.

Under-rated: HIP J.S. Bach and all the extraordinary strides in instrument construction and performance practices, leading to magnificent performances of his compositions, rightfully restoring Bach to the number one position as greatest composer of all time.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hpowders said:


> Over-rated: Pre-HIP J.S. Bach and all the dismal, dull, uninspired performances of that time.
> 
> Under-rated: HIP J.S. Bach and all the extraordinary strides in instrument construction and performance practices, leading to magnificent performances of his compositions, rightfully restoring Bach to the number one position as greatest composer of all time.


This post reminds me of this for some reason


----------



## dzc4627

Chronochromie said:


> :lol:
> 
> (Mahler is one of my favorites, but seriously?)


Absolutely! The fact that many here have him on their "overrated" list proves my case exactly! :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This post reminds me of this for some reason
> 
> View attachment 92407


Is the surgeon Sir Thomas Beecham?


----------



## 76Trombones

Overrated: Haydn, Mahler, Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, Liszt, Brahms, Chopin

Underrated: Purcell, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin


----------



## Chronochromie

dzc4627 said:


> Absolutely! The fact that many here have him on their "overrated" list proves my case exactly! :tiphat:


Not sure if serious or...


----------



## dzc4627

Chronochromie said:


> Not sure if serious or...


Totally serious. I think Mahler is so good that even his current praise is not what it should be.


----------



## mmsbls

dzc4627 said:


> Totally serious. I think Mahler is so good that even his current praise is not what it should be.


Over the course of this thread I've often wondered how high people think composers are actually "rated." When someone says a composer is under or overrated, I've always wanted to ask how high they think the composer is rated and how high the composer ought to be rated. Jokingly I've wanted to say that Mozart is underrated because most polls I see have him at 2 or 3 when he is obviously No. 1 .

So where do you "rate" Mahler and where do you think others rate him?


----------



## hpowders

Over-rated: Brahms in an 1889 recording.

Under-rated: Brahms in stereo.


----------



## dzc4627

mmsbls said:


> Over the course of this thread I've often wondered how high people think composers are actually "rated." When someone says a composer is under or overrated, I've always wanted to ask how high they think the composer is rated and how high the composer ought to be rated. Jokingly I've wanted to say that Mozart is underrated because most polls I see have him at 2 or 3 when he is obviously No. 1 .
> 
> So where do you "rate" Mahler and where do you think others rate him?


We are just speaking in a metric of relative praise. I think Mahler is often called over-rated when compared to how other composers are rated (how much praise they get) while I'd disagree, and I'd take that common assertion that Mahler is praised too much as evidence that he is praised too little, for I think that his music is so spectacular that he deserves more praise among music-lovers than he actually gets. Capiche?


----------



## Phil loves classical

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This thread is overrated. All composers are rated just right and if you don't agree then you need to adjust your rating system.


 Good one. By the numbers game, then that would take away much of the purpose of this forum. One more knockdown on Brahms (and his fans) this by Nietzsche (who seems like an astute music critic to me), just for fun:

"The sympathy that Brahms undeniably conduces, quite independently of that ideological quarrel, that business of biases and prejudices [the quarrel over Wagner's New German music and Brahms's absolute music, as stoked by anti-Wagnerian critics], was for a long time a mystery to me: until finally, almost by chance, I got the hang of it, that he has his effect on a certain type of person. He has the melancholy of incapacity; he doesn't create out of fullness, he longs for fullness. If one sets aside what he imitates, what he takes from old and great and exotic-modern styles and forms - and he is a master of the copy - then one can see that his ownmost quality is longing [Sehnsucht]…And that is what those full of longing, unsatisfied people of every kind, recognize. He's too little a person, too little a central point …That is what people without personality [die "Unpersönlichen"], peripheral people understand and they love him for it."


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> "The sympathy that Brahms undeniably conduces, quite independently of that ideological quarrel, that business of biases and prejudices [the quarrel over Wagner's New German music and Brahms's absolute music, as stoked by anti-Wagnerian critics], was for a long time a mystery to me: until finally, almost by chance, I got the hang of it, that he has his effect on a certain type of person. He has the melancholy of incapacity; he doesn't create out of fullness, he longs for fullness. If one sets aside what he imitates, what he takes from old and great and exotic-modern styles and forms - and he is a master of the copy - then one can see that his ownmost quality is longing [Sehnsucht]…And that is what those full of longing, unsatisfied people of every kind, recognize. He's too little a person, too little a central point …That is what people without personality [die "Unpersönlichen"], peripheral people understand and they love him for it."


So with one short paragraph he provides a very simple explanation for the reason Brahms creates music and then pigeonholes those who enjoy his music in a similarly simplistic way.

The problem with people who start to have a high opinion of their own intelligence is they place themselves on a slippery slope towards stupidity.

This quote is a good example of that.


----------



## Rhinotop

Overrated: Stravinsky, Mahler, Bruckner, Schönberg, Berg, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven
Underrated: Schmidt, Atterberg, Bax, Bantock, Raff, Hindemith, Lutoslawski, Taneyev

It's good to know about other composers, instead always the same.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Rhinotop said:


> Overrated: Stravinsky, Mahler, Bruckner, Schönberg, Berg, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven
> Underrated: Schmidt, Atterberg, Bax, Bantock, Raff, Hindemith, Lutoslawski, Taneyev
> 
> It's good to know about other composers, instead always the same.


Agree with your last sentence. But are you saying that the ones we know most about are overrated, just because they are better known? Because your overrated list contains composers who wrote some of the most beautiful music in the world.


----------



## dzc4627

Rhinotop said:


> Overrated: Stravinsky, Mahler, Bruckner, Schönberg, Berg, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven
> Underrated: Schmidt, Atterberg, Bax, Bantock, Raff, Hindemith, Lutoslawski, Taneyev
> 
> It's good to know about other composers, instead always the same.


My oh my, how close to the edge you strut! Truly a warrior of the Avant-Garde.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> So with one short paragraph he provides a very simple explanation for the reason Brahms creates music and then pigeonholes those who enjoy his music in a similarly simplistic way.
> 
> The problem with people who start to have a high opinion of their own intelligence is they place themselves on a slippery slope towards stupidity.
> 
> This quote is a good example of that.


There is more. I omitted it on purpose before, sounding a bit harsh and inappropriate at the beginning. Brahms music seems to me also like an antithesis of music in the past. A question in accepting Brahms, put forward by Nietzsche, is whether we should accept his music, if there is a fault in being too open-minded in accepting it, that we lose perspective. I admit I go into different mode of listening with Brahms, and Schoenberg, and finding it irreconcilable with music in the past and more modern. Will leave it at that.

"In particular he is the musician for a type of unsatisfied women. Fifty paces on and you get the lady wagnerian - just as fifty paces on from Brahms you find Wagner - the lady wagnerian being a much more definite and interesting and above all more charming type. Brahms is moving, so long as he secretly enthuses or mourns for himself - in that degree he's "modern" -; he grows cold, he doesn't mean anything to us any more as soon as he inherits the classics. People like to call Brahms the legatee of Beethoven. I don't know any more cautious euphemism. Everything in music today that lays claim to a "grand style" is by that token false towards us or false towards itself. This alternative quite makes one think: it contains within itself a casuistic argument over the worth of the two instances. "False towards us" - most people protest against that, they don't want to be deceived; I myself freely admit I prefer this type to the other kind ("false towards itself"). That is my taste. To put it more clearly, for the "poor in spirit": Brahms or Wagner…Brahms is not a play-actor. One can subsume a good many other musicians under the concept Brahms.' "


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> "In particular he is the musician for a type of unsatisfied women. Fifty paces on and you get the lady wagnerian - just as fifty paces on from Brahms you find Wagner - the lady wagnerian being a much more definite and interesting and above all more charming type. Brahms is moving, so long as he secretly enthuses or mourns for himself - in that degree he's "modern" -; he grows cold, he doesn't mean anything to us any more as soon as he inherits the classics. People like to call Brahms the legatee of Beethoven. I don't know any more cautious euphemism. Everything in music today that lays claim to a "grand style" is by that token false towards us or false towards itself. This alternative quite makes one think: it contains within itself a casuistic argument over the worth of the two instances. "False towards us" - most people protest against that, they don't want to be deceived; I myself freely admit I prefer this type to the other kind ("false towards itself"). That is my taste. To put it more clearly, for the "poor in spirit": Brahms or Wagner…Brahms is not a play-actor. One can subsume a good many other musicians under the concept Brahms.' "


This is a bunch of nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Look - the big Romantic composers leading up to Brahms were extroverted-expressive. Brahms is introverted-expressive. His music is quite different from the composers like Beethoven before him, yet in ways very similar. I think to some back then because they heard these familiar aspects of the music, but did not experience the same type of emotional response they got with say Chopin, Schubert or Beethoven that Brahms music must be 'false' somehow or 'vacant' with nothing of its own to say. Like many great artists before him Brahms was not immune from being misunderstood. Time has largely cleared away these misunderstandings, but no composer is liked by everybody.

I think the above quote is just a poor opinion wrapped up in a bunch of dense verbiage. I'm not impressed. The fact that he seems to see himself fit to judge not just Brahms music but the man himself 'poor in spirit' comes across to me as hubristic.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Phil loves classical said:


> A question in accepting Brahms, put forward by Nietzsche, is whether we should accept his music, if there is a fault in being too open-minded in accepting it, that we lose perspective.


What does that even mean? A fault in being too open-minded? What a bunch of crock.

Nietzsche's opinion of Brahms is the stupidest thing I've read by an otherwise smart person. By the way, you are falling for the "argument from authority" fallacy.


----------



## Phil loves classical

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> What does that even mean? A fault in being too open-minded? What a bunch of crock.
> 
> Nietzsche's opinion of Brahms is the stupidest thing I've read by an otherwise smart person. By the way, you are falling for the "argument from authority" fallacy.


Just throwing it out there. Pure judgment call, on whether we need to accept everything out there in the classical world as well justified. Personally I do agree on a few major points with Nietzsche, whom I've read after I already formed my own opinion. Here is another guy who can put it better than I can.

https://www.quora.com/Composers/Whi...ormances/answer/Andrew-Watts?srid=iwA&share=1


----------



## Phil loves classical

I decided to give Brahms Symphony No. 4 another try (out of dozens) but this time with Haitink. Wow, what a revelation! He fills in the silences and tones down the fast parts, basically keeping a steady pulse, and also tones down the changes in dynamics, by articulating certain sections more, and voila, gels everything together. I relistened to my old Cleiber version as I did many times, which is supposedly the best version around... preposterous! Accelerating and raising the dynamics in certain parts, it filled me with the hate I always had for the piece again. Bernstein, while keeping the tempo more slow, and squeezing everything and more out of every note (as he usually did) but going for the big dynamic changes was boring, and made me restless. So the question is did Haitink reinvent something that wasn't there, and not follow the score faithfully, or did he just interpret it a different way? Am I admiring Brahms, or only Haitink?

Here is a link to his great interpretation:


----------



## Lucas A

I'm going to start by clarifying between overrated and overexposed. Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, and Mozart are the best of the best, but they are played way too much in comparison to other composers, so I would call them overexposed, not overrated.

*Overrated:*
Dvorak - an inconsistent composer whose best pieces (virtually all written between 1883-1896) do not hold up after repeated listenings, but he has somehow become the 3rd warhorse of the late 19th century (after Brahms and Tchaikovsky).

Grieg - some of his more inspired stuff (the _Lyric Pieces_ or _String Quartet_) is fun, but he never came to terms with large structures and his entire reputation rests completely on using Norwegian rhythms and modes without doing something interesting with them.

Ravel - I love Ravel, but it seems like he's come to be regarded as this gem of the early 20th century, when most of his music is largely derivative of other composer's styles (there are exceptions, in _Miroirs_ and _Daphnis et Chloe_). I don't understand why he assumes lieutenant status to Debussy when there are so many composers to choose from, equally as good or better - Faure, Satie, Dukas, Schmitt, Milhaud, Poulenc, etc.).

*Underrated*
There are so many composers to be put here, so I'll just give a few that I think are first-rate composers that are almost completely off of people's radar.

Chabrier - he didn't write too much but his operatic arch spans Offenbach-style comique, to Wagnerian, and then nearly Straussian in the unfinished Briseis. His orchestration is impeccable and the music always beautiful and interesting.

Reger - he may suffer from counterpoint overload, but his is innovative, rich, and varied. Many consider Mahler the last word on German romanticism, but Reger straggled along for a few more years.

Other's would be Faure, Bruckner, Liszt, D'Indy, Pfitzner, and Dukas.


----------



## jhuizinga

Phil loves classical said:


> I would say Brahms is the most overrated composer. Other than his chamber works, his music sounds superficial and pretentious. I thought I was alone thinking that, until I read what Tchaikovsky and Britten said about him. First Several minutes of his 4th symphony and Violin Concerto are prime examples of him jumping from one theme to the next, with no natural cohesion between his phrases. Some critics have called him a modernist because of this, but he is no Bartok, who explores sound with striking but natural progression. Brahms music is very naive in this way, using the early romantic language, but trying to do things differently with it that doesn't work, or at least sounds very forced. His musical ideas are not very impressive. The slow movement of his 2nd Symphony is pure "meaningless twaddle". I'm sure I may be accused of not being open minded with Brahms. I can accept the classical and romantic, and the modern, but his is for me an uncomfortable mix, which in my ears is the product of someone less talented, than original. But moving on to his chamber works, that is where Brahms excels, and his music is more natural and expressive, especially his Clarinet Quintet. But of the 3 Supposedly Great B's: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, he is the lowliest.


Brahms fits well into the narrative of 19th century music as a follower of Weber, Mendelssohn, Schumann -- and he's comfortable, like a pair of old slippers. What so many other composers (Tchaikovsky, Wolf, Britten) have found objectionable in Brahms is his paucity of originality or individualism. He's the composer for someone who wants to believe they are listening to 'serious' music...but he's significantly overrated even compared to someone like Liszt who wrote much 'occasional' music -- but who fundamentally changed music history and inspired geniuses like Wagner.

In profundity, for me, the three B's are Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner.


----------



## Phil loves classical

jhuizinga said:


> Brahms fits well into the narrative of 19th century music as a follower of Weber, Mendelssohn, Schumann -- and he's comfortable, like a pair of old slippers. What so many other composers (Tchaikovsky, Wolf, Britten) have found objectionable in Brahms is his paucity of originality or individualism. He's the composer for someone who wants to believe they are listening to 'serious' music...but he's significantly overrated even compared to someone like Liszt who wrote much 'occasional' music -- but who fundamentally changed music history and inspired geniuses like Wagner.
> 
> In profundity, for me, the three B's are Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner.


I've refined my view of Brahms somewhat. I posted a few times, and I should put on the Current Listening thread, that Haitink's last version of Brahms' Symphonies impressed me. He made him sound logical to me for the first time, when I forgot which compose or critic said listening to him is like being in an asylum, a statement which I had agreed with. I found it pretty stimulating on a mental level, even though I didn't find anything emotional to me at all.


----------



## tdc

jhuizinga said:


> Brahms fits well into the narrative of 19th century music as a follower of Weber, Mendelssohn, Schumann -- and he's comfortable, like a pair of old slippers. What so many other composers (Tchaikovsky, Wolf, Britten) have found objectionable in Brahms is his paucity of originality or individualism. *He's the composer for someone who wants to believe they are listening to 'serious' music...*but he's significantly overrated even compared to someone like Liszt who wrote much 'occasional' music -- but who fundamentally changed music history and inspired geniuses like Wagner.
> 
> In profundity, for me, the three B's are Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner.


Except Brahms sounds nothing like Schumann, Mendelssohn or Weber, so saying Brahms had no originality or individualism is false, he simply leaned to the conservative side much like J.S. Bach. Both Bach and Brahms may seem old fashioned on the surface, but there is much more to them when one looks a little closer.

I think your comment in bold is ridiculous.

Brahms had a big impact on the late Romantics including Schoenberg, so I don't think it can be shown that Liszt had a bigger impact on the course of music.


----------



## pjang23

jhuizinga said:


> Brahms fits well into the narrative of 19th century music as a follower of Weber, Mendelssohn, Schumann -- and he's comfortable, like a pair of old slippers. What so many other composers (Tchaikovsky, Wolf, Britten) have found objectionable in Brahms is his paucity of originality or individualism. He's the composer for someone who wants to believe they are listening to 'serious' music...but he's significantly overrated even compared to someone like Liszt who wrote much 'occasional' music -- but who fundamentally changed music history and inspired geniuses like Wagner.
> 
> In profundity, for me, the three B's are Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner.


A nice bonus to my enjoyment of Brahms is how much he represents a flipping off to all such views, namely the fetishization of novelty to the exclusion of all else, and that how much credit a composer can claim for music he didn't write matters more than what the composer himself wrote. Frankly such views of prizing the "course of history" and neomania as the alpha and omega of musical virtue amounts to little more than empty virtue signalling, fitting of people more in love with how their tastes look to others than with music itself.

Brahms's music will always be immortal to my ears, and if my love for his music can inspire such a rise from those who deem his music "too uninnovative to deserve to be liked", all the better.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> Except Brahms sounds nothing like Schumann, Mendelssohn or Weber, so saying Brahms had no originality or individualism is false, he simply leaned to the conservative side much like J.S. Bach. Both Bach and Brahms may seem old fashioned on the surface, but there is much more to them when one looks a little closer.
> 
> I think your comment in bold is ridiculous.
> 
> Brahms had a big impact on the late Romantics including Schoenberg, so I don't think it can be shown that Liszt had a bigger impact on the course of music.


I do find the musical language of Brahms very similar to Schumann, just as Liszt and Bruckner sound similar to Wagner. Looks like that war of Romantics is still going on up until the present. :lol: I prefer just to appreciate the qualities of each.


----------



## hpowders

Current thinking:

Over-rated: Bruckner, Gluck.

Under-rated: Meyerbeer, Weber, Hummel, Schuman.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

hpowders said:


> Current thinking:
> 
> Over-rated: Bruckner, Gluck.
> 
> Under-rated: Meyerbeer, Weber, Hummel, Schuman.


I think Gluck's gone from overrated to rated about right, i.e. people don't talk much about him any more. Basically, I think that after Debussy became a 100% certified Great Composer from France, the world didn't NEED Gluck so much any more. (Yeah, there was Berlioz, but there was always the lingering uneasy suspicion that he didn't really know what he was doing; and now there's Rameau, but his revival only really got going quite recently - c. William Christie, I guess.)


----------



## Bulldog

Magnum Miserium said:


> (Yeah, there was Berlioz, but there was always the lingering uneasy suspicion that he didn't really know what he was doing;


I wasn't aware of the suspicion. From what source did you hear that one?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Bulldog said:


> I wasn't aware of the suspicion. From what source did you hear that one?


For example: https://books.google.com/books?id=R...Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=tovey berlioz "mistake"

Or here's an honor roll: https://books.google.com/books?id=e...es rosen" berlioz debussy's stravinsky boulez


----------



## Phil loves classical

Magnum Miserium said:


> For example: https://books.google.com/books?id=R...Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=tovey berlioz "mistake"
> 
> Or here's an honor roll: https://books.google.com/books?id=e...es rosen" berlioz debussy's stravinsky boulez


They criticized the harmonic liberties Berlioz took, and the negligence of his form, and calling him a monster. I don't see how they couldn't also have said this of Schoenberg. I think this is where his greatness lies, using mundane and odd sounding passages to create something much greater than can be appreciated by only reading the score. Berlioz is a direct opposite of Brahms in my mind. There is a very interesting commentary by Bernstein at the end of his NYPO Symphonie Fantastique recording. The music world may never quite recover from the shock by Berlioz.


----------



## Bulldog

Magnum Miserium said:


> For example: https://books.google.com/books?id=R...Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=tovey berlioz "mistake"
> 
> Or here's an honor roll: https://books.google.com/books?id=e...es rosen" berlioz debussy's stravinsky boulez


Thanks for links.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Phil loves classical said:


> They criticized the harmonic liberties Berlioz took, and the negligence of his form, and calling him a monster. I don't see how they couldn't also have said this of Schoenberg.


The difference is, Schoenberg's music convinces everybody that, whenever he breaks the rules, he's doing it on purpose. Berlioz's doesn't.


----------



## hpowders

Magnum Miserium said:


> I think Gluck's gone from overrated to rated about right, i.e. people don't talk much about him any more. Basically, I think that after Debussy became a 100% certified Great Composer from France, the world didn't NEED Gluck so much any more. (Yeah, there was Berlioz, but there was always the lingering uneasy suspicion that he didn't really know what he was doing; and now there's Rameau, but his revival only really got going quite recently - c. William Christie, I guess.)


Gluck's operas put me to sleep. Mozart's father, Leopold told Wolfgang to steer clear of Gluck, even though the real reason should have been so Wolfgang didn't contract a bad case of terminal boredom.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Magnum Miserium said:


> The difference is, Schoenberg's music convinces everybody that, whenever he breaks the rules, he's doing it on purpose. Berlioz's doesn't.


Interesting perspective. Since Berlioz was probably high when he composed SF, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Bulldog

Phil loves classical said:


> Interesting perspective. Since Berlioz was probably high when he composed SF, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.


Good stuff. I was likely high the last time I listened to SF (natural high of course).


----------



## Norma Skock

Beethoven is overrated, Schubert underrated.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Phil loves classical said:


> They criticized the harmonic liberties Berlioz took, and the negligence of his form, and calling him a monster. I don't see how they couldn't also have said this of Schoenberg. I think this is where his greatness lies, using mundane and odd sounding passages to create something much greater than can be appreciated by only reading the score. Berlioz is a direct opposite of Brahms in my mind. There is a very interesting commentary by Bernstein at the end of his NYPO Symphonie Fantastique recording. The music world may never quite recover from the shock by Berlioz.


Here is a very interesting critique of another critique of the critical objections against Berlioz. Basically saying Berlioz knew what he was doing, and displayed his mastery of counterpoint in his early days. But had started to go against accepted (Schenkerian) norms in composition at unpredictable times, while following it often in others. There is even an illustration of the bridge to Beethoven's last movement in the 5th Symphony, which Berlioz remarks. Sometimes doing the "wrong" thing produces much more intriguing results than the predictable "right" thing.

Berlioz was grossly condemned for not following the conventions of his day, when breaking the rules became much more commonplace later. Give me Berlioz over strict and proper (and dry?) counterpoint any day.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1984/04/26/battle-over-berlioz/


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is a very interesting critique of another critique of the critical objections against Berlioz. Basically saying Berlioz knew what he was doing, and displayed his mastery of counterpoint in his early days. But had started to go against accepted (Schenkerian) norms in composition at unpredictable times, while following it often in others.


You leave out the conclusions, which are

1. Berlioz could write correct counterpoint - as in the fugue in the finale of the Fantastic symphony - and he could be original, but he couldn't do both at the same time (in the Fantastic symphony it's the ironic context that's original, not the counterpoint itself - that is, to put it my way again, the counterpoint doesn't break the rules in a way that persuades you the composer knows what he's doing; instead the counterpoint simply follows the rules).

2. That Berlioz's problem was he tried to invent a style independent from the German tradition of Beethoven, but ultimately remained too close to that tradition; so his music often sounds like German music done wrong as opposed to an independent music done right.

Rosen may or may not be right about all of that, but those are his conclusions.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Myself, I think Berlioz's essential problem was: when he was a college kid, he decided Gluck was God, and after that he was too stubborn to ever admit that amateur counterpoint and long passages of stilted recitative maybe just aren't very good ideas.


----------



## Phil loves classical

My feeling on those 2 points is that he may have intended to stay close to that tradition, and break away as his inspiration directed, instead of breaking away in such a way to sound totally alien. Another point I left out is he did not resolve the dissonance, at least in the accepted manner. He antics definitely caused some shock, intentional or not. After being heavily into Rite of Spring and SF, I feel Rite of Spring is the one more tame in comparison now.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Phil loves classical said:


> After being heavily into Rite of Spring and SF, I feel Rite of Spring is the one more tame in comparison now.


Wagner might have agreed with you: https://books.google.com/books?id=o...AJ#v=onepage&q=wagner berlioz painful&f=false


----------



## Smikkelbeer

Overrated: Bach
Underrated: Schubert


----------



## Phil loves classical

Smikkelbeer said:


> Overrated: Bach
> Underrated: Schubert


Ouch. On his birthday too (Bach's)


----------



## lluissineu

Phil loves classical said:


> I decided to give Brahms Symphony No. 4 another try (out of dozens) but this time with Haitink. Wow, what a revelation! He fills in the silences and tones down the fast parts, basically keeping a steady pulse, and also tones down the changes in dynamics, by articulating certain sections more, and voila, gels everything together. I relistened to my old Cleiber version as I did many times, which is supposedly the best version around... preposterous! Accelerating and raising the dynamics in certain parts, it filled me with the hate I always had for the piece again. Bernstein, while keeping the tempo more slow, and squeezing everything and more out of every note (as he usually did) but going for the big dynamic changes was boring, and made me restless. So the question is did Haitink reinvent something that wasn't there, and not follow the score faithfully, or did he just interpret it a different way? Am I admiring Brahms, or only Haitink?
> 
> Here is a link to his great interpretation:


I love Brahms music, therefore I find his music underrated (no, I don't think so, it's just a way of expressing I'd listen hours to his music).

I heard (mustn't say listened to) Haitink's recording whose link you posted and I like it. always have liked Haitink's recordings. Have his RCO recordings and, they are a good option if you like the objective, unbiased, impartial option, and the execution is perfect. same as Szell, Solti...

I like Haitink's versions of Brahms symphonies and, in our case, of the 4th, and even sometimes I'd choose these recording to listen. But, among all the recordings I have or I have listened to, my option is a more personal and subjective one: Barbirolli or Giulini both with Vienna Philharmonic. (Giulini recorded it more times).

Kleiber's is good but far from my favourite one.

It's not the same recording I said, but try this one by Giulini and remember, there's no accounting for taste.


----------



## hpowders

Brahms, under-rated? Come on now!!


----------



## hpowders

Norma Skock said:


> Beethoven is overrated, Schubert underrated.


I would reverse that order. Schubert's music is rhythmically tedious and over-rated.

Beethoven, the titan? His music can never be over-rated!


----------



## Chronochromie

hpowders said:


> I would reverse that order. Schubert's music is rhythmically tedious and over-rated.
> 
> Beethoven, the titan? His music can never be over-rated!


Schubert rhythmically tedious, that's a new one...


----------



## eugeneonagain

Chronochromie said:


> Schubert rhythmically tedious, that's a new one...


I wouldn't say it's a new one. His music really is rhythmically dull at times (hammered-out repeated chords in the left hand in his piano music) and he over-uses repeated sections.

Regarding the original post the lists are a joke. Mozart was largely forgotten after his death, apart from among his admirers. I'm sure people are just joyous he was "rediscovered". Just listening carefully to his output is enough to convince anyone of his astonishing musical facility. He's not overrated, his place is justly earned. The 'overrated' charge probably stems from the saturation of his music - even after his death he was accused of being a chocolate-box tune-smith. No-one can take this seriously.

And Schoenberg, for pity's sake. Everyone knows that if you want lasting fame in anything you have to invent a system or a theory. Afterwards it doesn't matter if you don't fulfil its potential because the disciples can do that.A fair whack of Schoenberg's music is unlistenable drivel. His opinions on music and its 'function' in art are tedious to the extreme. So many more mid 20th century composers are worth listening to than the dodec-cacophonous Schoenberg. I'd rather listen to Jean Francaix and risk being labelled a dilettante.

Oh, and this is a first post, so hello!


----------



## Phil loves classical

eugeneonagain said:


> I wouldn't say it's a new one. His music really is rhythmically dull at times (hammered-out repeated chords in the left hand in his piano music) and he over-uses repeated sections.
> 
> Regarding the original post the lists are a joke. Mozart was largely forgotten after his death, apart from among his admirers. I'm sure people are just joyous he was "rediscovered". Just listening carefully to his output is enough to convince anyone of his astonishing musical facility. He's not overrated, his place is justly earned. The 'overrated' charge probably stems from the saturation of his music - even after his death he was accused of being a chocolate-box tune-smith. No-one can take this seriously.
> 
> And Schoenberg, for pity's sake. Everyone knows that if you want lasting fame in anything you have to invent a system or a theory. Afterwards it doesn't matter if you don't fulfil its potential because the disciples can do that.A fair whack of Schoenberg's music is unlistenable drivel. His opinions on music and its 'function' in art are tedious to the extreme. So many more mid 20th century composers are worth listening to than the dodec-cacophonous Schoenberg. I'd rather listen to Jean Francaix and risk being labelled a dilettante.
> 
> Oh, and this is a first post, so hello!


Was there ever a more long-winded piece of music than Schubert's D.960?


----------



## Heck148

eugeneonagain said:


> And Schoenberg, for pity's sake.......A fair whack of Schoenberg's music is unlistenable drivel...... I'd rather listen to Jean Francaix and risk being labelled a dilettante.


Ha!! Schoenberg is a great composer, one of my favorites. He's not over-rated at all...under-rated, if anything. I'd much rather listen to Schoenberg than Delius or Rachmn'ff, any day...but, WTH - _chacun a son gout_

And I like Francaix very much...wrote some really fine music...


----------



## eugeneonagain

Phil loves classical said:


> Was there ever a more long-winded piece of music than Schubert's D.960?


:lol: It has some moments in the final movement, but who can sit through a performance long enough without dying of boredom?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Heck148 said:


> Ha!! Schoenberg is a great composer, one of my favorites. He's not over-rated at all...under-rated, if anything. I'd much rather listen to Schoenberg than Delius or Rachmn'ff, any day...but, WTH - _chacun a son gout_
> 
> And I like Francaix very much...wrote some really fine music...


The music itself is a matter of taste I suppose. I like some of Schoenberg's music, especially his quartets and trio. I'm certainly not calling him a charlatan or anything like that, but his contribution to shifting the paradigm of music in the 20th century, which was significant, is often confused with the work.

He also said bizarre things like 'music is not meant to please the audience' (I'm paraphrasing) and so everything has to be an exercise in unravelling the technical prowess and patterns and being in the select group who can recognise it. The mere listener is clearly just a mindless sensualist for Schoenberg.

In that sense I think he contributed to one of the worst aspects of modernist art: the idea that to avoid any perceived inauthenticity or being just a populist 'entertainer' you have to be deliberately ugly, abrasive and have no easy relationship with an audience. As if someone looking at a Rembrandt without sufficient knowledge of its construction and history should be driven out of the gallery with a horsewhip.


----------



## Hurrian

Overrated : Vivaldi
Underrated : Scriabin


----------



## Klassik

Hurrian said:


> Overrated : Vivaldi
> Underrated : Scriabin


Welcome to the forum. Having said that, I totally disagree with Vivaldi being overrated. That's okay though, we all have our own tastes. 

Some view Vivaldi as being a Baroque one hit wonder who keeps getting played on classical radio (ala Pachelbel), but I find The Four Seasons and his other concertos to be so pleasing and interesting. Even if we ignore the violin concertos, his oboe, cello, and bassoon concertos are really very good. He really had a level of mastery with these instruments IMO. Plus, Bach was a fan. There's always that! I can see why non-Baroque fans wouldn't like him obviously, but he's more than a one hit wonder.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Vivaldi's case is somewhat like Mozart (but even more a case of obscurity). He really had fallen into obscurity and the Four Seasons was unknown to music history of the last 200 years. I don't think baroque music was ever that fashionable throughout the classical/romantic period and only the 20th century revival brought it back. It's no wonder that the rediscovery of Vivaldi sent people into a frenzy.

The Four Seasons alone is a masterpiece. A real Italian baroque sound and people who long admired pseudo Italian work like Handel's excellent Concerto Grossi, loved it when it was first heard again.

The mention of Scriabin being 'underrated' seems bizarre to me. He, along with others who used to be neglected, have all gone through revivals because that has been the great fashion of 20th/21st century art music: the great rediscovery of the latest undervalued composer.

For every so-called underrated composer mentioned in this thread you can go out and buy 2 dozen CDs of their work. It's just nonsense.


----------



## chromatic owl

Klassik said:


> Some view Vivaldi as being a Baroque one hit wonder who keeps getting played on classical radio (ala Pachelbel)


I think picking one particular piece and playing it over and over again actually contributes to under-appreciation. It seems as if the composer never wrote anything else, which makes him less interesting for the audience - even if that particular piece is good. So Vivaldi is probably under-rated because he is the 'Seasons guy'.


----------



## Heck148

eugeneonagain said:


> He also said bizarre things like 'music is not meant to please the audience' (I'm paraphrasing)


Not sure of the context - but there is a lot of music, esp in 20th century - that is not designed to "please the audience". stimulate, provoke, inspire, outrage, anger, **** off...most definitely...and that is not, per se, a bad thing.



> and so everything has to be an exercise in unravelling the technical prowess and patterns and being in the select group who can recognise it. The mere listener is clearly just a mindless sensualist for Schoenberg.


No, Schoenberg definitely did not want people to try to listen for the tone rows, inversions, retrogrades, etc a they heard his music, any more than Bach expected listeners to calculate how many times he used a perfect cadence with 7-8 voice leading while hearing his works [yes, I had a theory class, in which various grad students did in depth, thorough statistical analysis of how often Bach used certain compositional techniques throughout his oevre] Schoenberg just wanted people to listen to his works, and respond as they felt.



> In that sense I think he contributed to one of the worst aspects of modernist art: the idea that to avoid any perceived inauthenticity or being just a populist 'entertainer' you have to be deliberately ugly, abrasive and have no easy relationship with an audience.


You are wrongly , IMO, assuming that everything Schoenberg wrote is ugly or abrasive, and this is most certainly not the case. He wrote much beautiful, tranquil, delicate music as well.


----------



## Heck148

Klassik said:


> Even if we ignore the violin concertos, his oboe, cello, and bassoon concertos are really very good. He really had a level of mastery with these instruments IMO. Plus, Bach was a fan. There's always that! I can see why non-Baroque fans wouldn't like him obviously, but he's more than a one hit wonder.


 agree about Vivaldi...as a bassoonist, how could I not!!  
- his concerti are really excellent - and no, he did not write the same concerto 38 times!!


----------



## Heck148

chromatic owl said:


> I think picking one particular piece and playing it over and over again actually contributes to under-appreciation. It seems as if the composer never wrote anything else, which makes him less interesting for the audience -


Good point - to me, Pachelbel is a 5th-string never-was based upon the vastly over-played "canon". I've never really explored his music because of that, I suppose....that piece is such a tired, worn-out travesty, I'm not inspired to explore further. Maybe he was an excellent composer!! 
It would be like judging Beethoven solely by 'Wellington's Victory' and nothing else......


----------



## Klassik

chromatic owl said:


> I think picking one particular piece and playing it over and over again actually contributes to under-appreciation. It seems as if the composer never wrote anything else, which makes him less interesting for the audience - even if that particular piece is good. So Vivaldi is probably under-rated because he is the 'Seasons guy'.


I agree with that. Vivaldi is more than just that "Four Seasons" guy or more than just a violin concerto guy in general. Some people think that all Vivaldi stuff sounds alike. I disagree with that though. His cello and bassoon concertos, for example, have a different quality to them which really fits those particular instruments.

I've been trying to listen to more Pachelbel too to see if there's more to him than Canon in D. He composed some very good Baroque works as well from what I can tell so far. I need to listen to his works some more, but I think there's a lot here that a Baroque fan would enjoy.



eugeneonagain said:


> For every so-called underrated composer mentioned in this thread you can go out and buy 2 dozen CDs of their work. It's just nonsense.


I can see your point here. I've recently been listening to some Czech Baroque and early Classical era composers. Vanhal has some popularity, but there's several other much more obscure ones who wrote some wonderful works IMO. Josef Bárta is one who I've enjoyed hearing.

William Lawes and John Jenkins are another two names who are rarely mentioned, but I love their early Baroque music. The 20th century revival of Baroque music has led to some very interesting finds, but I feel that there's still a lot of great Baroque music that is still buried in obscurity.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Most overrated: Debussy, Shostakovich
Most underrated: John Cage, Monteverdi, hindemith


----------



## R3PL4Y

Most Overrated: Mozart, Vivaldi, Stravinsky
Most Underrated: Hindemith, Messiaen, Villa-Lobos


----------



## hpowders

Let's see, in real time as of today:

Over-rated: Paganini, Liszt, Schubert, Bruckner, Schumann.

Under-rated: Bach. 

I believe a significant number of listeners have not experienced Bach's greatest works, performed as they should in HIP "restorations". A shame!


----------



## Phil loves classical

hpowders said:


> Let's see, in real time as of today:
> 
> Over-rated: Paganini, Liszt, Schubert, Bruckner, Schumann.
> 
> Under-rated: Bach.
> 
> I believe a significant number of listeners have not experienced Bach's greatest works, performed as they should in HIP "restorations". A shame!


Huh? From my recollection you didn't like HIP?


----------



## Phil loves classical

mathisdermaler said:


> Most overrated: Debussy, Shostakovich
> Most underrated: John Cage, Monteverdi, hindemith


Shostakovich overrated? Don't think I heard that one before. Why do you think so?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Heck148 said:


> Not sure of the context - but there is a lot of music, esp in 20th century - that is not designed to "please the audience". stimulate, provoke, inspire, outrage, anger, **** off...most definitely...and that is not, per se, a bad thing.


It is when people are bewildered and stop listening or feel they have to work too hard. I'm not of the opinion that "classical music is relaxing". It should be mildly taxing at moments, but there is a limit. No matter what flights-of-fancy theoretical claptrap anyone can come up with, there's no denying that a portion of modernist music is spurious. Schoenberg played his part in this.



Heck148 said:


> You are wrongly , IMO, assuming that everything Schoenberg wrote is ugly or abrasive, and this is most certainly not the case. He wrote much beautiful, tranquil, delicate music as well.


Your opinion is misguided, I'm sorry to say. I am not saying that at all. I am saying his approach informed that aesthetic. I agree that much of his music is very heartfelt.


----------



## Heck148

eugeneonagain said:


> It is when people are bewildered and stop listening or feel they have to work too hard.


some of the greatest masterpieces in music require us to listen carefully, and to "work hard" to process what we're hearing.



> I'm not of the opinion that "classical music is relaxing". It should be mildly taxing at moments, but there is a limit. No matter what flights-of-fancy theoretical claptrap anyone can come up with, there's no denying that a portion of modernist music is spurious.


??? Imagine the effect some of Beethoven's greatest works had upon audiences when first they heard it - Eroica, 4tet #14 - just to name a couple....how about Wagner - "Tristan...." these are intense works, ground-breaking in so many ways - and certainly not "flights-of-fancy theoretical claptrap".....and there's no denying that a sizable portion of music written during the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods is spurious.



> Schoenberg played his part in this.


How so?? he composed the music that he wanted, that he heard in his head...he wanted people to listen to the music, not try to analyze the technique as they listened.



> Your opinion is misguided, I'm sorry to say. I am not saying that at all. I am saying his approach informed that aesthetic.


OK, I'm not sure what you are trying to say....


----------



## AfterHours

I'm just going to go with "music artists" instead of only "composers". Also, by "overrated" that does not also mean I don't think the artist is any good -- just that they are the most overrated.

*Most Overrated*
The Beatles
Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson
U2
Oasis
Nirvana
The White Stripes
The Strokes
Queen
The Smiths
Radiohead
The Beach Boys
Fleetwood Mac
Prince
Beastie Boys
Led Zeppelin
David Bowie
Primal Scream
Kraftwerk
Pavement

*Most Underrated*
Anthony Davis
Meredith Monk
Diamanda Galas 
Tim Buckley
Alfred Schnittke
Residents
Roberto Gerhard
Father Murphy
Marty Ehrlich
Jane Ira Bloom
Vampire Rodents
Red Crayola
Lisa Germano 
Royal Trux
Jon Hassell
Popol Vuh
Carla Bley
Ivo Perelman 
Myra Melford 
Elliott Carter
Franz Koglmann
Robbie Basho
Alexander Scriabin
Witold Lutoslawski 
Glenn Branca
Nico
Charles Ives
Captain Beefheart
Robert Wyatt 
Faust
Spring Heel Jack
Third Ear Band
Guillermo Gregorio
Leos Janacek
Dirty Three
Kenneth Newby
The Pop Group/Mark Stewart
Amon Duul II
John Fahey 
Pere Ubu
Lightwave
Jason Moran
Von Lmo

*Most Accurately Acclaimed* 
Ludwig van Beethoven 
Johann Sebastian Bach
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Johannes Brahms
Franz Joseph Haydn
Franz Schubert
Richard Wagner
Bob Dylan
John Coltrane
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Antonin Dvorak
Van Morrison
Miles Davis 
Gustav Mahler
Bela Bartok
The Velvet Underground
Hector Berlioz
Charles Mingus 
Jimi Hendrix 
My Bloody Valentine
Giuseppe Verdi
The Doors
Frederic Chopin
Franz Liszt
Sonic Youth 
King Crimson 
Keith Jarrett
Robert Schumann
Eric Dolphy
Ornette Coleman
Can 
Felix Mendelssohn
Patti Smith
Talk Talk


----------



## Phil loves classical

AfterHours said:


> I'm just going to go with "music artists" instead of only "composers". Also, by "overrated" that does not also mean I don't think the artist is any good -- just that they are the most overrated.
> 
> *Most Overrated*
> The Beatles
> Elvis Presley
> Michael Jackson
> U2
> Oasis
> Nirvana
> The White Stripes
> The Strokes
> Queen
> The Smiths
> Radiohead
> The Beach Boys
> Fleetwood Mac
> Prince
> Beastie Boys
> Led Zeppelin
> David Bowie
> Primal Scream
> Kraftwerk
> Pavement


I noticed you added some in addition to Piero Scaruffi's list http://www.scaruffi.com/music/best100.html

On Elvis, he was not really highly regarded by critics, but more with the fans. Scaruffi says the Beatles contemporaries never spoke highly of the Beatles, and he lists the Stones as one of the most influential, but the Stones and all the psychedelic rock groups followed what the Beatles did. Jagger admits Keith Richards himself like the Beatles and their chord progressions and harmonies.

http://www.timeisonourside.com/STPopRock.html

Leonard Bernstein (composer and conductor, intro necessary?) himself liked the Beatles. That opinion alone is worth much more than Scaruffi's!

http://www.thecultureclub.net/2009/12/01/leonard-bernstein-from-mahler-to-the-beatles/


----------



## eugeneonagain

Heck148 said:


> some of the greatest masterpieces in music require us to listen carefully, and to "work hard" to process what we're hearing.


I never denied it. I am saying that the door has to be at least open and recognisable to some extent. People need to be invited in. For quite some time Schoenberg himself closed his music off in private performances for only those 'in the know'. Modern art music hasn't changed that much in this respect. I wouldn't say people are refused entry, but it's still an in-club.



Heck148 said:


> ??? Imagine the effect some of Beethoven's greatest works had upon audiences when first they heard it - Eroica, 4tet #14 - just to name a couple....how about Wagner - "Tristan...." these are intense works, ground-breaking in so many ways - and certainly not "flights-of-fancy theoretical claptrap".....and there's no denying that a sizable portion of music written during the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods is spurious.


Okay, I ought not to have used the adverb "mildly". Art music is more taxing than a folk melody or most pop music. When I referred to 'theoretical claptrap' I was talking about the tiresome art and music critics who build a ludicrous 'palace of exegesis' on top of things like serialism. It's something art critics seem to do to lend an air of cod philosophy or science to the proceedings. It's the bane of the art world. Schoenberg also did this - just read his letters and other parts of his writings; he believed he was doing something on a par with Isaac Newton, which is just deluded.



Heck148 said:


> OK, I'm not sure what you are trying to say....


I'm not _trying_ to say it, I said it. Like the works of Schoenberg, it's your job to work hard to try and understand it. N'est-ce pas?


----------



## AfterHours

Phil loves classical said:


> I noticed you added some in addition to Piero Scaruffi's list http://www.scaruffi.com/music/best100.html
> 
> On Elvis, he was not really highly regarded by critics, but more with the fans. Scaruffi says the Beatles contemporaries never spoke highly of the Beatles, and he lists the Stones as one of the most influential, but the Stones and all the psychedelic rock groups followed what the Beatles did. Jagger admits Keith Richards himself like the Beatles and their chord progressions and harmonies.
> 
> http://www.timeisonourside.com/STPopRock.html
> 
> Leonard Bernstein (composer and conductor, intro necessary?) himself liked the Beatles. That opinion alone is worth much more than Scaruffi's!
> 
> http://www.thecultureclub.net/2009/12/01/leonard-bernstein-from-mahler-to-the-beatles/


I didn't add or subtract from Scaruffi's list, just posted my own. Naturally, there are similar choices ... Obviously, Elvis is among the most highly acclaimed Rock artists of all time and this needs no explanation or argument. Just google search any such Rock list and you will see for yourself. ... Scaruffi was incorrect that The Beatles were not spoken highly of, if you/we take the position so literally, but I am sure it's an exaggeration for effect. It also depends on where you look and which critics from the time you consider relevant, so there's some truth, some revisionist history going on. But I am pretty sure he has acknowledged that he exaggerated some of his positions on The Beatles, and doesn't seem to care enough to change them on his page. ... I'm well aware Bernstein liked the Beatles a lot but I didn't take that into account whatsoever. Lots of people like the Beatles a lot -- much more than don't. That's, in a nutshell, why they're the most overrated (to me).


----------



## Heck148

eugeneonagain said:


> I am saying that the door has to be at least open and recognisable to some extent. People need to be invited in.


yes, there has to be some sort of immediate appeal, or at least cause for further hearing and exposure....



> For quite some time Schoenberg himself closed his music off in private performances for only those 'in the know'.


so what?? Gershwin did the same thing on occasion - he was so unsure of his Piano Concerto, that he staged a private performance for a few chosen listeners...Ravel amongst them....



> Modern art music hasn't changed that much in this respect. I wouldn't say people are refused entry, but it's still an in-club.


Music, from Romantic period on, has always been an "in-club", so to speak...



> Art music is more taxing than a folk melody or most pop music. When I referred to 'theoretical claptrap' I was talking about the tiresome art and music critics who build a ludicrous 'palace of exegesis' on top of things like serialism.


It's also more stimulating, and lasting. the "ludicrous palace" is constructed by by critics and commentators, not the composer...

I don't concern myself too much with what the composer said - for me, the composer does his talking thru the music. Many composers have had some unique ideas regarding their own works - but it is the music itself which counts. if their followers, critics, etc, choose to make something else of it, then that's on them. 
So, you are criticizing Schoenberg because of what he might have said about the significance of his own music, or compostional technique?? OK - do you hold Wagner, Beethoven, Stravinsky, etc to the same standard??



> I'm not _trying_ to say it, I said it. Like the works of Schoenberg, it's your job to work hard to try and understand it. N'est-ce pas?


You're no Schoenberg!! sorry..


----------



## hpowders

Smikkelbeer said:


> Overrated: Bach
> Underrated: Schubert


If I hold this post up to a mirror, it reflects my own feelings on the subject. Completely opposite.


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> I agree with that. Vivaldi is more than just that "Four Seasons" guy or more than just a violin concerto guy in general. Some people think that all Vivaldi stuff sounds alike. I disagree with that though. His cello and bassoon concertos, for example, have a different quality to them which really fits those particular instruments.
> 
> I've been trying to listen to more Pachelbel too to see if there's more to him than Canon in D. He composed some very good Baroque works as well from what I can tell so far. I need to listen to his works some more, but I think there's a lot here that a Baroque fan would enjoy.
> 
> I can see your point here. I've recently been listening to some Czech Baroque and early Classical era composers. Vanhal has some popularity, but there's several other much more obscure ones who wrote some wonderful works IMO. Josef Bárta is one who I've enjoyed hearing.
> 
> William Lawes and John Jenkins are another two names who are rarely mentioned, but I love their early Baroque music. The 20th century revival of Baroque music has led to some very interesting finds, but I feel that there's still a lot of great Baroque music that is still buried in obscurity.


Yes Vivaldi IS much more than the Four Seasons. Without Vivaldi, US Public Classical Radio wouldn't exist!!


----------



## eugeneonagain

Heck148 said:


> so what?? Gershwin did the same thing on occasion - he was so unsure of his Piano Concerto, that he staged a private performance for a few chosen listeners...Ravel amongst them....


Not because they thought the listening public were not up to scratch.



Heck148 said:


> Music, from Romantic period on, has always been an "in-club", so to speak...


That's not really true though is it? It has a lesser following, but it's not masquerading as academia.



Heck148 said:


> It's also more stimulating, and lasting. the "ludicrous palace" is constructed by by critics and commentators, not the composer...


In this case it _was_ constructed by the composer.



Heck148 said:


> So, you are criticizing Schoenberg because of what he might have said about the significance of his own music, or compostional technique?? OK - do you hold Wagner, Beethoven, Stravinsky, etc to the same standard??


Yes, I do. Beethoven didn't say anything particularly ridiculous. Wagner was up himself and I think Nietszche pretty much demolished his pseudo-intellectual art in _Nietzsche contra Wagner_. Stravinsky? I'm not well-versed enough in his output to say anything really. As a person he seems to have been a complete jackass.



Heck148 said:


> You're no Schoenberg!! sorry..


How do you know? Maybe that's a blessing.

However, I'm a newcomer and I don't want to be getting into spats; not yet anyway :tiphat:


----------



## Chronochromie

Cue Schoenberg's quote about milkmen whistling his tunes, etc.


----------



## eugeneonagain

That's because milkmen like waking people up and putting them in a bad temper.


----------



## Chronochromie

eugeneonagain said:


> That's because milkmen like waking people up and putting them in a bad temper.


More like he foolishly didn't predict their disappearance.


----------



## Tallisman

Many people who are rated highly are subject to it for good reason... I do personally find Mozart's symphonies quite overrated (even his last ones). Much of it just sounds like a slightly showy Haydn to my ears (feel free to try and prove me wrong)... give me later symphonists any day

Underrated:
Fauré, Delius, Nielsen


----------



## Heck148

eugeneonagain said:


> Not because they thought the listening public were not up to scratch.


He was afraid the public would not like it, and would not consider him a "serious" composer



> That's not really true though is it? It has a lesser following, but it's not masquerading as academia.


it certainly requires a more sophisticated taste, for new musical ideas - ie Beethoven, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, etc



> In this case it _was_ constructed by the composer.


I don't think so - if the followers, the teachers, critics, students, etc made it so, then that is on them. How can you hold Schoenberg personally responsible for setting admission criteria at various conservatories, and their composition departments?? If schools established serialism as the required standard for admission, that's on the schools, not on Schoenberg.



> Wagner was up himself


 for sure!!



> Stravinsky? I'm not well-versed enough in his output to say anything really. As a person he seems to have been a complete jackass.


He certainly had his opinions...



> However, I'm a newcomer and I don't want to be getting into spats; not yet anyway


 No spat....I'm just not sure why you are condemning Schoenberg so much...other composers had their followers, their adherents, and their opponents and critics....
I judge by the music. I'm not that interested in what Brahms thought about Wagner, or Liszt thought about Schumann, or whatever.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Chronochromie said:


> More like he foolishly didn't predict their disappearance.


:lol: He should have targeted window-cleaners.


----------



## Ukko

Originally Posted by *hpowders*  
Let's see, in real time as of today:

Over-rated: Paganini, Liszt, Schubert, Bruckner, Schumann.

Under-rated: Bach.

I believe a significant number of listeners have not experienced Bach's greatest works, performed as they should in HIP "restorations". A shame!



Phil loves classical said:


> Huh? From my recollection you didn't like HIP?


He probably still doesn't. You are reading too much into his comment.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

*Overrated: Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart*

Underrated: Everyone else.


----------



## hpowders

Ukko said:


> Originally Posted by *hpowders*
> Let's see, in real time as of today:
> 
> Over-rated: Paganini, Liszt, Schubert, Bruckner, Schumann.
> 
> Under-rated: Bach.
> 
> I believe a significant number of listeners have not experienced Bach's greatest works, performed as they should in HIP "restorations". A shame!
> 
> *He probably still doesn't. *You are reading too much into his comment.


Me? I must have over 100 posts championing Bach on harpsichord and Mozart on fortepiano and gut strings in Unaccompanied Bach.

However, when someone like Nathan Milstein gets to the very heart of Bach's Unaccompanied Violin works like no other violinist, then HIP or non-HIP becomes meaningless.


----------



## Pugg

Abraham Lincoln said:


> *Overrated: Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart*
> 
> Underrated: Everyone else.


A little bit harsh ......


----------



## jdec

Abraham Lincoln said:


> *Overrated: Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart*


Do you mean it due to this?:

http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html


----------



## Woodduck

Abraham Lincoln said:


> *Overrated: Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart*
> 
> Underrated: Everyone else.


Just true enough to be funny.


----------



## trazom

Abraham Lincoln said:


> *Overrated: Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart, Mozart*
> 
> Underrated: Everyone else.





jdec said:


> Do you mean it due to this?:
> 
> http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html


I'd say it's due to all the mercury exposure from wearing those stovepipe hats.


----------



## jdec

Pugg said:


> A little bit harsh ......


Just statistical outliers. Don't worry about it.


----------



## Pugg

jdec said:


> Just statistical outliers. Don't worry about it.


 Okay, I'll take your advice.


----------



## hpowders

In real time:

Over-rated: Liszt, Schubert, Bruckner, most Chopin, Schumann, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Scriabin.

Under-rated: Bach, since too many folks still don't recognize that he has always been number one, continues to be number one and will always remain number one as long as human feeling continues to be a recognizable virtue.


----------



## Klassik

hpowders said:


> In real time:
> 
> Over-rated: Liszt, Schubert, Bruckner, most Chopin, Schumann, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Scriabin.
> 
> Under-rated: Bach, since too many folks still don't recognize that he has always been number one, continues to be number one and will always remain number one as long as human feeling continues to be a recognizable virtue.


You just don't like the "sc" sound. Too much time at school, maybe? 

How do you feel about Bach's transcriptions of Vivaldi's works?


----------



## Chronochromie

hpowders said:


> In real time:
> 
> Over-rated: Liszt, Schubert, Bruckner, most Chopin, Schumann, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Scriabin.
> 
> Under-rated: Bach, since too many folks still don't recognize that he has always been number one, continues to be number one and will always remain number one as long as human feeling continues to be a recognizable virtue.


I honestly can't tell if you're being serious here.


----------



## Ukko

hpowders said:


> Me? I must have over 100 posts championing Bach on harpsichord and Mozart on fortepiano and gut strings in Unaccompanied Bach.
> 
> However, when someone like Nathan Milstein gets to the very heart of Bach's Unaccompanied Violin works like no other violinist, then HIP or non-HIP becomes meaningless.


Out of over 17000 posts, 100 of them hide easily.


----------



## hpowders

Ukko said:


> Out of over 17000 posts, 100 of them hide easily.


Also, consider "ignore" lists!!!

Some posters haven't seen any writings of mine since 2013.

You KNOW who you are!!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> You just don't like the "sc" sound. Too much time at school, maybe?
> 
> How do you feel about Bach's transcriptions of Vivaldi's works?


I dislike them. As a matter of fact all of Bach's transcriptions for organ of various Italian composers' concertos are dull.

Vivaldi sounds best as original Vivaldi just as Bach sounds best as original Bach.

There is only one transcription I've heard that sounds better than the original, and it is by that incredible orchestrator Maurice Ravel, transforming Mussorgsky's piano score, Pictures At An Exhibition, into something magical.


----------



## Klassik

hpowders said:


> I dislike them. As a matter of fact all of Bach's transcriptions for organ of various Italian composers' concertos are dull.
> 
> Vivaldi sounds best as original Vivaldi just as Bach sounds best as original Bach.
> 
> There is only one transcription I've heard that sounds better than the original, and it is by that incredible orchestrator Maurice Ravel, transforming Mussorgsky's piano score, Pictures At An Exhibition, into something magical.


I'm a Vivaldi fan, but I actually prefer Bach's Concerto for 4 Harpsichords in A minor compared to Vivaldi's version for four violins. There's just something about four harpsichords though!


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> You just don't like the "sc" sound. Too much time at school, maybe?
> 
> How do you feel about Bach's transcriptions of Vivaldi's works?


You are right. I even hate playing Scrabble!!


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> I'm a Vivaldi fan, but I actually prefer Bach's Concerto for 4 Harpsichords in A minor compared to Vivaldi's version for four violins. There's just something about four harpsichords though!


I don't care for the work either way. When I want Bach, it's solo violin, cello or harpsichord for me. That's where the magnificence dwells!


----------



## DeepR

All this Bach worship makes me more skeptical than interested. Bach is already rated #1 or #2 so quit complaining and putting down other composers.


----------



## Omicron9

Overrated: Dvorak. x1000.

Underrated: This could be quite a list, but I'll throw out a couple: Krenek, Vainberg.


----------



## jacob

overrated : Dvorak

underrated: Wolfang Amadeus Mozart


----------



## sjwright

Most overrated: Ornstein
Most underrated: Mosolov


----------



## Kajmanen

Jacob Singer said:


> *MOST OVERRATED COMPOSERS*
> 
> *Wagner* - He is by far one of the most overrated composers of all-time. His being ranked in any top composer list is downright laughable, as his music is nothing but amateurish wankery. My professor from Berlin called his music "overly-sentimental" and "pathetic", and I couldn't agree more. Wagner is utter cheese. He doesn't belong anywhere near the top 30 or 40, and I am finding more and more people that completely agree with that sentiment. His music is a joke that was foisted on the world by psychotic propagandists, and it is sad that people today could still fall for such sophomoric drivel.
> 
> Anybody can just throw chords together. The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much _how_ or _where_ they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go _somewhere_. That's the very essence of what music is. We can only perceive music as movement (or change) over time, and thus the most lifeless state of music is stagnation: too much rambling chaos, or too much stifling conventionality, and the music never actually goes anywhere. Then it's just noise.
> 
> If counterpoint/development/experimental chord progressions/etc are just done as an intellectual _or_ emotional exercise as if to satisfy some quota, then it is just ************. The best art transcends such petty concepts, and if that isn't happening, then it is a huge flaw of the music. Wagner's music is the worst of example of this that I can think of, from _any_ genre of music. It is so pretentious and lacking in real substance that it is actually pitiful.
> 
> *Mozart, Bach* - Mozart is typically rated in the top 2 or 3 in most classical circles, and yet I can think of numerous composers that were far more inventive than Mozart was. Given his overall body of work, he is definitely overrated. I'll give him credit for the ~5% of his stuff that was actually original, but the rest of it is just the same dainty crap regurgitated a zillion times. I mean come on… 41 numbered symphonies and you can easily count on one hand the few that stand out. There is something seriously wrong with that, and only a strong bias could prevent someone from admitting it. Mozart did write some good operas, but that's nowhere near enough to justify him being ranked so ridiculously high.
> 
> Most of Mozart's music is far too cutesy-wutesy to be taken as seriously as it is, and the fact is that even when he occasionally tried to inject some darker colors into his music, it somehow usually still ends up sounding all light and fluffy (with a few rare exceptions). Without any real contrast between the light and the dark, the music ends up just staying in the same place all the time, and it never actually takes the listener anywhere. This is a HUGE flaw. Look at Beethoven or Schubert or Tchaikovsky, on the other hand, and these guys understood how to use that light/dark e*motion*al contrast to a masterful degree (indeed they were some of the very best at this in all of classical music, even if they did each have their minor flaws). Compared to them, composers like Mozart and Haydn and Bach - as technically proficient as they were - are downright monotone. Even if I forced myself to listen to piece after piece by one of these composers for hours on end, the light/dark movement within their music could quite literally remain at zero the entire time. The fact is that technical skill alone doesn't accomplish anything unless it helps the music to actually _go somewhere_. Otherwise, it's just wankery.
> 
> The bottom line is that Mozart and Bach were each important for passing on to subsequent generations the fundamentals of technical composition, but their understanding of the emotional part of the musical equation was clearly quite primitive. The vast majority of Mozart's music is frivolous and childlike in its lack of emotional scope, while most of Bach's music is simply robotic in its bland emotional sterility - more like a series of purely academic exercises than actual emotionally-fluid music. I'll give Bach the credit he deserves for his intellectual contributions to the musical world, but there is a hell of a lot more to the *art* of music than just that.  Bach's musical works… I'm sorry, his _exercises_ are so soulless and monotonous that if I were forced to listen to them indefinitely I'd probably jump out of a window just to escape the torture. The majority of Mozart, on the other hand, is just the powdered-wig equivalent of muzak, suitable only if you are having tea and crumpets and you need some cheesy background noise to complete the vibe.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> If anyone has even the slightest doubt as to the possibility that these composers may indeed be overrated, then have a look at this poll for the most overrated composer:
> 
> http://www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16967
> 
> There were 377 total votes cast, and not including the "Other" or "I love them all!" categories , there were 291 votes cast for individual composers, with the average number of votes per composer being about 16. *The most overrated on the list were deemed to be Mozart with 64 votes, and Wagner with 45 votes.* Vivaldi and Bach scored as the next most overrated, but I didn't include Vivaldi in my above examples simply because he isn't typically rated nearly as highly as these others are to begin with (although he is equally insipid in his own right).


This is spot on. Why isnt this guy still here? 

I really like this

*The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much how or where they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go somewhere. That's the very essence of what music is.*

Today its almost seems a taboo thing to do. People are too hipster with their classical music nowadays. Memorable iconic melodies is seen as something bad or boring. What the heck!

Also this guy seemed to love Dvorak and so do I


----------



## hpowders

sjwright said:


> Most overrated: Ornstein
> Most underrated: Mosolov


This is spot on!!!

But so is a melanoma.


----------



## jdec

Kajmanen said:


> This is spot on. Why isnt this guy still here?


"Spot on"? you've gotta be kidding... Bach, Mozart and Wagner were truly great composers. Sorry, but no video game music composition (what you seem to like a lot) can even get close in quality to their best compositions.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Kajmanen said:


> This is spot on. Why isnt this guy still here?


Um, I just read it, not spot on! Mozart and Wagner's genius is subtle, but definitely there. Mozart definitely has this otherwordly touch, and every note or chord that Wagner writes has a purpose and a meaning, which I would find incredibly hard to do. Mozart is not overrated, although I said so in a post earlier in this thread.

And as for Bach- how can you even call Bach overrated? How? Robotic? Exercises? Soulless? Monotonous? Bach is a Romantic composer more than a Baroque composer. Listen to the Mass in B Minor, St. Matthew Passion, Christmas Oratorio, The Well-Tempered Clavier, or the Concerto for 2 Violins. If you can call any of those pieces robotic, soulless, or monotonous, you have no musical taste.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I consider Bach the greatest composer of all time, so...


----------



## Kajmanen

jdec said:


> "Spot on"? you've gotta be kidding... Bach, Mozart and Wagner were truly great composers. Sorry, but no video game music composition (what you seem to like a lot) can even get close in quality to their best compositions.


I like other composers more. Like Delius,Dvorak,Ravel,Satie,Brahms for example. But TBH I mostly like certain particular music/works independent of who wrote it. I agree you cant compare VGM with those big classical names.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Kajmanen said:


> This is spot on. Why isnt this guy still here?
> 
> I really like this
> 
> **The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much how or where they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go somewhere. That's the very essence of what music is.*
> *
> Today its almost seems a taboo thing to do. People are too hipster with their classical music nowadays. Memorable iconic melodies is seen as something bad or boring. What the heck!
> 
> Also this guy seemed to love Dvorak and so do I






(really bad recording because it's the only one I could find on YT, but the point remains the same. If you want a truly profound version listen to Karajan with Jon Vickers)


----------



## Tallisman

Kajmanen said:


> This is spot on. Why isnt this guy still here?
> 
> I really like this
> 
> *The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much how or where they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go somewhere. That's the very essence of what music is.*
> 
> Today its almost seems a taboo thing to do. People are too hipster with their classical music nowadays. Memorable iconic melodies is seen as something bad or boring. What the heck!
> 
> Also this guy seemed to love Dvorak and so do I


Oh dear. Oh no.


----------



## Tallisman

jacob singer said:


> the bottom line is that mozart and bach were each important for passing on to subsequent generations the fundamentals of technical composition, but their understanding of the emotional part of the musical equation was clearly quite primitive. the vast majority of mozart's music is frivolous and childlike in its lack of emotional scope, while most of bach's music is simply robotic in its bland emotional sterility - more like a series of purely academic exercises than actual emotionally-fluid music. i'll give bach the credit he deserves for his intellectual contributions to the musical world, but there is a hell of a lot more to the *art* of music than just that.  Bach's musical works… i'm sorry, his _exercises_ are so soulless and monotonous that if i were forced to listen to them indefinitely i'd probably jump out of a window just to escape the torture. The majority of mozart, on the other hand, is just the powdered-wig equivalent of muzak, suitable only if you are having tea and crumpets and you need some cheesy background noise to complete the vibe.


rea|ewg ht hatfs dfhnksdfb afnnnnngadfrnuob


----------



## Tchaikov6

Tallisman said:


> rea|ewg ht hatfs dfhnksdfb afnnnnngadfrnuob


This post makes more sense then the one you quoted! :lol::lol:


----------



## Kajmanen

Tallisman said:


> rea|ewg ht hatfs dfhnksdfb afnnnnngadfrnuob


You seem upset.


----------



## hpowders

In real time:

Most over-rated: Sibelius. There's a reason he quit composing early! 

Most under-rated: Brahms. One of my top 4. Still not as appreciated on TC as much as I feel he should be!! Ket's hear it for Brahms! :clap:


----------



## Tchaikov6

hpowders said:


> In real time:
> 
> Most over-rated: Sibelius. There's a reason he quit composing early!
> 
> Most under-rated: Brahms. One of my top 4. Still not as appreciated on TC as much as I feel he should be!! :clap:


I agree and disagree. I agree that Brahms is underrated, but not at TC! I think TC appreciates Brahms as one of the greatest composers of all time, as do I. The rest of the classical music world though, or much of it, sees Brahms as kind of a continuation of Beethoven, with no true personalization of his music, which is of course, very wrong!

As for Sibelius, he is not overrated or underrated at all. Sibelius is such a unique composer- so concise, almost mathematically layed out, yet soulful and amazingly Romantic.


----------



## Bulldog

I figure I've done this before, but my names might differ some:

Most over-rated: Vivaldi
Most under-rated: Gade


----------



## Tallisman

Tchaikov6 said:


> This post makes more sense then the one you quoted! :lol::lol:


Bach - 'soulless and monotonous'... 'emotionally primitive'

I like to think of myself as someone tolerant of other opinions and somewhat of a relativist but that really pushes it... it's bordering on the objectively wrong


----------



## silentio

Quoting some post above:

_" I'll give him credit for the ~5% of his stuff that was actually original, but the rest of it is just the same dainty crap regurgitated zillion time. I mean come on… 41 numbered symphonies and you can easily count on one hand the few that stand out. There is something seriously wrong with that, and only a strong bias could prevent someone from admitting it. Mozart did write some good operas, but that's nowhere near enough to justify him being ranked so ridiculously high."_

Poor Mozart... I guess if he had followed Brahms' footstep to destroy or prevent the publications of the works that he (might have) considered subpar, his outputs would have been enriched for exalted virtues like "originality", "seriousness", and "profundity". Even if it is the case, we are left with the following:

Idomeneo, Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, Cosi fan tutte, and the Magic Flute-- which have always been in the standard operatic repertoire
13 mature Piano Concertos from No.15 to No.27-- some of them admired by Beethoven, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Schoenberg
6 mature symphonies (35,36,38,39,40, and 41) -- enough said
2 great String Quintets (K.515 and 516)-- the former might have influenced Schubert's string quintet, the latter impressed Tchaikovsky
6 Haydn Quartets and 3 Prussian Quartets--praised by Haydn, deeply admired by Tchaikovsky and Brahms
A Sinfonia Concertante 
Piano Quartet in D minor (the first instance of the genre)
A Clarinet Concerto and a Clarinet Quintet -- arguably the best of the kind
A superb String Trio K.563
The Coronation Mass, Great Mass in C Minor and the Requiem
Music for Woodwinds (Serenades)
Various miniatures for solo piano and chamber music.

That is "still" roughly the size of Brahms' core outputs, and is enough make me prefer him over a vast majority of composers.

But wait, the man died at 35, and during his life, he needed to publish a lot to feed himself and his family.

And _wait again_, I actually like a lot of the so-called craps in his earlier days. I would take the Posthorn Serenade, Flute Quartet K. 285, the Horn Concertos, the charming Divertimenti K.334 and the Concerto for Flute and Harp over many gigantic, pretentious late romantic compositions.


----------



## Bettina

silentio said:


> Quoting some post above:
> 
> _" I'll give him credit for the ~5% of his stuff that was actually original, but the rest of it is just the same dainty crap regurgitated zillion time. I mean come on… 41 numbered symphonies and you can easily count on one hand the few that stand out. There is something seriously wrong with that, and only a strong bias could prevent someone from admitting it. Mozart did write some good operas, but that's nowhere near enough to justify him being ranked so ridiculously high."_
> 
> Poor Mozart... I guess if he had followed Brahms' footstep to destroy or prevent the publications of the works that he (might have) considered subpar, his outputs would have been enriched for exalted virtues like "originality", "seriousness", and "profundity". Even if it is the case, we are left with the following:
> 
> Idomeneo, Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, Cosi fan tutte, and the Magic Flute-- which have always been in the standard operatic repertoire
> 13 mature Piano Concertos from No.15 to No.27-- some of them admired by Beethoven, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Schoenberg
> 6 mature symphonies (35,36,38,39,40, and 41) -- enough said
> 2 great String Quintets (K.515 and 516)-- the former might have influenced Schubert's string quintet, the latter impressed Tchaikovsky
> 6 Haydn Quartets and 3 Prussian Quartets--praised by Haydn, deeply admired by Tchaikovsky and Brahms
> A Sinfonia Concertante
> Piano Quartet in D minor (the first instance of the genre)
> A Clarinet Concerto and a Clarinet Quintet -- arguably the best of the kind
> A superb String Trio K.563
> The Coronation Mass, Great Mass in C Minor and the Requiem
> Music for Woodwinds (Serenades)
> Various miniatures for solo piano and chamber music.
> 
> That is "still" roughly the size of Brahms' core outputs, and is enough make me prefer him over a vast majority of composers.
> 
> But wait, the man died at 35, and during his life, he needed to publish a lot to feed himself and his family.
> 
> *And wait again, I actually like a lot of the so-called craps in his earlier days. I would take the Posthorn Serenade, Flute Quartet K. 285, the Horn Concertos, the charming Divertimenti K.334 and the Concerto for Flute and Harp over many gigantic, pretentious late romantic compositions.*


I agree. A musical work doesn't have to be groundbreaking to be great. Not every piece has to reinvent or challenge our definition of music. Some of Mozart's great works remain within the conventions of the musical language of the time, but that doesn't detract from their emotional and spiritual impact.


----------



## Woodduck

This is the side show where we're treated to the unedifying spectacle of people too stupid and ignorant to know when to be embarrassed.

We already have government for that.


----------



## AfterHours

Kajmanen said:


> This is spot on. Why isnt this guy still here?
> 
> I really like this
> 
> *The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much how or where they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go somewhere. That's the very essence of what music is.*
> 
> Today its almost seems a taboo thing to do. People are too hipster with their classical music nowadays. Memorable iconic melodies is seen as something bad or boring. What the heck!
> 
> Also this guy seemed to love Dvorak and so do I


I've come to the conclusion that, while you're free to have your opinions (of course), there is no question in my mind that your views exhibit a non-comprehension of the music you criticize and very likely a lack of real effort towards assimilating it in the first place (which is your loss and not anyone else). The quote you reproduce between asterisks is very uninformed if you're actually claiming Mozart or Wagner or Bach lack these abilities.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Woodduck said:


> This is the side show where we're treated to the unedifying spectacle of people too stupid and ignorant to know when to be embarrassed.
> 
> We already have government for that.


Gee, and I thought I was just being entertained!


----------



## Woodduck

mathisdermaler said:


> Gee, and I thought I was just being entertained!


You are. Everything is entertainment now.


----------



## S P Summers

Overrated:
- Wagner
- Brahms
- Rachmaninoff (I'm sorry)
- Chopin (I'm sorry)
- Debussy
- Mahler
- Pachelbel
- Bruckner
- Vivaldi
- Shostakovich


Underrated:
- Schumann
- Saint-Saëns
- Nikolai Medtner
- Franz Xaver Scharwenka
- Henryk Melcer-Szczawinski
- Charles-Valentin Alkan
- Moritz Moszkowski
- Zygmunt Stojowski
- Anton Rubinstein
- Emil von Sauer


----------



## Bettina

S P Summers said:


> Overrated:
> - Wagner
> - Brahms
> - Rachmaninoff (I'm sorry)
> - Chopin (I'm sorry)
> - Debussy
> - Mahler
> - *Pachelbel*
> - Bruckner
> - Vivaldi
> - Shostakovich
> 
> Underrated:
> - Schumann
> - Saint-Saëns
> - Nikolai Medtner
> - Franz Xaver Scharwenka
> - Henryk Melcer-Szczawinski
> - Charles-Valentin Alkan
> - Moritz Moszkowski
> - Zygmunt Stojowski
> - Anton Rubinstein
> - Emil von Sauer


But Pachelbel is only overrated for one piece, the all-too-famous canon. His other stuff is almost completely unknown. For that reason, I'd actually put him in the underrated category.


----------



## jdec

AfterHours said:


> I've come to the conclusion that, while you're free to have your opinions (of course), there is no question in my mind that your views exhibit a non-comprehension of the music you criticize and very likely a lack of real effort towards assimilating it in the first place (which is your loss and not anyone else). The quote you reproduce between asterisks is very uninformed if you're actually claiming Mozart or Wagner or Bach lack these abilities.


Now 'THIS IS SPOT ON'.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Woodduck said:


> You are. Everything is entertainment now.


 It is just a fun and silly thread like most everything else on Talk Classical. People are sharing their opinions and pointlessly arguing because it is entertaining and harmless, it is hardly an "unedifying spectacle of people too stupid and ignorant to know when to be embarrassed," and I don't see how you could construe that as a remotely respectful or appropriate thing to say. There are more serious and focused threads on TC for members like you.

I don't think anyone in the last few pages of this thread would claim to have had an intellectual discussion, but what of that? I don't even know if you're talking about the purveyor of video game music who hates Wagner and Bach, the classicists arguing against him, all of us, or someone else.

Also, the sinister "Everything is entertainment now" and the gratuitous Trump reference. Even as a T.S. Eliot devotee, I must say that is scaremongering. Not all discussion must be Socratic dialogue.


----------



## S P Summers

Bettina said:


> But Pachelbel is only overrated for one piece, the all-too-famous canon. His other stuff is almost completely unknown. For that reason, I'd actually put him in the underrated category.


His string quartets are popular enough as well. I *could* have made a list of 5 overrated composers where I would not have included him, but I was trying to make a list of 10 since there are *SO* many underrated composers; and that's as short as I could make my "underrated" list!


----------



## DeepR

I have to say, Scriabin doesn't seem that underrated anymore. At least not on this forum.
There may be hope for you all yet.


----------



## Tchaikov6

S P Summers said:


> Overrated:
> - Wagner
> - Brahms
> - Rachmaninoff (I'm sorry)
> - Chopin (I'm sorry)
> - Debussy
> - Mahler
> - Pachelbel
> - Bruckner
> - Vivaldi
> - Shostakovich
> 
> Underrated:
> - Schumann
> - Saint-Saëns
> - Nikolai Medtner
> - Franz Xaver Scharwenka
> - Henryk Melcer-Szczawinski
> - Charles-Valentin Alkan
> - Moritz Moszkowski
> - Zygmunt Stojowski
> - Anton Rubinstein
> - Emil von Sauer


I agree for Rachmaninov, Chopin, Bruckner, Vivaldi, Schumann, Medtner, and Moszkowski.

I disagree for Wagner because I feel that Wagner's music is still influencing music today, and he played a *huge* role in advancing classical and honestly all types of music. As for Brahms, I feel like he is actually not appreciated enough in a lot of the classical music world, because he is of course a more conservative composer, taking after Beethoven. But if you listen to some of the complexity and emotional depth of his music, while making it good, the genius of Brahms can be understood. He is not just _another_ Beethoven but someone who, while taking after Beethoven, brings fresh, original, and quite amazing ideas into the classical music world. Debussy I can't agree, because his music is so different from any other composers, and he also influenced several generations of music. He even brought ragtime and jazz into his music. As for Mahler, this is tough- I'd have to say he is overrated on TC. But in the rest of the Music world, he is actually quite underrated. Before I joined TC, I had not listened to any Mahler, and then when I saw that everyone loved him so much, I decided to listen, and it is truly amazing. I've cried listening to Mahler 2, 4, and 9, and the only other time I've cried listening to classical music was Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Bach's Mass in B Minor, and Mozart's Requiem. Anyways, Pachelbel is only overrated for Canon in D, so I wouldn't include him. I don't think Shostakovich is overrated because many of his pieces are quite unkown. Maybe the 5th symphony is a bit overrated, but everything else of his that is famous I find to be very original and quite amazing. As for the rest of the underrated composers I didn't agree with, I haven't heard enough of them to agree or disagree, *except for* Saint-Saens, who I think really didn't bring that much new to the table. But I haven't heard a ton of stuff by Saint-Saens, I do love his Violin Sonata No. 1, Organ Symphony, Carnival of the Animals, and Danse Macabre.


----------



## Kajmanen

AfterHours said:


> I've come to the conclusion that, while you're free to have your opinions (of course), there is no question in my mind that your views exhibit a non-comprehension of the music you criticize and very likely a lack of real effort towards assimilating it in the first place (which is your loss and not anyone else). The quote you reproduce between asterisks is very uninformed if you're actually claiming Mozart or Wagner or Bach lack these abilities.


How is it 'uninformed'. It makes perfect sense. I dont see how anyone isnt able to relate to his whole post.


----------



## Razumovskymas

overrated: J.S. Bach

underrated: Franz Liszt


----------



## AfterHours

Kajmanen said:


> How is it 'uninformed'. It makes perfect sense. I dont see how anyone isnt able to relate to his whole post.


Well then, if it makes perfect sense, please explain which pieces you're referring to and precisely what you mean.

Re: *The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much how or where they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go somewhere. That's the very essence of what music is.*


----------



## mathisdermaler

Kajmanen said:


> How is it 'uninformed'. It makes perfect sense. I dont see how anyone isnt able to relate to his whole post.


You haven't listened to very much classical music and don't understand it


----------



## AfterHours

Razumovskymas said:


> overrated: J.S. Bach
> 
> underrated: Franz Liszt


Yes, Bach should be ranked #2 instead of #1. The nerve of some people! :tiphat:


----------



## Razumovskymas

AfterHours said:


> Yes, Bach should be rank #2 instead of #1. The nerve of some people! :tiphat:


exactly!

And Liszt #7 in stead of #8

How dare they!


----------



## Razumovskymas

I want to talk to the officials!! the referees!!


----------



## S P Summers

Tchaikov6 said:


> I agree for Rachmaninov, Chopin, Bruckner, Vivaldi, Schumann, Medtner, and Moszkowski.
> 
> I disagree for Wagner because I feel that Wagner's music is still influencing music today, and he played a *huge* role in advancing classical and honestly all types of music.


I can agree with that. I understand he is revered for his operatic works more than anything else, the vast majority of the music I listen to is centered around the piano; so I must admit I am probably not familiar enough with his greatest works to make such bold statements...

[/QUOTE]As for Brahms, I feel like he is actually not appreciated enough in a lot of the classical music world, because he is of course a more conservative composer, taking after Beethoven. But if you listen to some of the complexity and emotional depth of his music, while making it good, the genius of Brahms can be understood. He is not just _another_ Beethoven but someone who, while taking after Beethoven, brings fresh, original, and quite amazing ideas into the classical music world.[/QUOTE]

You see, I absolutely love Brahms' piano sonatas and chamber works. His PC's and Symphonies; not as much. I've listened to them all dozens and dozens of times over many years, and my feelings haven't changed. He's just not my cup of tea for "recreational listening", I suppose. I certainly don't intend to write Brahms' off as a composer (especially for something like his conservative style of composition)... I just feel that he receives a *little* more recognition than he should be getting (more generally speaking, not just on TC).

[/QUOTE]Debussy I can't agree, because his music is so different from any other composers, and he also influenced several generations of music.[/QUOTE]

You see, this is the way I feel about Camille Saint-Saëns... I understand that Debussy and Saint-Saëns had some sort of rivalry going on when they were alive, but just from the perspective of personal enjoyment- I _LOVE_ almost *all* of Saint-Saëns' piano compositions; I have SO much fun listening to them, and I never get tired of them... Debussy, I've just never been able to get into. Although, I have been struck by the beauty of Debussy's music before- performed by legendary pianists Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli and Nikolai Petrov.

[/QUOTE]As for Mahler, this is tough- I'd have to say he is overrated on TC. But in the rest of the Music world, he is actually quite underrated. Before I joined TC, I had not listened to any Mahler, and then when I saw that everyone loved him so much, I decided to listen, and it is truly amazing. I've cried listening to Mahler 2, 4, and 9, and the only other time I've cried listening to classical music was Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Bach's Mass in B Minor, and Mozart's Requiem. [/QUOTE]

Interesting. I love Mahler's 9th, but that's the one of his symphonies I've fallen in love with. I have cried listening to it as well, but I weep on a near daily basis listening to any number of composers. I cry nearly every time I hear Mozart's Marriage of Figaro ffs.. The recording of Beethoven's 9th by Karajan + DG from 1963 reduces me to a blubbering mess literally every single time I hear it. Mahler's 9th is the only one of his symphonies that has made me cry, although I haven't given them a thorough, meticulous study in a long time...

[/QUOTE]As for the rest of the underrated composers I didn't agree with, I haven't heard enough of them to agree or disagree, *except for* Saint-Saens, who I think really didn't bring that much new to the table.[/QUOTE]

Do yourself a favor and listen to the incredible PC's of the composers I mentioned you are not familiar with. As for the Saint-Saëns comment, I cannot agree with that... I am not a music history scholar, but I *believe* that he has been almost universally regarded as a musical genius by nearly every prominent musical figure of the late 19th and early 20th century... Correct me if I'm wrong!

**P.S.** -

I should have put Hector Berlioz on the underrated list!


----------



## Omicron9

Over-rated:

1. Dvorak
2. Liszt
3. Rachmaninoff
4. Dvorak again


----------



## S P Summers

Omicron9 said:


> Over-rated:
> 
> 1. Dvorak
> ...
> 4. Dvorak again


=( I love his Piano Concerto in G Minor, Op.33. Dvořák is underrated, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Juglandaceous

What do you think of Frederick Delius?


----------



## Tchaikov6

S P Summers said:


> I can agree with that. I understand he is revered for his operatic works more than anything else, the vast majority of the music I listen to is centered around the piano; so I must admit I am probably not familiar enough with his greatest works to make such bold statements...


As for Brahms, I feel like he is actually not appreciated enough in a lot of the classical music world, because he is of course a more conservative composer, taking after Beethoven. But if you listen to some of the complexity and emotional depth of his music, while making it good, the genius of Brahms can be understood. He is not just _another_ Beethoven but someone who, while taking after Beethoven, brings fresh, original, and quite amazing ideas into the classical music world.[/QUOTE]

You see, I absolutely love Brahms' piano sonatas and chamber works. His PC's and Symphonies; not as much. I've listened to them all dozens and dozens of times over many years, and my feelings haven't changed. He's just not my cup of tea for "recreational listening", I suppose. I certainly don't intend to write Brahms' off as a composer (especially for something like his conservative style of composition)... I just feel that he receives a *little* more recognition than he should be getting (more generally speaking, not just on TC).

[/QUOTE]Debussy I can't agree, because his music is so different from any other composers, and he also influenced several generations of music.[/QUOTE]

You see, this is the way I feel about Camille Saint-Saëns... I understand that Debussy and Saint-Saëns had some sort of rivalry going on when they were alive, but just from the perspective of personal enjoyment- I _LOVE_ almost *all* of Saint-Saëns' piano compositions; I have SO much fun listening to them, and I never get tired of them... Debussy, I've just never been able to get into. Although, I have been struck by the beauty of Debussy's music before- performed by legendary pianists Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli and Nikolai Petrov.

[/QUOTE]As for Mahler, this is tough- I'd have to say he is overrated on TC. But in the rest of the Music world, he is actually quite underrated. Before I joined TC, I had not listened to any Mahler, and then when I saw that everyone loved him so much, I decided to listen, and it is truly amazing. I've cried listening to Mahler 2, 4, and 9, and the only other time I've cried listening to classical music was Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Bach's Mass in B Minor, and Mozart's Requiem. [/QUOTE]

Interesting. I love Mahler's 9th, but that's the one of his symphonies I've fallen in love with. I have cried listening to it as well, but I weep on a near daily basis listening to any number of composers. I cry nearly every time I hear Mozart's Marriage of Figaro ffs.. The recording of Beethoven's 9th by Karajan + DG from 1963 reduces me to a blubbering mess literally every single time I hear it. Mahler's 9th is the only one of his symphonies that has made me cry, although I haven't given them a thorough, meticulous study in a long time...

[/QUOTE]As for the rest of the underrated composers I didn't agree with, I haven't heard enough of them to agree or disagree, *except for* Saint-Saens, who I think really didn't bring that much new to the table.[/QUOTE]

Do yourself a favor and listen to the incredible PC's of the composers I mentioned you are not familiar with. As for the Saint-Saëns comment, I cannot agree with that... I am not a music history scholar, but I *believe* that he has been almost universally regarded as a musical genius by nearly every prominent musical figure of the late 19th and early 20th century... Correct me if I'm wrong!

**P.S.** -

I should have put Hector Berlioz on the underrated list![/QUOTE]

Ok, fair enough.


----------



## JeffD

The more I learn about any of these composers, and about music theory and what, actually, they did, and what they were pushing against in terms of the music norms of their day, the more impressive their accomplishments seem to me. So I take the attitude that when I think someone is overrated, perhaps I just don't know enough to appreciate their music or their contribution. I give them all the benefit of the doubt.

Intellectually that is probably a sketchy move. Perhaps its better to withhold all judgment, good or bad, until I understand more. Heck I do that in non-art related fields. But time is short and beauty doesn't wait.


----------



## JeffD

Also I can separate the accomplishment of a composer from whether or not I like the music. I am not a big Philip Glass fan, but I would never say that he is overrated. I just don't get him, that's all.


----------



## JeffD

I think so many folks have a fear of being "taken in" by hype, to uncritically like a composer only because so many like him, the Emperors New Clothes and all. Being "taken in" is so counter the intellectual stance.

So they over-react and become knee jerk critical. I have referenced this video before so I won't embed it:


----------



## Funny

*The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much how or where they go – any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do – as long as they go somewhere. That's the very essence of what music is.*

This is comical since all music other than, say, early minimalism certainly "goes somewhere," but if it doesn't go the way one person likes it becomes non-music, or at least non-essential.

I will add, though, that I had a higher opinion of Wagner as an innovator than I do after hearing Haydn's 64th symphony, specifically the second movement, which is revolutionary exactly because a listener has NO idea where it's going, and of course because it contains no standard cadences whatsoever - a quality for which Wagner got a lot of attention a century later. "Music of the Past," he shoulda called it. Still, saying his music doesn't "go anywhere" is risible.

So yeah, I guess if I were formatting to fit the thread,
Most overrated, but just a bit:Wagner
Most underrated, always and forever: Haydn


----------



## Juglandaceous

Most underrated, always and forever: Haydn[/QUOTE]

I sadly agree with Funny that of the so-called "great" composers, Haydn is probably the most under-appreciated. I don't say "underrated" because ratings are not so much what concern me as the fact that some excellent music music does not get the attention and appreciation it deserves. I remember hearing one musicologist say that Haydn used and resolved the "Tristan Chord" in the opening "Chaos" introduction to his oratorio "The Creation" exactly the same way that Richard Wagner did in his groundbreaking opera "Tristan und Isolde," but over half a century earlier!

Another composer who I think does not get his proper due is Frederick Delius. Sir Thomas Beecham called Delius "the last great apostle of romance, emotion, and beauty in music." And yet I so rarely hear Delius on the radio, and even more rarely do I hear of any live performances of his music.

Perhaps one of the greatest injustices in 20th-century music is the case of the Romanian composer George Enescu. He wrote one masterpiece after another, and yet all we ever hear is his "Romanian Rhapsody No. 1." When was the last time you heard of any orchestra--European or American--playing one of Enescu's superb symphonies? When was the last time you remember hearing one of Enescu's chamber music masterpieces on the radio? For me the answer is "Never!" I admit that much of Enescu's music is "difficult to get" on a first hearing because it can be so subtle and elusive. But on repeated listenings you realize that you are hearing the work of a true genius. Enescu's music deserves better.


----------



## Kajmanen

> The vast majority of Mozart's music is frivolous and childlike in its lack of emotional scope, while most of Bach's music is simply robotic in its bland emotional sterility - more like a series of purely academic exercises than actual emotionally-fluid music.


Im amazed no one can see this. But no, this guy just made this up from the clear blue sky. No truth in it at all


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> Im amazed no one can see this. But no, this guy just made this up from the clear blue sky. No truth in it at all


I think you should consider the possibility that the deficiency lies not with the composer or his music but with the listener, who fails to recognize the subtleties and complexities of the music.


----------



## Kajmanen

Improbus said:


> I think you should consider the possibility that the deficiency lies not with the composer or his music but with the listener, who fails to recognize the subtleties and complexities of the music.


Mozart and Bach isnt complex. But you could always use that argument to defend your fav composers ofc.


----------



## jdec

Kajmanen said:


> Mozart and Bach isnt complex. But you could always use that argument to defend your fav composers ofc.


Oh my.....:lol:


----------



## CurlybWv988

Mussorgsky was INCREDIBLY underrated by his contemporaries! Rimsky-Korsakov and Ravel would posthumously "correct" his works. He was seen as a man of extreme talent, but not of extreme care or craftsmanship. This wasn't random criticism, as Modest was rather rude, boorish, tempermental, and an extreme alcoholic. 
Many of M.M.'s works are being presented today in original form and harmony, and in contemporary canon does not sound nearly as out of place as it did in the final quarter of the nineteenth century. 
As for overrated... I think I would have to choose that contemporary fellow Eric Whitacre that many high school groups and popular choruses play.


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> Mozart and Bach isnt complex. But you could always use that argument to defend your fav composers ofc.


I will only use it as long as it's true.











Not complex, you say?


----------



## AfterHours

Kajmanen said:


> Im amazed no one can see this. But no, this guy just made this up from the clear blue sky. No truth in it at all





AfterHours said:


> Well then, if it makes perfect sense, please explain which pieces you're referring to and precisely what you mean.
> 
> Re: *The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much how or where they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go somewhere. That's the very essence of what music is.*


Of course, you keep making these claims but clearly have no idea what you're talking about and have not provided any insight into your reasoning that I've seen. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe you've ignored/evaded every question asking you to explain your position. Hmmmm, I wonder why?


----------



## CurlybWv988

To reply to a bunch of folks in the Bach/Mozart argument, I think a lot of their music doesn't necessarily sound complex because they were such good craftsmen that they don't make music that sounds laborious. Bach was a master at writing contrapuntal fugues that broke no rules of counterpoint writing. That is an extremely complex skill that very few composers have been able to emulate. 

Mozart was a genius in developing themes and making music within the context of the classical style. The ways he carams to and from key to key rivals romantics like Chopin and Liszt who did not even have to remain confided within a classical framework of expectation.


----------



## Kajmanen

AfterHours said:


> Of course, you keep making these claims but clearly have no idea what you're talking about and have not provided any insight into your reasoning that I've seen. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe you've ignored/evaded every question asking you to explain your position. Hmmmm, I wonder why?


Jacob singer already explained it with extrodinary accuarcy. couldnt have explained it better myself. Its just that im quit amazed how so many ridiculed him and his claim and nobody seem to understand why he wrote it, even one bit. mean why would he just come up with that if there was absolutely no truth in it or even slightly true?


----------



## AfterHours

Kajmanen said:


> Jacob singer already explained it with extrodinary accuarcy. couldnt have explained it better myself. Its just that im quit amazed how so many ridiculed him and his claim and nobody seem to understand why he wrote it, even one bit. mean why would he just come up with that if there was absolutely no truth in it or even slightly true?


You tell me, without generalizing. What is true about it and how? Point it out in any one of their many acclaimed compositions.


----------



## Botschaft

As for emotional sterility and frivolity, let's take a listen:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Kajmanen said:


> Mozart and Bach isnt complex. But you could always use that argument to defend your fav composers ofc.


This could only be asserted by someone with zero working knowledge of either man's music. Bach in particular was probably the most seriously fertile imagination in western music.

When I consider that the criticism is coming from someone who thinks video game jingles are more profound than Bach, it's even easier to disregard it.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Sweet sixteen...:angel:


----------



## Kajmanen

AfterHours said:


> You tell me, without generalizing. What is true about it and how? Point it out in any one of their many acclaimed compositions.


Those videos below this post


----------



## jdec

I suspect there is at least one troll in this thread.


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> Those videos below this post


And those above it? But you haven't listened to any of them, have you? Or you wouldn't possibly have been able to say something so blatantly false as to be absolutely laughable. Though perhaps you'll have to stick to simpler, less refined music that suits you better.


----------



## Kajmanen

Improbus said:


> And those above it? But you haven't listened to any of them, have you? Or you wouldn't possibly have able to say something so blatantly false as to be absolutely laughable. Though perhaps you'll have to stick to simpler, less refined music that suits you better.


So you think they guy who made those statements are not "knowledgeable" enough and just made it up from the clear blue sky?


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> So you think they guy who made those statements are not "knowledgeable" enough and just made it up from the clear blue sky?


I know that they are uninformed, simple-minded and false. Now save yourself and listen to some Bach, Mozart and Brahms.


----------



## Kajmanen

Improbus said:


> I know that they are uninformed, simple-minded and false. Now save yourself and listen to some Bach, Mozart and Brahms.


Wow, impressive.


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> Wow, impressive.


I hear you're making progress. But enough of this.


----------



## jdec

Kajmanen said:


> Wow, impressive.


Indeed! Bach's, Mozart's and Brahms' works are impressive. Glad you finally understood them.


----------



## AfterHours

Kajmanen said:


> Those videos below this post


Oh gee, what a surprise. You have made erroneous claims based on very limited experience, observation and insight, and are not able to support your position -- just like every other time you've been asked.


----------



## Juglandaceous

NEW YORK TIMES
MUSIC VIEW; PONDERING THE LINK BETWEEN MUSIC AND MADNESS
By Donal Henahan
Published: July 20, 1986

The other day, in looking through a psychiatrist's report on the supposed connection between manic-depressive mood swings and musical creativity, I was brought up short. These words about Robert Schumann's lifelong history of depression leaped out at me: ''Starting in adolescence he was troubled by repeated attacks of melancholy which can be traced in his and his wife's letters as well as in their joint diary, later kept by Clara alone. For example, in May, 1831, it takes him three weeks to finish a letter . . .''

But Schumann did finish it, didn't he? If I wanted to, I could show you letters in a desk drawer that still lie unfinished after three months or three years, simply because their author is waiting for a sustained manic swing before going at them again. At any rate, let us be fair. A busy man who takes only three weeks to finish a letter (using only pen and ink, remember) deserves our respect. He is not ready for the dead-letter office just yet.

The mad artist, a type typified by poor Schumann, is not quite as pervasive a figure in popular mythology as the mad scientist, but no less a novelist than Thomas Mann thought highly enough of the stereotype to immortalize it in his ''Doctor Faustus.'' The grandly psychotic genius Adrian Leverkuhn, you will recall, goes stark, staring mad and dies after inventing the 12-tone system and composing his apocalyptic symphonic cantata, ''Lamentation of Doctor Faustus.'' And why not? Don't all readers of musical biographies know that many famous composers have been borderline psychopaths, if not certifiably insane? Haven't generations of music-appreciation writers led us to suspect that there is a mysterious connection between mental abnormality and musical creativity? Who, in fact, would deny that people such as Beethoven and Mahler were pathologically ill and, therefore, creatively fruitful?

Well, Dr. William A. Frosch, for one. Dr. Frosch, who is medical director of the Payne Whitney Clinic at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, recently took a fresh look at the mad-genius myth in a paper presented in May at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in Washington. Of Beethoven, whose personal peculiarities so inflamed the Romantic century's imagination, Dr. Frosch notes that the composer ''did experience mood swings superimposed upon a prevailing mild depression; he was clearly eccentric, particularly after he became deaf; he may have been psychotic during the battle for custody of his nephew Karl; but there is no evidence that he was ever manic-depresive.'' Dr. Frosch draws a distinction between mood swings, which may be violent without being grounded in mental disease, and genuine manic-depressive psychosis.

Beethoven must have known something of whatever theories of cyclic insanity were going around in his time, Dr. Frosch believes, and that knowledge ''was part of the imagery that shaped his creativity.'' Beethoven's improvisations at the piano, for which he was famous, were at times in response to requests to describe the character of a well-known person. We are told he could do so vividly and that the audience was often able to recognize the subject of the tone portrait. ''I do not doubt Beethoven's ability to illustrate what he knew about or had observed in others, including manic-depressive illness,'' writes Dr. Frosch.

Of more than a dozen famous composers discussed in this paper, all of them diagnosed as severely disturbed or genuinely psychopathic by previous writers in the field, Dr. Frosch finds in Schumann's history the only really convincing evidence of manic-depressive disease. As early as age 20, the composer who was to create the dual personality of Florestan/Eusebius to dramatize in music his own swings of mood wrote of his longing to throw himself into the Rhine. And 24 years later he actually did so. Schumann's problems have been diagnosed as dementia praecox, organic disease of the brain (most likely general paresis), and manic-depressive illness followed by syphilitic brain disease.

Cleared of imputation of clinical insanity, to Dr. Frosch's way of thinking, are Mozart, Schubert, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, Gluck, Liszt, Wagner, Johann Strauss, Jr., Mahler, Pfitzner and Handel. Mental disturbances among this oddly assorted group can be traced to such causes as stroke (Gluck), alcoholism (W.F. Bach), syphilis (Schubert) and chronic renal disease (Mozart). Handel's depressions seem to have been triggered by career reverses, financial disasters, rheumatism and, finally, blindness. ''Liszt and Mahler certainly led unusual and flamboyant lives,'' Dr. Frosch agrees, but they were not psychiatrically ill. ''Mahler was neurotic, and haunted by death, but did not have major affective disease.''

The case of Hugo Wolf is more complicated. He had not been diagnosed for psychiatric problems until age 36 and he died at age 43 from paresis after several hospitalizations and an attempt to drown himself. However, long before his final illness Wolf was infamous as an unpredictable, irascible man who often snarled at his best friends. He lived in poverty and had to work as a music critic -one of the nastiest and least reliable who ever lived - but when the manic mood overtook him could churn out masterly songs dozens at a time. ''Wolf does appear to have had a pre-existent cyclothymic personality,'' Dr. Frosc concedes. In sum, however, the psychiatrist finds no clear reason to link manic-depressive illness or other major mental disturbance with musical creativity: ''That there is a psychology of musical creativity I do not doubt. That there is a meaning to it, perhaps imputed after the fact, I do not doubt. That there is a pathology to it. . .I find no compelling evidence.''

The deep impulses and workings of creativity are likely to remain a mystery. If something as relatively simple as particle physics obstinately refuses to reveal its ultimate mysteries, what hope is there for investigators of Mozart's complexities? Dr. Frosch recognizes the problem: ''Unfortunately, we speak of creativity as though it were a single phenomenon rather than many phenomena. We link many kinds of acts because they are special, perhaps mystifying, not because they are the same. We may even be obfuscating when we speak of 'creative writing.' Is a rapturous lyric derived from the same impulse and skills as a Dickensian novel? Does either have any resemblance in its 'creativity' to a Bach fugue, a Beethoven or Brahms symphony, a Wagner opera, or a piece by Boulez? Perhaps not.''

Perhaps not, because musical composition requires a peculiar combination of inborn talents and learned techniques. ''This complex combination of givens and learned skills,'' in Dr. Frosch's view, ''may preclude significant psychopathology.'' In other words, if I understand, creativity may actually be a form of mental health, not a byproduct of illness. Fortunately or not, Thomas Mann did not see it that way, so poor, deranged Adrian Leverkuhn and the idea of the mad composer live on, if only in literature. Myths that we somehow need do not die easily.


----------



## Guest

Did anyone already say Mozart in the underrated category ?


----------



## Juglandaceous

Greatest Composers (in no particular order): Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven

Underappreciated Composers (in no particular order):

1) George Enescu--wrote some of the finest symphonies of the 20th century, yet all we usually hear is his Romanian Rhapsody No. 1.

2) Paul Hindemith--once considered one of the most trailblazing of 20th-century composers--now many consider him an old-fogey.

3) Frederick Delius--composed some of the most rapturously beautiful nature music ever written.

4) Albert Roussel--if he'd only written "The Spider's Banquet" Ballet he'd still be a master in my book.

5) Charles Tomlinson Griffes--one of our greatest American composers who died at only 35 years of age.

6) Johannes Ockeghem--wrote some of the most sublime music of the Renaissance.

7) Gabriel Fauré--even if he had written nothing but his thirteen nocturnes for piano, I think he would still be one of the great masters of French music.

6) A number of fine composers from countries not in the standard musical orbit of Germany, Austria, France, Italy, etc. such as Nikos Skalkottas of Greece, Alphonsus Diepenbrock and Willem Pijper of the Netherlands, Heitor Villa-Lobos of Brazil, Kurt Atterberg of Sweden, etc.

7) That whole array of 20th century American composers who were aiming to write the "Great American Symphony." Besides Aaron Copland whose music is still played regularly, how often do we hear live or even recorded performances of Paul Creston, Norman Dello-Joio, Vincent Persichetti, Elie Siegmeister, David Diamond, William Schuman, Peter Mennin, Wallingford Riegger, John Alden Carpenter, Roy Harris, Randall Thompson, Douglas Moore, Walter Piston, Roger Sessions, and Robert Ward?


----------



## Bulldog

Kajmanen said:


> So you think they guy who made those statements are not "knowledgeable" enough and just made it up from the clear blue sky?


I think that a lot of folks like to "take down" the masters; they feel it marks them as individualistic, bold, and highly discriminating patrons of the arts. In actuality, they are jerks.


----------



## AfterHours

Bulldog said:


> I think that a lot of folks like to "take down" the masters; they feel it marks them as individualistic, bold, and highly discriminating patrons of the arts. In actuality, they are jerks.


And in most cases, one can tell by their remarks that, even if they've listened to them, it hasn't been particularly attentive listening. I say "most" cases because there are those that have put in legitimate effort and applied good observation and still don't like a master (or two). But I've found this to be rare in the extreme. The greatest composers were so creative, well versed in composition, developing ideas, and so ambitious and singular in their execution (usually their works are a close reflection of themselves, hence their inimitability) ... that (once well assimilated), they are very unlikely to not be found extraordinary by the person doing so.


----------



## Guest

Juglandaceous said:


> Greatest Composers (in no particular order): Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven
> 
> Underappreciated Composers (in no particular order):
> 
> 1) George Enescu--wrote some of the finest symphonies of the 20th century, yet all we usually hear is his Romanian Rhapsody No. 1.
> 
> 2) Paul Hindemith--once considered one of the most trailblazing of 20th-century composers--now many consider him an old-fogey.
> 
> 3) Frederick Delius--composed some of the most rapturously beautiful nature music ever written.
> 
> 4) Albert Roussel--if he'd only written "The Spider's Banquet" Ballet he'd still be a master in my book.
> 
> 5) Charles Tomlinson Griffes--one of our greatest American composers who died at only 35 years of age.
> 
> 6) Johannes Ockeghem--wrote some of the most sublime music of the Renaissance.
> 
> 7) Gabriel Fauré--even if he had written nothing but his thirteen nocturnes for piano, I think he would still be one of the great masters of French music.
> 
> 6) A number of fine composers from countries not in the standard musical orbit of Germany, Austria, France, Italy, etc. such as Nikos Skalkottas of Greece, Alphonsus Diepenbrock and Willem Pijper of the Netherlands, Heitor Villa-Lobos of Brazil, Kurt Atterberg of Sweden, etc.
> 
> 7) That whole array of 20th century American composers who were aiming to write the "Great American Symphony." Besides Aaron Copland whose music is still played regularly, how often do we hear live or even recorded performances of Paul Creston, Norman Dello-Joio, Vincent Persichetti, Elie Siegmeister, David Diamond, William Schuman, Peter Mennin, Wallingford Riegger, John Alden Carpenter, Roy Harris, Randall Thompson, Douglas Moore, Walter Piston, Roger Sessions, and Robert Ward?


Roussel and Faure - yes (as in, 'yes' I appreciate them, not 'yes' they are underrated).

Delius seems to me the man most often rated as underrated. I think that must add up to overrating...er, or...er...rating.

I think the first time I answered the OP, I said that I disagreed with the whole rating thing. That was some time ago, so it's probably worth repeating the point that there is no such thing as underrating or overrating. All it means is that the person making the claim disagrees with the estimation of the composer in question by others. I think Mozart is overrated, but only because I'd rather listen to a dozen other composers before playing the 'Jupiter'. That doesn't make him overrated.


----------



## Juglandaceous

MacLeod said:


> I think the first time I answered the OP, I said that I disagreed with the whole rating thing.
> 
> Dear Macleod,
> 
> I agree with you about this whole "overrated-underrated" thing! That's why I used the term "underappreciated" because I think there are a lot of marvelous composers whose music does not get its due when it comes to live performances, radio broadcasts, recordings, etc. For example, I think Fauré's opera "Penelope" is a masterpiece, but when was the last time you ever saw it in a live performance or heard it on the radio? For me the answer is "Never!" It certainly lacks the dramatic punch of Verdi's operas, but it still contains some very fine music that never gets heard by most of the music-loving public because hardly any one is willing to give it a chance (besides Jessye Norman, that is!--her performance of the title role is the only recording I've heard). Thank you!
> 
> Sincerely,
> Juglandaceous


----------



## Juglandaceous

And speaking of underappreciated composers, what about the superb French composer Ernest Chausson? Although the Poème for violin and orchestra; the Concerto for Violin, Piano and String Quartet; and the Symphony in B-flat get occasional hearings, when was the last time you attended a live performance of Chausson's opera "Le roi Arthus" ("King Arthur") composed between 1886 and 1895? When was the last time you even heard a performance of Chausson's complete opera on the radio? Has "Le roi Arthus" EVER been given a live performance in the United States? Has "Le roi Arthus" EVER been broadcast in its entirety on the radio in the United States? When I heard the recording conducted by Armin Jordan with Gino Quilico in the title role, I was amazed by the exquisite beauty and emotional impact of this mostly unknown and profoundly underappreciated masterpiece. It certainly deserves better than this!


----------



## hpowders

Underrated:
William Schuman, terrific symphonies.
Charles Ives, how many have heard his terrific Concord Piano Sonata?
Robert Schumann, rarely see his solo piano music discussed on TC; Kreisleriana, Fantasie in C, Waldszenen. Terrific stuff!
Vincent Persichetti: twelve sparkling piano sonatas.


----------



## Tallisman

Bulldog said:


> I think that a lot of folks like to "take down" the masters; they feel it marks them as individualistic, bold, and highly discriminating patrons of the arts. In actuality, they are jerks.


You're so right.


----------



## Tallisman

Kajmanen said:


> Im amazed no one can see this. But no, this guy just made this up from the clear blue sky. No truth in it at all


Yep, basically :lol:



> Mozart and Bach isnt complex.


I know you probably think all of your pseudo-contrarian, uninformed gunshot statements are all brave and daring and truthful, but I can assure you they're not.


----------



## Kajmanen

Jacob Singer said:


> *MOST OVERRATED COMPOSERS*
> 
> *Wagner* - He is by far one of the most overrated composers of all-time. His being ranked in any top composer list is downright laughable, as his music is nothing but amateurish wankery. My professor from Berlin called his music "overly-sentimental" and "pathetic", and I couldn't agree more. Wagner is utter cheese. He doesn't belong anywhere near the top 30 or 40, and I am finding more and more people that completely agree with that sentiment. His music is a joke that was foisted on the world by psychotic propagandists, and it is sad that people today could still fall for such sophomoric drivel.
> 
> Anybody can just throw chords together. The real trick is creating original melodic/harmonic/rhythmic ideas that actually go somewhere. It doesn't matter so much _how_ or _where_ they go - any conceivable combination of ideas/colors/textures could do - as long as they go _somewhere_. That's the very essence of what music is. We can only perceive music as movement (or change) over time, and thus the most lifeless state of music is stagnation: too much rambling chaos, or too much stifling conventionality, and the music never actually goes anywhere. Then it's just noise.
> 
> If counterpoint/development/experimental chord progressions/etc are just done as an intellectual _or_ emotional exercise as if to satisfy some quota, then it is just ************. The best art transcends such petty concepts, and if that isn't happening, then it is a huge flaw of the music. Wagner's music is the worst of example of this that I can think of, from _any_ genre of music. It is so pretentious and lacking in real substance that it is actually pitiful.
> 
> *Mozart, Bach* - Mozart is typically rated in the top 2 or 3 in most classical circles, and yet I can think of numerous composers that were far more inventive than Mozart was. Given his overall body of work, he is definitely overrated. I'll give him credit for the ~5% of his stuff that was actually original, but the rest of it is just the same dainty crap regurgitated a zillion times. I mean come on… 41 numbered symphonies and you can easily count on one hand the few that stand out. There is something seriously wrong with that, and only a strong bias could prevent someone from admitting it. Mozart did write some good operas, but that's nowhere near enough to justify him being ranked so ridiculously high.
> 
> Most of Mozart's music is far too cutesy-wutesy to be taken as seriously as it is, and the fact is that even when he occasionally tried to inject some darker colors into his music, it somehow usually still ends up sounding all light and fluffy (with a few rare exceptions). Without any real contrast between the light and the dark, the music ends up just staying in the same place all the time, and it never actually takes the listener anywhere. This is a HUGE flaw. Look at Beethoven or Schubert or Tchaikovsky, on the other hand, and these guys understood how to use that light/dark e*motion*al contrast to a masterful degree (indeed they were some of the very best at this in all of classical music, even if they did each have their minor flaws). Compared to them, composers like Mozart and Haydn and Bach - as technically proficient as they were - are downright monotone. Even if I forced myself to listen to piece after piece by one of these composers for hours on end, the light/dark movement within their music could quite literally remain at zero the entire time. The fact is that technical skill alone doesn't accomplish anything unless it helps the music to actually _go somewhere_. Otherwise, it's just wankery.
> 
> The bottom line is that Mozart and Bach were each important for passing on to subsequent generations the fundamentals of technical composition, but their understanding of the emotional part of the musical equation was clearly quite primitive. The vast majority of Mozart's music is frivolous and childlike in its lack of emotional scope, while most of Bach's music is simply robotic in its bland emotional sterility - more like a series of purely academic exercises than actual emotionally-fluid music. I'll give Bach the credit he deserves for his intellectual contributions to the musical world, but there is a hell of a lot more to the *art* of music than just that.  Bach's musical works… I'm ry, his _exercises_ are so soulless and monotonous that if I were forced to listen to them indefinitely I'd probably jump out of a window just to escape the torture. The majority of Mozart, on the other hand, is just the powdered-wig equivalent of muzak, suitable only if you are having tea and crumpets and you need some cheesy background noise to complete the vibe.


So much accuracy in there ie truth.


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> So much accuracy in there ie truth.


This was refuted a couple of weeks ago, Kajmanen.


----------



## Kajmanen

Improbus said:


> This was refuted a couple of weeks ago, Kajmanen.


C'mon you dont even like Wagner 

Anyways, all the refutes were bad ones. Non of made any sense apart from waaaa you're stupid, waaaa you don't know what you're talking about, waaaa you dont _understand_ their music,waaa you havn't listened enough.

You can clearly see how him *Jacob Singer* has listened to their music but come to the conclusion that they are overrated. He didnt totally slay them and said they plain out sucks, but their high regard positions in the classical music world is laughable and I agree. He just nailed it with most descriptions of their music with some small exaggerations. Im just baffled no one here seems to been able to understand or actually read and make connections what he wrote and the music he's talking about.

I dont know why some can't' relate to any statements he made at all.

Apart from that I mostly prefer to judge individual works of composers and put them against eachother, not making these overrated lists and include all music a particular composer has under his wings.


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> C'mon you dont even like Wagner


That's not even true.



> Anyways, all the refutes were bad ones. Non of made any sense apart from waaaa you're stupid, waaaa you don't know what you're talking about, waaaa you dont _understand_ their music,waaa you havn't listened enough.


But you clearly haven't listened enough, nor did the arguments make any sense: Bach is full of all kinds of emotions; Mozart, while predominantly good-humored, is highly dignified, usually more or less melancholic and often menacing; Wagner has great melody, certainly "goes somewhere" and is hardly more "overly-emotional" or "pathetic" than Beethoven or Brahms, perhaps even less so, for better or worse. The best way to understand this is to actually listen to their music without judging it upon first impression. Or do you think the superior and lasting popularity and reputation of these composers is nothing more than an accident and the result of cluelessness?



> You can clearly see how him *Jacob Singer* has listened to their music but come to the conclusion that they are overrated. He didnt totally slay them and said they plain out sucks, but their high regard positions in the classical music world is laughable and I agree. He just nailed it with most descriptions of their music with some small exaggerations. Im just baffled no one here seems to been able to understand or actually read and make connections what he wrote and the music he's talking about.


He made twisted caricatures of them, which you could do with any other composers. Here for instance is an article calling Beethoven a narcissistic hooligan, which is about as accurate as what you cited.



> I dont know why some can't' relate to any statements he made at all.


Even if we could that wouldn't make them accurate.



> Apart from that I mostly prefer to judge individual works of composers and put them against eachother, not making these overrated lists and include all music a particular composer has under his wings.


That sounds reasonable.


----------



## jdec

Kajmanen said:


> You can clearly see how him *Jacob Singer* has listened to their music but come to the conclusion that they are overrated. He didnt totally slay them and said they plain out sucks, but their high regard positions in the classical music world is laughable and I agree. He just nailed it with most descriptions of their music with some small exaggerations. Im just baffled no one here seems to been able to understand or actually read and make connections what he wrote and the music he's talking about.


Why do you insist so much on bringing up the laughable comments that Jacob Singer did about Mozart, Bach and Wagner? Who is Jacob Singer in the first place? a prestigious musicologist or critic?  You only show how newbie are on these matters by doing so. If you care about what others think of these great composers, take a look at this regarding Mozart for example, not the opinion of "Jacob Singer" but of really relevant personalities (although you might not even know who they are ):

http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html

And the tell me what you think about that.


----------



## Tallisman

Kajmanen said:


> You can clearly see how him *Jacob Singer* has listened to their music but come to the conclusion that they are overrated.


You flatter him by saying his listening process was that objective and scientific. It wasn't. There is such a thing as pathological contrarianism.


----------



## Tallisman

Kajmanen said:


> You can clearly see how him *Jacob Singer* has listened to their music but come to the conclusion that they are overrated. He didnt totally slay them and said they plain out sucks, but their high regard positions in the classical music world is laughable and I agree. He just nailed it with most descriptions of their music with some small exaggerations. Im just baffled no one here seems to been able to understand or actually read and make connections what he wrote and the music he's talking about.
> 
> I dont know why some can't' relate to any statements he made at all.


Because some of us are more subtle and apply more thought and consideration to our opinions rather than coming up with, easy ones that are brash and uninformed but disguised as eloquent. Latching onto and sticking with assertive and cocksure opinions isn't a sign of reason or logic.


----------



## Roger Knox

hpowders said:


> Robert Schumann, rarely see his solo piano music discussed on TC; Kreisleriana, Fantasie in C, Waldszenen. Terrific stuff!


I had a real awaking as a pianist learning and performing _Kreisleriana_; the contrasts of expression, questions of phrasing and dynamic balance, and especially capturing the bizarre yet touching fairy-tale atmosphere. Even for top pianists it takes years to play this work well. As for _Fantasie in C_,which a student colleague was playing around the same time, this can be a grand entrance to pianistic Romanticism. But there seems to be a downward push on Schumann these days, which I don't agree with.


----------



## Roger Knox

Underrated:
C.P.E. Bach: wonderful choral music
Max Reger: organ music or orchestral Variations on a theme by Mozart for starters
Florent Schmitt: e.g. Piano Quintet, Salome ballet music
Augusta Read Thomas: known in USA, maybe not elsewhere?
Alberto Ginastera due for a comeback, e.g. Harp Concerto
Jacques Hetu: late Canadian composer, Dutoit/Montreal Symphony recordings
Franz Schmidt: finally starting to get his due outside Austria


----------



## hpowders

Roger Knox said:


> I had a real awaking as a pianist learning and performing _Kreisleriana_; the contrasts of expression, questions of phrasing and dynamic balance, and especially capturing the bizarre yet touching fairy-tale atmosphere. Even for top pianists it takes years to play this work well. As for _Fantasie in C_,which a student colleague was playing around the same time, this can be a grand entrance to pianistic Romanticism. But there seems to be a downward push on Schumann these days, which I don't agree with.


I have fallen so in love with Schumann's wild, passionate Romanticism. As a kid, I found this music "dull". Fast forward 50 years. Not anymore!!!

For me Kreisleriana is his finest solo piano work: passion, poetry, mystery, spookiness. So many moods!

Yes. It is extremely difficult. That opening movement is simply "not fair".

If a cattle prod was applied to Brahms' buttocks, I believe Schumann would have emerged!!!


----------



## Kajmanen

Tallisman said:


> Because some of us are more subtle and apply more thought and consideration to our opinions rather than coming up with, easy ones that are brash and uninformed but disguised as eloquent. Latching onto and sticking with assertive and cocksure opinions isn't a sign of reason or logic.


I just dont like mozart, wagner and bach ok?

Ehm, their music.


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> I just dont like mozart, wagner and bach ok?
> 
> Ehm, their music.


This is the piece that got me into classical music:






Now tell me it's not good.


----------



## Kajmanen

Improbus said:


> This is the piece that got me into classical music:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now tell me it's not good.


Its good, it sounds good, on a technical academic level. 

I dont think its interesting nor evocative like some of brahms or dvoraks works. It lacks emotional depth to me.

Maybe i need to listen to it 50 times before I "get it". Or listen to every year as I need to get older to "get it".


----------



## Tallisman

hpowders said:


> If a cattle prod was applied to Brahms' buttocks, I believe Schumann would have emerged!!!


I think I have the wrong mental picture... or at least different from your intention...


----------



## Tallisman

Kajmanen said:


> I just dont like mozart, wagner and bach ok?


OK. But don't call that opinion 'truth' and act as if those who disagree with you are merely pretentious poseurs.


----------



## Botschaft

Kajmanen said:


> Its good, it sounds good, on a technical academic level.
> 
> I dont think its interesting nor evocative like some of brahms or dvoraks works. It lacks emotional depth to me.
> 
> Maybe i need to listen to it 50 times before I "get it". Or listen to every year as I need to get older to "get it".


Five times should be enough. You can't only be listening to romantic music.


----------



## Nereffid

Kajmanen said:


> Its good, it sounds good, on a technical academic level.
> 
> I dont think its interesting nor evocative like some of brahms or dvoraks works. It lacks emotional depth to me.
> 
> Maybe i need to listen to it 50 times before I "get it". Or listen to every year as I need to get older to "get it".


The trick for me (not specifically with Bach, but with music generally) has been to simply _hear more music_. The more music I've heard, the more I've realised that where once I might have had criteria like "must have emotional depth", those criteria have become less significant and have also broadened in their scope. So a work I would once have dismissed as lacking emotional depth might now be revealed to have tons of it, or I might now love it for entirely different reasons. Just the act of repeated exposure to lots of unfamiliar kinds of music has gradually made it easier to listen; but I do mean _lots_ of music and over a long period too - forcing myself to keep listening to the same work over and over has never done me any good.


----------



## mmsbls

Nereffid said:


> The trick for me (not specifically with Bach, but with music generally) has been to simply _hear more music_. The more music I've heard, the more I've realised that where once I might have had criteria like "must have emotional depth", those criteria have become less significant and have also broadened in their scope. So a work I would once have dismissed as lacking emotional depth might now be revealed to have tons of it, or I might now love it for entirely different reasons. Just the act of repeated exposure to lots of unfamiliar kinds of music has gradually made it easier to listen; but I do mean _lots_ of music and over a long period too - forcing myself to keep listening to the same work over and over has never done me any good.


I will second this approach. Of course, some people will never like certain music from Renaissance to Bach to Mozart to Wagner to modern. I listened to several of Schnittke's works and did not enjoy them. I tried them a bit later with the same outcome. Then a couple of years later after listening to a very large amount of modern music, I came back to Schnittke and found I like just about everything I hear of his. Generally people tend not to listen repeatedly to composers or works they don't enjoy so they never complete the process of learning to enjoy them.


----------



## Roger Knox

hpowders said:


> For me Kreisleriana is his finest solo piano work: passion, poetry, mystery, spookiness. So many moods!Yes. It is extremely difficult. That opening movement is simply "not fair".
> If a cattle prod was applied to Brahms' buttocks, I believe Schumann would have emerged!!!


"not fair" ... Was that that last high D you have to jump to at lightning speed a prank by Robert on Clara? In performance I nailed it -- NOT!!! -- as numerous smirking colleagues "pointed out." Wish you'd been there to play the bloody D with a cattle prod or, later, to give my colleagues a poke!


----------



## Der Titan

Overrated: Mozart, Vivaldi, Corelli, Resphigi, Rossini
Underrated: Handel, Purcell, Bellini, Haydn, Reger, Kalkbrenner, Martucci

My comment? Mozart is a wonderful composer, but his music is a bit flattering, what makes him popular. Vivaldi is to easygoing for me, too popular, he is not that great composer, as he is seen by many. Corelli may be music of good taste, but lacks real power. Resphigi is too much sound and not enough substance. Rossini has written some tremendously entertaining music but very often he is really empty. I can't stand his operas. 

Handel is to me too much overshadowed by Bach, for me he is one of these composers I really love. Purcell is a composer of genius and his music is very human and touching. Bellini is a very good composer of the opera. He should be seen as such. Haydn is a composer who never has played to the gallery, but produces music of substance, therefore he can't become that popular. But he is equal to Mozart an Beethoven, one of the three giants of the classical era. Reger is a difficult composer but a very good one. Kalkbrenner is not a first rate composer, that's true, but one of the expamples, that a composer who has become forgotten, could give you a lot of pleasure in his very indidual voice. Martucci I also enjoyed and he was a discovery for me.

But this is of course a German view. And for the German view I must add that English composers are underrated in Germany. US American composers too. That comes from foolish traditions of nationalistic chauvinism. In German forums are of course discussed everything but if you look especially into music guides the neglect of composers like Edward Elgar or Vaughan Williams and many others this is obvious.


----------



## Larkenfield

Crudblud said:


> _Sorceror's Apprentice_ might be popular, but how many other works of Dukas do you think most classical listeners know?


It's unfortunate that Dukas was self-critical to the degree that he destroyed or abandoned many of his scores. Though he left some other works behind, including a piano sonata and symphony, it's no wonder that under the circumstances he's remembered primarily as the composer of _The Sorcerer's Apprentice_.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Larkenfield said:


> It's unfortunate that Dukas was self-critical to the degree that he destroyed or abandoned many of his scores. Though he left some other works behind, including a piano sonata and symphony, it's no wonder that under the circumstances he's remembered primarily as the composer of _The Sorcerer's Apprentice_.


His opera Ariane et Barbe-bleue is actually one of my favorite operas, and ranks probably in my top 15 favorites. Very underrated, and an amazing piece!


----------



## Der Titan

Tchaikov6 said:


> His opera Ariane et Barbe-bleue is actually one of my favorite operas, and ranks probably in my top 15 favorites. Very underrated, and an amazing piece!


I have seen this once in the opera of Hamburg and enjoyed my time there. But it's long ago.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Der Titan said:


> I have seen this once in the opera of Hamburg and enjoyed my time there. But it's long ago.


Yeah I didn't like it too much on first hearing tbh but every time I listen I hear a new wonderful and brilliant thing in the music and the singing.


----------



## Juglandaceous

Der Titan said:


> Underrated: Handel, Purcell, Bellini, Haydn, Reger, Kalkbrenner, Martucci
> 
> Dear Der Titan,
> Greetings! In addition to the underrated composers that you mention, what about Peter Cornelius who lived from 1824 to 1874? What amazes me about his delightful comic opera "Der Barbier von Bagdad" ("The Barber of Baghdad") which premiered in 1858 is that Cornelius was able to stand his own ground and write a lovely and enjoyable opera that was not swept away by the tidal wave of Richard Wagner's influence. If you have never yet heard it, try it and see what you think of it. It may not be a towering masterpiece, but it certainly does not deserve the almost complete neglect in the opera house at least here in the United States. I do not know if it is ever performed live in Germany any more. It's a real treat, and I think you may enjoy listening to it!
> 
> P.S.: Max Reger is one of my favorite composers, but at organ recitals here in the U.S. you rarely get to hear any of his masterpieces--one of my all-time favorites is his "Introduction and Passacaglia in D minor" composed in 1899!
> 
> P.S.S.: Here is a reference to Max Reger that you might enjoy from Hermann Hesse's novel "Demian: Die Geschichte von Emil Sinclairs Jugend"/"Demian: The Story of Emil Sinclair's Youth":
> 
> "Der Musiker spielte darauf auch etwas Modernes, es konnte von Reger sein. Die Kirche war fast völlig dunkel, nur ein ganz dünner Lichtschein drang durchs nächste Fenster. Ich wartete, bis die Musik zu Ende war, und strich dann auf und ab, bis ich den Organisten herauskommen sah. Es war ein noch junger Mensch, doch älter als ich, vierschrötig und untersetzt von Gestalt, und er lief rasch mit kräftigen und gleichsam unwilligen Schritten davon.
> 
> Manchmal saß ich von da an in der Abendstunde vor der Kirche, oder ging auf und ab. Einmal fand ich auch das Tor offen und saß eine halbe Stunde fröstelnd und glücklich im Gestühl, während der Organist oben bei spärlichem Gaslicht spielte. Aus der Musik, die er spielte, hörte ich nicht nur ihn selbst. Es schien mir auch alles, was er spielte, unter sich verwandt zu sein, einen geheimen Zusammenhang zu haben. Alles, was er spielte, war gläubig, war hingegeben und fromm, . . ."
> 
> English translation from http://www.msjkeeler.com/uploads/1/4/0/6/1406968/demian.pdf :
> "The organist also played something more modern--it could have been Max Reger. The church was almost completely dark, only a very thin beam of light penetrated the window closest to me. I waited until the music ceased and then paced back and forth until I saw the organist leave the church. He was still young, though older than I, square-shouldered and squat, and he moved off rapidly with vigorous yet seemingly reluctant strides. From then on I occasionally sat outside the church or paced up and down before it during the evening hours. Once I even found the door open and sat for half an hour in a pew, shivering against the cold, yet happy as long as the organist played in the loft. I not only distinguished his personality in the music he played--every piece he performed also had affinity with the next, a secret connection. Everything he played was full of faith, surrender, and devotion."


----------



## Der Titan

Hi Juglandaceous

Thank you for your advice regarding Peter Cornelius. I knew his name but not his music. I will go on holiday now. But maybe when I am back we can talk about neglected composers. By the way I have this box, a box of 20 CDs with mostly neglected composers:









I got to know the Kalkbrenner through this box and other composers. I bought then some Hyperion CDs for this repertoire, for example the 2 CDs with the Kalkbrenner concertos. The box is expansive now but was very cheap when I bought it. It was for me very fascinating to explore music of composers now nearly forgotten, maybe a bit second rate, but not bad at all. The Hyperion CDs are of course better than these recordings with very often second rate orchestras and bad rehearsals, although I don't complain about the pianists.

Regards
Martin


----------



## mathisdermaler

Overrated:
Everyone except Beethoven and Bruckner.

Okay, I'm not serious, but for me there is some truth to this. Their music is just so perfect that everything else pales in comparison. It's kind of sad actually  The only other composers I've been listening to recently are high modernists (Cage, Berio, Stockhausen, etc.) and Satie. None of these composers try to be Beethoven or Bruckner in any conceivable way, and so I still find something unique and valuable in their work. I'm sure I will get over this phase in a week or so, but right now it's how I feel. I try so hard to enjoy Mahler symphonies but inevitably get distracted and put on one of Bruckner's! I feel like a drug addict


----------



## mathisdermaler

hpowders said:


> Underrated:
> William Schuman, terrific symphonies.
> * Charles Ives, how many have heard his terrific Concord Piano Sonata?
> * Robert Schumann, rarely see his solo piano music discussed on TC; Kreisleriana, Fantasie in C, Waldszenen. Terrific stuff!
> Vincent Persichetti: twelve sparkling piano sonatas.


 I love how much you love and vouch for this sonata. It's one of my favorites too!


----------



## Bulldog

mathisdermaler said:


> I love how much you love and vouch for this sonata. It's one of my favorites too!


This very same sonata will be coming up in the Rolls-Royce piano sonata game. Check it out and do some voting.

I endorse these comments.


----------



## hpowders

mathisdermaler said:


> I love how much you love and vouch for this sonata. It's one of my favorites too!


I will keep vouching for the Ives Concord Piano Sonata, until I can vouch no more, and join Ives in eternal sleep.


----------



## mathisdermaler

hpowders said:


> I will keep vouching for the Ives Concord Piano Sonata, until I can vouch no more, and join Ives in eternal sleep.


with this playing in the background


----------



## Juglandaceous

Mein Lieber Herr Martin "Der Titan,"

Thank you for your kind message! You are right about the "The Golden Age of the Romantic Piano Concerto"--it's now astronomically expensive. I checked it out at Amazon and the cost for a new copy is $235.23! I saw that CD #11 includes the Piano Concerto No. 1 in D by Franz Berwald, and since I like Berwald's four symphonies, I would like to check out his Piano Concerto also. I don't remember having heard any of the music of Friedrich Kalkbrenner, but I found that his Piano Concerto No. 1 in D minor, Op. 61 and also his Piano Concerto No. 2 in E minor, Op. 85 are both available on YouTube. I wish you an enjoyable holiday!

Sincerely,
Juglandaceous


----------



## hpowders

mathisdermaler said:


> with this playing in the background


Yes. That is wonderful. Hauntingly beautiful!


----------



## JJF

mathisdermaler said:


> I love how much you love and vouch for this sonata. It's one of my favorites too!


Is their a favorite recording of this?


----------



## Juglandaceous

Possibly the most BEAUTIFUL symphony ever written: Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 8 in B Minor--"The Unfinished"

Possibly the most DYNAMIC symphony ever written: Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9 in C Major--"The Great"


----------



## Jacck

Bulldog said:


> I think that a lot of folks like to "take down" the masters; they feel it marks them as individualistic, bold, and highly discriminating patrons of the arts. In actuality, they are jerks.


I kind of dislike the cults that are being build around certain composers - Beethoven, Mozart etc. They were GREAT composers, but why this constant infantile need to compare other composers to their greatness and thus diminish their works? Why this infantile quasi-hysterial reaction when someone dares not to agree that Beethoven was the greatest composer ever?


----------



## JLi

I think that Louise Farrenc, Charles-Valentin Alkan, Paul Hindemith, Alexander Zemlinsky, George Enescu, and Alexander Glazunov are all underrated.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Over rated:
Beethoven 
Mozart 
Bach
Et. al
Etc., etc.

Under rated:
Beethoven 
Mozart 
Bach
Et. al
Etc., etc.


----------



## Juglandaceous

Also highly underappreciated are the four delightful symphonies composed in 1767 by the fine English composer Thomas Arne (1710-1778). You might enjoy hearing them at 



 .


----------



## Michael Diemer

Don't know if Dvorák has been mentioned in this epic thread, but from what I see on this forum, he appears to be underrated. I like everything I have heard by him. I consider him one of the 20 or so greatest composers of all time. His symphonies and tone poems stand up to anyone's. Am I wrong?


----------



## mmsbls

Michael Diemer said:


> Don't know if Dvorák has been mentioned in this epic thread, but from what I see on this forum, he appears to be underrated. I like everything I have heard by him. I consider him one of the 20 or so greatest composers of all time. His symphonies and tone poems stand up to anyone's. Am I wrong?


I love Dvorak and I think most TC members do as well. In two polls taken here and here he came in 17th and 13th.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> I kind of dislike the cults that are being build around certain composers - Beethoven, Mozart etc. They were GREAT composers, but why this constant infantile need to compare other composers to their greatness and thus diminish their works? *Why this infantile quasi-hysterial reaction when someone dares not to agree that Beethoven was the greatest composer ever?*


Dunno about Beethoven being the greatest. But there are people who make a cult about certain composers. I can never quote see it as there are surely more important things in life - like just enjoying the music we enjoy. I mean, why should I care (still less get upset) if someone doesn't appreciate my favourite composer? It's his / her loss not mine.


----------



## R3PL4Y

Carlos Chavez was a really great composer who is very rarely performed. His cycle of six symphonies are all excellent, as are his concertos for trombone, piano, and violin. Unfortunately, recordings of some of his works are very hard to come by.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

R3PL4Y said:


> Carlos Chavez was a really great composer who is very rarely performed. His cycle of six symphonies are all excellent, as are his concertos for trombone, piano, and violin. Unfortunately, recordings of some of his works are very hard to come by.


I agree, my favorite Carlos Chavez piece is Xochipilli. I also think Revueltas composed some works of the highest caliber.

Composers that I think are of the highest greatness but not generally seen as such.....

BUXTEHUDE.


----------



## Nereffid

Michael Diemer said:


> Don't know if Dvorák has been mentioned in this epic thread


I'm pretty sure by now every well-known composer has been mentioned here as both underrated and overrated.


----------



## Genoveva

Nereffid said:


> I'm pretty sure by now every well-known composer has been mentioned here as both underrated and overrated.


I often wonder why some people don't like one of more of the composers that most others consider to be great, whilst others rave about composers many people regard as marginal.

Obviously there's different tastes but I wonder if some people haven't really got much experience of some composers who are generally considered to be "great" and just want to have a "go" at those other folk who like them. Likewise, there could be the occasional "Beethoven-fan-boy" type of person who's never given the likes of Ligeti a chance, and sneers at anyone whose interests lie in in that area.

Whatever the reason, it's not particularly interesting reading through a litany of likes or dislikes, often with no explanations of the choices given. I mean if someone said something like_ "I think composer X is over-rated because he/she wrote too much stuff (e.g. opera) that doesn't appeal to me", _then we'd be better informed. Otherwise it's purely gratuitous information.


----------



## Juglandaceous

Genoveva said:


> I often wonder why some people don't like one of more of the composers that most others consider to be great, whilst others rave about composers many people regard as marginal.
> 
> Obviously there's different tastes but I wonder if some people haven't really got much experience of some composers who are generally considered to be "great" and just want to have a "go" at those other folk who like them. Likewise, there could be the occasional "Beethoven-fan-boy" type of person who's never given the likes of Ligeti a chance, and sneers at anyone whose interests lie in in that area.
> 
> Whatever the reason, it's not particularly interesting reading through a litany of likes or dislikes, often with no explanations of the choices given. I mean if someone said something like_ "I think composer X is over-rated because he/she wrote too much stuff (e.g. opera) that doesn't appeal to me", _then we'd be better informed. Otherwise it's purely gratuitous information.


Thank you, Genoveva! On a side note, I once wrote a paper on Robert Schumann's only opera "Genoveva" which premiered in Leipzig in 1850, and I would so much love to see an actual live performance of it here in the United States. Sadly, I think the first-ever staged production of this beautiful opera in the U.S. did not take place until 2006 (!!!) at the Bard SummerScape Festival in New York. Moreover, the production of "Genoveva" in Germany by the Bielefeld Opera in 1995 apparently was the first staged production WORLDWIDE IN OVER 70 YEARS if the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoveva is accurate. How profoundly sad because it really is a lovely work. Thank you again!

Sincerely,
Juglandaceous


----------



## hpowders

Overrated: Liszt, Bruckner, Paganini, Vivaldi, Scarlatti.

Underrated: Haydn, Persichetti, Schuman, Schoenberg, Berg.

* SOL INVICTUS:* As an answer to your post below, yes. He may have been America's finest symphonist, yet if it wasn't for Naxos, his music would wallow in cobwebs!

His Sixth Symphony is arguably, the finest symphony ever written by an American, yet I'm sure maybe 10%, if that many, TC'ers have even heard it.


----------



## Sol Invictus

hpowders said:


> Overrated: Liszt, Bruckner, Paganini, Vivaldi, Scarlatti.
> 
> Underrated: Haydn, Persichetti, Schuman, Schoenberg, Berg.


William Schuman?


----------



## Heck148

hpowders said:


> Underrated: Haydn, Persichetti, Schuman, Schoenberg, Berg.


Yes, definitely, great composers...


> His Sixth Symphony is arguably, the finest symphony ever written by an American,


#6 is very good, but I would put Schuman #3 as the greatest American symphony....heavy duty, for sure....


----------



## Larkenfield

After a lifetime of listening, I am not for such lists. Even if a composer wrote only one work that I happen to like, I would still not want to be without it; it would still be worth hearing regardless of how little else the composer wrote that I liked, or how little others regarded the composer. To mention any composer, some of whom wrote a lifetime of works, as if the person only wrote one work or in one way, is to praise or undervalue them with too broad a brushstroke. What interests me is _one composer and one work at a time _without generalizing the person to death. I believe the same is true of conductors, orchestras, soloists, and vocalists, whose performances will forever vary in quality and should not be confined to any sort of a list, as if it's possible to reach a final conclusion regarding anyone. I've found there's always the exception to any blanket generalization and encourage others to consider the same.


----------



## R3PL4Y

I certainly agree with others here about William Schuman. I saw a performance of the third symphony not too long ago. He generally has very interesting harmonies as well as always solid counterpoint.


----------



## hpowders

^^^^Yes. Poor Schuman. Another victim of the obnoxiously conservative audiences, prefering their Beethoven/Brahms symphonies for the umpteenth time.

His third is most famous, but his sixth is his masterpiece. A highly profound work, arguably the greatest symphony ever composed by an American.


----------



## Mood Drifter

The most overrated -- at least by some -- Wagner. Favorite composer of Hitler and the Reich. Contributed Teutonic "Sturm und Drang" but nothing that ever outdid manifold composers before or since. And we're all not perfect people, but Wagner was distinctly less perfect than most. Metalheads think him a precursor.

The most underrated of the 20th century might be Hovhaness. This is the kind of example we need to show how classical music can be relevant to people (he didn't fare that well with the academy).


----------



## eugeneonagain

Mood Drifter said:


> The most overrated -- at least by some -- Wagner. Favorite composer of Hitler and the Reich...


Hitler's favourite composer was Bruckner.


----------



## Thomyum2

Mood Drifter said:


> The most underrated of the 20th century might be Hovhaness. This is the kind of example we need to show how classical music can be relevant to people (he didn't fare that well with the academy).


I've recently rediscovered Hovhaness' music and definitely agree it's underrated. I haven't completely figured out what I really think about it - it is unique and kind of defies categorization. But it has a youthful and spontaneous spirit.


----------



## Kieran

This thread really should have been a poll... :lol:


----------



## Pugg

Thomyum2 said:


> I've recently rediscovered Hovhaness' music and definitely agree it's underrated. I haven't completely figured out what I really think about it - it is unique and kind of defies categorization. But it has a youthful and spontaneous spirit.


Great first post, welcome to Talk Classical.


----------



## Parsifal62

I second last 4 on your underrated list, I haven't heard boulez or varese, stocky meh.


----------



## Red Terror

Underrated: Ernst Krenek, Witold Lutosławski, Vyacheslav Artyomov, Arnold Schoenberg.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Red Terror said:


> Underrated: Ernst Krenek, *Witold Lutosławsk*i, Vyacheslav Artyomov, Arnold Schoenberg.


Totally agree. Lutoslawski for me is one of the best late 20th century composers, along with Messiaen and Shostakovich.


----------



## starthrower

Panufnik doesn't get much attention. Nor does Laszlo Lajtha. I love both.


----------



## Larkenfield

Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf... still overrated after all these years.  Actually, he was better than that and I played one of his classical symphonies years ago in a youth orchestra. At his best, he can have an agreeable sense of lightness and pleasant refinement, though at times perhaps a little too literal, conventional and redundant, where I thought highly of him not based entirely on teasing him about his jittery name. As far as Classical composers are concerned, he sounds like a true proponent of proportion, economy, and balance, pure and overall cheerful.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

In general I don't tend to think classical composers are very overrated and ******** on classical music is pretty futile anyway. The underrated lists are quite interesting though!

Overrated: Hildegard von Bingen (although I can see her appeal), Paganini (although I can see his appeal), Elgar (same comment)

Underrated (I'm excluding the most famous composers from this list but I do consider many if not most of them to be underrated as well): Godowsky, Medtner (also a great pianist!), Schnittke (although he seems to get appreciation on TC, which is refreshing), Messiaen (same comment), Couperin, Faure (I guess he's sorta famous but not that many people know his output beyond a few pieces) etc, etc (so many; so much great music out there!)


----------



## flamencosketches

Hildegard is overrated? :lol: I must not spend enough time in this crowd, but the only person I've ever met who knows her music is my girlfriend who's a big fan. I like what I've heard a lot. 

I'm not really in a position to be making these claims. One thing to note in my perception is that it seems like Debussy is slightly overrated and Ravel is slightly underrated, but I guess I'm only saying that cuz I like one more than the other.  I'd be willing to say I think Beethoven is overrated just due to the ridiculous praise/borderline worship I see some people give him (and the beyond ubiquitous nature of a lot of his music all over our culture, even outside of the music world). But I'm starting to think that he probably just really is that good.


----------



## ojoncas

The thing is, a composer can be overrated and underrated as well, it really all depends on what pieces you’re focusing your mind on.

Beethoven’s late string quartets can’t be overrated, but so are some piano sonatas?
This topic is trickier than it seems.

I’m okay with underrated composers that just didn’t get the chance to have this fame we have around others, but the “Greats” and “Famous” ones are so called these titles for reasons.

My answer: Classical is underrated.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf... still overrated after all these years.  Actually, he was better than that and I played one of his classical symphonies years ago in a youth orchestra. At his best, he can have an agreeable sense of lightness and pleasant refinement, though at times perhaps a little too literal, conventional and redundant, where I thought highly of him not based entirely on teasing him about his jittery name. As far as Classical composers are concerned, he sounds like a true proponent of proportion, economy, and balance, pure and overall cheerful.


Your description makes me want to avoid Dittersdorf. Well, OK, I do that already... 

I do recommend, though, his farcical little opera buffa, _Arcifanfano, King of Fools._ As far as I know, there's only one recording of it, and one of the cast members is Anna Russell. It's absolute nonsense and it makes the 19th century seem like a fun time. Maybe Dittersdorf isn't so much over- or underrated as overlooked and unknown, like a lot of Mozart's and Haydn's contemporaries.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

@flamencosketches

Hildegard is overrated when people consider her music, but often (not always) overlooked/underrated when people talk about music as a whole. Although I also agree that what she wrote is very nice. 

I agree Debussy is overrated compared to Ravel (not overrated generally though), but yeah I'm also just saying that for the same reason. Check out his suite Estampes (the first piece, Pagodes, is one of my favorite Debussy pieces both to listen to and to play).

Lastly, Beethoven really IS that good, and even if his music is so ubiquitous compared to that of other composers, the problem is that classical music is underrated (I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea, but still), not at all that Beethoven is overrated.


----------



## Red Terror

György Kurtág
Witold Lutosławski
Ernst Krenek
Ben Johnston
Vyacheslav Artyomovis
____________________
= ALL UNDERRATED


----------



## starthrower

Red Terror said:


> György Kurtág
> Witold Lutosławski
> Ernst Krenek
> Ben Johnston
> Vyacheslav Artyomovis
> ____________________
> = ALL UNDERRATED


I love Krenek! His quartets are all high quality music. And the chamber ensemble disc on the Toccata label is killer!


----------



## Larkenfield

Leroy Anderson is most certainly underrated if one likes this type of music.


----------



## vtpoet

At the risk of offending all sides, I'm a bit of the opinion that composers are ranked about where they should be. I really can't think of any that are truly overrated or underrated. I do have my list of composers I very much like but I wouldn't say they are underrated --- M Haydn, WF Bach, the Bendas, Krauss, Rosetti, Buxtehude (who is more honored than listened to), etc... I primarily listen to music between the early baroque and late classical...


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Red Terror said:


> György Kurtág
> Witold Lutosławski
> Ernst Krenek
> Ben Johnston
> Vyacheslav Artyomovis
> ____________________
> = ALL UNDERRATED


Ben Johnston is really cool!


----------



## Heck148

Larkenfield said:


> Leroy Anderson is most certainly underrated if one likes this type of music.


with LeRoy Anderson's "Typewriter", it was always necessary to re-tune the orchestra....we'd take the "A" from the typewriter!!


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I can't be doing with all this ranking and 'X better than Y' nonsense. Music is too subjective.
But in the interests of stirring the pot, may I add John Ireland and Frank Bridge to the ranks of the under-rated?


----------



## stone

Respighi is underrated. Most people know his Roman trilogy but his vocal music is great and underappreciated.


----------



## Woodduck

I was listening to some Telemann concertos yesterday and was greatly impressed with their inventiveness and mastery. He seemed always eager to try new things, and never failed to convey the joy of making music, which he wrote in incredible quantities, never running out of fresh ideas and ever responsive to the varied styles prevalent during his long lifetime. I suspect Telemann is typically compared, even if unconsciously, to Bach, but that is surely the wrong way to look at him; they were both masters of their craft, but of very different temperaments.

A few days earlier I was listening to some Vivaldi concertos and choral works, and was struck even more forcefully than formerly by the formulaic structures, figurations and harmonies on which he relied again and again and again. Telemann was much less predictable - to me much more interesting - and so I'm going to say that Telemann is underrated and Vivaldi is overrated.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...and so I'm going to say that Telemann is underrated and Vivaldi is overrated.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Red Terror

*Vagn Holmboe* is vastly underrated.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> I was listening to some Telemann concertos yesterday and was greatly impressed with their inventiveness and mastery. He seemed always eager to try new things, and never failed to convey the joy of making music, which he wrote in incredible quantities, never running out of fresh ideas and ever responsive to the varied styles prevalent during his long lifetime. I suspect Telemann is typically compared, even if unconsciously, to Bach, but that is surely the wrong way to look at him; they were both masters of their craft, but of very different temperaments.
> 
> A few days earlier I was listening to some Vivaldi concertos and choral works, and was struck even more forcefully than formerly by the formulaic structures, figurations and harmonies on which he relied again and again and again. Telemann was much less predictable - to me much more interesting - and so I'm going to say that Telemann is underrated and Vivaldi is overrated.


Agreed.

Vivaldi's rep rests on the 4 seasons more or less. And maybe a handful of other works - Gloria - concerto for mandolin.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Pat Fairlea said:


> *I can't be doing with all this ranking and 'X better than Y' nonsense.* Music is too subjective.
> But in the interests of stirring the pot, may I add John Ireland and Frank Bridge to the ranks of the under-rated?


noted ........................


----------



## pickybear

- Mendelssohn, is cloying and sentimental to me. 

- I find Wagner overbearing, and only a small handful of pieces I think are worthy of his reputation. 

- Chopin and Mahler. Don't hate me. I adore Chopin, but he is constantly rated along with masters, while he was more a salon player, a master of miniatures, and lacked the ability or desire to expand thematically. Listening again to his Spring Waltz confirms to me what his intentions on the piano were. 

-Mahler, I never liked. Sorry. I find his music bloated, and wandering. 

-Philip Glass and Einaudi, for modern composers, are to me overrated except in the context of a film or documentary score. 


Monteverdi and Heinrich Schutz are continuously underrated. Shostakovich as well. Albinoni. Marais. Many others.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

pickybear said:


> - Mendelssohn, is cloying and sentimental to me.
> 
> - I find Wagner overbearing, and only a small handful of pieces I think are worthy of his reputation.
> 
> - Chopin and Mahler. Don't hate me. I adore Chopin, but he is constantly rated along with masters, while he was more a salon player, a master of miniatures, and lacked the ability or desire to expand thematically. Listening again to his Spring Waltz confirms to me what his intentions on the piano were.
> 
> -Mahler, I never liked. Sorry. I find his music bloated, and wandering.
> 
> -Philip Glass and Einaudi, for modern composers, are to me overrated except in the context of a film or documentary score.
> 
> Monteverdi and Heinrich Schutz are continuously underrated. Shostakovich as well. Albinoni. Marais. Many others.


The "Spring Waltz" is not by Chopin...
Also, based on what you said, I think you should check out the 4th Ballade; might change your opinion on him.

If I went for the "big names" I think are overrated, I'd choose Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Vivaldi, and Dvorak. I also think a lot of early composers are maybe a tad overrated. But I still enjoy them a lot.

As for the "big names" I consider to be underrated, there are a lot of them. Faure, Ravel, Sibelius, and Scriabin come to mind immediately. I might even have to put Bach and Beethoven on that list since some boneheads insist that they are not the top 2.  :tiphat:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I don't know about overrated, but if I was given the power to alter composers' reputations, I'd swap those of Bach of Handel. I enjoy much from the former, but I adore a great deal more from the latter.


----------



## AeolianStrains

stomanek said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Vivaldi's rep rests on the 4 seasons more or less. And maybe a handful of other works - Gloria - concerto for mandolin.


Maybe? His best works are all the other violin concertos. Il Sospetto, La Stravaganza, L'Estro Armonico, the most beautiful Stabat Mater, etc. The Four Seasons are among the most recorded pieces of all time. That's just the icing on his lovely orchestral cake.


----------



## BachIsBest

Underrated:
Mahler - I haven't seen him mentioned yet as underrated (not that I read every page) but honestly his symphonies are easily better than Beethovens.

Tarantini - He wrote quite a few excellent violin sonatas as well as some other music that's mostly ignored today

Overrated:
Tchivaisky
Wagner


----------



## Xisten267

AeolianStrains said:


> Maybe? His best works are all the other violin concertos. Il Sospetto, La Stravaganza, L'Estro Armonico, the most beautiful Stabat Mater, etc. The Four Seasons are among the most recorded pieces of all time. That's just the icing on his lovely orchestral cake.


I love Vivaldi and disagree that he's overrated, for me the best moments of his music are second only to Bach's if we're talking of Baroque era. I have never listened so far to anything by Telemann that is as beautiful and moving (to me at least) as Vivaldi's aria _Sovente il sole_ for example:






A problem I have with the Red Priest is to find what I think are good performances of his music. Ayo and _I Musici_ are far from being ideal in my opinion, and I think that many other performances don't get his unique accent.

Perhaps it's worth noting that Bach may have had Vivaldi in high steem, as he not only made many transcriptions of music by the italian but also modelled his own concertos on his. And, as I read somewhere in the net, "if Bach likes your music, you know you are doing good".


----------



## Dimace

Der Titan said:


> Overrated:* Mozart, Vivaldi, Corelli, Resphigi, Rossini
> *Underrated: Handel, Purcell, *Bellini*, Haydn, Reger, Kalkbrenner, *Martucci
> *
> My comment? Mozart is a wonderful composer, but his music is a bit flattering, what makes him popular. Vivaldi is to easygoing for me, too popular, he is not that great composer, as he is seen by many. Corelli may be music of good taste, but lacks real power. Resphigi is too much sound and not enough substance. Rossini has written some tremendously entertaining music but very often he is really empty. I can't stand his operas.
> 
> Handel is to me too much overshadowed by Bach, for me he is one of these composers I really love. Purcell is a composer of genius and his music is very human and touching. Bellini is a very good composer of the opera. He should be seen as such. Haydn is a composer who never has played to the gallery, but produces music of substance, therefore he can't become that popular. But he is equal to Mozart an Beethoven, one of the three giants of the classical era. Reger is a difficult composer but a very good one. Kalkbrenner is not a first rate composer, that's true, but one of the expamples, that a composer who has become forgotten, could give you a lot of pleasure in his very indidual voice. Martucci I also enjoyed and he was a discovery for me.
> 
> But this is of course a German view. And for the German view I must add that English composers are underrated in Germany. US American composers too. That comes from foolish traditions of nationalistic chauvinism. In German forums are of course discussed everything but if you look especially into music guides the neglect of composers like Edward Elgar or Vaughan Williams and many others this is obvious.


I agree, but not without some comments for the Austrian and Rossini.

Mozart is overrated in the time BEFORE the late symphonies, concertos, sonatas and the Requiem. (a lot of high quality works) He has composed A LOT. Terribly lot. Somehow is very rational, many of his works not to be at the top level.

Rossini was very lazy guy. He stopped composing very young. Also, his top / famous operas they have laziness problems. They are starting very strongly but in quite early stages they are losing in quality and interesting. Donizetti (with Don Pasquale) had also this problem...

Vivaldi, Corelli and Respighi are not something special. Total agreement here.

Bellini is NOT underrated. Martuci is a GREAT composer, who is underrated.


----------



## Dimace

Without the involvement of my personal taste I can not say who is overrated, because this list will be long and highly unfair. I will say who is underrated. This guy is* William Wallace.*A composer who knew a lot of music and composed excellent orchestral pieces of the highest romantic standards.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Dimace said:


> Mozart is overrated in the time BEFORE the late symphonies, concertos, sonatas and the Requiem. (a lot of high quality works) He has composed A LOT. Terribly lot. Somehow is very rational, many of his works not to be at the top level.


I can agree with this. I think Mozart in his early and middle periods certainly had some gems, but also had a lot of works "not at the top level".



Dimace said:


> Martuci is a GREAT composer, who is underrated.


I've actually never heard of him; thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Dimace

hammeredklavier said:


> ROFL, I love the logic in these people. I have explained in detail time and time again how about 2/3 of what Chopin wrote (aside from Ballades, Sonatas, Etudes, Scherzos) are unimpressive by the standards set by the greats, I won't spend any more time explaining as I hate saying bad things about any composer and don't want to trigger "them".
> Worst compositions by the major composers
> Great melodists?
> Most perfectionist composer
> *"Mozart had a lot of works "not at the top level".*- Wait, this is coming from someone who praises Brahms as a great melodist in his username. I mean Brahms - the guy who said "when Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works." Does Beethoven Have the Strongest Voice of the Big Three?
> ..I guess that's understandable, but please name me one composer who wrote tons of music and still had top quality in his works? Beethoven? Let's look at his choral works before Missa Solemnis Op.123:
> King Stephen Op. 117
> Glorious Moment Op.136
> Choral Fantasia Op.80
> Ruins of Athens Op.113
> Christ on the Mount of Olives Op.85
> -How untouchably great are these (I'm not saying they're bad) compared with Mozart Missa Longa in C major K262 or Litaniae de Venerabili in E flat major K243, for example? Beethoven Mass in C major Op.86?- There's even a story behind this piece where Beethoven got publicly humiliated by Hummel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_C_major_(Beethoven)
> (again, I must stress *I do not think Beethoven is overrated*, I'm just using him as an example cause he's the unofficial greatest composer on TC. The greatest composer? I apologize to all diehard Beethoven fans on the forum for saying all the things above. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy listening to stuff Mozart wrote in his early to mid teens. In fact I enjoy them more than any of the constant proto-minimalist rambling of Schubert (which you seemed to defend at all costs). Prove to me this is a bad thing.
> Missa Brevis in D minor K65:
> 
> 
> 
> Miserere in A minor K85:
> 
> 
> 
> Kyrie in D minor K90:
> 
> 
> 
> Litaniae de Venerabili in B flat major K125:
> 
> 
> 
> Missa in honorem Sanctissimae in C major K167:
> 
> 
> 
> String Quartet in F major K168:
> 
> 
> 
> String Quartet in D minor K173:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm baffled as to why you occasionally say things like "music is subjective, it's all about what you like, all how much you like, that's all that matters" but other times get judgmental and nit-picky all you want about certain masters. It just doesn't make sense to me. How can you prove something like 'early Mozart' is badly written, when you said yourself your philosophy in music - music is subjective. There's no such thing as "bad music".
> 
> Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960


These were MY words! :lol: Doesn't matter! Very nice post! :tiphat:


----------



## Enthusiast

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I can agree with this. I think Mozart in his early and middle periods certainly had some gems, but also had a lot of works "not at the top level".


I am not sure I do agree! Firstly, what revered and great composer did compose only huge masterpieces? For almost any composer you will find different types of works, composed for different purposes ... and not all of them succeeed even on their own terms. The works of the greats that we revere tend to be a relatively small proportion of their complete output. Mozart certainly wrote quite a number of lesser and occasional pieces but he was no slouch and his "masterpiece count" over his career was very high!

And, then, really Mozart's output post-1774 seems to contain a great many masterpieces (with his first truly great opera - Idomeneo - arriving in 1780). The period before that had quite a few as well - and by masterpieces I mean as great as anything from their time and still enormously rewarding now. Many of the symphonies composed after 1772 in particular seem truly wonderful. I think it fair to say that his output from the last twenty years of his short life - he died at 35 - has been matched for quality by very few indeed - if by any.


----------



## Dimace

Enthusiast said:


> I am not sure I do agree! Firstly, what revered and great composer did compose only huge masterpieces? For almost any composer you will find different types of works, composed for different purposes ... and not all of them succeeed even on their own terms. The works of the greats that we revere tend to be a relatively small proportion of their complete output. Mozart certainly wrote quite a number of lesser and occasional pieces but he was no slouch and his "masterpiece count" over his career was very high!
> 
> And, then, really Mozart's output post-1774 seems to contain a great many masterpieces (with his first truly great opera - Idomeneo - arriving in 1780). The period before that had quite a few as well - and by masterpieces I mean as great as anything from their time and still enormously rewarding now. Many of the symphonies composed after 1772 in particular seem truly wonderful. I think it fair to say that his output from the last twenty years of his short life - he died at 35 - has been matched for quality by very few indeed - if by any.


It is very strange: And the times I don't agree with you, I like your posts.

*agreement is nothing in music. Opinion is everything.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

@hammeredklavier:

1. My username is semi-ironic. Yes, I do think Brahms wrote some beautiful melodies (though melody generally serves a slightly different role in his music compared to say, Mozart's or Schubert's), but it is more to poke fun at how people try (or might try) to evaluate music.

2. I've never heard you give a valid explanation as to why 2/3 of what Chopin wrote was "unimpressive".

3. Taste in music IS subjective. In my opinion, many of Mozart's earlier works . This is why I wrote "I agree" and "I think" in response to Dimace's post. Though, I will admit, I am perhaps guilty of thinking that casting judgement upon music is BOUNDEDLY subjective (and thus somewhat objective), but this could easily just be pretense speaking.

4. If you enjoy listening to early Mozart, that's great. When did I ever suggest that this was a "bad thing"? I also enjoy it a lot, but I generally prefer his later output.

5. Thanks for the recommendations!

P.S. Mozart is one of my favorite composers. If I were to rank who I think are the "greatest" composers, Mozart would probably be #3 (ahead of Chopin, Schubert, and Brahms!).


----------



## Larkenfield

David Overton is overrated and Ramallah Underground and Jared Underwood are underrated.


----------



## hammeredklavier

2. I've never heard you give a valid explanation as to why 2/3 of what Chopin wrote was "unimpressive".

I gave valid explanation for that time and time again, it's much more detailed and thorough than things said by some members here who don't seem to differentiate between "something that's overrated/underrated" and "something they like/dislike" on regular basis. Do I must quote them directly.

Great melodists?
Worst compositions by the major composers
Most perfectionist composer

3. Taste in music IS subjective. In my opinion, many of Mozart's earlier works . This is why I wrote "I agree" and "I think" in response to Dimace's post. Though, I will admit, I am perhaps guilty of thinking that casting judgement upon music is BOUNDEDLY subjective (and thus somewhat objective), but this could easily just be pretense speaking.
4. If you enjoy listening to early Mozart, that's great. When did I ever suggest that this was a "bad thing"? I also enjoy it a lot, but I generally prefer his later output.

I'm telling you and Dimace the fact that "a composer's earlier works are not at the same level as his later works" is not a valid reason to condemn a composer overrated. Listen to Dvorak's earlier works- are they on the same level as his later works? Whatabout Beethoven's other choral works except Missa Solenmis, which I discussed in my previous post? Even the great JS Bach's earliest works are not at the same level as his greatest masterworks.




And I believe (although music is subjective to a degree) not all musical contributions in history are equal. They did not inspire and impact generations of later practitioners to the same extent. Some did more, others did less. For example, here's a composer who did not go much beyond than mere song-writing and whose symphonies, string quartets, and all large forms are mere second-rates after Mozart and Beethoven.



hammeredklavier said:


> eugeneonagain actually has some valid points. I have to say my faith is restored upon seeing there's actually someone with courage to speak against TC's overhype for Schubert.
> For example, TC actually believes Schubert wrote the greatest piano sonata (D960)
> and the greatest string quintet ever (D956) so overwhelmingly great that it puts all others to shame.. What is the greatest string quintet?
> I was like w t f





hammeredklavier said:


> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit Look. Schubert even wrote the best string quartet, according to TC. Death and Maiden, (frankly I laugh whenever I listen to this piece, I can't tell whether he's being serious or funny) far surpassing Beethoven's C sharp minor. He even has a symphony rated right below that tier. (Are all his symphonies truly that superior to Haydn's 83th?) What's more. He wrote the best piano sonata, far surpassing Liszt's B minor. Thank god he didn't compose a piano concerto, had he done so he have surpassed Brahms. His C major quintet literally destroys all others'. Others get frequently bashed for writing banal, simple music and their enthusiasts ridiculed for building cults around them when there is this guy who never had good grasp in counterpoint or structural balance but instead resorted to mass-producing proto-minimalist texture throughout his output. I mean come on.. Let's face it.


P.S. Mozart is one of my favorite composers. If I were to rank who I think are the "greatest" composers, Mozart would probably be #3 (ahead of Chopin, Schubert, and Brahms!).

It doesn't matter whether he's one of your favorites, what matters to me is whether you're judging these composers by the equal criteria and standard.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> 2. I've never heard you give a valid explanation as to why 2/3 of what Chopin wrote was "unimpressive".
> 
> I gave valid explanation for that time and time again, it's much more detailed and thorough than things said by some members here who don't seem to differentiate between "something that's overrated/underrated" and "something they like/dislike" on regular basis. Do I must quote them directly.
> 
> Great melodists?
> Worst compositions by the major composers
> Most perfectionist composer


The problem is that when one is offered a 50-carat diamond that's smaller in size but may be worth far more than a full-size Mercedes-Benz, the person may not be able to tell the difference in value. There are miniatures and then there are miniatures.

"His genius was filled with the mysterious sounds of nature, but transformed into sublime equivalents in musical thought, and not through slavish imitation of the actual external sounds... The gift of Chopin is [the expression of] the deepest and fullest feelings and emotions that have ever existed. He made a single instrument speak a language of infinity. He could often sum up, in ten lines that a child could play, poems of a boundless exaltation, dramas of unequaled power." ―George Sand

Exactly.

.....


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> 2. I've never heard you give a valid explanation as to why 2/3 of what Chopin wrote was "unimpressive".
> 
> I gave valid explanation for that time and time again, it's much more detailed and thorough than things said by some members here who don't seem to differentiate between "something that's overrated/underrated" and "something they like/dislike" on regular basis. Do I must quote them directly.
> 
> .


You've given explanations, in fact I remember a thread you made about Chopin. I also remember 95% of people disagreeing with your explanations (including myself). You don't find Chopin as impressive as you find some earlier composers. We get it. Why should we experience him the same way just because you say so?

More importantly, it seems very important to you that people share your views on music. I used to be the same way, but I have a much healthier and more fruitful relationship with music since I have moved away from that.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Agreed entirely; it is one thing to share your views on music with others, it is another to expect others to share your view.


----------



## DeepR

Also, there's no reason to take away anything from other composers, or to put them down, in order to elevate Mozart. Which is what almost every post by hammeredklavier seems to be about. Mozart doesn't need that, at all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DeepR said:


> Also, there's no reason to take away anything from other composers, or to put them down, in order to elevate Mozart. Which is what almost every post by hammeredklavier seems to be about. Mozart doesn't need that, at all.


_"take away from other composers, or to put them down, in order to elevate certain composers"._ Isn't this what this thread (which has been going on for almost 10 years spanning almost 100 pages) is all about? This is in fact part of TC's general attitude. Let's not pretend it's not there. Don't pretend I'm the only one doing it. Trust me, wait another week and there will be another thread (by people like Captain-something) trying to create argument of this sort again. It has been this way ever since I came here. Where in my comments do I put down Bach, Handel, Haydn, actual great composers? And you can see most of the things I say are based on 'facts'. For example, the post where I basically said Mozart's piano sonatas aren't the only stuff to listen to in his keyboard works. Is this an act of putting down Beethoven? Overall Favorite Set of Piano Sonatas I don't think so.



Jacck said:


> this Mozart idolatry is frankly sickening. Using words such as "diamond-like perfection", "godlike", "superhuman", "perfection". What are you? Some kind of cult?:lol:


Unfortunately, there are some people who need more detailed explanations other than just a few simple phrases. And since art is a 'relative' thing, I can't explain without making 'comparisons'. I honestly dislike doing it, but people make me do it. You can see I'm not even the first to start argument most of the time.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> _"take away from other composers, or to put them down, in order to elevate certain composers"._ Isn't this what this thread (which has been going on for almost 10 years spanning almost 100 pages) is all about?


I deeply question what sounds to me like an inaccurate observation. Most of the comments on this thread are on the attributes of different composers without necessarily drawing a comparison with someone else. This page itself is a good example. It's something that comparison critics may someday understand. The people here are mostly talking about the specific attributes or lack thereof of a specific composer. It's not necessarily about trying to damage the reputation of one composer by raising or lowing him with regard to someone else. But it can be fascinating to see the attempt. People can talk about the composers they try to diminish all they want, including someone like Chopin whose Polonaises represent the qualities of the heroic to the people of Poland, especially during the War years, and to the rest of the world. The criticism of him being a specialist in the composing of "miniatures" is dwarf by his bigness of spirit, his narrative qualities, his huge emotional range, from the most subtle and refined to the masculine and angry, to his lyrical and melodic genius, and on and on. Sometimes comparisons can be instructive and illuminating with the truly great composers. What difference does it make if Wagner wrote his great Ring if one doesn't care for his music? That's the part that's left out of the appreciation of certain composers, and it can be a great disappointment to find in experienced but sometimes short-sighted or blind-spotted critics who may understand a lot about one composer but at the expense of everyone else. The people worth listening to are the ones who can appreciate and illuminate the attributes and shortcomings of each historically important and successful composer, and unfortunately there are too few of those and they end up making enemies, say, for Mozart rather than attracting those who might actually fall in love with him if he wasn't being used to make enemies of others. I believe he would not have approved of being used that way. I doubt if he would have ever tried to diminish the reputation of Schubert or Chopin but would have looked for the greatness and genius in them that most listeners do. They're both considered immortals whether one thinks they're overrated or not and they are not going to be dislodged from their high positions of worldly esteem.


----------



## KenOC

Discussion is fine, but in the end the works people want to hear are those that will be heard. Others will vanish beneath the waves of time. Long-term popularity builds the canon, and what we think is "underrated" makes little difference..


----------



## MJongo

Overrated: Tchaikovsky
Underrated: Schnittke


----------



## hammeredklavier

It seems people are angry only at me cause I'm making comparisons (when just trying to explain myself as thoroughly as possible), I'll just comment like how Brahmswasagreatmelodist and Dimace did. keep it simple and short:

"Beethoven is overrated in the time BEFORE symphonies 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, piano concerto 4, 5, sonatas and missa solemnis. (a lot of high quality works) He has composed A LOT. Terribly lot. Somehow is very rational, many of his works not to be at the top level. 
I think Beethoven in his early and middle periods certainly had some gems, but also had a lot of works "not at the top level"."

http://lvbeethoven.co.uk/page27.html


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> The people worth listening to are the ones who can appreciate and illuminate the attributes and shortcomings of each historically important and successful composer, and unfortunately there are too few of those and they end up making enemies, say, for Mozart rather than attracting those who might actually fall in love with him if he wasn't being used to make enemies of others.


Mr. Larkenfield, you're threatening me again,  you think that will deter me from speaking against what I consider as being unfair and unjust. No matter how many times I try to convince you, just seem to not understand my point. You'll just see me as a blind hater of Chopin, Schubert, Schumann.  I might as well stop trying.


----------



## Woodduck

I can understand thinking that a not-so-celebrated composer one enjoys may be "underrated." Actually, I get a friendly, benevolent feeling from people who want to bring a less-played concerto or opera to the attention of others. When is the last time you listened to Gernsheim or Juon? Listen and see how you rate them!

I have more difficulty understanding the need to demonstrate, at length and "objectively," that a widely esteemed pillar of our musical heritage doesn't deserve his reputation. I don't generally feel friendliness and benevolence emanating from such arguments. The other day I was listening for the first time to some choral music of Schumann. It had some elements that appealed to me, but on the whole I found it inferior to his work in other genres, and I thought that if his reputation depended on it he wouldn't be as highly esteemed as he is. But is Schumann therefore overrated? I suspect that after all these years, during which his piano music, chamber music, symphonies and songs have been celebrated and his choral works have remained rather obscure, Schumann's music is rated just about as it should be. And so, I think, is the music of most of the composers familiar to us.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I have more difficulty understanding the need to demonstrate, at length and "objectively," that a widely esteemed pillar of our musical heritage doesn't deserve his reputation. I don't generally feel friendliness and benevolence emanating from such arguments. The other day I was listening for the first time to some choral music of Schumann. It had some elements that appealed to me, but on the whole I found it inferior to his work in other genres, and I thought that if his reputation depended on it he wouldn't be as highly esteemed as he is. But is Schumann therefore overrated? I suspect that after all these years, during which his piano music, chamber music, symphonies and songs have been celebrated and his choral works have remained rather obscure, Schumann's music is rated just about as it should be. And so, I think, is the music of most of the composers familiar to us.


I never said Schumann's overrated or underrated. I don't want to criticize his music, but since you bring up the topic, I'll discuss what I honestly think are his technical flaws, (unrelated to other composers): the orchestration of his symphonies (particularly his 4th) and piano concerto in A minor where he uses the orchestra to double the hell out of every line. (Again, I don't hate his music. )





For example, look how many instruments play in unison from 6:00 to 9:00


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> I can understand thinking that a not-so-celebrated composer one enjoys may be "underrated." Actually, I get a friendly, benevolent feeling from people who want to bring a less-played concerto or opera to the attention of others. When is the last time you listened to Gernsheim or Juon? Listen and see how you rate them!
> 
> I have more difficulty understanding the need to demonstrate, at length and "objectively," that a widely esteemed pillar of our musical heritage doesn't deserve his reputation. I don't generally feel friendliness and benevolence emanating from such arguments. The other day I was listening for the first time to some choral music of Schumann. It had some elements that appealed to me, but on the whole I found it inferior to his work in other genres, and I thought that if his reputation depended on it he wouldn't be as highly esteemed as he is. But is Schumann therefore overrated? I suspect that after all these years, during which his piano music, chamber music, symphonies and songs have been celebrated and his choral works have remained rather obscure, Schumann's music is rated just about as it should be. And so, I think, is the music of most of the composers familiar to us.


OK but isn't it possible to love a less highly rated piece of music while also recognising that its lower position for the whole community of classical fans is somehow justified? I'm not talking about putting down (or up) the greats so much as somehow personally loving the somewhat less great. I love Dvorak's Piano Concerto almost as much as I love the Schumann concerto but I also know that it is a flawed work while the Schumann fully deserves its popularity. This is part of my problem with the idea that the value we give to a piece is purely subjective.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> I never said Schumann's overrated or underrated. I don't want to criticize his music, but since you bring up the topic, I'll discuss what I honestly think are his technical flaws, (unrelated to other composers): the orchestration of his symphonies (particularly his 4th) and piano concerto in A minor where he uses the orchestra to double the hell out of every line. (Again, I don't hate his music. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, look how many instruments play in unison from 6:00 to 9:00


Okay. The reputation of the music of someone like Schumann can be evaluated from a musician's or a non-musician's standpoint. The technical rundown of a composer's flaws can sometimes be of interest, but can also appear shortsighted and not necessarily of interest to most public non-musician listeners or even most musicians. I'm a musician but I'm unconcerned about Schumann's flaws and shortcomings and enjoy him anyway though I'm aware of them. It makes him human. What's necessary is some genuine awareness of the _energy_ and _spirit_ behind the music that has contributed to its survival... and with Schumann, it's been over 150 years... The spirit of it... The soul of it... The heart of it... The warmth of it... The joy of it... The imagination of it that goes beyond technical analysis... and I believe this is too often forgotten and then the analysis of flaws-and every composer has them, including Mozart-can seem harsh, intellectually academic, and perhaps entirely miss the point of why a certain composer is appreciated and loved. But without appreciating or understanding the spirit behind the music, the technical analysis can seem heartless and dismissive.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> OK but isn't it possible to love a less highly rated piece of music while also recognising that its lower position for the whole community of classical fans is somehow justified? I'm not talking about putting down (or up) the greats so much as somehow personally loving the somewhat less great. I love Dvorak's Piano Concerto almost as much as I love the Schumann concerto but I also know that it is a flawed work while the Schumann fully deserves its popularity. This is part of my problem with the idea that the value we give to a piece is purely subjective.


Sure. I'm not telling anyone what they should think about any music. My subtext (which I admit to not making explicit) is that I find the business of "rating" rather distasteful. At the same time I find the difference between great Schumann and OK Schumann pretty obvious, and I think posterity tends to get it right.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The other day I was listening for the first time to some choral music of Schumann. It had some elements that appealed to me, but on the whole I found it inferior to his work in other genres, and I thought that if his reputation depended on it he wouldn't be as highly esteemed as he is.


Paradise and the Peri and/or Scenes from Goethe's Faust, perhaps? I've heard both of them more than once and came away thinking they were rather _under_rated. I might not be prepared to rank them among Schumann's best, but the Romantic era isn't exactly flooded with choral masterpieces and I'd say both of these rank among the best of that century. Not sure if I could name 10 I'd put ahead of them, at least.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

hammeredklavier said:


> I never said Schumann's overrated or underrated. I don't want to criticize his music, but since you bring up the topic, I'll discuss what I honestly think are his technical flaws, (unrelated to other composers): the orchestration of his symphonies (particularly his 4th) and piano concerto in A minor *where he uses the orchestra to double the hell out of every line.* (Again, I don't hate his music. )


This has been a point of controversy all throughout the 20th century, and there's arguments to be made on both sides as to whether this counts as a "flaw" or whether it's part of Schumann's style. Personally, I think it comes down more to the conductor and orchestra than the score. In the hands of a capable conductor who can balance things right (and this will require tweaking Schumann's dynamic markings) I think it sounds just fine--I might even go so far as to say it's one thing that gives him such a unique sound in comparison to his contemporaries. I also think he's rather underrated in many other elements of orchestration. THIS is a good overview of the controversy and the various positions different people/conductors/recordings have taken, and here's a couple of defenses from conductor Kenneth Woods: https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2010/06/10/comparative-listening-dont-mess-with-bobby/ and https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2008/06/27/schumann-orchestration-and-mozart-tempi/


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> I love Dvorak's Piano Concerto almost as much as I love the Schumann concerto but I also know that it is a flawed work while the Schumann fully deserves its popularity. This is part of my problem with the idea that the value we give to a piece is purely subjective.


I'm not quite sure why you think the second sentence follows logically from the first. Perhaps explaining the "but I also know that..." part might help elucidate this.


----------



## tdc

Schumann is a little over rated in my view, I don't think his music reaches the brilliance of Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky or Bartok, yet he is often placed higher. Handel seems over rated to me relative to Monteverdi and Rameau. 

Verdi and Tchaikovsky are maybe a little over rated too. I don't think either are greater than say Bruckner, yet consistently rank higher.

Schubert is over rated too, relative to a lot of composers. I don't think any of the composers I listed as over rated are bad, in fact I think they are all great, but generally rated too highly, and it reflects a bias towards Romantic era music.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *Paradise and the Peri* and/or *Scenes from Goethe's Faust*, perhaps? I've heard both of them more than once and came away thinking they were rather _under_rated. I might not be prepared to rank them among Schumann's best, but the Romantic era isn't exactly flooded with choral masterpieces and I'd say both of these rank among the best of that century. Not sure if I could name 10 I'd put ahead of them, at least.


Those works of Schumann are probably underrated in that they are almost never performed. Outside of that they're probably rated about right: below his piano works, chamber music, songs and symphonies.

The best choral works of the Romantic era? Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis,_ of course. Brahms wrote quite a bit of gorgeous stuff besides his _Requiem._ Mendelssohn wrote much more than _Elijah, _including his choral 2nd symphony. There's Berlioz with his _Requiem_ and _Te Deum._ Schubert's masses are worthy, especially his last one. Bruckner should be here with masses and motets, and Verdi with his _Requiem_ and _4 Sacred Pieces._ Liszt's masses have some fascinating music in them. I recently discovered a powerful mass by Herzogenberg. How about Rossini's _Stabat Mater_ and Gounod's _St.Cecilia Mass?_ Dvorak's _Stabat Mater?_ Elgar's _Dream of Gerontius?_ Schoenberg's _Gurrelieder?_ [/I]Are Rachmaninoff's _Vespers_ and _The Bells_ too late for inclusion?

I think I like most of the music I've listed more than Schumann's _Paradise and the Peri_ or _Faust._


----------



## Larkenfield

Robert Schumann overrated? In the right hands, I believe he's first-rate. Such enthusiasm, warmth and heart. I found Klemperer's performance of the 4th Symphony simply irresistible... such a full and rich sound like I've never heard before. Thrilling. Bold! This is truly a monumental recording... and it's been a memorable evening of Klemperer... What a conductor! There are no words that can fully describe what I've heard. I prefer the Schumann orchestrations left alone. (Szell's famous recording is tighter and more controlled... precise but perhaps not as free-spirited.) I prefer the Klemperer. Schumann can be incredibly melodically lyrical. When he sings, he sings with all his heart, his soaring spirit uncontained and there's also a sense of suspense as he brings everything into shape. Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and Liszt never wrote anything that I would consider inept or harmonical bad (though I'm sure some are now going to look for that with nothing better to do). Something truly inept can stand out like a sore thumb. I've been impressed all evening...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Those works of Schumann are probably underrated in that they are almost never performed. Outside of that they're probably rated about right: below his piano works, chamber music, songs and symphonies.
> 
> The best choral works of the Romantic era? Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis,_ of course. Brahms wrote quite a bit of gorgeous stuff besides his _Requiem._ Mendelssohn wrote much more than _Elijah, _including his choral 2nd symphony. There's Berlioz with his _Requiem_ and _Te Deum._ Schubert's masses are worthy, especially his last one. Bruckner should be here with masses and motets, and Verdi with his _Requiem_ and _4 Sacred Pieces._ Liszt's masses have some fascinating music in them. I recently discovered a powerful mass by Herzogenberg. How about Rossini's _Stabat Mater_ and Gounod's _St.Cecilia Mass?_ Dvorak's _Stabat Mater?_ Elgar's _Dream of Gerontius?_ Schoenberg's _Gurrelieder?_ [/I]Are Rachmaninoff's _Vespers_ and _The Bells_ too late for inclusion?
> 
> *I think I like most of the music I've listed more than Schumann's Paradise and the Peri or Faust.*


We'll have to agree to disagree there. I'll give you the Beethoven, Brahms, Berlioz, and Verdi for sure. After that I think the Schumann's become competitive. Not sure where I'd definitively rank them, but I know I couldn't say any of the others--at least among those I've heard--are definitively better without a close comparison. I especially think Faust features some of Schumann's best orchestral music.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not quite sure why you think the second sentence follows logically from the first. Perhaps explaining the "but I also know that..." part might help elucidate this.


What I said was



> I love Dvorak's Piano Concerto almost as much as I love the Schumann concerto but I also know that it is a flawed work while the Schumann fully deserves its popularity. This is part of my problem with the idea that the value we give to a piece is purely subjective.


My point being that I can love a piece while also knowing that it is flawed and not at all the equal of some greater works. I love them equally but also know that they are not equal. My love is subjective but my knowledge that one is greater than the other seems an objective judgment. I think it is important to recognise the distinction between the two if we are going to take about aesthetic value. The alternative of saying X is as great as Y simply because I love them equally which is a nonsense, I think.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> Schumann overrated? I'm not sure about that. I found Klemperer's performance of his 4th Symphony simply irresistible... such a full and rich sound like I've never heard before. Thrilling. This is truly a thunderous recording... And it's been a memorable Klemperer evening.


Furtwangler and Bernstein also have two of the best recordings of this work. I'll make sure and give that Klemperer a listen ASAP.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> What I said was
> 
> My point being that I can love a piece while also knowing that it is flawed and not at all the equal of some greater works. I love them equally but also know that they are not equal. My love is subjective but my knowledge that one is greater than the other seems an objective judgment. I think it is important to recognise the distinction between the two if we are going to take about aesthetic value. The alternative of saying X is as great as Y simply because I love them equally which is a nonsense, I think.


I understood what you were saying, but what I'm not understanding is where the "(I) know that they are not equal" claim comes from. How do you "know" this?


----------



## NLAdriaan

Eva Yojimbo said:


> THIS is a good overview of the controversy and the various positions different people/conductors/recordings have taken, and here's a couple of defenses from conductor Kenneth Woods: https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2010/06/10/comparative-listening-dont-mess-with-bobby/ and https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2008/06/27/schumann-orchestration-and-mozart-tempi/


Interesting articles, thx for sharing. I took this quote from the first article:



> Falling somewhere in the middle was perhaps the most famous retoucher of Schumann - Gustav Mahler, who felt that clarity of line was the most important consideration in composing, such that every voice emerged as an independent melody. Ricardo Chailly and the Gewandhaus Orchestra (Decca CD) Indeed, his own scores were meticulously notated to ensure this. But he felt that with others' works, the conductor had an obligation: "In order that the music should be played as it was meant to sound, one has to add all sorts of dynamic indications to the parts, so that the principal voice stands out and the accompaniment retires into the background." Mahler also noted that only by the late 1800s were brass instruments able to produce the whole chromatic scale, and that it would seem "almost criminal" not to use them to perform earlier works "as perfectly as possible." (Of course, Szell disagreed, writing that "Mahler adulterates the character of these works by wrapping them in a meretricious garb of sound completely alien to their nature.") As heard in a 2006 recording by Riccardo Chailly and the Gewandhaus Orchestra (Decca CD), most of Mahler's retouchings of the Fourth are more understated than his rhetoric would suggest, and barely distinguishable from the interpretive input of other proactive conductors. Among the 466 changes Mahler made to the Fourth, only a few are apparent and most of those involve dynamics, largely to build more imposing climaxes. As annotator David Matthews notes: "Mahler's restraint is admirable: except in a very few places he does not impose his personality into Schumann's. Rather he acts as a diligent editor." In that context, Matthews makes the cogent observation that "almost all writers have the services of, and benefit from the suggestions of, an editor, yet composers are largely on their own." In that light, perhaps it is unfair to compare the occasional rough edges of Schumann and other performing artists to the presumed polish and refined output of authors (including, of course, Schumann's many published critics).


Just interesting to see how far you can go in editing composers work. It is something each conductor does in a way by dynamic phrasing or choice of tempo, but changing the notes is something else. In Bruckners music it is common practice, in Mahler, there are the obvious controversies (Blumine, andante 6, Hammerblow 2-3).

I do appreciate the Chailly recording of the Schumann/Mahler symphonies. But as it says above, it is diligently done by Mahler. You are still listening to a somewhat brightened Schumann piece. The explicit Mahler reference was likely more a marketing gimmick (to which I at least fell victim).

I don't share the general under-/overrating discussion.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Paradise and the Peri and/or Scenes from Goethe's Faust, perhaps? I've heard both of them more than once and came away thinking they were rather _under_rated. I might not be prepared to rank them among Schumann's best, but the Romantic era isn't exactly flooded with choral masterpieces and I'd say both of these rank among the best of that century. Not sure if I could name 10 I'd put ahead of them, at least.


I love them both, too, and do think (on this occasion) that they are generally underrated. The problem with Romantic choral music might be ours rather than the music's. Aside from a few pieces (Verdi's and maybe Brahms's Requiems) it certainly attracts less attention but I have recently come around to feeling that we might be missing something. As well as Schumann, the Dvorak Requiem and Stabat Mater, Bruckner's Masses and Te Deum - these are examples of works that don't get the attention that their composer's other works do get and yet seem to me to be just as worthy. I do wonder why. Is it that we go to Romantic choral works wanting Verdi's masterpiece but find music that is often much quieter and more reflective?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> I love them both, too, and do think (on this occasion) that they are generally underrated. The problem with Romantic choral music might be ours rather than the music's. Aside from a few pieces (Verdi's and maybe Brahms's Requiems) it certainly attracts less attention but I have recently come around to feeling that we might be missing something. As well as Schumann, the Dvorak Requiem and Stabat Mater, Bruckner's Masses and Te Deum - these are examples of works that don't get the attention that their composer's other works do get and yet seem to me to be just as worthy. I do wonder why. Is it that we go to Romantic choral works wanting Verdi's masterpiece but find music that is often much quieter and more reflective?


It's a good question and discussion to have--probably worthy of its own thread. My own thoughts would only be tentative and provisional, but my first one is that choral music, by its nature, is pretty dense given that you have two forces of great power--an orchestra and chorus--competing for sonic "space," as it were, and by the time of romanticism the orchestra itself was growing in size and power. The thinner, cleaner, and clearer textures of classical, baroque, and renaissance generally seem to fit better with choral music, as did the greater use of polyphony. Much romantic choral music strikes me as extremely "thick." It often lacks the drama of the best romantic orchestral music, and yet it typically doesn't have the complex polyphony of earlier eras. Though I tend to find much romantic choral music has really beautiful and powerful moments, I find few works that I think work great as a whole the way I think the best of Mozart, Haydn, Bach, or Handel does. This is very true of the Schumann's as well; they're both works of great moments more than just great works.

Of course, I'm being extremely general here and there are exceptions on both sides. I might actually find it enlightening if I took a few weeks to JUST explore romantic choral music, even revisit pieces I've heard, so as to not be distracted by other works from the composers. To take an example, I first heard the Bruckner's as a kind of addendum to going through his symphonies, and while I like the pieces rather well I don't think they're as good as his late symphonies, and in listening to them in close approximation it's difficult not to compare. Even the best works like the Brahms and Beethoven can suffer a bit from this, as I don't feel either of those pieces are as good as their best orchestral music--but the difference isn't as great. Perhaps Verdi is helped by the fact that he didn't write much (any?) orchestral music of note, and his Requiem is treated almost as he would've an opera with all the dramatic excitement.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Still think Brahms and Schubert are overrated. Much of Brahms' manipulation of themes/motives in his orchestral works still sound hideous and distasteful to me, he must have been more deaf than Beethoven ever was. Schubert can write nice melodies, but the development a bit thin and predictable.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> Still think Brahms and Schubert are overrated. Much of Brahms' manipulation of themes/motives in his orchestral works still sound hideous and distasteful to me, he must have been more deaf than Beethoven ever was. Schubert can write nice melodies, but the development a bit thin and predictable.


Brahms music "Hideous and distasteful", "deaf", well he managed to become one of the most popular composers of all time, and is revered for his manipulation of themes/motives. So I don't think the problem was his hearing, it sounds like just a subjective issue, his music is not to your tastes, and that is fine, but its not the same thing as being over rated.


----------



## danj

Wagner.

*ducks*

It amazes me how he continuously stays aloft in lists. Has a few good pieces of work. But maybe I'm one of the few who doesn't get what he did.


----------



## Larkenfield

NLAdriaan said:


> Interesting articles, thx for sharing. I took this quote from the first article:
> 
> Just interesting to see how far you can go in editing composers work. It is something each conductor does in a way by dynamic phrasing or choice of tempo, but changing the notes is something else. In Bruckners music it is common practice, in Mahler, there are the obvious controversies (Blumine, andante 6, Hammerblow 2-3).
> 
> I do appreciate the Chailly recording of the Schumann/Mahler symphonies. But as it says above, it is diligently done by Mahler. You are still listening to a somewhat brightened Schumann piece. The explicit Mahler reference was likely more a marketing gimmick (to which I at least fell victim).
> 
> I don't share the general under-/overrating discussion.


In all fairness to Schumann (and the Szell quote about the original orchestrations ), I've heard the Chailly performances of the Mahler revisions. The symphonies did not sound idiomatic of the composer to me. They did not have the warmth or characteristics of the original orchestrations. I'm not sure if it's the revisions or if it's Chailly's recordings. I'd like to hear them performed by someone else before making up my mind. In the meantime, I was disappointed in them and the favorite recordings that to me are far more idiomatic are by Sawallisch and Otto Klemperer. I consider the Klemperer performance of the 4th a thrilling recording, but I believe that sometimes listeners will judge Schumann on the basis of his worst recordings.











I do not consider Schumann as overrated; I consider some of the conductors who play him as overrated.


----------



## larold

I had Schumann No. 9 in my survey ahead of everyone but giants. Here's the top 50; see column 4 "sub"


----------



## flamencosketches

^Chopin and Debussy not even breaking the top 20 is a travesty.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> Brahms music "Hideous and distasteful", "deaf", well he managed to become one of the most popular composers of all time, and is revered for his manipulation of themes/motives. So I don't think the problem was his hearing, it sounds like just a subjective issue, his music is not to your tastes, and that is fine, but its not the same thing as being over rated.


For a top 5 composer in most consensus lists, he had quite a few enemies/haters among composers.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

larold said:


> I had Schumann No. 9 in my survey ahead of everyone but giants. Here's the top 50; see column 4 "sub"
> 
> View attachment 115270


That survey confuses me... exactly how was it compiled and what do the columns refer to? There are definitely some odd rankings there.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Phil loves classical said:


> For a top 5 composer in most consensus lists, he had quite a few enemies/haters among composers.


Chopin didn't care much for Schumann's works either. Kind of funny how bitter rivals who once denounced each other's music can be enjoyed and appreciated equally by the same person centuries later.


----------



## DeepR

flamencosketches said:


> ^Chopin and Debussy not even breaking the top 20 is a travesty.


The real travesty from that list is Anton Bruckner at 48.


----------



## Hiawatha

One of the most underrated is Andrzej Panufnik.

Symphony No 2:






Another is Heitor Villa-Lobos.

Floresta do Amazonas (Extract):


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

AeolianStrains said:


> Chopin didn't care much for Schumann's works either. Kind of funny how bitter rivals who once denounced each other's music can be enjoyed and appreciated equally by the same person centuries later.


I didn't know Chopin didn't care for Schumann, but Schumann had high praise for Chopin. In a review for one of his works Schumann called Chopin a genius.


----------



## surendrarana

Most overrated composers:

1. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (I get that he is a huge genius, yet he has honestly just been so overplayed it's not even fun to hear 
his music anymore)

2. Paganini (Honestly, does anyone just listen to him in their spare time or has he just become a tool to show off with? He's great 
don't get me wrong, yet I could only wish that his music could hit the heartstrings of people rather than make them go "wow" 
then move on to La Campanella, then repeat)

3. John Cage (I say that his music is beautiful rubbish, which my fellow classical musicians harshly disagree with, but to put it down 
to face value his music is a cluster of dissonance and confusion. I've never found him special, just mystical and spontaneous). 

4. Ludwig Van Beethoven (As much as I love him and everything about him, he's been overplayed the same way Mozart has been)

5. Franz Liszt (Whilst I see from time to time a passion within his beautiful and meticulous works, for example in Un Sospiro and his 
Libestraume nocturne, his general show-off attitude is what has stuck around with him, and certain amounts of these show-off 
pieces of his (La Campanella) are way too overplayed in comparison to his most beautiful and complex works)

Now moving on to my 5 most underrated composers...

1. Joseph Haydn (A well-respected figure among classical musicians, yet so so so criminally underrated in general people's view of 
classical music and also the creator of some beautiful symphonies and string quartets)

2. Claude Debussy (One of the most emotionally-gifted I̶m̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶i̶s̶t composers with a beautiful array of pieces, his Girl with the 
Flaxen hair and his Images provide such beautiful flourishes and are truly moving) (Perhaps that one Family Guy episode in 
2014 gave him some recognition though)

Really can't be bothered to do the rest of the composers' opinions so you can make up your minds on them (I think they're all pretty cool though, from both ends of overrated and underrated)

3. Dmitri Shostakovich
4. Sergei Rachmaninoff
5. Gabriel Faure

Any criticisms, changes you'd make, or opinions on these lot or the lis(z)t is pretty cool by me


----------



## AeolianStrains

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I didn't know Chopin didn't care for Schumann, but Schumann had high praise for Chopin. In a review for one of his works Schumann called Chopin a genius.


Schumann fawned over Chopin. Chopin remarked how pretty the cover of Kreisleriana was...

I wasn't saying Chopin and Schumann were rivals, though. I rather had the War of the Romantics in mind.


----------



## Larkenfield

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I didn't know Chopin didn't care for Schumann, but Schumann had high praise for Chopin. In a review for one of his works Schumann called Chopin a genius.


Chopin also said that the themes of Liszt should be buried on the back pages of the newspaper, or words to that effect. He had very few good things to say about anybody else except perhaps Bach and Mozart. He was just primarily interested in himself and could be very cruel and indifferent to others. Without being so enormously talented, he probably wouldn't have gotten away with it and socked in the jaw. George Sand put up with his critical temperament for eight years until they had a permanent falling out over her daughter. But I do think that sometimes Chopin was in a critical mood because of his continuing health problems that lasted throughout his entire life and caused a great deal of irritability and sarcasm.


----------



## hammeredklavier

AeolianStrains said:


> Schumann fawned over Chopin.


Only in the early stages of their career, that was when Chopin wrote his Op.2 Variations, (the work which Schumann was so impressed he said of Chopin "hats off, gentlemen, a genius"), but as time progressed Schumann was increasingly getting critical about the formulaic-ness of Chopin's work.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
_"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that *Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar.* He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."
In his 1841 review of Chopin's Sonata in B-flat minor in particular, Schumann did not seem to be happy with his fellow composer's progress. Although he talks about the abundance of beauty in the work, he also says that the "sonata" as a title must be in jest: "[Chopin] seems to have taken four of his most unruly children and put them together, possibly thinking to smuggle them, as a sonata, into company where they might not be considered individually presentable." To Schumann it seemed that Chopin had lost his way, and gotten too wrapped up in virtuosity for its own sake. He decries "obstacles on almost every page" with indecipherable progressions. The second movement - again claiming the marking "Scherzo" was in name alone - he describes as a "funeral march with something even repulsive about it.""_

https://www.google.com/search?q=sch...hAhXWu54KHUMLD_E4ChD8BQgUKAE&biw=1280&bih=864
_"Schumann was disappointed with Chopin's subsequent music, perceiving only a basic sameness of style - in a word, "mannered.""_
(Composers on Composers - Page 48 / John L. Holmes - 1990)

_"of the countless waltzes, nocturnes, mazurkas and other piano works published between 1836 and 1842 there lurks a nagging disappointment that Chopin's art had not developed but retained a basic sameness of style. He even uses the word ..."_
(Robert Schumann: His Life and Work - Page 106 / Ronald Taylor - 1982)

I sort of agree with Schumann's view on Chopin's later work. (Mendelssohn also _"called Chopin by the nickname of Chopinetto, to denote his artistic littleness." _ https://books.google.ca/books?id=-jBdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA230#v=onepage&q&f=false)
I hate to say it but many of his Waltzes and and Mazurkas, for example are continuous repetition of 'dum-da-da' left-hand accompaniment from start to finish, in easy ternary form. 
Chopin even tried more large forms in his early period, he wrote both his concertos when he was 20. At least Chopin's problem was conciseness and not long-windedness. Schubert (who was also a genius, like Chopin) on the other hand, towards his later periods, started having this habit of using material appropriate for a 20-minute piece to write a 40~50-minute long piece. This is the biggest issue I have with Schubert - makes me take a deep breath whenever I listen to his extended works. People talk like he would have become the second Beethoven had he lived longer but I don't think he would have. At least Chopin had none of this.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Only in the early stages of their career, that was when Chopin wrote his Op.2 Variations, (the work which Schumann was so impressed he said of Chopin "hats off, gentlemen, a genius"), but as time progressed Schumann was increasingly getting critical about the formulaic-ness of Chopin's work.
> 
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
> _"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that *Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar.* He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."
> In his 1841 review of Chopin's Sonata in B-flat minor in particular, Schumann did not seem to be happy with his fellow composer's progress. Although he talks about the abundance of beauty in the work, he also says that the "sonata" as a title must be in jest: "[Chopin] seems to have taken four of his most unruly children and put them together, possibly thinking to smuggle them, as a sonata, into company where they might not be considered individually presentable." To Schumann it seemed that Chopin had lost his way, and gotten too wrapped up in virtuosity for its own sake. He decries "obstacles on almost every page" with indecipherable progressions. The second movement - again claiming the marking "Scherzo" was in name alone - he describes as a "funeral march with something even repulsive about it.""_
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sch...hAhXWu54KHUMLD_E4ChD8BQgUKAE&biw=1280&bih=864
> _"Schumann was disappointed with Chopin's subsequent music, perceiving only a basic sameness of style - in a word, "mannered.""_
> (Composers on Composers - Page 48 / John L. Holmes - 1990)
> 
> _"of the countless waltzes, nocturnes, mazurkas and other piano works published between 1836 and 1842 there lurks a nagging disappointment that Chopin's art had not developed but retained a basic sameness of style. He even uses the word ..."_
> (Robert Schumann: His Life and Work - Page 106 / Ronald Taylor - 1982)
> 
> I sort of agree with Schumann's view on Chopin's later work. (Mendelssohn also _"called Chopin by the nickname of Chopinetto, to denote his artistic littleness." _ https://books.google.ca/books?id=-jBdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA230#v=onepage&q&f=false)
> I hate to say it but many of his Waltzes and and Mazurkas, for example are continuous repetition of 'dum-da-da' left-hand accompaniment from start to finish, in easy ternary form.
> Chopin even tried more large forms in his early period, he wrote both his concertos when he was 20. At least Chopin's problem was conciseness and not long-windedness. Schubert (who was also a genius, like Chopin) on the other hand, towards his later periods, started having this habit of using material appropriate for a 20-minute piece to write a 40~50-minute long piece. This is the biggest issue I have with Schubert - makes me take a deep breath whenever I listen to his extended works. People talk like he would have become the second Beethoven had he lived longer but I don't think he would have. At least Chopin had none of this.


Chopin did creatively develop and mature in such later works as his F Minor Fantasy and Barcarolle where his sense of time was greatly expanded in a way that the music has a sense of floating in the air... the lines were more stretched and elongated. It was an advance in music that Schumann never achieved. Chopin was still in his 30s... Well, Debussy obviously picked up on that as Chopin was of great influence on him and it contributed to that sense of timelessness that can be found in Debussy's works.

Maybe it's no wonder Chopin was hardly ever interested in Schumann after his initial praise when he became critical and had artistic expectations that Chopin didn't agree with. Chopin did what he had the energy for. Ultimately, Chopin was right and believe me, the artistry in his Mazurkas is delightful and there is variety in these little gems. But of course, these are only more of his "miniatures" and hardly worth spending time with by his often dismissive critics, with some of these Mazurkas obviously being joyous and danceable and of tremendous veriety of _mood_. He wasn't always trying to reinvent the wheel. When have you ever wholeheartedly praised him other than saying somewhere back in time that he was "minor clever"? Great "compliment." But more of Chopin is played in the concert halls - virtually everything he wrote (other than student works) - when compared to Schumann... and I believe Chopin was acutely aware of the difference in temperament between them. Schumann was close in age and he's reviewing Chopin when he's in his 20s himself and continuing to write about him as a peer while he was a competitive composer himself with a different aesthetic. Chopin was lightyears ahead of Schumann in the knowledge and exploitation of the full range of the piano. Technically his music is idiomatic and Schumann's wasn't - Chopin as harmonically precise and exact as Bach and Mozart but in the Romantic idiom - with Schumann sounding much thicker in texture by comparison... So I doubt if Chopin appreciated being under Schumann's critical eye who didn't always understand or agree with what Chopin was doing. Who would enjoy constantly being under someone's critical eye and then having it published? And for those who fully appreciate Chopin's exquisite subtly and refinement that's probably just as true today as it was then. Nevertheless, Robert Schumann is one of my keyboard favorites too and he recognized the power in Chopin's Mazurkas.






"If the mighty autocrat of the north knew what a dangerous enemy threatened him in Chopin's works in the simple tunes of his mazurkas, he would forbid this music. Chopin's works are canons buried in flowers." -Robert Schumann


----------



## Larkenfield

Schubert's lyrically inspired Fantasy in F Minor, Op. 103, in a beautiful performance that highlights his skillful Bach-like counterpoint (15' in) toward the end. This is a gentle work that can also thunder and roar, with a gorgeous and triumphant ending:


----------



## Botschaft

Phil loves classical said:


> For a top 5 composer in most consensus lists, he had quite a few enemies/haters among composers.


All of whom just so happened to be his inferiors.


----------



## Rogerx

> Any criticisms, changes you'd make, or opinions on these lot or the lis(z)t is pretty cool by me


You sure know how to make an entrance.


----------



## Ethereality

The most underrated composer is he who wrote Polovtsian Dances in the 1880s.


----------



## Enthusiast

surendrarana said:


> Most overrated composers:
> 
> 1. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (I get that he is a huge genius, yet he has honestly just been so overplayed it's not even fun to hear
> his music anymore)
> 
> 2. Paganini (Honestly, does anyone just listen to him in their spare time or has he just become a tool to show off with? He's great
> don't get me wrong, yet I could only wish that his music could hit the heartstrings of people rather than make them go "wow"
> then move on to La Campanella, then repeat)
> 
> 3. John Cage (I say that his music is beautiful rubbish, which my fellow classical musicians harshly disagree with, but to put it down
> to face value his music is a cluster of dissonance and confusion. I've never found him special, just mystical and spontaneous).
> 
> 4. Ludwig Van Beethoven (As much as I love him and everything about him, he's been overplayed the same way Mozart has been)
> 
> 5. Franz Liszt (Whilst I see from time to time a passion within his beautiful and meticulous works, for example in Un Sospiro and his
> Libestraume nocturne, his general show-off attitude is what has stuck around with him, and certain amounts of these show-off
> pieces of his (La Campanella) are way too overplayed in comparison to his most beautiful and complex works)
> 
> Now moving on to my 5 most underrated composers...
> 
> 1. Joseph Haydn (A well-respected figure among classical musicians, yet so so so criminally underrated in general people's view of
> classical music and also the creator of some beautiful symphonies and string quartets)
> 
> 2. Claude Debussy (One of the most emotionally-gifted I̶m̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶i̶s̶t composers with a beautiful array of pieces, his Girl with the
> Flaxen hair and his Images provide such beautiful flourishes and are truly moving) (Perhaps that one Family Guy episode in
> 2014 gave him some recognition though)
> 
> Really can't be bothered to do the rest of the composers' opinions so you can make up your minds on them (I think they're all pretty cool though, from both ends of overrated and underrated)
> 
> 3. Dmitri Shostakovich
> 4. Sergei Rachmaninoff
> 5. Gabriel Faure
> 
> Any criticisms, changes you'd make, or opinions on these lot or the lis(z)t is pretty cool by me


A strange list IMO (but then many of them are). "He's been overplayed" seems to mean that "one or two if his works have been overplayed"? Or do you mean that Mozart and Beethoven pieces are too regularly programmed in concerts (a position I would agree with but without thinking of them as at all overrated).

And Haydn as underrated? Perhaps he is but I believe he is also generally revered - sometimes to a greater degree than Mozart. Also, I wonder where you live? In Britain it can sometimes seem that Shostakovich is overplayed.


----------



## Jim35

I don't doubt his popularity and greatness but Mahler's music has never appealed to me all that much. Bruckner is another main composer I regard similarly.

Schumann and Monteverdi are two composers I'd place higher up in the rankings than they generally appear in most favourite composer polls that I have seen.


----------



## shpritzer

Underrated:

Hummel
D'indy
X. Scharwenka
Mozart


Overrated: 

Shostakovich
Shostakovich
Shostakovich
Shostakovich
Shostakovich
Shostakovich
Shostakovich
Shostakovich
Shostakovich
Bruckner
Mendelssohn


----------



## Ethereality

The most underrated bar-none:

Borodin
Rautavaara
Hanson


----------



## larold

My survey revealed a couple composers I didn't consider great that apparently are with Wagner and Verdi (Nos. 10 and 11) and Britten (No. 20) the biggest surprises. Schumann was a little less surprising (No. 9) but still much higher than I anticipated.

It also revealed some I thought might be near the top that weren't even in the top 25: Mahler (No. 28), Rossini (30), Bartok (33), and Bruckner (48.) It also surprised me how much higher was Rachmaninoff (26) than any of them.

Everyone else was about where I thought they might be. Mozart, Beethoven and J.S. Bach Nos. 1-3 followed by Brahms with other big name composers in the top 25.

Ergo I can't buy any argument that any of the biggest name composers, save the few I mentioned above, are overrated.

To me lists like this and other overrated and underrated lists are about the writers, not the composers. They should more appropriately be named lists of favorites and non-favorites.

The top 99 in the event you care:


----------



## juss100

larold said:


> My survey revealed a couple composers I didn't consider great that apparently are with Wagner and Verdi (Nos. 10 and 11) and Britten (No. 20) the biggest surprises. Schumann was a little less surprising (No. 9) but still much higher than I anticipated.


Wagner and Verdi surprise you? Barring Mozart they're both generally considered to be the biggest and most influential figures in Opera, aren't they?


----------



## CR Santa

I think Edward Elgar is the most underrated composer. He was self-taught and created the popular and much played Pomp and Circumstance #1 (No one could graduate without that music). He also wrote the famous Enigma Variations (Variations on an Original Theme) and with it came his Enigma which no one solved for over 100 yrs. He is quoted as saying (my paraphrase) "Music is all around us. Nature provides all the inspiration we need." He proved that to be true by creating his "original melody" by hiding three hints at the solution to his enigma in the first 6 measures. His "Enigma" was world famous but became frustrating to those who could not solve it. His integrity was questioned publicly by some of his close friends but he still refused to give away the solution during his lifetime. Today, most people believe the solution died with him but after 30+ years, but shortly before his death, Elgar wrote three seemingly innocent sentences about the work. Each sentence actually gave another clue to the solution so that the world could be confident that the enigma had been solved. The solution was "Pi" and there are three hints at Pi hidden in the first 6 measures. Only the first hint was easy to spot. Scale degree 3-1-4-2 opens the work. 3.142 is a common approximation of Pi as a decimal. He cleverly worked in Pi as a fraction 22/7 and Pi as a pun of a well know nursery rhyme. I think he is under valued both as a composer and as a master "Puzzler".


----------



## Enthusiast

How do you find Elgar underrated? He seems very popular to me, with lots of stellar recordings available of his great works.


----------



## Ethereality

Underrated/overrated are just subjective terms.* Underrated* means you wish this style of music was more mainstream/well-appreciated, even if it already is to an extent, you wish it was moreso--that way it can grow and influence mainstream music a lot more, instead of music being influenced by the genre of Mozart and Beethoven, the individual (^ CR Santa) can truly feel the growth in _their_ respective genre. Thus he thinks Elgar is underrated, meaning Elgar's knowledge should be a lot more incorporated into the mainstream.

For instance, I think if people gave less attention to classical music (and even mainstream music) and gave more attention to 20th century orchestra and jazz, that our world's musical taste and skills would improve in quality. But it's only based on my _subjective sense_ of quality.

For myself, like I said I think the #1 is Borodin, and #2 is probably Grieg. Borodin really veered off of classicism and created a whole new imaginative and beautiful style that I feel music these days needs to develop more. There's something there. He also greatly influenced Debussy and Ravel and those pure, forgotten fantasy styles like that of Delius. Grieg on the other hand, to me, is the #1 contributor of the most brilliant legendary/ethereal melodies. Very underrated composers, and all that means is I rate them closer to the likes of Beethoven and Mozart.

It doesn't mean anyone has to agree with my assessment.

Interestingly, these kinds of threads are the_ best _at understanding what individuals are really into! If you just ask 'What's your favorite composer,' more people will simply say Beethoven and Mozart. But if you ask who is _underrated, _you get a really diverse set of tastes.


----------



## CR Santa

Enthusiast said:


> How do you find Elgar underrated? He seems very popular to me, with lots of stellar recordings available of his great works.


I think Elgar's reputation has been diminished by accusations that his enigma was a sham. He should be credited with being able to create a great riddle that took 100+ yrs to solve, and he created a great melody (his original theme) by combining three hints in the first six measures. It is incredible that he could take decimal Pi, fractional Pi, pun on Pi and combine them in the first six measures to create a beautiful and lasting favorite melody. He is not recognized for any of that or for having the integrity to not give away his clever puzzle during his lifetime. It would have spoiled the fun of solving it, even if it did take 100 years.


----------



## zelenka

Stravinsky is the most overrated ever, it's even proven scientifically


----------



## Common Listener

larold said:


> My survey [...] The top 99 in the event you care:


Interesting - could you go into more detail about how you put this together - what the sources for the columns are and what the numbers mean?


----------



## Logos

Underrated: Weber. First of the true romantics. 

Overrated: Debussy. Every woman that doesn't listen to classical music will tell you that Debussy is her favorite composer and that the cello is her favorite instrument.


----------



## ojoncas

Medtner, especially compared to Scriabin and Rachmaninoff. 

Maybe if he made more orchestral music people would notice him more?

His piano music though, leave out of words most of the time. I find a rare pearl every 4 pieces I discover from him!


----------



## larold

_Wagner and Verdi surprise you? Barring Mozart they're both generally considered to be the biggest and most influential figures in Opera, aren't they? _

It surprised me they would be considered greater than other composers with more wide-ranging repertory than opera. They were both outstanding figures in opera, Wagner especially for the way he changed things.

However, I would say the "most influential" figures in opera were probably Monteverdi and then Mozart. Monteverdi was the first great opera composer and there weren't a lot of great German operas before Mozart.


----------



## Red Terror

larold said:


> _Wagner and Verdi surprise you? Barring Mozart they're both generally considered to be the biggest and most influential figures in Opera, aren't they? _
> 
> It surprised me they would be considered greater than other composers with more wide-ranging repertory than opera. They were both outstanding figures in opera, Wagner especially for the way he changed things.
> 
> However, I would say the "most influential" figures in opera were probably Monteverdi and then Mozart. Monteverdi was the first great opera composer and there weren't a lot of great German operas before Mozart.


Verdi and Wagner were specialists, and they are rightly considered to be the very best in their chosen mode of expression. Even among composers with wider repertoires, they so excelled in Opera that it would be illogical if they were not among the top 10 greatest composers thus far.


----------



## Aleksandr Rachkofiev

As many have no doubt said already, underrated and overrated are very subjective terms - people with varying levels of knowledge and familiarity with art music will give different answers. From my personal experience (what instantly comes to mind),

Overrated:

*Philip Glass* (minimalism minimalism minimalism minimalism minimalism minimalism minimalism)
*Steve Reich* (again minimalism again minimalism again minimalism again minimalism)

I've never gotten why people like minimalism

*Anton Bruckner* (like Wagner but a tad more square, has some interesting moments though)
*Erik Satie* (a few pieces of his are nice (trois morceaux en forme de poire), but most of his popular works are confusingly so)

Underrated:

*Aleksandr Scriabin* (has a unique, unconventional style - almost impressionistic in ways; his early romanticism was beautiful, and his late experimentation was intriguing)
*Nikolai Medtner* (I find post-romantics get neglected a lot for their supposed lack of originality in the face of changing times)
*Reinhold Gliere* (Everything I've heard from him is fantastic - great with melody and orchestration - see Symphony 3 "Ilya Muromets")
*Joachim Raff* (Wrote an immense amount of material with great, memorable melodies and good structure - often overlooked for his contemporaries like Wagner and Brahms)
*Einojuhani Rautavaara* (wrote insanely ethereal music)
*Sergei Prokofiev* (not unknown by any stretch, but I think he should be appreciated even more than he already is)
*Pancho Vladigerov* (has a very unique style that is just enjoyable to listen to)
*Kurt Atterberg* (often neglected for critics of sappy, unoriginal post-romanticism, but I just love that stuff)
*Guillaume du Fay* (giant of early Renaissance, understandably remains unknown due to historical troubles and modern palates)

Actually now that I'm on that thread, Palestrina, Josquin des Prez, and Claudio Monteverdi could all be considered somewhat obscure.

And on another note, replying to Ethereality (I'm not surprised at all that you like Rautavaara), imagine my surprise when I found Borodin in my Organic Chemistry textbook as the co-discoverer of the Aldol Reaction (nucleophilic addition)! Further research reveals this man to also have been an advocate for equality of women's education and father of adopted children, all from having been born into serfdom in 19th century Russia - quite the Renaissance man!


----------



## Enthusiast

I (alone, it seems) am more or less happy with the status granted to most composers by their current reputations. I tend to believe that the broader "we" will have got it right with the widely revered composers who I don't get on with so well, and to think that it must be me who doesn't yet get them. But with the composers of the last 70 years I don't expect the broader "we" to have it right yet so there are quite a few more recent composers who I feel are currently underrated: it takes time.

Also, I do regret and dislike the way that only a very limited range of the music (from all ages) that we value greatly gets played often, particularly orchestral music: the economics of running orchestras is a major obstacle to our musical enjoyment. So ... "the market" is overrated.


----------



## larold

_Interesting - could you go into more detail about how you put this together - what the sources for the columns are and what the numbers mean? _

The first three middle columns right of names represent pages attributed to the composer(s) by the 2010 Penguin Guide, 2005 All Music Guide, and David Ewen's 1947 book Musical Masterpieces. The fourth column right is the subtotal indicating their place.

I later added the book Third Ear Classical Music (fifth column right) and retotaled (sixth column) and re-ranked (7th column) but this was foolish I thought. The Third Ear book is a useful guide but was poorly edited. I don't know of any such book that gave a composer like Monteverdi 20 pages while limiting Haydn to half that and Wagner to about one-third.

So I mentally excluded this book's pages and counted the rank in the first column to be the best indicator of a composer's place among all others.

I used the three books for these reasons: the Penguin Guide is the most well-known and authentic tome ranking recordings and composes; it went back to the 1960s under other names. The All Music Guide -- only one issue ever published but with a large online site -- was more musicological than Penguin and was published in USA thereby balancing some of Penguin's bias for English composers. David Ewen's book was published 1947 but I think the one I have is a 1953 reprint. There were others before his book that ranked recordings but his was more a musicological guide that included recommended recordings at the end.

My point in doing this was to erase my own biases and preferences and to see what published guides in the industry had to say collectively about who is and who is not great in classical music composition. I agree this is not perfect but I have not seen nor heard any other method that is better here or elsewhere. Most people's ideas are strictly formed from their biases. My goal was to eliminate my bias.


----------



## flamencosketches

I wrote earlier in this thread that Debussy was overrated. With a bit more experience under my belt I would now say that for all the praise he has gotten over the years, he's still underrated. The things Debussy has done for music are massive.


----------



## Ethereality

Larkenfield said:


> Chopin also said that the themes of Liszt should be buried on the back pages of the newspaper, or words to that effect. He had very few good things to say about anybody else except perhaps Bach and Mozart.


Well Mozart was always receiving endless praise by the best composers of their time. While I'm not a giant fan of the classical period (moreso prefer the other periods), it's clear why Mozart had such a huge influence on everyone after him, why his thematic craft was so visceral and illustrative beyond its years. A lot of people don't understand how hard it was for anybody to do what Mozart did at that time period. Nobody could've thought so outside the bounds like he did. The societal structure of music for years wasn't ready to adapt to him, new composers and musicians in context of their traditions, were for a lack of better word, still shocked by the likes of Mozart's visions. He seemed to merely borrow the classical structure to paint a whole new interpretation to life.

Bach is equally in the same way, with Baroque, but Amadeus's blistering new influence and hard work can be felt in every theme he moved beyond the bounds with. He was so far ahead of his time, only an ambitious thinker like Beethoven was ready to really take on his influence, (he was untouched you could say) and composers after Beethoven still didn't know what to do about these two. Mozart paved the way to creativity and Beethoven crafted for it the perfect ending, was there any hope for music to advance again?


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Well Mozart was always receiving endless praise by the best composers of their time. ...it's clear why Mozart had such a huge influence on everyone after him, why his thematic craft was so visceral and illustrative beyond its years. *A lot of people don't understand how hard it was for anybody to do what Mozart did at that time period.* Nobody could've thought so outside the bounds like he did. *The societal structure of music for years wasn't ready to adapt to him.*


Given Mozart's immense productivity, what do you mean when you say that it was "hard...for anybody to do what Mozart did at that time period"? Obviously, no one else could do what Mozart did - at any time period - but he seemed to do what he did quite naturally. And given the resounding success of his music with both fellow musicians and the public, what does it mean to say that "the societal structure of music for years wasn't ready to adapt to him"? What is the "societal structure" of music? Who failed to adapt to what? Operas as innovative as _Don Giovann_i and _Die Zauberflote_ were smash hits with Johannes Q. Public, and whatever difficulties Mozart may have had with musical society were not the result of resistance to his music.



> Mozart paved the way to creativity and Beethoven crafted for it the perfect ending, was there any hope for music to advance again?


Fortunately, Mozart and Beethoven didn't monopolize creativity for all time.


----------



## Ethereality

Aleksandr Rachkofiev said:


> I've never gotten why people like minimalism


I think for me minimalism in more of an approach to learning. Why I oftentimes choose Monteverdi over Haydn, why I oftentimes choose Dowland over Brahms. Composers like myself make an exercise of taking in only the minimum conception of music for a time period or a set boundary of learning, so that we can better understand the intricacies and intellectual breadth of options and structures that are available to that ruleset. Glass and Reich are only some minimalists, the minimalist approach itself is much bigger and is overall rewarding to learning the ins-and-outs of musical possibilities. It is purely as much of a _learning exercise_ as it is a style of art, and the former is what's rewarding about it: You get a better idea of what's going on within the mind, rather than without. It's not necessarily a steady ideology to focus on, but a useful exercise.



Woodduck said:


> Who failed to adapt to what? Operas as innovative as _Don Giovann_i and _Die Zauberflote_ were smash hits with Johannes Q. Public, and whatever difficulties Mozart may have had with musical society were not the result of resistance to his music.


But this is exactly what I'm referring to. I don't know if you quoted/read the whole thing I said, but are splicing. I mentioned the expectations that composers, and Beethoven in particular, set upon themselves due to the stark difference in traditions between Mozart and the prior classical period. Mozart gave an entirely different movement pattern to music and theme development that clashed with everyone's traditional knowledge, how students after him were instructed to compose. It is one of the most significant theory differences in music history, and difficult for anyone (the geniuses of Romanticism) to wrap their minds around it how it came about. It's the reason Beethoven's music sounds much more "perfect" like Mozart's. Then various later composers began abandoning Mozart's influence in theme movement pattern in place of other mechanisms, and these composers are not as _widely_ loved as ie. Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and Tchaikovsky though Tchaikovsky is not the greatest composer but rather, these are four of the composers largest in influence and appreciation from this period who give their dues mainly to Mozart's visceral invention.


----------



## flamencosketches

Ethereality said:


> Beethoven's music sounds just as "perfect" as Mozart's


I'm not so sure about that... though sometimes (a few of the symphonies, a few of the quartets), yes.

Sometimes, I think Webern doesn't get the credit he deserves for what he actually did with his own music, and moreso he is seen as a fountainhead for the music that would dominate the following couple of decades, which really had nothing to do with his music in the end. He is a master of Expressionism; he may have distilled it to a science, but passion and intense emotional experience pervades all of his music.


----------



## Ethereality

flamencosketches said:


> I'm not so sure about that... though sometimes (a few of the symphonies, a few of the quartets), yes.


Referring to the _mechanism_ for thematic development that was Mozart's own invention/reimagining. It's something Beethoven (and the most popular Romantic and modern composers) usually cling to. Extremely moving and one of the most advanced thoughts in music.


----------



## flamencosketches

You don't think Haydn was absolutely instrumental in developing this mechanism? If not, I may have a skewed idea of what we're talking about.


----------



## Ethereality

You can word it "absolutely instrumental," but I would think not even close to significantly. It also makes sense upon studying the philosophies of Haydn. Mozart mostly imported the technicalities of ground structure from Haydn. It was Mozart who completely flipped the interpretation of what it's supposed to achieve over on its head: if you look at it as, if the most influential musicians from all eras could go between 3 composers, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, there's a reason Mozart is the common choice and why time-and-again their widespread praise is not due to their ideas, but his: This is a different phenomenon than usual, Mozart's vision of thematic development was so far ahead of what anyone would even consider was _possible,_ it's taken for granted.

This is something that one either understands right away, or it takes more experience to understand just the impact Mozart had on all of music, because in retrospect we see Haydn naturally flowing into Mozart and his great works, but in reality, something so monumental in disruption would never happen at least for another century. Mozart without Haydn on the contrary, if he grew up a musician as he did, Mozart would have happened and been successful, because Mozart mainly just borrowed the structure of Haydn. Their differences as composers, in psychology and interpretation, is extreme, and Mozart's unique talent would've always inspired the society at large because it's so rooted into emotional creativity and the bigger picture of development.


----------



## flamencosketches

Well, I do have an idea of what you're talking about, but I'm intrigued now. Imagine you are talking to a five year old about Mozart's music and you just explained this concept of his advanced thematic development. What piece would you use to illustrate this uniqueness? 

It may be a bit much for a five year old to follow ( :lol: ) but I would probably use the finale of Jupiter. Absolutely mindblowing the trials he puts those themes through before it all converges together in massive fugato. A more transparent example might be the 
famous opening movement of the 40th in G minor. Or even Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. 

What do you think?


----------



## Ethereality

I couldn't be forced to single out any one over the other, but what you've listed there seems great to suggest to someone young. The 40th symphony is especially transparent in genius you're right. The 41st Finale is mind-blowing. Also the diverging themes within the Marriage of Figaro and Piano Concerto No. 21 such as in Andante. But there are so many others, say foundational works.


----------



## Common Listener

Ethereality said:


> Mozart mostly imported the technicalities of ground structure from Haydn. It was Mozart who completely flipped the interpretation of what it's supposed to achieve over on its head: if you look at it as, if the most influential musicians from all eras could go between 3 composers, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, there's a reason Mozart is the common choice and why time-and-again their widespread praise is not due to their ideas, but his...


This understates Haydn's groundbreaking work which inspired Mozart at many steps along the way, from being exposed to Haydn's recent symphonies which utterly transformed Mozart's in the mid- to late-20s (probably beginning most specifically with 25) to Mozart's - wait for it - "Haydn" Quartets. I'd say Haydn was doing more "flipping" in some ways but Mozart extended it with his unique brilliance. As far as Mozart being the common choice, he makes the better story and had a movie made about him. Old Papa Haydn stuck out in a swamp being brilliant and somewhat happy and living to a ripe old age just isn't as good as the wild and tragic misunderstood boy wonder traipsing about the continent.  But seriously, I think both were staggeringly brilliant and love them both and it'd be like arguing whether the blacks or the whites were the best part of an M. C. Escher painting. And, of course, neither came out of a vacuum - the Mannheim folks were doing some inventive stuff without which Haydn and Mozart both might have had different careers.


----------



## Common Listener

larold said:


> The first three middle columns right of names represent pages attributed to the composer(s) by the 2010 Penguin Guide, 2005 All Music Guide, and David Ewen's 1947 book Musical Masterpieces. The fourth column right is the subtotal indicating their place... My goal was to eliminate my bias.


Thanks for that explanation - it makes perfect sense. I wonder if there would be any significant difference if it was done as a percentage of pages per book rather than a count. For instance, while it might not make any difference, Penguin could carry more weight because it has more pages (at least more devoted to major composers). But, then again, Penguin's probably pretty authoritative, too, so even if that were the case, it might be a desirable result.

(I'd been meaning to reply to this but lost track of it and didn't realize it was the same thread when I last posted. )


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

flamencosketches said:


> I'm not so sure about that... though sometimes (a few of the symphonies, a few of the quartets), yes.


More than a "few" of the quartets, and perhaps even more than a "few" of the symphonies. Also, definitely add many of the piano sonatas (especially the later ones) and concertos #3-5, as well as various other works scattered throughout Beethoven's oeuvre. But I see your general point. Not sure I agree with it, but I can see what you mean.


----------



## Ethereality

Common Listener said:


> This understates Haydn's groundbreaking work which inspired Mozart at many steps along the way, from being exposed to Haydn's recent symphonies which utterly transformed Mozart's in the mid- to late-20s (probably beginning most specifically with 25) to Mozart's - wait for it - "Haydn" Quartets. I'd say Haydn was doing more "flipping" in some ways but Mozart extended it with his unique brilliance.


Yes true. I'm not saying Haydn (and remember, all those before Haydn who influenced these blocks of knowledge to form) didn't totally develop much of Mozart's compositional framework, but it's clear to me that what Mozart himself contributed to the sphere of music, like his own inventions in thematic development, movement and rhythm, was even more ahead of its time for that time, that 35 years during Haydn, and would've happened in its own way if we give him a fair scenario for comparison: music evolution fell back because Haydn never existed  and Mozart was still musically privileged. _Just_ as an equal scenario comparison. Mozart influenced a monstrous shift in thematic interpretation and movement to everything that differed from the philosophies before him, his striving for music to achieve boundlessly more viscerally. And this could also be a matter of experience and knowing a lot about Mozart's life philosophy varying much from Haydn's and other classicists. To understand much of Mozart's musical divinity and originality, one has to see the bigger picture of the evolution between all musical periods and their compositional philosophies, as well as what the most praised composers after Mozart's time thought about him compared to Beethoven and Haydn. This is a different phenomenon than other composers, Mozart's vision of thematic development and shift in momentum and interpretation was so far ahead of what anyone would even consider was _possible,_ it's taken for granted, and because it is so noticeable now, it's often overlooked in its effect to _that _time period and how he laid the fundamental inspiration for Romanticism to exist. I do think it's something you either understand or it takes some experience making historical comparisons. So, not downplaying Haydn, JC Bach, or Beethoven.

Also, there does exist a bias in failing to interpret _what_ a composer went on to influence. If a composer influenced a lot of composers after him but these composers are not nearly as influential as the other branches of composers, then his influence is not actually as great as it seems overall--in the bigger picture of music. He is still highly influential but it's not extended.


----------



## Marceloc

Gershwin overrated.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Yes true. I'm not saying Haydn (and remember, all those before Haydn who influenced these blocks of knowledge to form) didn't totally develop much of Mozart's compositional framework, but it's more clear to me that what Mozart himself contributed to the sphere of music, like his own inventions in thematic development, movement and rhythm, was even more ahead of its time for that time, that 35 years during Haydn, and would've happened in its own way if we give him a fair scenario for comparison: music evolution fell back because Haydn never existed  and Mozart was still musically privileged. _Just_ as an equal scenario comparison. Mozart influenced a monstrous shift in thematic interpretation and movement to everything that differed from the philosophies before him, his striving for music to achieve boundlessly more viscerally. And this could also be a matter of experience and knowing a lot about Mozart's life philosophy varying much from Haydn's and other classicists. To understand much of Mozart's musical divinity and originality, one has to see the bigger picture of the evolution between all musical periods and their compositional philosophies, as well as what the most praised composers after Mozart's time thought about him compared to Beethoven and Haydn. This is a different phenomenon than other composers, Mozart's vision of thematic development and shift in momentum and interpretation was so far ahead of what anyone would even consider was _possible,_ it's taken for granted, and because it is so noticeable now, it's often overlooked in its effect to _that _time period and how it laid the fundamental inspiration for Romanticism to exist. I do think it's something you either understand or it takes some experience making historical comparisons. So, not downplaying Haydn or Beethoven.
> 
> Also, there does exist a bias in failing to interpret _what_ a composer went on to influence. If a composer influenced a lot of composers after him but these composers are not nearly as influential as the other branches of composers, then his _overall_ influence is not actually as great as it seems overall--in the bigger picture of music. He is still highly influential but it's not extended.


It seems to me that most of the composers after Mozart tried to use his attractive ideas (which composers didn't?), but only to improve upon them, which was very difficult as we know. I imagine them saying, "oh that sounds too much like Mozart. For my generation this needs to be more complex, even if it suffers from that added complexity."

Composers after Beethoven didn't even try to use his Third Period as a starting point.


----------



## Luchesi

Alma Deutscher sounds like Mozart. She might never want to be different, since she started so young. It's a curious tale of development.


----------



## paulbest

Mozart, over? Not sure where you got that idea from... The rest mentioned, yes I agree and could add another 100 to that list,,like Bach... LvB ranks at the very top of the mountain of over rates.
UNDER list:
Easy
Hans Henze. Ravel, Pettersson, Szymanowski, Carter, Schnittke.
Paul
The Ravelian, Petterssonian, Webernian, now recently the Henzeian
New Orleans
My 1st post


----------



## Ethereality

And here is my list of most underrated, starting at #1:

_*1. Albinoni* (1671 - 1751)
*2. Buxtehude* (1638 - 1707)
*3. CPE Bach* (1714 - 1788)
*4. Borodin* (1833 - 1887)
*5. Field* (1782 - 1837)
*6. Clementi* (1752 - 1832)
*7. Hummel* (1778 - 1837)
*8. Hanson* (1896 - 1981) 
*9. Dussek* (1760 - 1812)
*10. Sammartini* (1700 - 1775)
*11. Telemann* (1681 - 1767)
*12. Handel *(1685 - 1759)
*13. Rautavaara *(1928 - 2016)
*14. Viotti *(1755 - 1824)
*15. Couperin* (1668 - 1733)
*16. Bizet *(1838 - 1875)
*17. Beethoven* (1770 - 1827)
*18. Bellini *(1801 - 1835)
*19. Paganini *(1782 - 1840)
*20. Mozart* (1756 - 1791)_


----------



## Larkenfield

Considering that only 1% to 3% of the general population listen to or buy CM, even Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven in their full glory are underrated.


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> Well, considering that about 1 to 3% of the general population listen to or buy CM, even Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven at their most glorious are badly underrated.


I would tend to disagree.
There is a group of the classical community who have given god-like status to Bach, and as we all know, Beethoven has been *the chosen composer* for decades now, with no abating. 
The fan base of both composers are committed til death. The group following both, have no intentions of altering their support. Sure Bach is not often programed, as his music will not bring in any big money making crowds. LvB is a sure bet to fill the seats. LvB is a main structural foundation to the entire EU classical web, and that web can be extended throughout the entire world.I do agree, only 1-3% of the world pop are ture supporters of classical music, and that number is either staying the same or dwindling.

The average Frenchman has probably not heard much of either French master. I am still waiting for Ravel to be recognized for his creative output. That may not happen in my lifetime.


----------



## paulbest

Agree, His Prelude/fawn was scored in,,,wait,,be back,,,1st performed in Paris Dec, 1894. UNREAL. Can you imagine the impressions on the Parisians when 1st hearing this music. Sure Wagner had magical spell binding effects with his unreal chromatic , lush harmonies, melodies, thematic operas, which also spell bound the senses of Europe. Some/most of Debussy has a sense of timeless quality, that is partakes of archetypal beauty. One of my firm convictions is that Ravel's day has not come as yet. His genius has not been fully appreciated for its inherent timeless archetypal nature, moreso than with Debussy.
I should confess at this point, I am a Ravelian, til death.


----------



## paulbest

larold said:


> _Interesting - could you go into more detail about how you put this together - what the sources for the columns are and what the numbers mean? _
> 
> The first three middle columns right of names represent pages attributed to the composer(s) by the 2010 Penguin Guide, 2005 All Music Guide, and David Ewen's 1947 book Musical Masterpieces. The fourth column right is the subtotal indicating their place.
> 
> I later added the book Third Ear Classical Music (fifth column right) and retotaled (sixth column) and re-ranked (7th column) but this was foolish I thought. The Third Ear book is a useful guide but was poorly edited. I don't know of any such book that gave a composer like Monteverdi 20 pages while limiting Haydn to half that and Wagner to about one-third.
> 
> So I mentally excluded this book's pages and counted the rank in the first column to be the best indicator of a composer's place among all others.
> 
> I used the three books for these reasons: the Penguin Guide is the most well-known and authentic tome ranking recordings and composes; it went back to the 1960s under other names. The All Music Guide -- only one issue ever published but with a large online site -- was more musicological than Penguin and was published in USA thereby balancing some of Penguin's bias for English composers. David Ewen's book was published 1947 but I think the one I have is a 1953 reprint. There were others before his book that ranked recordings but his was more a musicological guide that included recommended recordings at the end.
> 
> My point in doing this was to erase my own biases and preferences and to see what published guides in the industry had to say collectively about who is and who is not great in classical music composition. I agree this is not perfect but I have not seen nor heard any other method that is better here or elsewhere. Most people's ideas are strictly formed from their biases. My goal was to eliminate my bias.


I challenge this assertion, that of The Penguin Guide. Sure The Penguin Guide does speak for *the general populace*, that of collective opinion/belief/conviction. Sort of like Jung's idea of the collective UN-conscious. Which is my point here, the collective votes give power and authority to THEIR favorite, their most welcomed , decidedly acceptable. But as you are aware we are living in times which demand a individual consciousness, partaking of anything collective can/might get you into trouble. 
How often has it been heard such and such a composer was/is ahead of his time. The group mind set is slow to recognize true genius, or to give the creative genius its due recognition. 
Us Petterssonians , know very well, w/o any doubts, that Pettersson's time in the sun is at least a century away. His music as The Voice for THIS Zeitgeist may not ever reach any large group, or gather a following as say has Bach, or Beethoven. Regardless, we know the true importance and significance of Pettersson, as the greatest symphonist ever. Then we move to Schnittke. His music is difficult for artists to perform as well challenging for listeners who are still committed, hard core devotees to the classic/romantic epochs. Schnittke, like Pettersson is for a unique group , the modernists I call this community. 
Then we also can add in Hans Henze, who I consider germany's greatest post WW2 composer and one of the greatest mid/late 20TH C composers in classical form. Took me some 14 yrs to awaken to Henze's importance. Now he is something super special, right there along equal to Pettersson, Schnittke, Elliott Carter.

So collectively, the groups votes mean nothing to the individual, yet their power does extend to which composers will be on the season program. Which is why I would never attend most concerts, nor ever support any classical music station's fund raising drive. .
I could never eliminate my bias, as it is my living truth of my core being. I disdain group ideation, which hinders individual exploration and discovery.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> I (alone, it seems) am more or less happy with the status granted to most composers by their current reputations. I tend to believe that the broader "we" will have got it right with the widely revered composers who I don't get on with so well, and to think that it must be me who doesn't yet get them. But with the composers of the last 70 years I don't expect the broader "we" to have it right yet so there are quite a few more recent composers who I feel are currently underrated: it takes time.
> 
> Also, I do regret and dislike the way that only a very limited range of the music (from all ages) that we value greatly gets played often, particularly orchestral music: the economics of running orchestras is a major obstacle to our musical enjoyment. So ... "the market" is overrated.


Yes , the economics of managing a orchestra requires programming composers which will fill the most seats and avoiding/eliminating any composer which may do harm to ticket sales. You are correct, our most beloved compoers past 70 years, will just have to wait for their *day in the sunshine*. 
The collective vote (Jung's collective UN-conscious) has the power, the cash to buttress their favorite little darlings. The great concert halls in Europe have cast in stone the foundational structure to the classical community, Dvorak is not going away anything soon, neither Tchaikovsky , nor all the other *greats*. These *masters* will remain for this epoch. Yet in the next epoch, things will be different. That time is still far and away. Though there are stirrings in the air.
Paul
The Petterssonian
New Orleans


----------



## paulbest

Ethereality said:


> Well Mozart was always receiving endless praise by the best composers of their time. While I'm not a giant fan of the classical period (moreso prefer the other periods), it's clear why Mozart had such a huge influence on everyone after him, why his thematic craft was so visceral and illustrative beyond its years. A lot of people don't understand how hard it was for anybody to do what Mozart did at that time period. Nobody could've thought so outside the bounds like he did. The societal structure of music for years wasn't ready to adapt to him, new composers and musicians in context of their traditions, were for a lack of better word, still shocked by the likes of Mozart's visions. He seemed to merely borrow the classical structure to paint a whole new interpretation to life.
> 
> Bach is equally in the same way, with Baroque, but Amadeus's blistering new influence and hard work can be felt in every theme he moved beyond the bounds with. He was so far ahead of his time, only an ambitious thinker like Beethoven was ready to really take on his influence, (he was untouched you could say) and composers after Beethoven still didn't know what to do about these two. Mozart paved the way to creativity and Beethoven crafted for it the perfect ending, was there any hope for music to advance again?


Excellent post. 
Mozart's music continues to spell bind and enlighten those who listen to his eternal masterpieces. His colors and brilliance will never fade, as he partakes of the archetypal realm of beauty. 
As for Beethoven, that's questionable. Lenny Bernstein is filmed on YT where he exposes a work of LvB, the 9th sym I believe, as ,,let me paraphrase, *devoid of any true significance*. I believe both Ravel and Debussy had strong disdain for Beethoven, as both could see his music as structurally magnificent , yet devoid of true values, that is to say , does not partake of the archetypal beauty. Something I've always had a hunch about from my earliest days in classical music. I was strongly attached to Mozart, yet felt no attachment towards Beethoven. 
Mozart's genius has indeed influenced a select group of composers in ways subconsciously , such is the power of Mozart.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> So collectively, the groups votes mean nothing to the individual, yet their power does extend to which composers will be on the season program. Which is why I would never attend most concerts, nor ever support any classical music station's fund raising drive. .
> I could never eliminate my bias, as it is my living truth of my core being. I disdain group ideation, which hinders individual exploration and discovery.


Context _is _important. Group "votes" can be disagreed with - we all do it all the time - but to do so we need to know what they are and where they came from. I mean we need to know the music, even if only to dismiss it. Your holy trinity of modern composers are all seen fairly widely among those who like modern and contemporary music as rather backwards looking while the names of Boulez, Xenakis, Kurtag etc. are more widely appreciated (within that group that listens to the music of the last 70 years). Nothing wrong with disagreeing with that group - most members here do! - but I do think you should know why. Why would you say that I (or, indeed, you) should spend more time with Schnittke than Kurtag?

Don't get me wrong, I do greatly like at least two of your three composers. It is just that I have ended up feeling they are relatively minor.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Common Listener said:


> This understates Haydn's groundbreaking work which inspired Mozart at many steps along the way, from being exposed to Haydn's recent symphonies which utterly transformed Mozart's in the mid- to late-20s (probably beginning most specifically with 25) to Mozart's - wait for it - "Haydn" Quartets. I'd say Haydn was doing more "flipping" in some ways but Mozart extended it with his unique brilliance. As far as Mozart being the common choice, he makes the better story and had a movie made about him. Old Papa Haydn stuck out in a swamp being brilliant and somewhat happy and living to a ripe old age just isn't as good as the wild and tragic misunderstood boy wonder traipsing about the continent.  But seriously, I think both were staggeringly brilliant and love them both and it'd be like arguing whether the blacks or the whites were the best part of an M. C. Escher painting. And, of course, neither came out of a vacuum - the Mannheim folks were doing some inventive stuff without which Haydn and Mozart both might have had different careers.


True, but Mozart wrote his 25th at the age of 17. It could also be said his symphonies before that aren't as good cause he didn't reach maturity yet (although I see the 23th as his real "first symphony", the impassioned oboe solo is sparked interest in me for Mozart long ago). And 26th, with its solemn C minor middle movement, for example seems mostly influenced by Christian Bach. Like how Sinfonia Concertante in E flat K364 exhibits influence of Christian's Cello Concerto in C minor as well.






It's worth noting Haydn was also intrigued by Mozart's work after Mozart's death and referenced its elements in his own work, for example, introduction of his Oratorio The Creation references that of Mozart's Dissonance Quartet. The Agnus Dei of Harmoniemesse references Mozart's Coronation Mass, The Seasons references the slow movement of Mozart's 40th.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> More than a "few" of the quartets, and perhaps even more than a "few" of the symphonies. Also, definitely add many of the piano sonatas (especially the later ones) and concertos #3-5, as well as various other works scattered throughout Beethoven's oeuvre. But I see your general point. Not sure I agree with it, but I can see what you mean.


I'm reminded of Bernstein's quote Beethoven had a sense for perfection unparalleled in history.




I'm more tempted to say Beethoven's middle period works exhibit more perfection. For example, the 5th symphony which follows the golden rule in its structure. Appassionata feels more "perfect" to me than Hammerklavier and Op.111. "Perfect" doesn't mean "high-quality" in this case, but rather having elements that seem to be related to the ideas of classicism. (you know what I mean)


----------



## larold

_I challenge this assertion, that of The Penguin Guide. Sure The Penguin Guide does speak for *the general populace*, that of collective opinion/belief/conviction...So collectively, the groups votes mean nothing to the individual, yet their power does extend to which composers will be on the season program. Which is why I would never attend most concerts, nor ever support any classical music station's fund raising drive._

I should remind you the Penguin Guide was one source, not the source. This was the reason I used three and tried to use more.

As I said no one has derived a better method. People's ideas of underrated, overrated, best and worst come from their bias. I'd like to see one other person derive a method of defining them not using their personal interest or bias.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm reminded of Bernstein's quote Beethoven had a sense for perfection unparalleled in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more tempted to say Beethoven's middle period works exhibit more perfection. For example, the 5th symphony which follows the golden rule in its structure. Appassionata feels more "perfect" to me than Hammerklavier and Op.111. "Perfect" doesn't mean "high-quality" in this case, but rather having elements that seem to be related to the ideas of classicism. (you know what I mean)


As you know, classicism was surpassed/transcended as expression and it was left behind.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> And here is my list of most underrated, starting at #1:
> 
> _*1. Albinoni* (1671 - 1751)
> *2. Buxtehude* (1638 - 1707)
> *3. CPE Bach* (1714 - 1788)
> *4. Borodin* (1833 - 1887)
> *5. Field* (1782 - 1837)
> *6. Clementi* (1752 - 1832)
> *7. Hummel* (1778 - 1837)
> *8. Hanson* (1896 - 1981)
> *9. Dussek* (1760 - 1812)
> *10. Sammartini* (1700 - 1775)
> *11. Telemann* (1681 - 1767)
> *12. Handel *(1685 - 1759)
> *13. Rautavaara *(1928 - 2016)
> *14. Viotti *(1755 - 1824)
> *15. Couperin* (1668 - 1733)
> *16. Bizet *(1838 - 1875)
> *17. Beethoven* (1770 - 1827)
> *18. Bellini *(1801 - 1835)
> *19. Paganini *(1782 - 1840)
> *20. Mozart* (1756 - 1791)_


Please explain what you mean by underrated. I find that to be an unusual list.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> As you know, classicism was surpassed/transcended as expression and it was left behind.


Transcended is OK. Surpassed is a very strange claim. Also, do we really leave behind the music of the past? Composers may do as far as their writing is concerned but we don't. Also, I think you can here classical discipline in the work of many later composers, the most obvious being Brahms.


----------



## Luchesi

paulbest said:


> I challenge this assertion, that of The Penguin Guide. Sure The Penguin Guide does speak for *the general populace*, that of collective opinion/belief/conviction. Sort of like Jung's idea of the collective UN-conscious. Which is my point here, the collective votes give power and authority to THEIR favorite, their most welcomed , decidedly acceptable. But as you are aware we are living in times which demand a individual consciousness, partaking of anything collective can/might get you into trouble.
> How often has it been heard such and such a composer was/is ahead of his time. The group mind set is slow to recognize true genius, or to give the creative genius its due recognition.
> Us Petterssonians , know very well, w/o any doubts, that Pettersson's time in the sun is at least a century away. His music as The Voice for THIS Zeitgeist may not ever reach any large group, or gather a following as say has Bach, or Beethoven. Regardless, we know the true importance and significance of Pettersson, as the greatest symphonist ever. Then we move to Schnittke. His music is difficult for artists to perform as well challenging for listeners who are still committed, hard core devotees to the classic/romantic epochs. Schnittke, like Pettersson is for a unique group , the modernists I call this community.
> Then we also can add in Hans Henze, who I consider germany's greatest post WW2 composer and one of the greatest mid/late 20TH C composers in classical form. Took me some 14 yrs to awaken to Henze's importance. Now he is something super special, right there along equal to Pettersson, Schnittke, Elliott Carter.
> 
> So collectively, the groups votes mean nothing to the individual, yet their power does extend to which composers will be on the season program. Which is why I would never attend most concerts, nor ever support any classical music station's fund raising drive. .
> I could never eliminate my bias, as it is my living truth of my core being. I disdain group ideation, which hinders individual exploration and discovery.


Would your favorite composers feel the same as you about Bach and Beethoven? What would you say to them?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> As you know, classicism was surpassed/transcended as expression and it was left behind.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassicism_(music)
_"Neoclassicism in music was a twentieth-century trend, particularly current in the interwar period, in which composers sought to return to aesthetic precepts associated with the broadly defined concept of "classicism", namely order, balance, clarity, economy, and emotional restraint. As such, neoclassicism was a reaction against the unrestrained emotionalism and perceived formlessness of late Romanticism, as well as a "call to order" after the experimental ferment of the first two decades of the twentieth century. The neoclassical impulse found its expression in such features as the use of pared-down performing forces, an emphasis on rhythm and on contrapuntal texture, an updated or expanded tonal harmony, and a concentration on absolute music as opposed to Romantic program music."_


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassicism_(music)
> _"Neoclassicism in music was a twentieth-century trend, particularly current in the interwar period, in which composers sought to return to aesthetic precepts associated with the broadly defined concept of "classicism", namely order, balance, clarity, economy, and emotional restraint. As such, neoclassicism was a reaction against the unrestrained emotionalism and perceived formlessness of late Romanticism, as well as a "call to order" after the experimental ferment of the first two decades of the twentieth century. The neoclassical impulse found its expression in such features as the use of pared-down performing forces, an emphasis on rhythm and on contrapuntal texture, an updated or expanded tonal harmony, and a concentration on absolute music as opposed to Romantic program music."_


Was Neoclassicism serious expression or were there other less than artistic motivations? What are yours?


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> Transcended is OK. Surpassed is a very strange claim. Also, do we really leave behind the music of the past? Composers may do as far as their writing is concerned but we don't. Also, I think you can here classical discipline in the work of many later composers, the most obvious being Brahms.


This is the major hangup in classical music, not enough folks are willing to part with their little darlings.
of all music pre 1900, I can count only 5 or less composers in my collection of 400 cds. 
For me the past is the past, we live in the present and have to face a dreary future, Only living composers, those with the life breath, those who speak the current Zeitgeist will gain my loyalty and interest. 
There is a new world coming.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> Context _is _important. Group "votes" can be disagreed with - we all do it all the time - but to do so we need to know what they are and where they came from. I mean we need to know the music, even if only to dismiss it. Your holy trinity of modern composers are all seen fairly widely among those who like modern and contemporary music as rather backwards looking while the names of Boulez, Xenakis, Kurtag etc. are more widely appreciated (within that group that listens to the music of the last 70 years). Nothing wrong with disagreeing with that group - most members here do! - but I do think you should know why. Why would you say that I (or, indeed, you) should spend more time with Schnittke than Kurtag?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I do greatly like at least two of your three composers. It is just that I have ended up feeling they are relatively minor.


Lets see, 2 of the 3,,,hummm, actually I mention 4 as highly significant modern composers, say on the level of Beethoven and Mozart, were back in their day,,I'd say you have issues with Pettersson and Henze, and embrace Elliott Carter and Schnittke?
Am I close?

My thing is which composers speak about THIS Zeitgeist we live in. My belief is if one is spiritually awake, one will be drawn to those composers who voice this spiritual realm. Of all composers Pettersson is The Voice of THIS Zeitgeist. and will remain until another comes along with a new message. Which I don't see happening anytime in the near/distant future.
Paul
The Petterssonian
New Orleans


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> Transcended is OK. Surpassed is a very strange claim. Also, do we really leave behind the music of the past? Composers may do as far as their writing is concerned but we don't. Also, I think you can here classical discipline in the work of many later composers, the most obvious being Brahms.


Harmony had moved on. As I see it, the large steps, from Byrd to Mozart, and again from Hummel to Schumann, and then Liszt to Mahler, in each comparable interval of time in music history the earlier harmony had been surpassed (for human expression, not for listening and modern day collecting).

Even without looking at the score Brahms doesn't sound like Mozart. Why didn't Berlioz and Brahms use the harmony of Haydn's time? What would the audiences have thought?


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> This is the major hangup in classical music, not enough folks are willing to part with their little darlings.
> of all music pre 1900, I can count only 5 or less composers in my collection of 400 cds.


Time-wise, that's a very restrictive collection.


----------



## Ethereality

Luchesi said:


> Please explain what you mean by underrated. *I find that to be an unusual list.*


Well I looked up the definition of underrate, and agreed with the first one that came up:

_"Verb. Underestimate the extent, value, or importance of (someone or something)."_

My list has little to do with the quality of the composer, but is relative only to how much attention that composer already receives. That's the meaning of underrated:

- Someone like *Viotti * for instance receives very little attention and yet his inventions were absolutely irreplaceable and instrumental to the transition from the Classical to Romantic era.

- On the other hand, someone like *Beethoven* receives tons of attention, but in the grand scheme of the music industry, he is clearly highly underrated.

- My top entry, *Albinoni*, was the greatest genius of his time period, through-and-through, but he doesn't receive the attention he deserves due to countless composers after him borrowing his inventions.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> This is the major hangup in classical music, not enough folks are willing to part with their little darlings.
> of all music pre 1900, I can count only 5 or less composers in my collection of 400 cds.
> For me the past is the past, we live in the present and have to face a dreary future, Only living composers, those with the life breath, those who speak the current Zeitgeist will gain my loyalty and interest.
> There is a new world coming.


No hang up. I love a lot of music, some of it dating back centuries and some of it not even a decade. Why do I have to give some of it up? That seems to me a very strange idea. I feel that your apparent dislike of and ignorance concerning older music may hamper you in enjoying the more recent. But your taste is your taste and I am happy to let you expand it in any direction you wish. A lifetime leaves room for a lot. But as for the new world that is coming, what do you see that may be relevant here?


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> Harmony had moved on. As I see it, the large steps, from Byrd to Mozart, and again from Hummel to Schumann, and then Liszt to Mahler, in each comparable interval of time in music history the earlier harmony had been surpassed (for human expression, not for listening and modern day collecting).
> 
> Even without looking at the score Brahms doesn't sound like Mozart. Why didn't Berlioz and Brahms use the harmony of Haydn's time? What would the audiences have thought?


You were talking about classicism but now you are talking of harmony. I still think, though, that great music is not surpassed merely by a development in style.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> Lets see, 2 of the 3,,,hummm, actually I mention 4 as highly significant modern composers, say on the level of Beethoven and Mozart, were back in their day,,*I'd say you have issues with Pettersson and Henze, and embrace Elliott Carter and Schnittke?*
> Am I close?
> 
> My thing is which composers speak about THIS Zeitgeist we live in. My belief is if one is spiritually awake, one will be drawn to those composers who voice this spiritual realm. Of all composers Pettersson is The Voice of THIS Zeitgeist. and will remain until another comes along with a new message. Which I don't see happening anytime in the near/distant future.
> Paul
> The Petterssonian
> New Orleans


I also embrace Pettersson as well and have done for more than 15 years. I hear him as the last traditional symphonist. You are right about Carter and Schnittke. I am only lukewarm about Henze. I think Carter was probably a major composer of his times but I don't think the other three were.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Harmony had moved on. As I see it, the large steps, from Byrd to Mozart, and again from Hummel to Schumann, and then Liszt to Mahler, in each comparable interval of time in music history the earlier harmony had been surpassed (for human expression, not for listening and modern day collecting).
> 
> Even without looking at the score Brahms doesn't sound like Mozart. Why didn't Berlioz and Brahms use the harmony of Haydn's time? What would the audiences have thought?


I'm baffled what you try to say sometimes. The newer the music the better it is? So we don't need to listen to earlier music?
Just because they did new stuff, it didn't always objectively resulted in 'improvement' from the old. In many cases later ones couldn't really 'do it' as good as the old ones. It's my opinion, but I find major composers after Beethoven generally slightly less interesting than Beethoven and the ones before him. I won't mention the specific names, but I find some even have noticeable flaws in use of harmony.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> This is the major hangup in classical music, not enough folks are willing to part with their little darlings.
> of all music pre 1900, I can count only 5 or less composers in my collection of 400 cds.
> For me the past is the past, we live in the present and have to face a dreary future, Only living composers, those with the life breath, those who speak the current Zeitgeist will gain my loyalty and interest.
> There is a new world coming.
> 
> My thing is which composers speak about THIS Zeitgeist we live in. My belief is if one is spiritually awake, one will be drawn to those composers who voice this spiritual realm. Of all composers Pettersson is The Voice of THIS Zeitgeist. and will remain until another comes along with a new message. Which I don't see happening anytime in the near/distant future.


Why should anyone be "willing to part with" what they love? Why is a preference for music written 50, 150 or 250 years ago over music written 5 minutes ago a "hangup"? What does it matter whether a composer is living? What do "past" and "present" really signify in art?

Neither the prospect of a "dreary future" nor the limitations of your own taste and CD collection is likely to persuade anyone to want to "awaken spiritually" to your personal "Zeitgeist." Some of us think that what makes art wonderful - "spiritually" wonderful - is its ability to speak to humanity beyond the narrow limits of any supposed "Zeitgeist."

My "Zeitgeist" is not your "Zeitgeist," and my preference for Bach over Pettersson is not a hangup.


----------



## larold

_Would your favorite composers feel the same as you about Bach and Beethoven? What would you say to them? _

I don't think there's any question most composers believe Bach and Beethoven were at least among the greatest. Just to name a couple obvious examples from other great composers:

Beethoven's choral symphony was copied first by Mendelssohn and next by Mahler in the centuries after Beethoven's death. All but one of Anton Bruckner's numbered symphonies begins with a cadence similar to Beethoven's 9th symphony.

Both Mendelssohn and Shostakovich copied piano preludes and fugues from Bach. Mendelssohn introduced Bach's St. Matthew Passion which was never played in his lifetime. Mendelssohn also wrote several Psalms similar to Bach cantatas.

You didn't mention Mozart (who died 1791) … who was copied directly in the 19th century by Tchaikovsky (who wrote a piece called Mozartiana) and in the 20th century by Richard Strauss.

It is clear the greatest composers in history knew who were the very greatest composers … because they copied them, thus keeping them relevant hundreds of years after they died.

Aside from playing one's music centuries after their death, this is the most sincere form of flattery for any composer: the greats that followed him/her keeping alive his/her style.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> You were talking about classicism but now you are talking of harmony. I still think, though, that great music is not surpassed merely by a development in style.


OK, not just harmony, style. Chopin, Schumann, Liszt and Berlioz only composed in the Romantic style. They admired Mozart, but for the expression of their time and setting and outlooks - that style had been surpassed by the new style. How do you explain what happened?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm baffled what you try to say sometimes. The newer the music the better it is? So we don't need to listen to earlier music?
> Just because they did new stuff, it didn't always objectively resulted in 'improvement' from the old. In many cases later ones couldn't really 'do it' as good as the old ones. It's my opinion, but I find major composers after Beethoven generally slightly less interesting than Beethoven and the ones before him. I won't mention the specific names, but I find some even have noticeable flaws in use of harmony.


"...I find some even have noticeable flaws in use of harmony."

I said almost the same thing to my violinist last Tuesday. And he said, "It's human expression we shouldn't lose track of that. That's what it's about." We were discussing the Beatles songs wherein normal harmony for pop songs is pushed beyond the pretty limits for an affect. They were 'crying' about not getting a girl or losing a girl. They broke rules. What did they know?


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Why should anyone be "willing to part with" what they love? Why is a preference for music written 50, 150 or 250 years ago over music written 5 minutes ago a "hangup"? What does it matter whether a composer is living? What do "past" and "present" really signify in art?
> 
> Neither the prospect of a "dreary future" nor the limitations of your own taste and CD collection is likely to persuade anyone to want to "awaken spiritually" to your personal "Zeitgeist." Some of us think that what makes art wonderful - "spiritually" wonderful - is its ability to speak to humanity beyond the narrow limits of any supposed "Zeitgeist."
> 
> My "Zeitgeist" is not your "Zeitgeist," and my preference for Bach over Pettersson is not a hangup.


means a lot who is voting for who, Henze will never be recognized for what he truly represents, not only germany's greatest composer, ahead of Hartmann, but obviously can not be compared to Wagner's signifinace, although I personally place Henze ahead of Wagner = Thus Henze is and will remain germany's greatest composer and one of the very finest in all 20th C composers.

I stand alone in this position, you will never ever find another belief such as mine. IOW I am most likely the only one in this planet who is completely convinced of this truth.
(Wagner has some dull sections throughout his operas, and if the casting is weak, the opera loses value)

Henze provides almost the complete spectrum of classical, hardlya dud/gimmick/fluff/scam in his entire output, only his 1st sym is a dud which is readily admits.

Henze wikll forever remain obscure and unknown, as will Pettersson, less so Schnittke,,and will Elliott Carter be recognized as America's greatest?

My beliefs are based on hearing nearly every major/minor composer, with 35 yrs experience. Many who hang onto LVB, have yet to hear anything of the previous mentioned. IOW the classical community needs to mature and grow up.
Which ain't gonna happen. Read your Jung, Collective man is always 100 yrs behind schedule from knowing himself. 
More so modern man than ever before in history of mankind, is man asleep at the wheel.

As I say, which composers one is drawn to, is a reflection of ones psychological developments, experiences. How can a composer of 100 yrs ago, (with few exceptions to this rule) speak to a soul living in 2019? Its a whole new world. 
Sure greek art is classical which partakes of archetypal beauty, same with folk music of the mountain and valley folks throughout the old world, its power will not diminish, as it comes from the soil.

Composers that should be recognized, can;'t/won't, as the spot lights only go towards the old rusty standards.
Paul
The Henzeian
New Orleans
obviously you do not know what Zeitgeist means.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> means a lot who is voting for who, Henze will never be recognized for what he truly represents, not only germany's greatest composer, ahead of Hartmann, but obviously can not be compared to Wagner's signifinace, although I personally place Henze ahead of Wagner = Thus Henze is and will remain germany's greatest composer and one of the very finest in all 20th C composers.
> 
> I stand alone in this position, you will never ever find another belief such as mine. IOW I am most likely the only one in this planet who is completely convinced of this truth.
> (Wagner has some dull sections throughout his operas, and if the casting is weak, the opera loses value)
> 
> Henze provides almost the complete spectrum of classical, hardlya dud/gimmick/fluff/scam in his entire output, only his 1st sym is a dud which is readily admits.
> 
> Henze wikll forever remain obscure and unknown, as will Pettersson, less so Schnittke,,and will Elliott Carter be recognized as America's greatest?
> 
> My beliefs are based on hearing nearly every major/minor composer, with 35 yrs experience. Many who hang onto LVB, have yet to hear anything of the previous mentioned. IOW the classical community needs to mature and grow up.
> Which ain't gonna happen. Read your Jung, Collective man is always 100 yrs behind schedule from knowing himself.
> More so modern man than ever before in history of mankind, is man asleep at the wheel.
> 
> As I say, which composers one is drawn to, is a reflection of ones psychological developments, experiences. How can a composer of 100 yrs ago, (with few exceptions to this rule) speak to a soul living in 2019? Its a whole new world.
> Sure greek art is classical which partakes of archetypal beauty, same with folk music of the mountain and valley folks throughout the old world, its power will not diminish, as it comes from the soil.
> 
> Composers that should be recognized, can;'t/won't, as the spot lights only go towards the old rusty standards.
> Paul
> The Henzeian
> New Orleans
> obviously you do not know what Zeitgeist means.


I know what "Zeitgeist" means. I simply don't believe it exists, and therefore don't accept either your claim to have identified it or your notion that being in harmony with it is a mark of "spiritual" superiority.

In any event it's lucky that you've found those little-recognized composers who are greater than the ones most of us prefer, and that you can tell the rest of mankind about your discovery.


----------



## Ethereality

So what once appeared to be a steady evolution of music like which led to Romanticism, has now turned into absolute untraceable diversity, where only a computer could ever know what is great invention/breakthrough vs clear plagiarism. What this means is the only standard on which we can ever say something is _objectively best_, is loose consensual agreement. There's a lot of that in Rock music... A bit less in Classical, Jazz and Hip-hop. There's no proof that the Homo sapien mind is evolving more intelligently than it used to, but who knows if that says anything about consensual objectivity. (Not to be confused with universal truth, which is even less measurable. Thankfully subjective opinion is very measurable!)

Anyway, the best poll on music I know of is from RYM, and its rating system is very organized. Jazz makes the Top 100 albums but not Classical. https://rateyourmusic.com/customchart
This _proves_ we live on another planet than the other humans do right? Well

Not until album 232 do we see something recognizable. Herbert von Karajan - Beethoven 9 Symphonien


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> means a lot who is voting for who, Henze will never be recognized for what he truly represents, not only germany's greatest composer, ahead of Hartmann, but obviously can not be compared to Wagner's signifinace, although I personally place Henze ahead of Wagner = Thus Henze is and will remain germany's greatest composer and one of the very finest in all 20th C composers.
> 
> I stand alone in this position, you will never ever find another belief such as mine. IOW I am most likely the only one in this planet who is completely convinced of this truth.


It isn't truth; it's your opinion, and I'm confident you know the difference.


----------



## Ethereality

Can try this thread: Who are your favorite composers?

Personally I don't do it by composer. Too broad. 
I often don't even do it by musical piece. Too broad.

When I say I like something, I want excellent precision. So in my spare time I find only the _best little musical moments_ I enjoy from all different composers and eras. This is what really gets me going..


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Can try this thread: Who are your favorite composers?
> 
> Personally I don't do it by composer. Too broad.
> I often don't even do it by musical piece. Too broad.
> 
> When I say I like something, I want excellent precision. So in my spare time I find only the _best little musical moments_ I enjoy from all different composers and eras. This is what really gets me going..


What was going on in your life when you were 14 years old? 13 for girls. Research results about the brain science is quite compelling. If you miss the boat at that age... your life will take a different path and it would be difficult to be one of us CM junkies (it's like the cocaine pathways during adolescent years).

I recall quite well what happened in my years up to the crucial time of about 14, only because I'm always telling my students (whether they care or not at that age - I think it's important that they get the information).


----------



## Ethereality

Interestingly when I was ~14 I was doing just that, what I mentioned above. I'd catalog in my mind lots of snippets of music, and one tune would always sound like it flows into another. Most normal people would remember the tunes exactly as they heard them, but I was creating the tune, building upon it with many possible ideas. I would often forget how the real album sounded because I had a version in my head that sounded better, and I spent a lot of time humming and the music seemed to just come. So I got into composition for a bit, though admittedly, I was equally interested in other things and didn't overfocus on building this one talent. Early on I found pleasure in more productive and philosophical things, but always came back to music and composition as a retreat. I guess this is like a lot of composers, no need to capitalize on one field. Philosophy to me anyway seemed just as much a reasonable venture as music did, though also at that age I had a passion for visual arts and oversized ideas/projects, just anything imaginative I could get my figurative hands on (I suppose.)


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> I know what "Zeitgeist" means. I simply don't believe it exists, and therefore don't accept either your claim to have identified it or your notion that being in harmony with it is a mark of "spiritual" superiority.
> 
> In any event it's lucky that you've found those little-recognized composers who are greater than the ones most of us prefer, and that you can tell the rest of mankind about your discovery.


I believe there will rise up a new generation of youths, who will reconsider the entire classical music spectrum. At that time , hopefully some few explorers, will stumble across my dire rants, which plead at least consideration for Pettersson, Schnittke and Henze. These few may blazen a trail for others to abandon the old standards and become iconoclast's like myself, and trash the entire foundations of The Establishment, and hold great affections for Henze. These new men of classical will make sure Henze is on every weekends program, and not to be shared with LvB, Brahms, nor Mahler, neither Bruckner. But a new world, where the neglected, the forgotten can now live in their well earned glorification. 
that day will come, its just a matter of time, perhaps 50-100 yrs from today. 
I will pass my torch to others. Pettersson I may yet to see his glory live, as Lindburg is working for Pettersson these past few years. He is determined to bring Pettersson to the concert halls.


----------



## Luchesi

paulbest said:


> I believe there will rise up a new generation of youths, who will reconsider the entire classical music spectrum. At that time , hopefully some few explorers, will stumble across my dire rants, which plead at least consideration for Pettersson, Schnittke and Henze. These few may blazen a trail for others to abandon the old standards and become iconoclast's like myself, and trash the entire foundations of The Establishment, and hold great affections for Henze. These new men of classical will make sure Henze is on every weekends program, and not to be shared with LvB, Brahms, nor Mahler, neither Bruckner. But a new world, where the neglected, the forgotten can now live in their well earned glorification.
> that day will come, its just a matter of time, perhaps 50-100 yrs from today.
> I will pass my torch to others. Pettersson I may yet to see his glory live, as Lindburg is working for Pettersson these past few years. He is determined to bring Pettersson to the concert halls.


16 symphonies

An interesting biopic here

https://theamericanscholar.org/who-the-hell-is-allan-pettersson/#.XLqFh4Rm1_c


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Interestingly when I was ~14 I was doing just that, what I mentioned above. I'd catalog in my mind lots of snippets of music, and one tune would always sound like it flows into another. Most normal people would remember the tunes exactly as they heard them, but I was creating the tune, building upon it with many possible ideas. I would often forget how the real album sounded because I had a version in my head that sounded better, and I spent a lot of time humming and the music seemed to just come. So I got into composition for a bit, though admittedly, I was equally interested in other things and didn't overfocus on building this one talent. Early on I found pleasure in more productive and philosophical things, but always came back to music and composition as a retreat. I guess this is like a lot of composers, no need to capitalize on one field. Philosophy to me anyway seemed just as much a reasonable venture as music did, though also at that age I had a passion for visual arts and oversized ideas/projects, just anything imaginative I could get my figurative hands on (I suppose.)


You and I were lucky. I make most of my living in science, not the difficult vocation path of music.


----------



## KenOC

If I were to get just two or three symphonies by Pettersson, which ones would they be? And which performances?


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> If I were to get just two or three symphonies by Pettersson, which ones would they be?


7th and 9th

unless you'd be intrigued by his later conceptions.


----------



## flamencosketches

KenOC said:


> If I were to get just two or three symphonies by Pettersson, which ones would they be?


I'm wondering this too. Our new member's evangelizing has gotten me curious. I've heard exactly no music from any of his holy tetralogy.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> OK, not just harmony, style. Chopin, Schumann, Liszt and Berlioz only composed in the Romantic style. They admired Mozart, but for the expression of their time and setting and outlooks - that style had been surpassed by the new style. How do you explain what happened?


It is the word "surpassed" that I am questioning. Music evolves constantly but what arrives doesn't surpass what came earlier. Not to my ears, anyway.


----------



## Enthusiast

Ethereality said:


> So what once appeared to be a steady evolution of music like which led to Romanticism, has now turned into absolute untraceable diversity, where only a computer could ever know what is great invention/breakthrough vs clear plagiarism. What this means is the only standard on which we can ever say something is _objectively best_, is loose consensual agreement. There's a lot of that in Rock music... A bit less in Classical, Jazz and Hip-hop. There's no proof that the Homo sapien mind is evolving more intelligently than it used to, but who knows if that says anything about consensual objectivity. (Not to be confused with universal truth, which is even less measurable. Thankfully subjective opinion is very measurable!)
> 
> Anyway, the best poll on music I know of is from RYM, and its rating system is very organized. Jazz makes the Top 100 albums but not Classical. https://rateyourmusic.com/customchart
> This _proves_ we live on another planet than the other humans do right? Well
> 
> Not until album 232 do we see something recognizable. Herbert von Karajan - Beethoven 9 Symphonien


You seem irritated by the fertility and flowering of classical music, perhaps because you can't "master" and encompass it and get it all orderly! It is true that there is little guide to very recent music except for our ears and what is between them. You just have to trust your ears and be prepared for your taste to evolve (so you might change your mind) and don't worry too much about posterity. And don't rely very much the rankings derived from large numbers of people averaged out - that will give you the popular rather than the good (not often the same thing) unless the group polled is knowledgeable in the area of music you are interested in.


----------



## Enthusiast

Ethereality said:


> Can try this thread: Who are your favorite composers?
> 
> Personally I don't do it by composer. Too broad.
> I often don't even do it by musical piece. Too broad.
> 
> When I say I like something, I want excellent precision. So in my spare time I find only the _best little musical moments_ I enjoy from all different composers and eras. This is what really gets me going..


As the context (the whole work) is what makes the "little moments" so great your method must really be about the work?


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> I believe there will rise up a new generation of youths, who will reconsider the entire classical music spectrum. At that time , hopefully some few explorers, will stumble across my dire rants, which plead at least consideration for Pettersson, Schnittke and Henze. These few may blazen a trail for others to abandon the old standards and become iconoclast's like myself, and trash the entire foundations of The Establishment, and hold great affections for Henze. These new men of classical will make sure Henze is on every weekends program, and not to be shared with LvB, Brahms, nor Mahler, neither Bruckner. But a new world, where the neglected, the forgotten can now live in their well earned glorification.
> that day will come, its just a matter of time, perhaps 50-100 yrs from today.
> I will pass my torch to others. Pettersson I may yet to see his glory live, as Lindburg is working for Pettersson these past few years. He is determined to bring Pettersson to the concert halls.


What a strange view! I like the enthusiasm but I don't think a devotion to a handful of relatively conservative modern composers is iconoclasm. Iconoclasm requires knowing a lot more of the music you see to reject. I don't think anyone - least of all your currently favourite composers - would recommend rejecting all other music. Excuse me if I confess to getting a sense that you have a liking for championing the relatively neglected and it is that (perhaps more even than the music itself) that drives your listening. But if they really are so great they should sound great alongside (and in the context of knowledge about) the more widely acknowledged masters. To reject most of the rest is a cul de sac and sounds like inexperience. I recommend you to see that there is no value in rubbishing the rest while you enjoy what you enjoy. Meanwhile, being open to new experiences is needed for your taste to mature and grow.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> 7th and 9th
> 
> unless you'd be intrigued by his later conceptions.


And - perhaps before the symphonies - the violin concerto (#2 but #1 is not a proper concerto).


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> It is the word "surpassed" that I am questioning. Music evolves constantly but what arrives doesn't surpass what came earlier. Not to my ears, anyway.


So you're saying the harmony is just different?


----------



## Enthusiast

Different is more neutral (so it is better). I'm happy with "evolved" or any word that doesn't imply improvement.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> Different is more neutral (so it is better). I'm happy with "evolved" or any word that doesn't imply improvement.


I see. You're not saying so but it sounds like you're anticipating negative connotations or pitfalls with the word surpassed.

The problem is, how do we explain that every composer began using the "different" harmony?

I'm very interested in the historical development of harmony (the whys, whens and hows) from the weird incidents of harmony during William Byrd's time, up until Mahler's last work. It's all traceable (and it's enlightening). And its effectiveness evolves if the audience is 'appreciative'.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> What a strange view! I like the enthusiasm but I don't think a devotion to a handful of relatively conservative modern composers is iconoclasm. Iconoclasm requires knowing a lot more of the music you see to reject. I don't think anyone - least of all your currently favourite composers - would recommend rejecting all other music. Excuse me if I confess to getting a sense that you have a liking for championing the relatively neglected and it is that (perhaps more even than the music itself) that drives your listening. But if they really are so great they should sound great alongside (and in the context of knowledge about) the more widely acknowledged masters. To reject most of the rest is a cul de sac and sounds like inexperience. I recommend you to see that there is no value in rubbishing the rest while you enjoy what you enjoy. Meanwhile, being open to new experiences is needed for your taste to mature and grow.


ahh well I failed to note your educated post which would have cleanly corrected my myopic , tunnel vision , pure bias, prejudiced views. 
I was typing as you posted

Here is a post that really tries to explain what I am trying to say. 
Perhaps it may clear things up a bit

Why Postmodernism In Music Is Bad (Sucks)


----------



## paulbest

If you scroll down, you will see my response to Edwardbast's question


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ I got what you are trying to say about the four composers who you think are worthwhile. You have said it quite a lot!

As for your passive aggressive response



> ahh well I failed to note your educated post which would have cleanly corrected my myopic , tunnel vision , pure bias, prejudiced views.


fair enough! I'll shut up but I would prefer you to try to listen to and post about something fresh. Branch out a little instead of digging in.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> Different is more neutral (so it is better). I'm happy with "evolved" or any word that doesn't imply improvement.


I'm always amazed with what Mozart composed out of this simple sounding harmony. I was thinking of you when I was listening to this because you might be onto something. I mean, what have we lost because composers didn't pursue this type of exploration?

Mozart Piano Concerto No15 III K450 1784) Sheet Music


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------------


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm curious why people complain stuff like that is just 'simple harmony', yet ignores how much simple stuff there is in the Romantic era, for example. Mozart has good sense of balance, he has good grip on part-writing, instrumentation and constantly modulates and rarely ever uses the same bass over 4~8 measures. Listen to this section in German Dance K600 No.2
> 
> 
> 
> , or the development of Allegro in Divertimento K334:
> 
> 
> 
> or Minuet
> 
> 
> 
> most of the time, he knows where he's going.
> Stop saying music got better. In some ways, it got worse for some of us. tdc sometimes complains Beethoven often relies on sheer volume rather than writing proper harmony and that comparing Bach with Beethoven is like comparing classical music to rock. Well I think stuff like the climaxes of Chopin Nocturne Op.48 No.1 in C minor (where he doubles octaves in both hands and so we have continual succession of group of 4 notes in the same tone going on for minutes.) or Polonaise in A flat major Op.53 is a better candidate for such criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they're just 'apples and oranges', right? Why use the word 'surpass' when they're just pursued different aesthetics?


Enough is enough. You should be learning from others. Will you stop complaining about Chopin's left-hand? You understand nothing about him, nor does Dr. David "Wrong". The finale of the Chopin Sonata No. 2 follows the funeral march and is like a wind blowing across a graveyard. It simply takes imagination to understand and appreciate what he's doing. He did nothing wrong. It's a narrative. He's telling a story. It's hard to play. It takes a virtuoso pianist to play it and coordinate both hands properly. It's descriptive. It's deliberate... And music didn't take a turn for the worse during the romantic era-it was simply different and more emotionally varied and rich; it greatly expanded the emotional pallette that was available to the composers of that era. It was an advance, and those with imagination fully understand it, OK? The literal minded will never understand a composer like Chopin, and they're excruciating to read, like fingernails on a blackboard. The romantic era was not a betrayal of the classical era or Mozart, who was still held in great esteem. But the world had changed and it was no longer the era of the powdered wig. It was the rise of the middle class with greater freedom of personal self-expression in all the arts, and it greatly succeeded or people wouldn't be talking about it now. The imagination can be awakened, cultivated, and trained. You're welcome.


----------



## Agamenon

Underrated:

+Monteverdi.
+Haydn.
+Bartok.
+Wagner (a bit)

OVERRATED:

*Mendelsohn
*Mozart
*Mahler
*Stravinsky
*Beethoven


*


----------



## flamencosketches

^Great first post, welcome Agamemnon. I can agree with much of that.

Wagner is a bit underrated due to his disgusting views that were very "of his time" (and yet even his contemporaries were disgusted with his essays), but yes, just a bit; I think most recognize him as one of the greats. If not for said blemishes on his legacy, I think he would be universally seen as equal to Beethoven, Mozart, or whoever else. He is one of the true revolutionaries in music and left behind a massive legacy of great music. Sadly, most of it is not for me. Maybe someday, but I'm not in a hurry.

Stravinsky is indeed overrated but still a good composer. Ditto Mahler. Beethoven is either overrated or over-represented in concert programs, etc. My local symphony (one of the major ones in the States) has a Beethoven concert like once a month. But I think he is justly seen as one of the greats.


----------



## Enthusiast

Is Stravinsky really overrated? His big early ballets (Firebird, Rite, Petrushka) might arguably be described as such but the neoclassical and later works like Symphony of Psalms, Oedipus Rex, Symphony in 3 Movements, Agon, Violin Concerto, Persephone etc etc etc seem not currently to be in fashion.


----------



## skywachr

*Aapologies for a very late response to a very old thread but I've just arrived*



toucan said:


> The most overrated composer of all times has to be Dmitri Shostakovich. His music is imitative to the point of fabrication & simple-minded imitations at that, yet he is placed (by some) on a foot of equality with the original, Gustav Mahler.


For clarification, exactly who is Shostakovich imitating?


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> Is Stravinsky really overrated? His big early ballets (Firebird, Rite, Petrushka) might arguably be described as such but the neoclassical and later works like Symphony of Psalms, Oedipus Rex, Symphony in 3 Movements, Agon, Violin Concerto, Persephone etc etc etc seem not currently to be in fashion.


Man, this is why trying to answer this question is such a fruitless endeavor :lol: There will be exceptions to every answer.



skywachr said:


> For clarification, exactly who is Shostakovich imitating?


There are those who consider Shostakovich to be a carbon copy of Mahler. Personally, I don't hear it a bit. I think he was a true original in his time. Liking his music or not is an entirely different matter. I can easily see why some wouldn't appreciate it; it might come off as too simple in the times of Messiaen, Elliott Carter etc. I don't think dismissing his music on the grounds of unoriginality is fair in the slightest though.


----------



## skywachr

flamencosketches said:


> There are those who consider Shostakovich to be a carbon copy of Mahler. Personally, I don't hear it a bit. I think he was a true original in his time. Liking his music or not is an entirely different matter. I can easily see why some wouldn't appreciate it; it might come off as too simple in the times of Messiaen, Elliott Carter etc. I don't think dismissing his music on the grounds of unoriginality is fair in the slightest though.


I thought that was what was implied but didn't imagine it possible so wanted to check. As I mentioned in a prior post we both seem to be fans of great jazz as well. Thanks.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm curious why people complain stuff like that is just 'simple harmony', yet ignores how much simple stuff there is in the Romantic era, for example.


Who's complaining? Who's ignoring? Who are you talking to? Certainly not to Luchesi, who was expressing his admiration of how much Mozart can do with simple harmonies. I should think you'd be eager to affirm his observation, which is certainly accurate. The harmony in the excerpt he quoted _is _simple, and Mozart does make a wonderful movement with it.



> Mozart has good sense of balance, he has good grip on part-writing, instrumentation and constantly modulates and rarely ever uses the same bass over 4~8 measures.


OK, yeah...



> Listen to this section in German Dance K600 No.2
> 
> 
> 
> , or the development of Allegro in Divertimento K334:
> 
> 
> 
> or Minuet
> 
> 
> 
> most of the time, he knows where he's going.


Any competent piece of music knows where it's going. That isn't noteworthy.



> Stop saying music got better. In some ways, it got worse for some of us.


And your evidence that music got worse is to juxtapose the above competent Mozartean pleasantries with the following weird, wild, one-of-a-kind inspiration?



>


Such a comparison is, to say the least, unhelpful. It's really no comparison at all. So how about a more enlightening juxtaposition, utilizing two recognized masterpieces in the same genre, one Classical, one Romantic?

Here's an opera overture from 1787. It's opening section is characterized by a dark mood and some chromatic harmony. It gives us a precisely drawn portrait of threat and turbulence, its chromaticism is firmly contained within an easily perceived diatonic frame, and it marks the far edge of that frame by juxtaposing a balancing portrait of joyous exuberance.






From 1859 comes this overture, also characterized by chromatic harmony. Its harmonic structure is still controlled by diatonic principles, but these are more of a scaffolding than a frame: the piece achieves coherence at a more subconscious level, while its ambiguous surfaces draw our conscious minds into a sea of turbulent, ever-intensifying emotion which exhausts itself and subsides into darkness and inertia, leaving us without the balancing consolation of a contrasting mood.






Like Mozart, Wagner "knows where he is going." But unlike Mozart, he doesn't want us to take conscious note of how he gets there. I think these pieces illustrate in a pretty concentrated way some fundamental differences between a Classical aesthetic of formal symmetry and emotional containment and a Romantic aesthetic of formal freedom and emotional disinhibition.

Is one of these works "better" than the other? On "absolute" music principles, who can say? If you choose one, your choice might depend on what qualities you value in music. The point is that the great Romantic composers didn't try, and then fail, to equal or surpass Mozart at doing what Mozart did. They didn't presume to - and, more to the point, they didn't want to. Instead they paid their tributes to the genius of their predecessor - "the Divine Mozart" and all that - and went on to do things that Mozart never dreamed of doing.

Given that the Romantics are closer to us in time, I don't know why it surprises you that many people understand them better and prefer them. What's more surprising is that you would see any reason to compare a unique sonata movement by Chopin with a German dance of Mozart, as if there were something in the latter that the former failed to live up to.


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> Man, this is why trying to answer this question is such a fruitless endeavor :lol: There will be exceptions to every answer.
> 
> There are those who consider Shostakovich to be a carbon copy of Mahler. Personally, I don't hear it a bit. I think he was a true original in his time. Liking his music or not is an entirely different matter. I can easily see why some wouldn't appreciate it; it might come off as too simple in the times of Messiaen, Elliott Carter etc. I don't think dismissing his music on the grounds of unoriginality is fair in the slightest though.


I like your posts, great stuff.
Its a long time belief *Stravinsky, one of the if not the most important influence on modern late 20TH C composers,..* etc etc. This is true, I know. But Stravinsky has never, none of his works, gathered by attention. 
now when Stravinsky was writing his masterpieces, there was no Pettersson, Schnittke, Henze around, 
Now with these 3 magnificent composers here with us today, the music of Stravisnky is somewhat dated IMHO,. Yet the orchestras still just ADORE and LOVE programming him, as if he is as fresh today as *way back then*.

I prefer Prokofiev in comparison to Stravinsky.
. It is also chimed in *Pettersson owes a big debt to Mahler*...Perhaps, But listen to Mahler, then Pettersson,,can you hear a difference in styles? 
I never got Mahler, although I am a confessed biased, prejudiced, hard core modernist/2nd Viennese fan-atic.

Shostakvich's music would have been different without super tight commie sensorship. 
So I am really most fond of his 8th,5th, 7th, and a few others. His SQ's are excellent. I don't know, I am not sure of the statement *w/o Mahler preceding , Shostakovich would not have scored his masterpieces*

I hear Shostakovich and Pettersson's music coming froma place of deep profound suffering and connections with the underworld. 
The Zeitgeist of their day. Both speaks a language which is alive then, as it is now, and for another 1000 years. 
Mahler is dated, the groves on the LP are wearing very thin now.

Paul
The Iconoclast (as others labeled me back at GMG chat forum)
New Orleans


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> I hear Shostakovich and *Pettersson's* music coming from a place of deep profound suffering and connections with the underworld.
> The Zeitgeist of their day. Both speaks a language which is *alive then, **as it is now*, and for another 1000 years.
> *
> Mahler is dated*, the groves on the LP are wearing very thin now.


It's a curious perspective in which a composer exceptionally popular in the present appears "dated," while one who hasn't achieved great popularity is regarded as "alive now" (not to mention 1000 years from now).

I'd call that perspective "wishful thinking."


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> It's a curious perspective in which a composer exceptionally popular in the present appears "dated," while one who hasn't achieved great popularity is regarded as "alive now" (not to mention 1000 years from now).
> 
> I'd call that perspective "wishful thinking."


From the way I read Jung, most folks on earth today, including classicphiles are like the 80's movies, *Zombies*, *Dead Men Walking*. 
The early 1960's movie The Blob, has now made sense to me. The inventors of these movies, saw things we could not vison.
Take Godzilla, I remember watching the japenese movie in subtitles on my black and white 19 inch TV back in the early 60;s, with the atenna having aluminum foil on top, and we had to wiggle the attena around to get best reception, my brother was a expert at getting best pic,,,anyway,,Godzilla, now makes sense.
Godzilla struck japan yrs ago. amazing, was my 1st thought. There is Godzilla, some 40+ yrs later. 
Thus some composers have outlived their time, while others are yet to live, though they wrote 30,40,50 yrs ago.
Ravel's star will rise high one day.


----------



## eugeneonagain

paulbest said:


> Ravel's star will rise high one day.


As if it never has?


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> From the way I read Jung, most folks on earth today, including classicphiles are like the 80's movies, *Zombies*, *Dead Men Walking*.


So Mahler, who is extremely popular, is "dated" but kept alive by zombies?

I think Mahler-lovers should be made aware of this. Thank goodness you're here to tell them.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Hans Werner Henze is also a dead man, so dragging that corpse about is no better is it?


----------



## paulbest

eugeneonagain said:


> Hans Werner Henze is also a dead man, so dragging that corpse about is no better is it?


No His music will live on long after I leave this physical body. great music is eternal and can never die. As it is archetypal, that is beyond space and time. 
I have nothing great about my life, so in the next I may not have much/if any real great existence. But for Henze, his star will forever shive, though our sun may burn itself out.

Do you see what I mean about whats over rated and whats not given full/any recognition in this life?
we take with us archetypal experiences, bk knowledge/musical experiences etc.
you know the old line *you can have money but you can't,,,take it ,,,with you* after death..
but that's not wholly true,. 
My father left some assets but had it almost locked up,,and one can will the moneies to the church, to who ever, and thus the heirs can get screwed, = the old man took it with him, that is the heirs got cheated. ( I did eventually get some)

This happen.s
Which is why we must be mindful which music we wish to take with us. as the afterlife may be such a long time,,and I do not want to get stuck at the river stix with Beethoven's 5th in my head baggage


----------



## eugeneonagain

Get a secretary.


----------



## Luchesi

paulbest said:


> No His music will live on long after I leave this physical body. great music is eternal and can never die. As it is archetypal, that is beyond space and time.
> I have nothing great about my life, so in the next I may not have much/if any real great existence. But for Henze, his star will forever shive, though our sun may burn itself out.
> 
> Do you see what I mean about whats over rated and whats not given full/any recognition in this life?
> we take with us archetypal experiences, bk knowledge/musical experiences etc.
> you know the old line *you can have money but you can't,,,take it ,,,with you* after death..
> but that's not wholly true,.
> My father left some assets but had it almost locked up,,and one can will the moneies to the church, to who ever, and thus the heirs can get screwed, = the old man took it with him, that is the heirs got cheated. ( I did eventually get some)
> 
> This happen.s
> Which is why we must be mindful which music we wish to take with us. as the afterlife may be such a long time,,and I do not want to get stuck at the river stix with Beethoven's 5th in my head baggage


How did you come to like the works of Henze?


----------



## paulbest

Luchesi said:


> How did you come to like the works of Henze?


In 2004/05 several GMG (or CMG, can't recall which acronym) made strong suggestions I try Henze, as they knew I was losing interest in some old favs (Rachmaninov/Sibelius) so suggested I try Henze… I think I had just made contacts with the genius of Schnittke and pettersson at the time, so Henze it was, ina sea of other potential moderns. 
Not gonna fly. Could not make heads or tails of his music. 
Too incomprehensible.

I was near selling (dumping!) my new orleans home so, about to come into some cash (debt free = amazon bill paid off = time for more cds)
So began a exploration into A-Z major/minor moderns. Kalabis, Xenakis, time to revisit Messiaen, , countless others, all the minor moderns.

All on YT. Some held my interest,,for a day or 2,,,,,,somehow ran across,,,no wait,,,my fellow Petterssonian friend suggested I give Dallapicolloa 's opera a listen,,i founda rare recording on House of opera, a site offering , unreleased live recordings of operas and other works. 
,,Then I figured modern operas may be a new venture to make new discoveries,. I wanted the Bergian style operas. 
Somehow I know there was spectacular new music in this genre.
Henze somehow came up, somehow in this diligent search marathon, stayed up late at night. . 
. Can not recall which Henze opera. This gave me the green light to seek out all/every Henze available,,i spent 2 or 3 days cking to make sure Henze was *the real deal*, no gimmicks, no fluff, no shady tricks or such. No fillers.

I would YT many of his syms, just waiting listening for weaknesses and *dud* sections. 
Nope, Bullet proff. 
Then I beagn ordering nearly everything I could get my hands on. The cds stared flowing in. All home runs, most grand slams.

So that briefly how I became aware of Henze, the musical genius, which defies my imaginations. His music is a mystery at this point. He is hard to figure out. Like Schnittke, just listen, don't even try to atrempt to understand whats going on. Just enjoy the experience.

Its kinda like Hendix's line *Have you ever been experienced?*

I never did the acid my friends were dropping, but I've always liked having my mind blown. :lol:
I still have alittle bit of the hippie in me.

back in the old days , a close friend and I would look at the Schwann catalogue all 10K pages of composers and wonder,,*wow, how can we find the true few gems hidden in this mammoth bible*….took some time,,*Seek and you will find*..The verb in this passage is active = continual diligent, with faith.
Lethargy will not get one anywhere. takes work, effort, and a venturous spirit. 
This is most of the story in my discovery of the road to Henze.


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> Man, this is why trying to answer this question is such a fruitless endeavor :lol: There will be exceptions to every answer.


In this case though the exception is most of his music and everything that is typical of him!


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> I like your posts, great stuff.
> Now with these 3 magnificent composers here with us today, the music of Stravisnky *is somewhat dated *IMHO,. Yet the orchestras still just ADORE and LOVE programming him, as if he is as fresh today as *way back then*.
> 
> I prefer Prokofiev in comparison to Stravinsky.


Stravinsky is dated in the way that all composers of the past - yea, even your holy trinity or quaternity - are absolutely dated now. Indeed, Carter aside, they were dated while they were at the height of their composing. I'm not sure why the comparison for Stravinsky is Prokofiev - they are just so different - or why you feel that orchestras over-programme Stravinsky as apart from the three early ballets he is not that commonly performed.


----------



## Agamenon

Thank you "Flamencosketches"

Many years ago, I was hooked on Beethoven, now I agree you, he is over -represented. 

One day Wagner will conquer you. Sure! :lol:


----------



## jaigurudevaom

Composers that i didn't like it: Vivaldi, Handel, Stranvinsky, Chopin
composers that i like it more than other people: Rossini, Mozart, dvorak


----------



## asiago12

Most underratd: Monteverdi


----------



## musicrom

musicrom said:


> Underrated:
> 
> Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov!!!
> Max Bruch
> Mikhail Glinka
> Bedrich Smetana
> Jean Sibelius
> 
> Overrated:
> 
> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (only by a bit, I don't like his music enough to consider him the best classical composer ever)
> Igor Stravinsky
> George Frideric Handel
> Ralph Vaughan Williams (maybe I need to listen to more of his music, but I don't remember ever being into any of his pieces)
> Richard Wagner


Wow, I've changed my mind quite a bit on this over the past 5 years.

I still think that Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov is way too underrated, but Max Bruch is kind of meh, and I think Glinka & Smetana are pretty fairly rated. Sibelius is amazing, but I don't know if he's underrated, especially in the classical music community. He's probably underrated among the general public, who mostly don't know who he is.

Stravinsky is not overrated, I think he's unquestionably in the top 5 composers of the 20th century, if not the very best. I still somewhat agree on the other 4 composers I listed as overrated, although I think I like Mozart and Handel more than I did before.


----------



## Ethereality

*Liszt *is a bit underrated nowadays I think. All over his works I hear the very same passion of Brahms, the warmth of Tchaikovsky (who practically stole much of the guy's style), and the very experimental method of Debussy. I don't see how we would have these composers without Liszt, their final product, and both Wagner and Rachmaninoff named Liszt their favorite influence. I also think the guy's music is totally gorgeous and inspirational.


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> *Liszt *is a bit underrated nowadays I think. All over his works I hear very same passion of Brahms, the warmth of Tchaikovsky (who practically stole much of the guy's style), and the very experimental method of Debussy. I don't see how we would have these composers without Liszt, their final product, and both Wagner and Rachmaninoff named Liszt their favorite influence. Not to mention the guy's music is totally revolutionary and gorgeous.


The following thread might be of interest.

Liszt is the most underrated composer on TC.


----------



## Swosh

Wagner overrated? There is no hope for you...


----------



## KenOC

Swosh said:


> Wagner overrated? There is no hope for you...


I totally lost respect for Wagner after that Natalie Wood thing...


----------



## Fabulin

Overrated:
*Brahms*
Tchaikovsky refused to attend the 1889 World's Fair because of how overrated Brahms was in the high circles of Europe. 130 years later some people consider this Beethovenine product a Top 4, or even superior to Mozart. He was a great composer in a couple of ways, but cmon. He didn't think of his music as highly as many do now and there was no false modesty in that.
*Messiaen*
Considered by some to be the best composer of the 20th century, over Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Mahler, Ravel, Schoenberg, Debussy and so many others.
*Satie
Ives
Copland*
lesser sons of greater sires

Underrated:
Some composers whose music could please a lot of ears if only it was brought to those who cannot find them on their own:
*Emilie Mayer* (1812-1883). Her music sounds more like an equal to Mozart and Beethoven than the music of Mendelssohn and Brahms does. She was also a considerable natural talent who first started proper music theory studies at _29 _and still caught up.
*Carl Czerny* (1791-1857) The second most universally useful "teacher composer" after JSB imho
*Sergei Bortkiewicz* (1877-1952) - a late master and true heir of the romantic piano traditions (more so than Rachmaninov, whose unique personal style was too different to truly feel that nostalgic sweetness). 
*Bernard Herrmann* (1911-1975) Unique musical voice heard even when he merely conducted, master of clever musical solutions, genius of tension and drama, pioneer of electronic music, versatile, fiercely individualist and ambitious composer, and a believer that film music should be a field for modernist experimentation---of which belief he was a practitioner. The top composer of the Golden Age of Radio. Famous among older film music aficionados and some modern composers, but utterly _absent _everywhere else.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Mahler - never managed to listen to any of his works without falling asleep.

Underrated - I guess all forgotten composer that were popular in their own time. (We can discover such composers by using sites like Kunsterfuge or IMLSP and similar; in some cases there are even no modern recordings or such recordings are very rare.)


----------



## Dimace

Overrated : Brahms (simply (mostly) unmotivating music ) 

Underrated : Liszt (he is certainly between the 5 best composers in human history)

In his right place: Beethoven (the undisputed Champion, the eternal No.1)


----------



## Art Rock

< throw-up smilie >


----------



## paulbest

For those who feel Brahms may have too much attention.

The Viennese did not think so, pic of 
Brahms Auditorium /Vienna









Besides, we should all, everyone of us, recall our beginnings, The great Brahms Violin Concerto, which ever Oistrakh recording you listened to time and again. 
I think my fav was the Oistrakh/Gauk, horrible mono,,but its was so antique sounding,,as if you were living back in the olden times, the last days when modernism had not overtaken the world. 
Yes how can you say overR, when we have such memories........


----------



## paulbest

Dimace said:


> Overrated : Brahms (simply (mostly) unmotivating music )
> 
> Underrated : Liszt (he is certainly between the 5 best composers in human history)
> 
> In his right place: Beethoven (the undisputed Champion, the eternal No.1)


yiou are not suggesting Beethoven is ,,,under-R?? by any chance?
someone dug up research on concert programs, Beethoven 7th sym, like 70+ occasions in 2019-2020. 
No other composer comes even close to how often Beethoven is on the programs world wide. 
Mozart might be a distant 2nd place.


----------



## Dimace

paulbest said:


> yiou are not suggesting Beethoven is ,,,under-R?? by any chance?
> someone dug up research on concert programs, Beethoven 7th sym, like 70+ occasions in 2019-2020.
> No other composer comes even close to how often Beethoven is on the programs world wide.
> Mozart might be a distant 2nd place.


Beethoven is the God. The God is never under or overrated. Is simply the God… (that is what I was suggesting, my friend)


----------



## Dimace

Fabulin said:


> Overrated:
> *Brahms*
> Tchaikovsky refused to attend the 1889 World's Fair because of how overrated Brahms was in the high circles of Europe. 130 years later some people consider this Beethovenine product a Top 4, or even superior to Mozart. He was a great composer in a couple of ways, but cmon. He didn't think of his music as highly as many do now and there was no false modesty in that.
> *Messiaen*
> Considered by some to be the best composer of the 20th century, over Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Mahler, Ravel, Schoenberg, Debussy and so many others.
> *Satie
> Ives
> Copland*
> lesser sons of greater sires
> 
> Underrated:
> Some composers whose music could please a lot of ears if only it was brought to those who cannot find them on their own:
> *Emilie Mayer* (1812-1883). Her music sounds more like an equal to Mozart and Beethoven than the music of Mendelssohn and Brahms does. She was also a considerable natural talent who first started proper music theory studies at _29 _and still caught up.
> *Carl Czerny* (1791-1857) The second most universally useful "teacher composer" after JSB imho
> *Sergei Bortkiewicz* (1877-1952) - a late master and true heir of the romantic piano traditions (more so than Rachmaninov, whose unique personal style was too different to truly feel that nostalgic sweetness).
> *Bernard Herrmann* (1911-1975) Unique musical voice heard even when he merely conducted, master of clever musical solutions, genius of tension and drama, pioneer of electronic music, versatile, fiercely individualist and ambitious composer, and a believer that film music should be a field for modernist experimentation---of which belief he was a practitioner. The top composer of the Golden Age of Radio. Famous among older film music aficionados and some modern composers, but utterly _absent _everywhere else.


I wanted to give you multiple likes for this one. Carl and Sergei are IDOLS for me, SUPER pianists, composers (Carl also was the teacher of my Master) etc. I DON'T agree with you for Aaron. I love him and his Rodeo. I like his influence to Leonard, who (also) because of him made some amazing music. (Bernstein is underrated…) I like the way he drove forward the USA music for almost a century.


----------



## Botschaft

Judging by previous comments in this thread Brahms is still quite an underrated composer.


----------



## paulbest

Waldesnacht said:


> Judging by previous comments in this thread Brahms is still quite an underrated composer.


well true

But like the old ancient greek temples, whose glory and majesty once graced the greek islands ...









Yet now is only a faint reminder of what once was.
All gods temples will eventually see decay and ruin, Tchaikovsky is another whose temple is crumbling away. 
Remember how we loved to hear the Van Cliburn Tchaikovsky 1st , after he won top prize there is Moscow. ,,,ahhh we never visit it any longer,,,I own not even 1 cd of Tchaikovsky.


----------



## paulbest

Fabulin said:


> Overrated:
> .
> *Messiaen*
> Considered by some to be the best composer of the 20th century, over Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Mahler, Ravel, Schoenberg, .


WOW, you must be joking...but no wait,,i've seen such devotees of the *great master* over at amazon and YT , garble out such bloated bloviations . 
I had some 5 cds of Messiaen, now all long gone,,,good riddance,,,just after barely a 1 yr stint of enduring that stuff.


----------



## paulbest

Fabulin said:


> Overrated:
> 
> *Satie
> Ives
> Copland*
> 
> .


3 ducks with one shot,,,you shoot very well...:tiphat:


----------



## Joachim Raff

Overrated:
Brahms, Sibelius, RVW, 


Underrated:

Joachim Raff, Hugo Alfvén, Sergei Bortkiewicz, Mily Balakirev, A. Glazunov, Carl Czerny, Benjamin Godard, Reinhold Gliere, Asger Hamerik


----------



## 1996D

Every comment here says infinitely more about the person commenting than about any composer.


----------



## starthrower

1996D said:


> Every comment here says infinitely more about the person commenting than about any composer.


I doubt that. It's only a harmless exercise while wasting time on the internet. As far as less talked about composers, who knows how many people around the world are listening to this stuff? And concerning the very famous composers, how many people know more than a few famous phrases? This ratings thing is a pretty abstract and elusive concept once you go beyond the music critics and famous concert halls. There is a lot of listening activity going on under the radar by millions of people who never heard of Talk Classical.


----------



## Luchesi

So there's an excellent (worthwhile) rating system now?

Who devised it? Listeners or musicians?

My rating system would be;

What was the intention or goal of the composer (in my opinion)? Did they achieve it (in my opinion)? Did they do it better than their contemporaries (in my opinion)?

Anyone, tell us what ideas you use?


----------



## Ras

To me the most overrated composer is Saint-Saens. 

The most underrated composers are John Dowland and Giovanni Gabrieli.

Speaking of eras in classical music I think the nationalists and the late romantics are the most overrated and renaissance and medieval composers are the most underrated.


----------



## Bulldog

Ras said:


> To me the most overrated composer is Saint-Saens.


I'll go with Mendelssohn, Vivaldi, and Hanson.


----------



## Azol

Underrated:

Vaughan Williams
Melartin
Mercadante


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I have many underrated composers, but my biggest "overrated" are:

Mozart- Don't get me wrong, he is a top 10 composer for me and produced many of my favorite works. But I'm don't understand how he is universally considered a member of the "Big 3." 
Scriabin
Schumann (though I'm getting into him a bit more lately)
Berlioz
Walton
Tchaikovsky- Like his chamber music and symphonies (and love some of it), but pretty much everything else by him I could do without.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I have many underrated composers, but my biggest "overrated" are:
> 
> Mozart- Don't get me wrong, he is a top 10 composer for me and produced many of my favorite works. But I'm don't understand how he is universally considered a member of the "Big 3."
> Scriabin
> Schumann (though I'm getting into him a bit more lately)
> Berlioz
> Walton
> Tchaikovsky- Like his chamber music and symphonies (and love some of it), but pretty much everything else by him I could do without.


What are you familiar with by Scriabin (and don't like), and which pianists have you heard play them? He's certainly a case where the specific performer has a relatively large impact on how much I enjoy the music.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What are you familiar with by Scriabin (and don't like), and which pianists have you heard play them? He's certainly a case where the specific performer has a relatively large impact on how much I enjoy the music.


If my memory serves me right, I've heard the 2nd and 5th sonatas and the "Black Mass" one, along with Vers la Flamme and some of the early preludes and nocturnes. The main pianist I've heard play them is Ashkenazy. Besides the fact that both the early and late stages of his music don't appeal to me at all (his early stuff sounds like elevator music to me and the late stuff is too adventurous for my ears), his occult/mystical Theosophist stuff makes me deeply uncomfortable and is against my beliefs. So, I mainly stay away due to worldview reasons as a matter of my personal conscience. I'm sure there are good things to discover in his music, but as of right now he's just not for me. Not to say I might revisit it some time further on in my life.


----------



## Roger Knox

Under-rated:

F. Gernsheim, F. Schmidt (still), W. Braunfels, W. Peterson


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> So there's an excellent (worthwhile) rating system now?
> Who devised it? Listeners or musicians?
> My rating system would be;
> What was the intention or goal of the composer (in my opinion)? Did they achieve it (in my opinion)? Did they do it better than their contemporaries (in my opinion)?
> Anyone, tell us what ideas you use?


You reminded me of Chopin again. :lol:, I'm trying to deride him or anything, I have always thought this gives us clues as to what one of his goals was.:
( https://books.google.ca/books?id=1ggkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT83 )
"In a journal entry dated 7 Apirl 1849, Eugène Delacroix asked Chopin about musical logic. Chopin's response illustrates his views on the essential nature of counterpoint within musical structure:
I asked him to explain what it is that gives the impression of logic in music. He made me understand the meaning of harmony and counterpoint; how in muisc, the fugue corresponds to pure logic, and that *to be well versed in the fugue is to understand the elements of all reason and development in music.*"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Mozart- Don't get me wrong, he is a top 10 composer for me and produced many of my favorite works. But I'm don't understand how he is universally considered a member of the "Big 3."
> Tchaikovsky- Like his chamber music and symphonies (and love some of it), but pretty much everything else by him I could do without.


I find Mozart and Tchaikovsky to be more multi-faceted than the general public recognize them to be.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> You reminded me of Chopin again. :lol:, I'm trying to deride him or anything, I have always thought this gives us clues as to what one of his goals was.:
> ( https://books.google.ca/books?id=1ggkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT83 )
> "In a journal entry dated 7 Apirl 1849, Eugène Delacroix asked Chopin about musical logic. Chopin's response illustrates his views on the essential nature of counterpoint within musical structure:
> I asked him to explain what it is that gives the impression of logic in music. He made me understand the meaning of harmony and counterpoint; how in muisc, the fugue corresponds to pure logic, and that *to be well versed in the fugue is to understand the elements of all reason and development in music.*"


Good find. I think most all composers thought that way. Chopin employed a more artistic use of counterpoint, according to critics. We have accounts that he worked over his pieces repeatedly before they sounded finished to him, improving them slightly as the days passed. Some days he was sick and some days he felt better.

You're not trying to deride him?


----------



## Cantabrigian

*My Favourite Billboard a ever*



Chris said:


> I doubt this is true. Some years ago Cadburys, the chocolate maker, ran a series of posters advertising their creme eggs. One of the posters depicted three composers each holding an egg. The text below Beethoven was 'Beethoven's fifth'. Schubert was holding a half eaten one and that was marked 'Schubert's unfinished'. I can't remember who the third composer was but that's probably a good thing.


I loved that ad. Perfect Triptych design for a billboard.

There was a huge example of it in Bishop's Stortford which I passed with my father every morning as he took me to the school bus. This would have been c. 1982, and I would have been about 9.

But as I remember it, the first two were monarchs - perhaps still more recognisable to a British audience:

On the left, a very dainty looking Good Queen Bess was about to start on "Elizabeth's First".
In the middle, her much more porcine father could hardly restrain himself from starting "Henry's Eighth".
And on the right, about half way through, a rather slight, diffident man was engaged in "Schubert's Unfinished".

Slightly to undermine your premise, my father had to explain to me who Schubert was and why he was laughing so much. But he did, and played the music to me that night. And I was only 9.


----------



## Luchesi

Cantabrigian said:


> I loved that ad. Perfect Triptych design for a billboard.
> 
> There was a huge example of it in Bishop's Stortford which I passed with my father every morning as he took me to the school bus. This would have been c. 1982, and I would have been about 9.
> 
> But as I remember it, the first two were monarchs - perhaps still more recognisable to a British audience:
> 
> On the left, a very dainty looking Good Queen Bess was about to start on "Elizabeth's First".
> In the middle, her much more porcine father could hardly restrain himself from starting "Henry's Eighth".
> And on the right, about half way through, a rather slight, diffident man was engaged in "Schubert's Unfinished".
> 
> Slightly to undermine your premise, my father had to explain to me who Schubert was and why he was laughing so much. But he did, and played the music to me that night. And I was only 9.


I think these mentions of great composers are healthy for a society. Humour is better than no mention at all. No mention might indicate that they're not worth mentioning at all, these days.

I remember a deck of cards we played with had the famous composers portraits. I slowly learned the names with their images, I was 8 or 9, long before I was interested in what they were famous for. I don't remember the game (it was probably "Concentration"), but I vividly remember the composers.

Musician friends have criticized my claiming Beethoven was the greatest composer while teaching young people at the piano. But I do it, not because it's indisputable, but because of the impression it forms in the young mind. Kids don't think like adults, but we can use the way they think to help them with a foundation..


----------



## Eusebius12

Raymond, or Howard? Or perhaps this guy
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/TaylorHanson.jpg


----------



## Eusebius12

Chopin's counterpoint is extraordinarily rich. As is Schumann's. Little evidence for Chopin's mastery of fugue, although he wrote one (the authorship is disputed). What is true was his immersion in the keyboard works of Bach, ie the WTC


----------



## Eusebius12

Mozart more multifaceted? Without doubt. 
For example.






Tchaikovsky less so.


----------



## Eusebius12

How can Scriabin and Walton be overrated when hardly anyone in the general public know who they are? And they certainly are not overrated. Scriabin is unique. As are (sacre bleu) Mozart and Schumann. Schumann requires a literary and aesthetic sensibility that puts him beyond the reach of those who have no connection with those spheres, I'm afraid.


----------



## Ethereality

Eusebius12 said:


> How can Scriabin and Walton be overrated when hardly anyone in the general public know who they are?


Easy. If someone has more following than you believe due, they are considered to you, overrated.

If there's a monster in your basement making gargling sounds and screeches on the chalkboard, and your dad often goes down there and enjoys it, then you might say that the monster is 1 fan too overrated.
__________________________

*o·ver·rate*
/ˌōvərˈrāt/
verb, to have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved.

*o·ver·ra·ted*
of an object where its subjects overrate the object.
__________________________

On the contrary, I believe Tchaikovsky has millions of fans, but is still underrated in his positioning, as is Dvorak. I do believe it is for cultural reasons today, music being based in fantasism is less acknowledged today.


----------



## Eusebius12

Mostly sophistry and interesting anecdote, and probably barely tangentially relevant, but thanks for trying anyway.


----------



## Ethereality

The exact definition of overrated is sophistry. Ok :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Many composers are simultaneously over- and underrated. Their most popular works get too much attention, their less popular works too little. It's perfectly natural, but regrettable.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Many composers are simultaneously over- and underrated. Their most popular works get too much attention, their less popular works too little. It's perfectly natural, but regrettable.


Yes, we merely use these categories (overrated and underrated, and all the other categories) for organizing in our minds all the many composers. The more composers we're closely familiar with, the more we need better and better categories.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> Yes, we merely use these categories (overrated and underrated, and all the other categories) for organizing in our minds all the many composers. The more composers we're closely familiar with, the more we need better and better categories.


I've never thought of "overrated"and "underrated" as categories into which composers should be placed. As categories, they'd be too subjective and ill-defined to be useful. We all rate composers differently, and even disagree with ourselves at different times. What can I say to a person who, for example, asserts that Rachmaninoff is a third- or fourth-rate composer, when I find the four piano concertos, _The Isle of The Dead, the Etudes Tableaux, The Bells,_ the _All-Night Vigil,_ the _Symphonic Dances,_ any number of the songs, et al., to be works of great inspiration, precise craft, and expressive power? Whatever I actually did say to that person, it predictably made no impression. I submit that neither he nor I knows what a third- or fourth-rate composer is. Do they make measuring devices for determining this? Can I get one at Walmart?

Really, the whole idea of "rating" composers is a game for children or retirees filling time while waiting for death. I suspect many of us here fit into both categories.


----------



## mark6144

I'm surprised Alkan isn't more widely appreciated, recorded and written about. I find his works fascinating as well as enjoyable, and often think they sound ahead of their time.


----------



## Jacck

mark6144 said:


> I'm surprised Alkan isn't more widely appreciated, recorded and written about. I find his works fascinating as well as enjoyable, and often think they sound ahead of their time.


I find Alkan very underrated. IMHO he is of the same stature as Liszt and Chopin


----------



## reinmar von zweter

My overrated and underrated list?

OVERRATED
Delius
Britten (works for stage and tv)
The last Penderecki
Tavener (NOT Taverner)
Einaudi
Allevi
Golijov
Piazzolla
Corigliano
Reich
Adams
Glass
Bernstein (partly)
Janacek (only operas)
Hespos
Percy Grainger (maybe)

UNDERRATED
Offenbach!
Lortzing
Schulhoff
Skalkottas
Gloria Coates
Loewe
Walton (maybe)
Telemann
Ruth Crawford-Seeger
Holst (partly)
Respighi (partly)
Myaskovsky
Wilms
W. F. Bach
Reznicek
Jon Leifs
Heinz Röttger
Humphrey Searle

FELLOWS WHO CHOOSE THE WRONG PROFESSION
Leif Segerstam (as composer)
Siegfried Wagner


----------



## reinmar von zweter

Error, error, error!


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> I've never thought of "overrated"and "underrated" as categories into which composers should be placed. As categories, they'd be too subjective and ill-defined to be useful. We all rate composers differently, and even disagree with ourselves at different times. What can I say to a person who, for example, asserts that Rachmaninoff is a third- or fourth-rate composer, when I find the four piano concertos, _The Isle of The Dead, the Etudes Tableaux, The Bells,_ the _All-Night Vigil,_ the _Symphonic Dances,_ any number of the songs, et al., to be works of great inspiration, precise craft, and expressive power? Whatever I actually did say to that person, it predictably made no impression. I submit that neither he nor I knows what a third- or fourth-rate composer is. Do they make measuring devices for determining this? Can I get one at Walmart?
> 
> Really, the whole idea of "rating" composers is a game for children or retirees filling time while waiting for death. I suspect many of us here fit into both categories.


Old people can remember back as to how they rated composers when they were young, and how that changed through the decades.

The categories overrated and underrated are instantaneous, but they're not permanent. We can't help but judge a new experience.

I'm not talking about rating composers for other people. I'm talking about rating to personally save time and to learn to catagorize according to some logic, especially when we're new to CM.


----------



## Ethereality

The very easiest method *I* seem to find in telling if I think a composer is underrated or overrated is to look at who has a greater originality to popularity ratio. That is because I often find the less original, "great masters" like *Brahms, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mozart and Schumann* to not be so ingenious as they are great rule followers, and these rules_ work_ and sound beautiful, and they're brilliant composers, but they don't move me to transcendent levels of inspiration and wondering... I compare to those who make the _top_ but are much more original in my mind: *Beethoven, Debussy, Bach, Wagner, Liszt, Tchaikovsky* and I realize these are truly, completely, profound composers who make me believe there's another world out there. They understand beauty better because they knew how to discover it without it being shown to them. This is at least the biggest method which produces good results for me (it can be applied to any tier of composer.)

Profound discovery of beauty brings to mind this Debussy piece 



 How can a composer who is so different from the norm also be so popular? A composer who is hated on one side for being different, but then so loved on the other for showing us something new and sensational. That is the very formula of underratedness to me--the point where schism occurs.

As to above responses, the thread says overrated / underrated "according to you." I'm not sure I get the point of mincing representations; the definition of overrated is simple, it's according to what each person thinks is overrated, it has no bearing on if x composer is popular or not, because it's completely relative to one's popularity. A speck of dust can be overrated, if the individual thinks it's garnering too much attention.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

It all just depends on the individual's perception of a composer's popularity. Granted, we may perceive that composers we dislike are more "popular" just because we want to try and go against the current with our opinions. But when it comes down to it, this little "exercise" is just an expression of taste. I somewhat regret participating in it.

But when it comes to _underrated_ composers, we can inject a much more constructive attitude into this thread! Here are some I think desperately deserve to be include in the "canon" (whatever on earth that may mean):

Jongen
Durufle
Chausson
Ropartz
Medtner
Berwald
Moeran
Finzi
Myaskovsky
Bliss
Wolf
Atterberg
Glazunov
Sowerby
Dohnanyi
Beach

The list goes on and on...


----------



## Phil loves classical

Ethereality said:


> The very easiest method *I* seem to find in telling if I think a composer is underrated or overrated is to look at which composers have a greater originality to popularity ratio. That is because I often find the* less original*, "great masters" like Brahms, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mozart and Schumann to not be so ingenious as they are great rule followers, and these rules_ work_ and sound beautiful, and they're brilliant composers, but they don't move me to transcendent levels of inspiration and wondering... I compare to those who make the _top_ but are much more original in my mind: Beethoven, Debussy, Bach, Wagner, Liszt, Tchaikovsky and I realize these are truly, completely, profound composers who make me believe there's another world out there.* They understand beauty better* because they knew how to discover it without it being shown to them. This is at least the biggest method which produces good results for me.
> 
> Profound discovery of beauty brings to mind this Debussy piece
> 
> 
> 
> How can a composer who is so different from the norm also be so popular? A composer who is hated on one side for being different, but then so loved on the other for showing us something new and sensational. That is the very formula of underratedness to me--the point where schism occurs.
> 
> As to above responses, the thread says overrated / underrated "according to you." I'm not sure I get the point of mincing representations; the definition of overrated is simple, it's according to what each person thinks is overrated, it has no bearing on if x composer is popular or not, because it's completely relative to one's popularity. A speck of dust can be overrated, if the individual thinks it's garnering too much attention.


Understanding beauty is different than originality. Tchaikovsky and Liszt was less original than Brahms or Schumann. But I agree Tchaikovsky understood beauty better than Brahms at least in orchestral works.


----------



## Ethereality

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Wolf


Wolf would be the major consensus for the forum I think.

If everyone on this forum picked truly underrated composers, seems they agree on Wolf. Though not my own opinion.



Phil loves classical said:


> Understanding beauty is different than originality. Tchaikovsky and Liszt was less original than Brahms or Schumann. But I agree Tchaikovsky understood beauty better than Brahms at least in orchestral works.


Firstly I apologize since the thread is asking for the _most_ underrated composers, and I simply gave a mechanism as to choosing who is underrated vs overrated.

However Liszt (at least) is less original than Brahms or Schumann? Who always takes a different angle, who singlehandedly influenced Russian music and impressionism.

They at least have a higher* originality|popularity* ratio than Brahms or Schumann, which is why I think they're in the underrated half.


----------



## Fabulin

reinmar von zweter said:


> FELLOWS WHO CHOOSE THE WRONG PROFESSION
> Leif Segerstam (as composer)
> Siegfried Wagner


Funny you mention that. To me Siegfried Wagner had a good sense of rhytm, dynamics, and orchestration. His (orchestral---can't judge voice) music is quite beautiful, and an interesting mix of Wagnerianism and outside, seemingly Russian or French influences.

I found that a second rate Wagner is still more than quite a few first rate someone elses.

And his symphonic poem _Sehnsucht _is hands down great music.

If he doesn't seem to even _have existed _ judging by some lengthy lists of composers, he is underrated.


----------



## Woodduck

Fabulin said:


> Funny you mention that. To me Siegfried Wagner had a good sense of rhytm, dynamics, and orchestration. His (orchestral---can't judge voice) music is quite beautiful, and an interesting mix of Wagnerianism and outside, seemingly Russian or French influences.
> 
> I found that a second rate Wagner is still more than quite a few first rate someone elses.
> 
> And his symphonic poem _Sehnsucht _is hands down great music.
> 
> If he doesn't seem to even _have existed _ judging by some lengthy lists of composers, he is underrated.


Schoenberg had nice things to say about Siegfried Wagner's music - something about his having a fine, original style. I enjoyed his tone poems somewhat, but have yet to hear one of his operas complete. They're rarely performed, but I think most of them have been recorded. It took a lot of nerve for him to write operas at all, but I gather that Richard was a supportive father and that Siegfried adored him.


----------



## Fabulin

Woodduck said:


> Schoenberg had nice things to say about Siegfried Wagner's music - something about his having a fine, original style. I enjoyed his tone poems somewhat, but have yet to hear one of his operas complete. They're rarely performed, but I think most of them have been recorded. It took a lot of nerve for him to write operas at all, but I gather that Richard was a supportive father and that Siegfried adored him.


Schwarzschwanenreich Op. 7 is a very pleasant opera. Motifs are quite memorable, and the seemingly cliched use of woodwinds for swans becomes actually something positive due to S. Wagner's sheer persistence in exploring their use. Gesang is pleasant. Overall, in his music S. Wagner has a lighter, more melodic [if not profound] feeling to his music sometimes, which is easy to tell from the approach of his father.

I had the additional pleasure of having a certain remniscence when I heard the... let's say "kingdom motif" in this opera. Namely, it portrays a dark country full of witch hunts, and by pure coincidence is a stately staccato voiced for low brass somewhat similar to a certain musical figure at the beginning of Spielberg's "E.T.", when paranoid government agents are searching at night for an alien in the forest. For some reason this really makes me smile.


----------



## HenryPenfold

James MacMillan and Tchaikovsky


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Overrated? I agree with one of them.


----------



## Enthusiast

Ethereality said:


> The very easiest method *I* seem to find in telling if I think a composer is underrated or overrated is to look at who has a greater originality to popularity ratio. That is because I often find the less original, "great masters" like *Brahms, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mozart and Schumann* to not be so ingenious as they are great rule followers, and these rules_ work_ and sound beautiful, and they're brilliant composers, but they don't move me to transcendent levels of inspiration and wondering... I compare to those who make the _top_ but are much more original in my mind: *Beethoven, Debussy, Bach, Wagner, Liszt, Tchaikovsky* and I realize these are truly, completely, profound composers who make me believe there's another world out there. They understand beauty better because they knew how to discover it without it being shown to them. This is at least the biggest method which produces good results for me (it can be applied to any tier of composer.)


Sadly, your fine theory - which probably works for your particular taste - is doubly subjective. Firstly, I am not sure I agree that those you call rule-followers were all less innovative than your innovators. Bach is an innovator for you but Mozart is not? Many would put it the other way round. And then I can come up with the names of plenty of innovators who played important roles in the development of music but were hardly top names. Indeed, Beethoven was certainly very much and innovator and was also very great but I think he may be the only composer who can fill both of those roles. I think you make too much of innovation.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Overrated? I agree with one of them.


One is overrated and the other is underrated, IMHO.


----------



## AeolianStrains

HenryPenfold said:


> One is overrated and the other is underrated, IMHO.


Tchaikovsky, who's constantly battered and derided for his "sugary" melodies, is the underrated of the two.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

AeolianStrains said:


> Tchaikovsky, who's constantly battered and derided for his "sugary" melodies, is the underrated of the two.


Nothing wrong with sugary melodies in my mind! His big weakness IMO is the inability to work and create variety within large structures, something I think he finally solved in his magnificent 6th. For anyone who thinks he's not multifaceted, try the Orchestral Suites, Serenade for Strings, and Piano Trio.


----------



## Luchesi

I would think you would need a standard for comparison. I mean, first we should agree that XYZ composer is overrated or underrated.

But maybe we can't even agree on one composer!

As I think back, the melodies of Chopin and the fine technique he had for writing for the piano got me into CM. At that time I was thinking that Bach was too mathematical, dry and difficult to follow. The works that I had heard by Haydn and Mozart all sounded the same to me. Beethoven was unsettling and bombastic. 'Not what I wanted at the time! (as a beginner piano student.) So for me at that juncture, everything was overrated but Chopin?

That's a typical reaction from neophytes. Inexperience and just ignorance. It's not their fault.

If we project this into the future for that CM fan we find that the rigid conclusions and assumptions fall away (or he/she gives up listening). This is a problem for the survivability of CM as helpful for peoples' lives through the decades (since it's not taught in schools as much as it was).


----------



## Enthusiast

HenryPenfold said:


> One is overrated and the other is underrated, IMHO.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that Tchaikovsky is underrated. But I do agree that MacMillan's high reputation is not deserved.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Luchesi said:


> I would think you would need a standard for comparison. I mean, first we should agree that XYZ composer is overrated or underrated.
> 
> But maybe we can't even agree on one composer!
> 
> As I think back, the melodies of Chopin and the fine technique he had for writing for the piano got me into CM. At that time I was thinking that Bach was too mathematical, dry and difficult to follow. The works that I had heard by Haydn and Mozart all sounded the same to me. Beethoven was unsettling and bombastic. 'Not what I wanted at the time! (as a beginner piano student.) So for me at that juncture, everything was overrated but Chopin?
> 
> That's a typical reaction from neophytes. Inexperience and just ignorance. It's not their fault.
> 
> If we project this into the future for that CM fan we find that the rigid conclusions and assumptions fall away (or he/she gives up listening). This is a problem for the survivability of CM as helpful for peoples' lives through the decades (since it's not taught in schools as much as it was).


I had the exact same experience with Chopin. I didn't really know any other composers, but fell head-over-heels in love with him when I heard the First Ballade. I simply had no idea that music could be so beautiful. From there I explored other piano music for a good half-year before finally taking the plunge into the complete CM world. Even then, it took me a while to get Bach, Mozart, Brahms, and all the other "big guns." I don't care how often his music gets derided as "syrupy" and "simplistic," if we could have everyone in the world who has a low opinion of CM hear the Barcarolle and be inspired to explore deeper from there, we would have hope for classical music surviving into the future.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> As I think back, the melodies of Chopin and the fine technique he had for writing for the piano got me into CM. At that time I was thinking that Bach was too mathematical, dry and difficult to follow. The works that I had heard by Haydn and Mozart all sounded the same to me. Beethoven was unsettling and bombastic. 'Not what I wanted at the time! (as a beginner piano student.) So for me at that juncture, everything was overrated but Chopin?
> That's a typical reaction from neophytes. Inexperience and just ignorance. It's not their fault.


It's funny you say this again. A person in his young age can think Composer [X] is overrated, while it's possible the person can change his mind and think [X] is not overrated (or not as overrated as he used to think) as the person gets older in age, but the converse (more firmly believing that [X] is overrated) is also possible. Also in evaluating composers' achievements, there also an objective set of criteria (such as facts about their influence in music history) that doesn't have much to do with anybody's subjective personal preferences.
Anyway, we talked about this before. Since Chopin and Schubert died in their 30s, isn't it safe to say they're "neophytes" compared to Liszt and Wagner, for example? If Chopin was really a "neophyte", and made "bad decisions" in his musical preferences because of that,



Luchesi said:


> Chopin seemed to conclude that Beethoven was vulgar at times, because of these 'experiments'.


Would it be safe to assume he made certain "bad decisions" in composing as well? For example, the middle section of Chopin Polonaise Op.44 (in terms of sense of development and voice-leading) was not very impressive, so Rachmaninoff later came along to fix it? Since Chopin was a young neophyte, "later composers came, to take his work and make it better"? - I'm not asserting this as a fact, I'm just posing it as a question.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^^^^
It's something to think about, but not too deeply. You're comparing the experiment of a fantasy polonaise/mazurka of 30 year old Chopin with Wagner and Rachmaninov all those years later.

I've heard a Pleyel piano. 'Not very impressive.

What is it you want from Chopin? You don't want him to sound like Wagner, long before it made artistic sense. We need Chopin to be right where he is in musical history.


----------



## reinmar von zweter

Fabulin said:


> Funny you mention that. To me Siegfried Wagner had a good sense of rhytm, dynamics, and orchestration. His (orchestral---can't judge voice) music is quite beautiful, and an interesting mix of Wagnerianism and outside, seemingly Russian or French influences.
> 
> I found that a second rate Wagner is still more than quite a few first rate someone elses.
> 
> And his symphonic poem _Sehnsucht _is hands down great music.
> 
> If he doesn't seem to even _have existed _ judging by some lengthy lists of composers, he is underrated.


I think Siegfried Wagner's music was not too bad but VERY anachronistic. His operas are composed in a style that makes one think of a Weber (or even a Schubert) out of time. Try listening to _Der Bärenhäuter_ (from 1898!) or other operas (there are almost all on Spotify). I'm not saying you can't like it, but Siegfried was a sort of living fossil. IMHO, naturally!


----------



## Ethereality

Here is a list of most underrated and overrated composers according to this forum. It simply ranked the changes in a composers' value on popular online polls, to composers' values on this forum. For example List A shows which composers are most valued on this forum than other places. A shortcut, in other words, that answers this thread question using the forums' own opinions. What this doesn't tell you is what their actual rank is, it just shows how drastically members think they're underrated or overrated:

*Most underrated composers (popular composers):*
1. Gluck
2. Monteverdi
3. Bach, J.C.
4. Arnold
5. Haydn
6. Alfven
7. Nielsen
8. Handel
9. Schumann
10. Josquin
11. Wagner
12. Palestrina
13. Scarlatti, Domenico
14. Delius
15. Purcell
16. Schubert
17. Ippolitov-Ivanov
18. Bruckner
19. Rott
20. Villa-Lobos
21. Janáček
22. Novak
23. Hildegard
24. Mendelssohn
25. Verdi

*Most overrated composers (popular composers):*
1. Gabrieli 
2. Bernstein 
3. Meyerbeer 
4. Paganini 
5. Holst
6. Gershwin
7. Carter
8. Gubaidulina 
9. Poulenc
10. Piazzolla 
11. Xenakis
12. Berio 
13. Byrd
14. Gorecki
15. Lutoslawski
16. Offenbach
17. Couperin 
18. Haydn, Michael
19. Hindemith
20. Buxtehude
21. Takemitsu
22. Charpentier
23. Pärt
24. Schumann, Clara
25. Reich

[Source refs] Note: these are all popular composers because there is no poll information on _unpopular_ composers. If we somehow made a poll on unpopular composers, there would be plenty of unpopular underrated composers still left out.


----------



## Fabulin

reinmar von zweter said:


> I think Siegfried Wagner's music was not too bad but VERY anachronistic. His operas are composed in a style that makes one think of a Weber (or even a Schubert) out of time. Try listening to _Der Bärenhäuter_ (from 1898!) or other operas (there are almost all on Spotify). I'm not saying you can't like it, but Siegfried was a sort of living fossil. IMHO, naturally!


What difference does it make, from the perspective of a 21st century listener, when was a given piece written?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Maybe you will have noticed that music written completely in a style that is more than, say, 100 years old is invariably dull and lacking in interest? It's just the way things are.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Maybe you will have noticed that music written completely in a style that is more than, say, 100 years old is invariably dull and lacking in interest? It's just the way things are.


 As much as I love contemporary music, I can't agree with that Enthusiast....I mean...Bach, to mention just one.....unless you're joking of course.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

mikeh375 said:


> As much as I love contemporary music, I can't agree with that Enthusiast....I mean...Bach, to mention just one.....unless you're joking of course.


I think he means relative to the date of composition. I'd have to agree. Perhaps even 50 years (I struggle to find counterexamples).


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Maybe you will have noticed that music written completely in a style that is more than, say, 100 years old is invariably dull and lacking in interest? It's just the way things are.


Are there any examples of this? First-rate artists aren't interested in imitating the past, so that anyone who does is bound to produce something rather uninteresting. Art forgers are generally unsuccessful artists.


----------



## Enthusiast

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I think he means relative to the date of composition. I'd have to agree. Perhaps even 50 years (I struggle to find counterexamples).


Indeed I did. And 50 years probably works.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> That's a typical reaction from neophytes. Inexperience and just ignorance. It's not their fault.





Luchesi said:


> What is it you want from Chopin?


I don't know, Mr. Luchesi :lol:, all I want to say is I don't know what it's like to be 60~70 years old with many decades of classical music listening and still have so strong a fanaticism for Chopin and the "New-agey" features (for lack of a better term) of his music as to claim things like: "Chopin surpassed all his predecessors and has not been surpassed" and "you'll understand this through experience" :lol: sorry, but the cringey-ness is getting unbearable now :lol:


----------



## AeolianStrains

Enthusiast said:


> Indeed I did. And 50 years probably works.


Funny, I find the opposite to be the case. I much prefer someone be a cheap imitation of Bach than the best version of Ligeti, any day and every day.

It's almost as if, holy smokes, people have different tastes and pretentious elitism is merely just that!


----------



## Woodduck

AeolianStrains said:


> Funny, I find the opposite to be the case. I much prefer someone be a cheap imitation of Bach than the best version of Ligeti, any day and every day.
> 
> It's almost as if, holy smokes, people have different tastes and pretentious elitism is merely just that!


Well, to each his own. But considering that Bach wrote so much music, and so much that bears repeated listening, it seems worth asking how anyone who likes the real thing would find time in his life for cheap imitations.


----------



## mikeh375

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I think he means relative to the date of composition. I'd have to agree. Perhaps even 50 years (I struggle to find counterexamples).


oh yes...duuurrr, my bad. Sorry chaps and chapesses.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Maybe you will have noticed that music written completely in a style that is more than, say, 100 years old is invariably dull and lacking in interest? It's just the way things are.


I think that depends on musical developments. A work written in Baroque style or Haydn's wouldn't be very interesting now, but I think in the style of Dvorak, Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky, would still have relevance today. I recall the composer Pavlova wrote some nice stuff clearly in the style of Tchaikovsky. On the other hand, I think some minimalistic music sound outdated less than 50 years after they were written.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Woodduck said:


> Well, to each his own. But considering that Bach wrote so much music, and so much that bears repeated listening, it seems worth asking how anyone who likes the real thing would find time in his life for cheap imitations.


I like to see people's attempts at contrapunctal fugues. I find them much more fascinating than most of what was brand new in the late 19th/early 20th century.


----------



## chu42

Ethereality said:


> Well I looked up the definition of underrate, and agreed with the first one that came up:
> 
> _"Verb. Underestimate the extent, value, or importance of (someone or something)."_
> 
> My list has little to do with the quality of the composer, but is relative only to how much attention that composer already receives. That's the meaning of underrated:
> 
> - Someone like *Viotti * for instance receives very little attention and yet his inventions were absolutely irreplaceable and instrumental to the transition from the Classical to Romantic era.
> 
> - On the other hand, someone like *Beethoven* receives tons of attention, but in the grand scheme of the music industry, he is clearly highly underrated.
> 
> - My top entry, *Albinoni*, was the greatest genius of his time period, through-and-through, but he doesn't receive the attention he deserves due to countless composers after him borrowing his inventions.


Someone like Beethoven is performed so often that we actually begin to lose sight of how incredible some of his music is. How many of us are tired of hearing the Moonlight Sonata- yet by a large degree it is one of the most innovative and important compositions of all time. The same can be said for the Waldstein, 9th Symphony, etc. Mozart suffers a bit from this problem as well.

A strange addition to place would be Johann Pachelbel. His Canon is so often played that it is abhorred; his other music finds no attention as a result.

Imagine if Ravel was only known for his Bolero. That is a bit similar to the situation that Pachelbel is in.


----------



## AeolianStrains

chu42 said:


> Imagine if Ravel was only known for his Bolero. That is a bit similar to the situation that Pachelbel is in.


Give it another hundred years to make that prediction come true. It's already the only thing by him I see recommended on Youtube.


----------



## Xisten267

AeolianStrains said:


> I like to see people's attempts at contrapunctal fugues. I find them much more fascinating than most of what was brand new in the late 19th/early 20th century.


You may find the video below interesting. It's a musician playing "Happy Birthday" in the style of various composers. Some of the imitations, and here I include the Bach, are very convincing IMO. I think that the Beethoven and the Debussy are lacking something though:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

chu42 said:


> Someone like Beethoven is performed so often that we actually begin to lose sight of how incredible some of his music is. How many of us are tired of hearing the Moonlight Sonata- yet by a large degree it is one of the most innovative and important compositions of all time.


The Moonlight first movement has been utterly ruined for me by playing it obsessively in my developing years of piano study, and by its use as cheesy "classical relaxation" music. Similar thing with Debussy's Clair de Lune and even the slow movement of the Pathetique Sonata. I don't know if I could ever actually hear it how it's meant to be heard after years of having it corrupted in such a way. If we could erase the entire human race's recollections of all of Beethoven's music, and then play them the first movement of the 5th, the Moonlight, the finale of the 9th, the Pathetique, etc. then they would realize what a monstrous, convention-shattering genius that this man really was. As it stands right now, no one who hasn't been living under a rock can truly appreciate Beethoven outside of the pop culture context. I read an article once that said the only people that can really understand the radical nature of the first 4 notes of the 5th Symphony are space aliens and newborns.


----------



## Fabulin

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I read an article once that said the only people that can really understand the radical nature of the first 4 notes of the 5th Symphony are space aliens and newborns.


Could you share it?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Fabulin said:


> Could you share it?


"_They're notes that are so familiar that we don't even hear them properly today. Quite possibly the only life-forms who now really hear the ambiguities in the opening of Beethoven's 1808 symphony are infants or extra-terrestrials. What I mean is that this symphony doesn't begin in C minor - the key it says it's in on the title page. In fact, it's not until the four-note rhythm is played a third time that we really know we're in C minor, rather than what could be E flat major. You see, if you hum the first four pitches of the piece - da-da-da-DUM; da-da-da-DUM, you could still conceivably be listening to a symphony in a major key, if you were next to sing the note of your first "DUM" and harmonise it with a major chord… Apologies if this is getting a bit da-da-ist, or quite possibly dum-dum-ist, but the point is that this is only the first way that music we take for granted - the single most forceful, electrifying, and recognisable opening to a symphony - is actually much more complex and multi-layered than we realise._"

https://www.theguardian.com/music/t...16/symphony-guide-beethoven-fifth-tom-service


----------



## BLEUDANUBE

Mozart, Tchaikovsy, Stravinsky


----------



## AeolianStrains

Allerius said:


> You may find the video below interesting. It's a musician playing "Happy Birthday" in the style of various composers. Some of the imitations, and here I include the Bach, are very convincing IMO. I think that the Beethoven and the Debussy are lacking something though:


I've seen her on Youtube before and I've always been impressed. Thanks for the compilation video, though! It was good to see it all in one place.


----------



## gregorx

chu42 said:


> A strange addition to place would be Johann Pachelbel. His Canon is so often played that it is abhorred; his other music finds no attention as a result.
> 
> Imagine if Ravel was only known for his Bolero. That is a bit similar to the situation that Pachelbel is in.


I read that Ravel hated Bolero, it annoyed him that people liked it, he refused to play it, and he wish he'd never written it. How did Canon go over at the time I wonder.

I think Ravel's music will stand up to time much better than Johann's. There were a lot of great composers in the Baroque Period; they aren't all in the repertoire. Maybe Pachelbel was just another guy. Ravel's not.

Debussy appears to have survived Claire de Lune, the jury may still be out on Satie and Gymnopedies.


----------



## Xisten267

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The Moonlight first movement has been utterly ruined for me by playing it obsessively in my developing years of piano study, and by its use as cheesy "classical relaxation" music. Similar thing with Debussy's Clair de Lune and even the slow movement of the Pathetique Sonata. I don't know if I could ever actually hear it how it's meant to be heard after years of having it corrupted in such a way. If we could erase the entire human race's recollections of all of Beethoven's music, and then play them the first movement of the 5th, the Moonlight, the finale of the 9th, the Pathetique, etc. then they would realize what a monstrous, convention-shattering genius that this man really was. As it stands right now, no one who hasn't been living under a rock can truly appreciate Beethoven outside of the pop culture context. I read an article once that said the only people that can really understand the radical nature of the first 4 notes of the 5th Symphony are space aliens and newborns.


The finale of Beethoven's 9th is amongst the most impressive and powerful music I've ever heard, and it never fails to move me and give me goosebumps when I listen to it. Yet, I think that unfortunately this Everest of symphonic music has been severely spoiled by it's overuse out of context in cheesy movies, ads and even as a hymn to certain political entities, and I think that this is what ruins the experience of listening to it for some people. I wish that there was some kind of law that prevented great art from being used for purely commercial or political purposes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Yet, I think that unfortunately this Everest of symphonic music has been severely spoiled by it's overuse out of context in cheesy movies, ads and even as a hymn to certain political entities, and I think that this is what ruins the experience of listening to it for some people. I wish that there was some kind of law that prevented great art from being used for purely commercial or political purposes.


"...very much like Yankee Doodle," sniffed a Providence, R.I. newspaper in 1868.
"But is not worship paid this Symphony mere fetishism? Is not the famous Scherzo insufferably long-winded? The unspeakable cheapness of the chief tune, 'Freude, Freude!'" -- Musical Record, Boston, 1899

It's quite surprising that, even before the 20th century, people were already getting tired of listening to this masterpiece. An American complaining European music sounds too much like "Yankee Doodle"..Wow.. Seriously? I don't know what to make of this really..



Allegro Con Brio said:


> I read an article once that said the only people that can really understand the radical nature of the first 4 notes of the 5th Symphony are space aliens and newborns.


PDQ Bach was one composer who truly understood (and "revised" it so that we can also understand)


----------



## Art Rock

It's not news that this symphony causes mixed feelings. For some it's the pinnacle of western civilization, others can't stand it (not just the early US critics cited). I know one person in the latter category quite well. :devil:


----------



## Pat Fairlea

gregorx said:


> I read that Ravel hated Bolero, it annoyed him that people liked it, he refused to play it, and he wish he'd never written it. How did Canon go over at the time I wonder.
> 
> I think Ravel's music will stand up to time much better than Johann's. There were a lot of great composers in the Baroque Period; they aren't all in the repertoire. Maybe Pachelbel was just another guy. Ravel's not.
> 
> Debussy appears to have survived Claire de Lune, the jury may still be out on Satie and Gymnopedies.


Strange, isn't it? Ravel reckoned Bolero "has no music in it". As for Claire de Lune, it is probably Debussy's weakest greatest hit, and much the least interesting piece in Suite Bergamasque. And then there's Rachmaninoff's C#minor Prelude....!


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> It's quite surprising that, even before the 20th century, people were already getting tired of listening to this masterpiece. An American complaining European music sounds too much like "Yankee Doodle"..Wow.. Seriously? I don't know what to make of this really..


Perhaps the Ninth is a bit too hot, great, innovative and complex for small minded people and snobs alike? It may, of course, really just not be the cup of tea for some people, but this is usual for any music by any composer in any genre. One should hear some symphonies by Beethoven's contemporaries such as Spohr and Cherubini to see how far ahead of them he was in this genre.

Here is a review of the Ninth by a certain Friedrich August Kanne, from the _Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung_, that saw it's second performance in 1824:

"The first Allegro in D minor, which, if one wanted to label it precisely, one would have to call a gigantic fantasy for the orchestra, now likewise offers opportunities for brilliantly effective moments, determined again by the power of the instruments. Beethoven's powerful imagination springs up there
like a fire-spewing mountain from out of the earth that hems in his raging inner fire. With an often strange perseverance, it manipulates figurations whose peculiar form at first glance not infrequently expresses an almost bizarre character, but which under the capable hand of the master who molds it, is transformed into a stream of graceful turns of phrase, which does not want to end, but rises step by step to an ever more brilliant height.

With inexhaustible powers of invention the master rolls ever new obstacles into his upward rushing stream of fire, hemming it in with ties that meet again and again in the imitative forms, which thus run obliquely parallel, turning his phrases around, and pressing them down into a terrifying depth, from which his ignited genius now leads them against the clouds, united in a single beam, letting them vanish upward into a gentle, completely unexpected Unisono, which then also raises itself stepwise above its high vantage point. But he allows the eye no rest! New forces soon develop from the middle, streaming in from all sides, soon rolling away again in gentle planes like the waves of a stream.

In the midst of this marvelous tumult of all the elements of art, Beethoven's masterful hand performs with great artistry a musical sleight of hand, and like a decorator transforms his entire mass of figurations into a transfiguring blue fire.

There are actually several such completely unexpected coups of modulatory art in this grand work, through which the entire tone color is suddenly so charmingly transformed that one must involuntarily break off one's quiet admiration and give room to a loud bravo.

The beautiful, tasteful use of the singing wind instruments, which, however, is nearly always characterized by a coloration of rapturous melancholy, is usually very cleverly sought out by Beethoven after moments of the highest, often stormy life as a means of soothing the all-too-excited soul, rocking it to sleep in blissful dreams, from which it will only be awakened by frightful new forms.

Thus does the master's ignited genius rage ceaselessly on, and give the listener back his peace of mind in a Scherzo. It seems to us almost a necessity for the disturbed soul to let this powerful Allegro be followed by the gentle, songful Adagio, and to save the Scherzo for later.

Whoever has never come to know Beethoven's humor from one of his works will find its quintessence, in all degrees and potentialities, in this Scherzo. Who will ask if the tempo is furious? Our metrical sense can scarcely follow the rapid flight of figurations, the colorful alternation of the comical world of harmonies, often alternating in marvelous forms!

The unusual tuning of the timpani, which, however, announces the humorous style right at the beginning, already discloses to the listener what he has to expect. The running, continually tripping theme, which gains even more character through the pointed delivery, shows the peculiar, naive mood that Beethoven felt in his spirit as he wrote it.

The grotesque leaps that Beethoven's genius makes in the above-mentioned Scherzo are often of such a bold nature, and are performed with such rapid strength, that one can well understand how he could mix in an Allebreve in the midst of this tempo, from which the ear seems to draw new strength.

In the staccato course of the oboe, flute, bassoon, etc., one really sees the little Colombine tripping along with Harlequin, who springs with daring leaps from one modulatory land to another, and changes every moment. Indeed, whoever brings to listening an imagination as inspired as Beethoven did to writing will certainly not be astonished if, in the humorous striking of both F-timpani, which he usually makes leap from the upper to the lower one, we perceive again the merry strokes with which Harlequin's wooden sword knows how to enliven his surroundings. What is more, the basses, with their broad steps and metrical syncopations, represent the long-armed Pierrot.

In this movement the inexhaustible composer gives full scope to all his moods and comical fancies. The teasing and provocative imitations of the instruments-which here quickly run on obliquely after one another, then perform magical harmonic tricks, hurry off in completely opposite directions, turn suddenly around again, and with apparent hesitation trip back up against one another-make such an interesting effect that the inventiveness of this movement, drawn out to such extraordinary lengths, must delight the ear of the most serious connoisseur of music. The passing notes, as well as the neighboring notes, that Beethoven's free sculptor's spirit tends to bring into sight in the course of the hopping melody, sometimes by necessity, sometimes through his feats of anticipation and delay, excite again at every moment our already eager attentiveness.

We must also mention just in passing to all those wishing to study such daring masterworks, or such masterful works of daring, and imitate them, that they certainly also want to bring along just as much genius.

The performance of this movement went far more auspiciously in the Theater Near the Kärnthnerthor, which resists the sound of the notes (since, it goes without saying, the orchestra was moved up to the stage), than in the Grand Redoutensaal, since in it the staccato, pointed notes seemed far better rounded off as individual bodies of sound, and could not cast an echoing shadow that darkened the contour. The large crowd of people who were assembled there was very auspicious for the sound of the orchestra, which was strengthened by the assistance of many dilettantes. It is scarcely necessary to add that such a composition, invented with the utmost freedom of spirit and uninhibited inspiration, often scarcely leaves time for an experienced violinist to think up an appropriate fingering, so that players who are usually weak, that is to say those who may play variations or concertos, but are unfamiliar with the rapid pace of orchestral playing, are at first usually terrified by such difficult passages, then put down their bows and stop playing for so many measures, taking the opportunity to pass over difficult playing techniques, until they start in again at easier passages and can take refuge again under the active orchestra. During such periods the ones who could keep time and had true artistic expression usually had to compensate for the note-devouring players by playing what they left out more loudly.

The truth of this must seem to many laymen to be terribly difficult to prove, but the connoisseur,
which is to say our true reader, will completely understand us and find no jot unnecessary.

The Adagio in B-flat [is] a most heartfelt, soulful song, flowing along in rapturous melancholy, in which Beethoven's magnificence appears in great clarity. A short affirmative period, which the composer appends like an echo to every such melody as it melts away in graceful ecstasy, makes the whole very delightful. He breathes his longing in the most flowing melodies, which gently die away through harmonies not interrupted by excessive alternation. In particular, shortly before the final cadence, they rise again to a higher register from the comfort-seeking sixth, still always lingering, until they quiet the soul through the long withheld comfort.

The graceful alternations in the instrumentation also grant a particular satisfaction to this beautiful movement, distinguished by an expressive cantilena, and Beethoven often heightens the expression very cleverly by giving the bright colors of the higher instruments a half-obscure reflection in a singing bass instrument-for example, the cello or bassoon.

His sudden transition to the related key of D major is not one of those which many magicians of the day seemingly blurt out; rather, it is brought about gently, and yet made striking by means of foreign half-tints. The violins perform in this movement a melody used several times, which cannot be surpassed by anything in sweet euphony and sincerity. The violoncellos sing along as well, with the beautiful power of the tenor, in the beautiful harmonic song of the Adagio, and augment the melting expression of the composition.

We frankly acknowledge that Mr. Schuppanzigh affirmed his position as first violinist in this execution, taking it up completely within his spirit, to which we owe the inspired performance of so many earlier works of Beethoven. The unsurpassable Kapellmeister Umlauf, however, who directed the entire symphony from the score, documented in an evident manner his truly outstanding skill, for his eye, moving always with lightning speed, met every solo at the beginning, and heightened every power to energetic exertion.

Both served particularly well in the finale, due to the unbelievable fact that in it Beethoven undertakes something like a recapitulation of his earlier themes, so varied in meter, and presents them one after another. Indeed, when one considers that he has even given the basses a recitative that recurs quite often, which all the other instruments listen to in silence, and that what is more, at the end the full choir, singing, also weaves in Schiller's celebrated Ode to Joy, and that the composer has tried to bring unity to all these varied, nearly incompatible materials, one becomes permeated from within by the gigantic design that his imagination took up in the first moments of its conception, and which is more or less powerfully stamped on the plan and working out of each movement.

The serious calm and power with which the bass introduces the words "Freude, schöner Götterfunken!" likewise characterizes the spirit with which Beethoven meets Schiller's genius. The quartet later enters, and in this realization as well the composer's style, so seriously maintained, in which he took pains to express the stamp of classicism through organic interweaving and meticulous inevitability, shows itself once again. All his phrases are connected with a great presence of mind through the chains of imitation, and thus the liberties that he has not infrequently allowed himself in this creation are covered by a nimbus that gives the whole work its requisite worth.

Many will admittedly be alarmed when considering the figurations that Beethoven sometimes gives the choir to perform, and whose range not infrequently lays claim to the extremes of high and low. Singers who are not skilled at singing in the style will treat the performance of their parts as a dangerous test, for here Beethoven's genius has for once not turned back at any barrier, but rather has created for itself a world completely its own, and has moved therein with such powerful strength and freedom that one sees how the present world appears too small for him, and he must build a new one for himself with completely new forms.

For this reason, as has been said already, all the movements of this work bear in their entire economy the stamp of the gigantic, of the monstrous; for this reason, furthermore, its powerful tempos sweep the listener along as though in a storm from one emotion to another, and scarcely let him come to his senses. For this reason, the observant listener feels thoroughly exhausted after this symphony ends, and longs for rest, because his innermost being has had all too much excitement.

Beethoven felt that such an expenditure of variegated powers, along with such a piling up of much apparently heterogeneous material, must give rise to an even greater use of all his powers. For this reason he let the Turkish music enter in the midst of his chorus.

Probably no one will be so foolish as to maintain that the composition remains in a socalled Turkish style. The shrill and thundering percussion instruments strengthen the effect even of works like this, which arise from genuinely German breasts with genuinely German consecration. Many a composer, despite dealing with genuinely Christian subjects, writes in a genuinely Turkish manner, and thus could be called a musical renegade, for the sublime religion of art was either unknown to him, or not yet sufficiently holy for him to perform his duty in accordance with its fundamental principles. One often finds such Islamic qualities in arias, duets, etc. with very sparse accompaniment, but even more often in those that are dedicated to the service of the church, but which unfortunately all too often flow from atheistic pens. For the genuinely Turkish lies in the recklessness with which a composer puts to the sword all the laws of art that cultivated nations embrace.

Beethoven's oriental percussion orchestra remains in very good agreement with good taste, as well as with the more noble style, since he only allows their strengthening potential to enter at times of great emphasis and on syllables of particular significance. His imagination is constantly creating, and perhaps is not satisfied with a mere system of continual reinforcement. Rather, the spirit finds ever new material with which to reveal the depth of the diversely varying, rich inventive spirit.

If a capable spirit sets all the powers of music loose from their mystical ambush-point, he may finally also make use of the greatest forces that his spirit and sagacity can command in order to give more emphasis to his more deeply based and newly chosen language.

In short, the master wanted it, even if it has not pleased many of those who censure everything that they have not yet tried.

The passionate essence of the finale, which fights and struggles with all the elements and powers of music, cannot, in fact, be grasped at first hearing. For this reason, it may have happened that among the number of listeners who were enthusiastic, there were also those whose judgment could not completely concur with the enthusiastic applause of Beethoven's devoted admirers.

The more such a work goes beyond the norm of all others, the more freedom it develops in its course, the less one finds in it of the familiar that one has already grown to love, the more it ultimately stretches expectation through its length, the easier it is for various viewpoints to take shape among those to whom the public has allowed a voice, either because of their position, their arrogance, or even custom. For this reason, many viewpoints, like those that other journals have already expressed, were not completely sympathetic to it.

However, those who, in agreement with the more educated world of music, consider Beethoven's originality and free peculiarities to be a splendid manifestation of this century, declared themselves all the more decisively."


----------



## Xisten267

Art Rock said:


> *It's not news that this symphony causes mixed feelings.* For some it's the pinnacle of western civilization, others can't stand it (not just the early US critics cited). I know one person in the latter category quite well. :devil:


This can happen to other great symphonies aswell. See those by Mahler, for example. They also were target of severe criticism, and were largely forgotten after the composer's death in 1911, only becoming mainstream after Bernstein, due to his overwhelming influence as a conductor, made a great effort to promote the composer's music in the 1960's.


----------



## Xisten267

Perhaps I've been a bit too harsh on post #1724. I'm passionately enthusiastic of Beethoven's _Ninth_ and perhaps this can make me blind to those who somehow does not approve the piece. It's just that... this music really stirs me up to the point that when somebody criticizes it I take it almost as a personal insult. But I must respect their opinion.

I apologize for my behavior.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Perhaps the Ninth is a bit too hot, great, innovative and complex for small minded people and snobs alike? It may, of course, really just not be the cup of tea for some people, but this is usual for any music by any composer in any genre.


I find a lot of parts in the Ninth symphony to be exciting. (The scherzo being one of them) And the impact/influence on the generations of later composers is immense (needless to say). It's just that some random critics described it in ways I find funny. My entire post #1721 was written as a joke actually.

"It opened with eight bars of a commonplace theme, very much like Yankee Doodle...The general impression it left on me is that of a concert made up of *Indian war whoops and angry wildcats.*" -- a Providence, R.I. newspaper, 1868

WTF? lol



Art Rock said:


> It's not news that this symphony causes mixed feelings. For some it's the pinnacle of western civilization, others can't stand it (not just the early US critics cited). I know one person in the latter category quite well. :devil:


Is it the same reason why you don't like Handel? (as you once said), I find all kinds of "Handelian" aesthetics explored in different ways by Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven interesting.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I find a lot of parts in the Ninth symphony to be exciting. (The scherzo being one of them) And the impact/influence on the generations of later composers is immense (needless to say). It's just that some random critics described it in ways I find funny. My entire post #1721 was written as a joke actually.
> 
> "It opened with eight bars of a commonplace theme, very much like Yankee Doodle...The general impression it left on me is that of a concert made up of *Indian war whoops and angry wildcats.*" -- a Providence, R.I. newspaper, 1868
> 
> WTF? lol
> 
> Is it the same reason why you don't like Handel? (as you once said), I find all kinds of "Handelian" aesthetics explored in different ways by Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven interesting.


From your previous posts, I suppose that you enjoy polyphonic textures (I do too). Are you aware that there's some great counterpoint in Beethoven's Ninth, including fugal passages in three of the four movements?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> From your previous posts, I suppose that you enjoy polyphonic textures (I do too).


It depends. I often find myself enjoying Germanic stuff more than others.



Allerius said:


> Are you aware that there's some great counterpoint in Beethoven's Ninth, including fugal passages in three of the four movements?


Yes, I find "Seid umschlungen, Millionen" exciting as well.



Allerius said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7lr1cSQi5o


I know this video, thanks for reminding me of it though.

Don't take my posts #1721, #1727 seriously, It's not that I particularly agree with the critics' opinions - it's just the expressions they use I find so random and funny. I just used them to joke about the things you said in post #1720.


----------



## Xisten267

peeyaj said:


> The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History - According to You


Perhaps Mozart is overrated, considering that so many people (almost 25%) voted "Yes" or "I do not listen to the works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" in the Is Mozart overrated poll. There's even a thread about threads of people saying that he is overrated here at TC.


----------



## Woodduck

Allerius said:


> Perhaps I've been a bit too harsh on post #1724. I'm passionately enthusiastic of Beethoven's _Ninth_ and perhaps this can make me blind to those who somehow does not approve the piece. It's just that... this music really stirs me up to the point that when somebody criticizes it I take it almost as a personal insult. But I must respect their opinion.
> 
> I apologize for my behavior.


I saw nothing harsh in post #1724, and nothing for which you need to apologize. That review from 1824 was a fascinating, if florid and ponderous, read. The author clearly "got it," and gives the lie to those who like to claim that great and innovative works of art are never appreciated at first. The 9th remains challenging, or at least not entirely comprehensible, to some people even now. But as I read the review, even as I laughed a little at some of the extravagant language, the music echoed in my head and aroused some of the deep feelings which the work has always inspired. The 9th is one of the great reminders of what our humanity consists of, and can accomplish, when we're at our best. Humanity may never have needed it more than now.


----------



## Art Rock

hammeredklavier said:


> Is it the same reason why you don't like Handel? (as you once said), I find all kinds of "Handelian" aesthetics explored in different ways by Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven interesting.


No, I don't like anything by Handel, not just his vocal works. Beats me why, he just does not connect with me at all.

For Beethoven, every single time he writes something for voices, I'm off. Can't stand that part of his work. This is particularly for Beethoven, many of my favourite works are for vocal(s) and orchestra. In contrast to Handel, there is plenty of Beethoven I love (e.g. the string quartets, many of the piano sonatas, symphonies 3-7, piano concertos 3-5, and the violin concerto).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Perhaps Mozart is overrated, considering that so many people (almost 25%) voted "Yes" or "I do not listen to the works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" in the Is Mozart overrated poll. There's even a thread about threads of people saying that he is overrated here at TC.


The classical music community is full of people who don't listen to music of certain eras / only listen to certain eras. So there are lots of prejudice going on about the major composers. This is why I've suggested many times, we should not rely on their opinions to form our own. Your post kind of proves my point (which I've been saying for a long time). Something I find weird about Beethoven: somehow everyone thinks everything he wrote has quality like his 5th symphony or Op.131 string quartet or Op.57 piano sonata. There have always been people finding all kinds of reasons to bash Mozart and Wagner, but not Beethoven.
Maybe because they think Beethoven is so infallible (stayed faithful to his avant-garde artist spirit or whatever) he never composed any stuff like the Turkish March from Ruins of Athens, or King Stephen? So righteous in every aspect of music and personal morals (whatever you want to call them), never composed salon or tafelmusik of any kind? Never penned down any silly trivialities?
Jeez,  you shouldn't be so sensitive about a few jokes made about Beethoven. He probably has been the least bashed of all the major composers on TC by far. If you look from that perspective, he's the 'most highly-rated' composer.



clavichorder said:


> The hope of this thread is to spark more listening and exploration. Conversation comes after that, as it should be. So, I'm going to start an unranked, unordered list of the composers who I've seen stirring up the most controversy(based on their work as composers).
> 
> Schoenberg
> Cage
> Shostakovich
> Mozart
> Wagner(though his humanity probably is more controversial than his music, probably enough is mentioned about the music itself both in favor and against)
> Brahms(it hasn't been active for a while, but a strong vocal minority sometimes surfaces disputing the emotional power of his music)
> Rachmaninoff
> Bruckner
> Mahler
> Glass
> Handel(I've seen plenty of volleys on him, almost surprisingly)
> Liszt
> Berlioz
> Richard Strauss(some of the discussion on him bares resemblance to that of Shostakovich)
> 
> Controversies have all been sparked on these composers. Don't ask me to cite them, because I am unable to. Maybe you have a better list, and if so I would gladly see it, because mine isn't complete or uniform, and I know this.
> 
> Some less controversial composers here? :
> 
> Bach
> Bartok
> Chopin
> Tchaikovsky(Petrb was the only one I ever witnessed dropping bombs about him, and mostly we didn't bother to fight back)
> Debussy
> 
> I'm really not sure about these though. What do you think?


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Allerius was speculating about the "overrating" of Mozart, not the "bashing," which seems to be your obsession only. Instead of going off on your own chronic, tiresome Beethoven-bashing binge, you should have pointed out that Allerius's statistic may indicate the opposite of what he suggests: that Mozart is _underrated_ by quite a few people. The truth is that EVERYTHING great is underrated by vast numbers of people, and we do composers a much greater service by describing their virtues than by looking for other composers to trash.

If we need to bring Beethoven into this - which we needn't, but it's too late now - your perceptions are badly biased. The idea that "somehow everyone thinks everything he wrote has quality like his 5th symphony or Op.131 string quartet or Op.57 piano sonata" is a figment of your imagination. Nobody who knows his work at all well thinks that everything he did is equal to his highest achievements. I find your unfunny "jokes" at Beethoven's, Schubert's, Chopin's and whoever's expense repugnant not because there's any need to defend composers whose value is firmly established, but because gratuitous ridicule is simply stupid and repugnant and indicative of motivations which may be best diagnosed by a psychiatrist. It is certainly not conducive to constructive discussion. Unfortunately, mockery is much easier than appreciation. But appreciation, whether or not we agree with the assessments of those who express it, is to be respected and encouraged, not ridiculed. When the object of ridicule is a creator of the stature of Beethoven, it's only the ridiculer who appears ridiculous.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> I've never thought of "overrated"and "underrated" as categories into which composers should be placed. As categories, they'd be too subjective and ill-defined to be useful. We all rate composers differently, and even disagree with ourselves at different times. What can I say to a person who, for example, asserts that Rachmaninoff is a third- or fourth-rate composer, when I find the four piano concertos, _The Isle of The Dead, the Etudes Tableaux, The Bells,_ the _All-Night Vigil,_ the _Symphonic Dances,_ any number of the songs, et al., to be works of great inspiration, precise craft, and expressive power? Whatever I actually did say to that person, it predictably made no impression. I submit that neither he nor I knows what a third- or fourth-rate composer is. Do they make measuring devices for determining this? Can I get one at Walmart?
> 
> Really, the whole idea of "rating" composers is a game for children or retirees filling time while waiting for death. I suspect many of us here fit into both categories.


I find it more meaningful than that, however I recognize the phenomenon you describe. We should feel free to express our likes and dislikes without recourse to 'experts'. Liking something, for example the works of a composer, should be subject to one's own feelings (not that these cannot be productively trained, but they can never be imposed from outside). When one learns about music, one should not learn how to 'pigeon hole' music, but this should illuminate it and reveal its greater strengths. Too often music criticism is a form of snobbery which is then imposed, like an infection, on the imperfectly musically trained minds. In Rachmaninov's case, there are no real valid invalidating criticisms along the lines of form, harmony, melody or inspiration (no form is ever 'perfect', but in any case the form is merely the envelope, the outer casing, of ideas). But certain people, let's say including 'extreme' modernists, desperately try to invalidate the real musical merits of his works because they are antithetical to their ideas and shall we say, their dogmas. This does not inherently negate the possibility of meaningfully evaluating composers. Without pretending that there will always be a subjective element in one's preferences (whilst affirming that one can use objective, or at least quasi-objective criteria in such evaluations, which means that Beethoven has and will remain one of the barely disputed titans of music and art generally)


----------



## Eusebius12

King Stephen and the Ruins of Athens are hardly the worst works Beethoven penned. The Fantasia in G Minor is, I say without hesitation, embarrassing, and the Battle Symphony could have been written by a 4th rate composer. The sonata 'alla tedesca' ends with a really mediocre final movement (written for children). A few potboilers here or there barely make a dent in his titanic status though. There are literally dozens of works which are amongst the very greatest in virtually every medium. 'Infallibility' though is irrelevant. Beethoven was fallible, like the rest of us. This makes his music more interesting. He can take a frankly mediocre idea and turn it into a Monument. That is more remarkable than having a steady stream of incredible ideas and churning them out (like Schubert. Still, I prefer to live in a world of both Beethoven *and* Schubert)


----------



## Eusebius12

Art Rock said:


> No, I don't like anything by Handel, not just his vocal works. Beats me why, he just does not connect with me at all.
> 
> For Beethoven, every single time he writes something for voices, I'm off. Can't stand that part of his work. This is particularly for Beethoven, many of my favourite works are for vocal(s) and orchestra. In contrast to Handel, there is plenty of Beethoven I love (e.g. the string quartets, many of the piano sonatas, symphonies 3-7, piano concertos 3-5, and the violin concerto).


So the Missa Solemnis and 9th Symphony are verboten for you? How sad.


----------



## consuono

Most overrated for me would be Tchaikovsky. Most underrated (or maybe most underappreciated): either Schubert or Schumann.


----------



## Art Rock

Eusebius12 said:


> So the Missa Solemnis and 9th Symphony are verboten for you? How sad.


Yes, can't stand them. Nothing sad about that though.


----------



## Eusebius12

Art Rock said:


> Yes, can't stand them. Nothing sad about that though.


I think the problem is more you than them.


----------



## Art Rock

I have no problem with it. Maybe you should examine why you have a problem with me not liking it.


----------



## Ethereality

The problem is, in order to solve a problem first you've got to acknowledge the problem.


----------



## Xisten267

Eusebius12 said:


> So the Missa Solemnis and 9th Symphony are verboten for you? How sad.


Different people have different tastes. Why would a person _have to like_ a piece of music?


----------



## Eusebius12

Why would a person have to like classical music at all? I have friends who can't stand classical music. They are losing out, that's a fact. When one is closed to something great, I find that sad


----------



## ZeR0

I don't think any composer is overrated. Besides, I don't feel I have the authority to claim some of the greatest musical minds in history as overrated. I will give one composer who I think is under appreciated based on his overall output: Gabriel Fauré. The requiem, much of the chamber music, songs, as well as much of the solo piano works are quite dear to my heart. He is actually one of my favorite composers of his time.


----------



## larold

I may have some influence and I know Third Ear Classical Music has a lot of influence; they said this:

"If there is an underappreciated, underrated and underperformed 20th century composer it's surely Swiss-American *Ernest Bloch*. His work, often inspired by an intense religiosity springing from his Jewish roots is replete with ravishing melodies, exotic tonal landscaping, and sparkling orchestration.


----------



## Bulldog

Eusebius12 said:


> Why would a person have to like classical music at all? I have friends who can't stand classical music. They are losing out, that's a fact. When one is closed to something great, I find that sad


No, not a fact but an opinion and quite biased also.


----------



## Eusebius12

Faure is very great. Requires a refined ear.


----------



## Eusebius12

Bulldog said:


> No, not a fact but an opinion and quite biased also.


Why bother being here? Western art music is a superior art form to rap. That's not opinion only.


----------



## Eusebius12

Vincent d'Indy is given short shrift, but he combines two schools of French composition with great formal dexterity and general inventiveness. William Lawes, Froberger, FM Veracini, Sacchini, Alfonso Lobo, Richard Meale, Duparc, Martucci, Paul Creston, Kalinnikov, Glazunov, Gretchaninov, Paderewski, Szymanowski, Karlowicz, Vitols, Cuclin, Vitezslav Novak, Sweelinck, Diepenbrock, Cras, Ambroise Thomas, are all underrated in my view. And Elgar, Faure and especially Schumann are generally considered great but not given the stature they deserve.


----------



## bogeygolf

Disclaimer: Just because I feel the composers listed are "overrated" doesn't mean that I don't enjoy their music or respect them as artists.

Overrated: Richard Strauss, John Adams, Robert Schumann, Johannes Brahms, Igor Stravinsky 

Underrated: Anton Bruckner, William Walton, Gustav Holst, Silvestre Revueltas, Christopher Rouse


----------



## Tchaikov6

Eusebius12 said:


> Why bother being here? Western art music is a superior art form to rap. That's not opinion only.


that's silly. There are plenty of rap albums I enjoy more than certain 19th century sleep-inducing Romantic symphonies. Comments like these are what make other genre lovers look upon classical fans as snobs.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Over: Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Shostakovich
Under: Taneyev, Ustvolskaya, Babbitt


----------



## Xisten267

Eusebius12 said:


> Why bother being here? Western art music is a superior art form to rap. That's not opinion only.


If you drink only the finest wine all-day you may end up with a severe headache.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Tchaikov6 said:


> that's silly. There are plenty of rap albums I enjoy more than certain 19th century sleep-inducing Romantic symphonies.













Tchaikov6 said:


> Comments like these are what make other genre lovers look upon classical fans as snobs.


----------



## Eusebius12

Tchaikov6 said:


> that's silly. There are plenty of rap albums I enjoy more than certain 19th century sleep-inducing Romantic symphonies. Comments like these are what make other genre lovers look upon classical fans as snobs.


Anyone who doesn't recognize that western art music is superior in its totality to rap is simply misguided or ignorant. You might enjoy Eminem's latest assault on art (and on the public purse) but it will have little to no artistic merit, let alone the legion of hangers on and imitators.


----------



## Eusebius12

Very amusing. But this doesn't mean that popular music needs to be taken seriously, artistically speaking. But I do enjoy some rock and even pop. Not gangsta rock. Do I consider most rock and pop to have artistic validity? Hardly. Some rock and pop probably does. I could be a pretty girthy 'pianist' though


----------



## Fabulin

I did not mention it so far, but *Miklós Rózsa* was a great composer, much more original and meaningfully prolific than many minor or peripheral figures one tends to see on the lists, and considering that he is not as well known as Borodin, Franck, or even Kalinnikov or Raff, I think he is severely underrated.
Here is a list of his works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Miklós_Rózsa
And a video of him conducting an excerpt of his music:




A random overture of his is enough to make one think that the number of composers who might be its authors can be counted on one hand... if there is any doubt in the first place, considering his distinctive voice.

Just like Bernard Herrmann, he was at the top of the instrumental game, and researched ancient music-making in Italy in preparation for writing his epics, and in other projects pioneered and popularized the use of the Theremin as a symbol of mystery, for example.

I once criticized his harmony as "antiquated", but was proven wrong. For a composer of his generation, he was innovative, and managed to craft a beautiful personal language.

Considering how high ('legendary' is probably a good word here) esteem he is held in by virtually everyone I know who _has _heard about him, his absence makes me think that something is cracked in the system as far as the 20th century is concerned.

Maybe that's because of a relative lack of big name recording company + big name conductor + big name orchestra recordings of his music. As far as I can tell, MGM Orchestra & sound engineering team with Rózsa conducting is a top notch deal, but if a criterion for being known is being found on vinyls with Beethoven music next to it, I guess Rózsa drew a short stick.


----------



## ORigel

Underrated: Handel. He is viewed as the composer of just Water Music, Music for the Royal Fire Works, and Messiah by too many. His other oratorios, several of them masterpieces, and his operas are ignored.

Haydn: Recordings of his complete symphony cycle have been aborted for lack of interest. Under-represented on lists here. Not even in the top 30 classical composers according to Spotify.

Dvorak: He has a number of good works, but they are often overshadowed by the New World Symphony, American String Quartet, and Cello Concerto.

Mendelssohn: Too many dismiss him as not being able to be truly profound or emotional, a promising prodegy who flopped.

Norbert Burgmuller: died far too young

Monteverdi

Stravinsky: Neoclassical and Serial phases

Schoenberg: Vilified despite writing much tonal music

Berlioz

Schnittke


----------



## consuono

ORigel said:


> Underrated: Handel. He is viewed as the composer of just Water Music, Music for the Royal Fire Works, and Messiah by too many. His other oratorios, several of them masterpieces, and his operas are ignored.
> ...


I agree with that. Handel was *enormously* influential, and it's really not fair to compare him with Bach all the time (which is something I do too often). Handel and Bach were working under different circumstances and pressures. And also, music like this is just really lovely, I think, and it seems to me that you can hear a little of what later became the characteristic Classical-era keyboard style:




I'd also agree on Haydn.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Overrated: Chopin?


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Overrated: Chopin?


If you watch this and think he's overrated, what are you wanting from music?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Overrated: Chopin?


Answer: No.

Next question, please


----------



## Lisztian

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Overrated: Chopin?


I don't think he is, unless we are talking about on piano forums or by people who are relatively new to CM. But overall, I don't think so.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm starting to think there are no overrated composers. Just underrated ones. I used to despise Chopin and Brahms, but it is more a matter of taste than any real shortcoming.


----------



## SanAntone

Most overrated: Wagner
Most underrated: John Cage


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

SanAntone said:


> Most overrated: Wagner
> Most underrated: John Cage


Oof! You go straight for the controversy, I love it!


----------



## annaw

SanAntone said:


> Most overrated: Wagner
> Most underrated: John Cage


Interesting. Do you mind explaining your choices?

I have a feeling that all the opera composers are to some extent unterrated just because opera is not necessarily loved by even some of the most ardent classical music listeners which I think is absolutely okay. But I think it rules out the possibility that it's overrated.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> If you watch this and think he's overrated, what are you wanting from music?


Thanks, will listen.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm starting to think there are no overrated composers. Just underrated ones. I used to despise Chopin and Brahms, but it is more a matter of taste than any real shortcoming.


What is your opinion of them now?


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm starting to think there are no overrated composers. Just underrated ones. I used to despise Chopin and Brahms, but it is more a matter of taste than any real shortcoming.


"I'm starting to think there are no overrated composers."

I agree. There were overrated composers in every generation as we look back, but they have been relegated to being relative unknowns. It's curious how humans en masse can do this. And rarely are there any mis-categorizations. Impressive!


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Thanks, will listen.


You might not be ready for the harshness of the mazurkas, because critics of the time thought Chopin had gone too far.


----------



## SanAntone

annaw said:


> Interesting. Do you mind explaining your choices?
> 
> I have a feeling that all the opera composers are to some extent unterrated just because opera is not necessarily loved by even some of the most ardent classical music listeners which I think is absolutely okay. But I think it rules out the possibility that it's overrated.


I am not making a universal pronouncement; the OP stipulated "according to you" and these are my nominations.

However, I have listened to *Richard Wagne*r and enjoyed _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ (over the decades I've tried to listen to and appreciate the _Ring_) but he seems to attract some obsessive fans whom I think overstate his importance and worth. As Mark Twain (I think) said, "Wagner's music looks better than it sounds," and "there are several very fine quarter-hours in his operas."

*John Cage* I recognize as among the most important 20th century composers who is often called a charlatan and his works are often disparaged. I think he does not deserve the ridicule and see him as vastly underrated by many classical music fans who I assume simply can not, or refuse to, understand him and his work.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> What is your opinion of them now?


I still feel Chopin beats certain sonorities to death. There's too much similarity in stuff like Nocturnes in Em, Fm, Mazurkas in Am, Bm, Preludes in Em (but I feel it's great with altered chords), Gbm, especially his Waltzes in Am, Ab, Bm, C#m. The fact they're the most popular and recognizable might make him appear as a composer with limited ideas.

I feel a lot of less popular stuff he did were great like Etude Op. 25 in Ab, G#m, many of his Preludes in Op. 28. He knew how to use dissonance to great effect.

Brahms was always a stronger chamber composer to me than orchestral. With the right performance, they can put his orchestral stuff in better light, so I think his orchestral stuff is very performance dependent.


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> I still feel Chopin beats certain sonorities to death. There's too much similarity in stuff like Nocturnes in Em, Fm, Mazurkas in Am, Bm, Preludes in Em (but I feel it's great with altered chords), Gbm, especially his Waltzes in Am, Ab, Bm, C#m. The fact they're the most popular and recognizable might make him appear as a composer with limited ideas.
> 
> I feel a lot of less popular stuff he did were great like Etude Op. 25 in Ab, G#m, many of his Preludes in Op. 28. He knew how to use dissonance to great effect.
> 
> Brahms was always a stronger chamber composer to me than orchestral. With the right performance, they can put his orchestral stuff in better light, so I think his orchestral stuff is very performance dependent.


I must defend Freddie, because none of his 'sonorities' are the same. It's a favorite complaint, but it's empty. His short pieces would be easy to quickly memorize. They aren't.


----------



## annaw

SanAntone said:


> I am not making a universal pronouncement; the OP stipulated "according to you" and these are my nominations.
> 
> However, I have listened to *Richard Wagne*r and enjoyed _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ (over the decades I've tried to listen to and appreciate the _Ring_) but he seems to attract some obsessive fans whom I think overstate his importance and worth. As Mark Twain (I think) said, "Wagner's music looks better than it sounds," and "there are several very fine quarter-hours in his operas."
> 
> *John Cage* I recognize as among the most important 20th century composers who is often called a charlatan and his works are often disparaged. I think he does not deserve the ridicule and see him as vastly underrated by many classical music fans who I assume simply can not, or refuse to, understand him and his work.


I didn't mean to sound somehow aggressive at all . Thanks for elaboration!


----------



## mmsbls

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm starting to think there are no overrated composers. Just underrated ones. I used to despise Chopin and Brahms, but it is more a matter of taste than any real shortcoming.





Luchesi said:


> "I'm starting to think there are no overrated composers."
> 
> I agree. There were overrated composers in every generation as we look back, but they have been relegated to being relative unknowns. It's curious how humans en masse can do this. And rarely are there any mis-categorizations. Impressive!


I will add my agreement as well. When I first started listening to classical, I was surprised at the "rankings" I saw for some composers. I wondered why people spoke so highly of them. The more I listened, the more I have come to understand these assessments. Several composers have risen significantly in my assessment since I've had a chance to hear much more of their works or hear them more often. These include Haydn, Wagner, and Mahler.

Actually, in some sense the same is true of Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, who have pretty much always been my favorites. The more I hear and think about their music, the more I admire their ability. Perhaps one way to select truly "great" composers are those whose music continues to grow on you after many listenings.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> *John Cage* I recognize as among the most important 20th century composers who is often called a charlatan and his works are often disparaged. I think he does not deserve the ridicule and see him as vastly underrated by many classical music fans who I assume simply can not, or refuse to, understand him and his work.


Cage certainly does not deserve the ridicule, and for that alone he is vastly underrated. Anyone who has written even a couple of good works and been disparaged as Cage has is clearly underrated. In fact Cage has certainly written more than a couple of good works. I'm not really sure how important I feel he is, but I wish TC spent one thousandth as much time ridiculing 4'33" and vastly more time truly discussing his music.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I will add my agreement as well. When I first started listening to classical, I was surprised at the "rankings" I saw for some composers. I wondered why people spoke so highly of them. The more I listened, the more I have come to understand these assessments. Several composers have risen significantly in my assessment since I've had a chance to hear much more of their works or hear them more often. These include Haydn, Wagner, and Mahler.
> 
> Actually, in some sense the same is true of Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, who have pretty much always been my favorites. The more I hear and think about their music, the more I admire their ability. Perhaps one way to select truly "great" composers are those whose music continues to grow on you after many listenings.


Yes. I didn't see the bigger picture with many of them early on. It took about a decade. But I might be the slowest, how would we work out the speed of that?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> I must defend Freddie, because none of his 'sonorities' are the same. It's a favorite complaint, but it's empty. His short pieces would be easy to quickly memorize. They aren't.


He relies a lot on the minor 3rd and minor 6th. Here is an improvised melody that is an obvious pastiche of his style based around those intervals I threw together. Of course, he's still a talented composer, so he is able to embellish his stuff, which doesn't make it easy to memorize on set patterns.


----------



## consuono

mmsbls said:


> Cage certainly does not deserve the ridicule, and for that alone he is vastly underrated. Anyone who has written even a couple of good works and been disparaged as Cage has is clearly underrated. In fact Cage has certainly written more than a couple of good works. I'm not really sure how important I feel he is, but I wish TC spent one thousandth as much time ridiculing 4'33" and vastly more time truly discussing his music.


However we were just assured in another thread that 4'33" is the Greatest Work of the 20th Century, so how is it disparaging Cage if we examine it?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> However we were just assured in another thread that 4'33" is the Greatest Work of the 20th Century, so how is it disparaging Cage if we examine it?


You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I also mentioned *Duke Ellington*'s _Black, Brown and Beige_, but that part of my post was ignored. But, I will remind you, highlighting the relevant text concerning 4'33":



SanAntone said:


> No, 20th century classical music is the period I listen to the most (this can be confirmed by looking at my list of favorite composers).
> 
> *I just think that 4'33" had a huge impact on music, actually, the culture in general, of the 20th century*, and is why I suggested it. I *was also being a little facetious* since I don't place any importance on the idea of "great" works or composers. I also happen to think Ellington was just as important as the other composers mentioned, and is often not considered a serious composer.


And then later on I further qualified my post:



SanAntone said:


> 4'33" was premiered within a context. Robert Rauschenberg's White Paintings (1951) were a catalyst for Cage to present the work in 1952, although he had "written" it at least two years prior. The idea of nothingness in art was already out there. *I would agree that 4'33" could be more important as an idea, or performance art, than as musical work* - but since Cage contextualized it as a musical work, we are bound by Cage's intention in that regard.
> 
> The ideas raised by Rauschenberg's White Paintings and 4'33" were and remain impactful, otherwise we would not be debating it today.
> 
> *But Cage regretted ever doing it, precisely because of this kind of discussion. His late number pieces I think are more representative of him as a composer.*


I hope we can leave this discussion behind at this point.


----------



## Chilham

SanAntone said:


> ... I have listened to *Richard Wagne*r and enjoyed _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ (over the decades I've tried to listen to and appreciate the _Ring_) but he seems to attract some obsessive fans whom I think overstate his importance and worth. As Mark Twain (I think) said, "Wagner's music looks better than it sounds," and "there are several very fine quarter-hours in his operas.....


As I was told when I joined this site, "Wagner isn't immediately approachable for everyone. His style may take some time to get used to, or it may never quite click for some." You see, it's not Wagner's fault at all. We just can't (yet) appreciate him.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I also mentioned *Duke Ellington*'s _Black, Brown and Beige_, but that part of my post was ignored. But, I will remind you, highlighting the relevant text concerning 4'33":
> 
> And then later on I further qualified my post:
> 
> I hope we can leave this discussion behind at this point.


Did I say it was you?


----------



## En Passant

Chilham said:


> As I was told when I joined this site, "Wagner isn't immediately approachable for everyone. His style may take some time to get used to, or it may never quite click for some." You see, it's not Wagner's fault at all. We just can't (yet) appreciate him.


When I was younger I didn't think much of Wagner. Then I saw Parsifal in the flesh and wow I was hooked.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> I am not making a universal pronouncement; the OP stipulated "according to you" and these are my nominations.
> 
> However, I have listened to *Richard Wagne*r and enjoyed _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ (over the decades I've tried to listen to and appreciate the _Ring_) but he seems to attract some obsessive fans whom I think overstate his importance and worth. As Mark Twain (I think) said, "Wagner's music looks better than it sounds," and "there are several very fine quarter-hours in his operas."
> 
> *John Cage* I recognize as among the most important 20th century composers who is often called a charlatan and his works are often disparaged. I think he does not deserve the ridicule and see him as vastly underrated by many classical music fans who I assume simply can not, or refuse to, understand him and his work.


Cage as vastly underrated and Wagner as overrated...hmmm.

I'm not sure that humorists are the highest authorities on music. I dare say that the sellout houses which are the norm for performances of Wagner's operas consist of people interested in more than the Ride of the Valkyries and "here comes the bride." (BTW, it was Bill Nye, quoted by Mark Twain, who said "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." Twain himself liked Wagner and attended a Bayreuth festival). Given the complexity of his works, the persistent cultural barriers to seeing them for what they are, the difficulties involved in performing them really well, and the resultant lack of exposure among people who simply have never attended performances, one could make the case that Wagner is _underrated,_ or at least that there are significant obstacles to sensibly rating him at all.

Cage? Disregarding his key position in the development of 20th-century musical thought (which listeners may or may not care about), how much intrinsic quality is in his actual works? I don't propose to answer that, but if people persist in ignoring or disparaging him after all these years we might wonder why.

I wouldn't be too quick to criticize classical music lovers for their preferences. With virtually all the world's music now available in recorded form, music has every chance of finding its appropriate level of appreciation.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Cage as vastly underrated and Wagner as overrated...hmmm.
> 
> I'm not sure that humorists are the highest authorities on music. I dare say that the sellout houses which are the norm for performances of Wagner's operas consist of people interested in more than the Ride of the Valkyries and "here comes the bride." (BTW, it was Bill Nye, quoted by Mark Twain, who said "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." Twain himself liked Wagner and attended a Bayreuth festival). Given the complexity of his works, the persistent cultural barriers to seeing them for what they are, the difficulties involved in performing them really well, and the resultant lack of exposure among people who simply have never attended performances, one could make the case that Wagner is _underrated,_ or at least that there are significant obstacles to sensibly rating him at all.
> 
> Cage? Disregarding his key position in the development of 20th-century musical thought (which listeners may or may not care about), how much intrinsic quality is in his actual works? I don't propose to answer that, but if people persist in ignoring or disparaging him after all these years we might wonder why.
> 
> I wouldn't be too quick to criticize classical music lovers for their preferences. With virtually all the world's music now available in recorded form, music has every chance of finding its appropriate level of appreciation.


I was thinking about a similar thing earlier today. I actually feel almost all great composers are in the sense underrated that we can never fully comprehend nor understand the genius, context and the deeper essence of their work. Theoretical knowledge about the work seems to be often in correlation with my appreciation of it. I certainly feel that way about Wagner.

Even listening skills as such affect this and the impossibility of grasping all the small details, their connections with each other, and their role in the larger structure of the work or in a smaller subsection, such as a movement or an act, almost guarantees that I'm going to underrate the composer, at least on musical basis, just because my appreciation is limited to my understanding of the work which is probably never going to be equal to that of the composer. Of course I assume that I cannot, or at least I don't, appreciate something I don't notice or understand. Personally, I see this proved by the mere fact that with subsequent listens, I discover new things in the work even if I consider myself to be well familiar with it.

That would mean that no matter how much I praise Wagner's musical genius, I'm still underrating him as a composer, because I actually cannot comprehend _how_ great his skills really were - I'm still underrating some aspects of his work.

I think it should be differentiated whether we talk about under/overrating a composer when we compare our appreciation of that one composer to that of other composers, or whether we compare our own appreciation of the work to the appreciation the work deserves if its essence was fully grasped by the listener. (Hope this makes any sense...)


----------



## Woodduck

^^^A mite convoluted (especially that last sentence ), but, yeah, it makes sense - and, furthermore, I agree! The more time we spend with our minds and hearts engaged with great music, the more we realize how much we've failed to appreciate it as it deserves. Humans underrate things routinely, simply because it takes time and effort to appreciate them fully.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> ^^^*A mite convoluted (especially that last sentence )*, but, yeah, it makes sense - and, furthermore, I agree! The more time we spend with our minds and hearts engaged with great music, the more we realize how much we've failed to appreciate it as it deserves. Humans underrate things routinely, simply because it takes time and effort to appreciate them fully.


Maybe it's high time that I read something written in plain style .


----------



## Bkeske

My ‘over rated’ is fairly easy for me, but it is purely subjective; Bruckner. For whatever reason, I’ve just not been able to be captivated by his work. 

‘Under rated’ is tough. I would say there are a few by ‘popular’ standard, but the ones who come to mind seem well liked here per the currently listening thread. I would have to think on that one further....


----------



## Chilham

En Passant said:


> When I was younger I didn't think much of Wagner. Then I saw Parsifal in the flesh and wow I was hooked.


I'll put a date inb my diary for when I'm "older".


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> He relies a lot on the minor 3rd and minor 6th. Here is an improvised melody that is an obvious pastiche of his style based around those intervals I threw together. Of course, he's still a talented composer, so he is able to embellish his stuff, which doesn't make it easy to memorize on set patterns.


Yes - minor 6ths offer a sense of melancholy and perhaps mystery. That was his life, that was his inspiration I guess, beyond Bach and Mozart after following their logical tradition. Minor 3rds, well. they're over-used you think?

We wouldn't want just fifths and fourths. We can sit at the piano and 'sound' like Chopin, but to release a lot of works perfect enough to endure the test of time, that's much more. We agree he was talented. The conditions of his upbringing (and early intense relationships in the family and near his family) were very very helpful.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> Cage as vastly underrated and Wagner as overrated...hmmm.
> 
> I'm not sure that humorists are the highest authorities on music. I dare say that the sellout houses which are the norm for performances of Wagner's operas consist of people interested in more than the Ride of the Valkyries and "here comes the bride." (BTW, it was Bill Nye, quoted by Mark Twain, who said "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." Twain himself liked Wagner and attended a Bayreuth festival). Given the complexity of his works, the persistent cultural barriers to seeing them for what they are, the difficulties involved in performing them really well, and the resultant lack of exposure among people who simply have never attended performances, one could make the case that Wagner is _underrated,_ or at least that there are significant obstacles to sensibly rating him at all.
> 
> Cage? Disregarding his key position in the development of 20th-century musical thought (which listeners may or may not care about), how much intrinsic quality is in his actual works? I don't propose to answer that, *but if people persist in ignoring or disparaging him after all these years we might wonder why.*
> 
> I wouldn't be too quick to criticize classical music lovers for their preferences. With virtually all the world's music now available in recorded form, music has every chance of finding its appropriate level of appreciation.


I do not get the sense that it is a majority of people who attack Cage and his methods, maybe they are louder than average. Schoenberg receives his share of opprobrium as well. My sense is that many more people find value in a number of Cage's works, and 4'33" receives much more attention than it deserves. But I accept that those people who do not find anything in Cage to admire won't change their minds, and I do not wish to try to get them to reconsider. I am not going to change my opinion regarding Wagner despite your rational arguments.

Cage's number works can be very nice, depending on the musicians. Since his works rely a lot on choices by the performers, he is one composer whose repeated recordings may not sound anything alike.

My post was not an attempt to state some kind of objective assessment of either composer. Strictly my own personal opinion.


----------



## mmsbls

consuono said:


> However we were just assured in another thread that 4'33" is the Greatest Work of the 20th Century, so how is it disparaging Cage if we examine it?


Well, I have stated on TC that I do not view 4'33" as music although I'm happy to discuss it on a music forum because I know many others do believe it's music. However, I don't view examining 4'33" as disparaging Cage. Disparaging Cage is calling him a charlatan and dismissing all his music as garbage.


----------



## annaw

SanAntone said:


> I do not get the sense that it is a majority of people who attack Cage and his methods, maybe they are louder than average. Schoenberg receives his share of opprobrium as well. My sense is that many more people find value in a number of Cage's works, and 4'33" receives much more attention than it deserves. But I accept that those people who do not find anything in Cage to admire won't change their minds, and I do not wish to try to get them to reconsider. I am not going to change my opinion regarding Wagner despite your rational arguments.
> 
> Cage's number works can be very nice, depending on the musicians. Since his works rely a lot on choices by the performers, he is one composer whose repeated recordings may not sound anything alike.
> 
> My post was not an attempt to state some kind of objective assessment of either composer. Strictly my own personal opinion.


I feel Cage's relevance and influence comes also from his ideas because some works, as you say, can be very performance-dependent and thus not say so much about him as a composer as would some more traditional forms of compositions. Take 4'33" for example - can we talk about Cage's musical genius as a composer? Not really. But we can talk about his genius as an artist and, to some extent, an ideologist.

Schoenberg is a different case, I think. Usually the criticism isn't aimed at Schoenberg but the whole Second Viennese School and atonal music in general. Schoenberg is just the most famous example of a composer dedicated to writing atonal music. Thus the criticism _might_ not have so much to do with the way Schoenberg composed atonal music but with the fact that he composed atonal music in the first place.


----------



## Luchesi

HERE'S a rare set of variations on the famous piece.


----------



## hammeredklavier

In visual arts and literature, *classical* stuff and *contemporary* stuff are categorized separately. So why don't people do the same with music? The genre of music that people consider "classical music" already spans more than 500 years of periods of music. It seems to become like an excessively huge load of unorganized mess to me. I think it's necessary now to develop a more efficient system of categorization, by leaving out some stuff that's least likely to belong in the group.

I still think that avant-garde music works with a different philosophy from classical music. I'm not necessarily saying it's worse than classical. I do think avant-garde music also has its purpose and uses. It's just that it's different from classical music as compositional jazz is, for example.
Again, it's worth noting that John Cage himself *disowned* the classical music practice and tradition, and considered traffic noise closer to his ideal: _"If you listen to Beethoven or to Mozart, you see they are always the same but if you listen to traffic, you'll see it's always different."_
What's the basis to claim film and new-age composers (such as Ennio Morricone) can't be classified as "classical music" whereas avant-gardists can be? 
In terms of moods explored, I consider Stockhausen's Gesang der junglinge a similar expression as this soundtrack from this documentary:

*[ 18:00 ]*
*[ 18:30 ]*


----------



## consuono

> I still think that avant-garde music works with a different philosophy from classical music. I'm not necessarily saying it's worse than classical. I do think avant-garde music also has its purpose and uses. It's just that it's different from classical music as compositional jazz is, for example.


One problem with that is that a lot of the established "classics" today were considered avant-garde in their time. A lot of Stravinsky, Bartók, even Wagner and Richard Strauss.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I don't hate avant-garde music. I just find that there's too much needless, never-ending bickering and quarreling between avant-garde music enthusiasts and mainstream classical music enthusiasts. Some things are like oil and water and just can't mix. They should part their ways, have different forums and communities. That way, they'll stop wasting energy in pointless arguments that never arrive at agreement. 
Look at other genres like rock, do they have this sort of issues? 
It's only the classical music fandom that suffers like this.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't hate avant-garde music. I just find that there's too much needless, never-ending bickering and quarreling between avant-garde music enthusiasts and mainstream classical music enthusiasts. Some things are like oil and water and just can't mix. They should part their ways, have different forums and communities. That way, they'll stop wasting energy in pointless arguments that never arrive at agreement.
> Look at other genres like rock, do they have this sort of issues?
> It's only the classical music fandom that suffers like this.


Honestly I think the creative wells are running dry in almost all genres, at least as far as Western music is concerned.

Rock is pretty much dead, btw.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> One problem with that is that a lot of the established "classics" today were considered avant-garde in their time. A lot of Stravinsky, Bartók, even Wagner and Richard Strauss.


There is a difference, Bartok for example considered Beethoven his ideal. Whereas Boulez and Cage were only interested in rejecting the established tradition and distorting the classical music structure.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> In visual arts and literature, *classical* stuff and *contemporary* stuff are categorized separately. So why don't people do the same with music? The genre of music that people consider "classical music" already spans more than 500 years of periods of music. It seems to become like an excessively huge load of unorganized mess to me. I think it's necessary now to develop a more efficient system of categorization, by leaving out some stuff that's least likely to belong in the group.
> 
> I still think that avant-garde music works with a different philosophy from classical music. I'm not necessarily saying it's worse than classical. I do think avant-garde music also has its purpose and uses. It's just that it's different from classical music as compositional jazz is, for example.
> Again, it's worth noting that John Cage himself *disowned* the classical music practice and tradition, and considered traffic noise closer to his ideal: _"If you listen to Beethoven or to Mozart, you see they are always the same but if you listen to traffic, you'll see it's always different."_
> What's the basis to claim film and new-age composers (such as Ennio Morricone) can't be classified as "classical music" whereas avant-gardists can be?
> In terms of moods explored, I consider Stockhausen's Gesang der junglinge a similar expression as this soundtrack from this documentary:
> 
> *[ 18:00 ]*
> *[ 18:30 ]*


That lecturer is annoying. He spouts one wrong opinion after another and then he concludes he's figured it out! Isn't there anyone in the audience who can help him out? Do they pay money just to be mislead? Just look at the recent studies. Van Allen himself had already corrected these manipulators.


----------



## Bkeske

hammeredklavier said:


> There is a difference, Bartok for example considered Beethoven his ideal. Whereas Boulez and Cage were only interested in rejecting the established tradition and distorting the classical music structure.


Not sure you can say 'only interested' when it comes to Boulez as a conductor.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Overrated: Chopin?


The reason I asked this question is not because I don't like Chopin's music (although I don't love it), is because in some polls and lists of the greatest composers I have seen Chopin ranked in the top ten. I was surprised because (as far as I know) he only wrote piano music (being a pianist) and I thought you would have to do more than that to be in the top ten composers of all time.

Thoughts?


----------



## Bulldog

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> The reason I asked this question is not because I don't like Chopin's music (although I don't love it), is because in some polls and lists of the greatest composers I have seen Chopin ranked in the top ten. I was surprised because (as far as I know) he only wrote piano music (being a pianist) and I thought you would have to do more than that to be in the top ten composers of all time.
> 
> Thoughts?


Some folks think less of Chopin because he offers nothing without piano. However, look how high in rank he is with his piano works. Mazurkas? Head of the class. Same with nocturnes, scherzos, ballads, etc. Given that I don't put much weight on genre diversity, I have no problem with seeing him in a top ten list.


----------



## Piers Hudson

My problem with this subject matter is not so much that some famous composers might be 'overrated', it's that too many other composers are under-recognised (or even go totally unrecognised).

For instance, I have no qualms about Arvo Pärt being as famous as he is, but what I do mind is the fact that there are other amazing Estonian composers whose deserve a similar level of recognition to Pärt, and yet they are totally obscure (at least by comparison!)

One such composer I encountered was Tõnu Kõrvits, whose music I heard at the Presteigne festival in 2018. He combines a transparant tonal style with medieval modalism and a strong Estonian folk music influence (most notably the melodic writing). Have a listen to his Kreegi Vihik (Kreek's Notebook) for instance (the piece I heard at the festival):






In my opinion, there's an emotional power to it (especially the beginning).

Another Estonian composer I think deserves more attention is Helena Tulve; she has a more 'contemporary' sound, but her instrumental writing is truly masterful, and the music in total is very impassioned. Listen to her 'Und von liehte vinste', for example; the bassoon writing is on another dimension:


__
https://soundcloud.com/helena_tulve%2Fund-von-liehte-vinster

While we're at it, check out the Lithuanian composer Juste Janulyte:


__
https://soundcloud.com/

She write's what she describes as 'monochrome' music, using homogenous instrumental textures to create an uncanny, meditative effect. I often find 'meditative' music to be difficult to get into (by virtue of its stasis), but Janulyte's music is so richly textured and sophisticated that I found myself readily immersed in her sound-world.

I could go on and on, but I think this touches upon an immense problem that today's classical composers face: the disproportion between their compositional mastery and their level of recognition and promotion.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Piers Hudson said:


> My problem with this subject matter is not so much that some famous composers might be 'overrated', it's that too many other composers are under-recognised (or even go totally unrecognised).
> 
> For instance, I have no qualms about Arvo Pärt being as famous as he is, but what I do mind is the fact that there are other amazing Estonian composers whose deserve a similar level of recognition to Pärt, and yet they are totally obscure (at least by comparison!)
> ....
> I could go on and on, but I think this touches upon an immense problem that today's classical composers face: the disproportion between their compositional mastery and their level of recognition and promotion.


My thoughts exactly. It seems that there are almost no "overrated" composers. There are composers that are "overrated" in comparison to other composers, but in that case it is more accurate to say that the other composers are underrated.

There are composers that deserve their rating but receive it for the wrong reasons. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are the best examples here. Many think Mozart was simply "the best" at doing whatever classical musicians do. His music is often called "perfect" as if the speaker has some way of proving that Mozart's logic was superior to Brahms', Beethoven's etc; in other words, that he _made less mistakes_. This is of course the wrong way of looking at music, and Mozart should be known for his drama, his color, his emotion- in short, his _substance_, which alone vaults him into the top 5, over his technical ability.

Then there are those who are underrated proper. Chopin, I think. Rachmaninoff? Brahms? The outward attractiveness (or in Brahms' case, unattractiveness) of their tunes blind many to the structural command underneath. Mahler? Yes, Mahler is severely underrated. Late Mahler comes from heights which very few composers have reached. Middle Mahler is arguably the culmination of the classical tradition as a whole, and Early Mahler, at the very least, is always a profound emotional and philosophical experience. He suffers in rankings from those who don't understand (and, if pressed, will admit their uncomprehension) and yet still believe their evaluation to be more than worthless.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Then there are those who are underrated proper. Chopin, I think. Rachmaninoff? Brahms? The outward attractiveness (or in Brahms' case, unattractiveness) of their tunes blind many to the structural command underneath. Mahler? Yes, Mahler is severely underrated. Late Mahler comes from heights which very few composers have reached. Middle Mahler is arguably the culmination of the classical tradition as a whole, and Early Mahler, at the very least, is always a profound emotional and philosophical experience. He suffers in rankings from those who don't understand (and, if pressed, will admit their uncomprehension) and yet still believe their evaluation to be more than worthless.


Man, Mahler was underrated as some point, but he has become the ideal compositor for a whole part of the classical listeners of the 21th century, because his music perfectly fits their desire for bloated, kitsch, nevroted and intellectually pretencious orchestral music and their longing for apparent profondness and a long dead fantasmagoric Vienna, without the apparent simplicity and asceticism of actual classical music but with all the neurosis of the modern world.
The stuff you just wrote is common opinion these days among classical music amateurs (at least in Europe).
Mahler's music is overrated today, if anything.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Kilgore Trout said:


> Man, Mahler was underrated as some point, but he has become the ideal compositor for a whole part of the classical listeners of the 21th century, because his music perfectly fits their desire for bloated, kitsch, nevroted and intellectually pretencious orchestral music and their longing for apparent profondness and a long dead fantasmagoric Vienna, without the apparent simplicity and asceticism of actual classical music but with all the neurosis of the modern world.
> I like Mahler's music, but it's overrated if anything.


I have two questions: How much have you read on Mahler? And what is your view and familiarity with Bruckner?


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Isaac Blackburn said:


> I have two questions: How much have you read on Mahler?


More than you.



Isaac Blackburn said:


> And what is your view and familiarity with Bruckner?


I had dinner with him last week. A fun guy.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Kilgore Trout said:


> More than you.
> 
> I had dinner with him last week. A fun guy.


My final suggestion would be to listen to an early- or mid- period symphony, but imagine to yourself that Bruckner wrote it. It is a trick of the mind that might help you escape the preconception of Mahler as "neurotic" or "pseudo-profound".


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Isaac Blackburn said:


> My final suggestion would be to listen to an early- or mid- period symphony, but imagine to yourself that Bruckner wrote it. It is a trick of the mind that might help you escape the preconception of Mahler as "neurotic" or "pseudo-profound".


I've heard more Mahler symphonies in concert than you will hear in your lifetime, and I know the scores, so no, I am not going to do that.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Kilgore Trout said:


> I've heard more Mahler symphonies in concert than you will hear in your lifetime...


That's not true.



Kilgore Trout said:


> And I know the scores


If you've memorized the scores, that's quite impressive (I can only do it with Brahms at the moment), but it evidently hasn't translated into a deeper understanding of his art.


----------



## JAS

Piers Hudson said:


> . . . One such composer I encountered was Tõnu Kõrvits, whose music I heard at the Presteigne festival in 2018. He combines a transparant tonal style with medieval modalism and a strong Estonian folk music influence (most notably the melodic writing). Have a listen to his Kreegi Vihik (Kreek's Notebook) for instance (the piece I heard at the festival):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, there's an emotional power to it (especially the beginning). . . .


I have never heard of this composer, but am currently listening to the link. Potentially interesting.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Isaac Blackburn said:


> If you've memorized the scores, that's quite impressive (I can only do it with Brahms at the moment), but it evidently hasn't translated into a deeper understanding of his art.


For the record, I was talking about, not Mahler's music, but how it fits the desires of modern audiences. It's your understanding of Mahler's music, with all its bull$hit about "philosophical experience", that is superficial.

Again, the stuff you just wrote is common opinion these days among classical music amateurs (at least in Europe). It's nothing original, profound or insightful.


----------



## Bulldog

Kilgore Trout said:


> I've heard more Mahler symphonies in concert than you will hear in your lifetime, and I know the scores, so no, I am not going to do that.


Given that you're rather put off by Mahler's music, it sounds like you have wasted a lot of money on Mahler concerts.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Kilgore Trout said:


> For the record, I was talking about, not Mahler's music, but how it fits the desires of modern audiences. It's your understanding of Mahler's music, with all its bull$hit about "philosophical experience", that is superficial.
> 
> Again, the stuff you just wrote is common opinion these days among classical music amateurs (at least in Europe). It's nothing original, profound or insightful.


Of course many do have a superficial understanding of Mahler as a guy with "big emotions and big issues". This is a simplification. That does not mean it is wrong. As to "philosophical experience" in particular, Mahler himself knew that the power of the music only comes through if you accept the symbolic correspondence between his motifs, structure, etc, and the truth it purports to deal with, in other words, if you accept that he was a true artist capable of shaping and giving body to the forces that abound in the real world.
To listen to Beethoven and Wagner in this way but to deny Mahler the same is a failing on the listeners' part, not on the composer's.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Of course many do have a superficial understanding of Mahler as a guy with "big emotions and big issues". This is a simplification. That does not mean it is wrong. As to "philosophical experience" in particular, Mahler himself knew that the power of the music only comes through if you accept the symbolic correspondence between his motifs, structure, etc, and the truth it purports to deal with, in other words, if you accept that he was a true artist capable of shaping and giving body to the forces that abound in the real world.
> To listen to Beethoven and Wagner in this way but to deny Mahler the same is a failing on the listeners' part, not on the composer's.


:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Bulldog said:


> Given that you're rather put off by Mahler's music, it sounds like you have wasted a lot of money on Mahler concerts.


I was young and naive, and liked Mahler's music much more than I do today. And I liked it while being aware of its shortcomings. 
And I didn't pay for most of the concerts, which made things easier. :devil:


----------



## Xisten267

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Then there are those who are underrated proper. Chopin, I think. Rachmaninoff? Brahms? The outward attractiveness (or in Brahms' case, unattractiveness) of their tunes blind many to the structural command underneath. *Mahler? Yes, Mahler is severely underrated.* Late Mahler comes from heights which very few composers have reached. Middle Mahler is arguably the culmination of the classical tradition as a whole, and Early Mahler, at the very least, is always a profound emotional and philosophical experience. He suffers in rankings from those who don't understand (and, if pressed, will admit their uncomprehension) and yet still believe their evaluation to be more than worthless.


I disagree that Mahler is underrated. Last year there was a thread asking for the favorite composers of the members here on TC and Mahler got the #4 position the in final list with the average score for each composer, just behind Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Allerius said:


> I disagree that Mahler is underrated. Last year there was a thread asking for the favorite composers of the members here on TC and Mahler got the #4 position the in final list with the average score for each composer, just behind Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


That's interesting to hear. Personally I still think that is only a fair assessment. I could make a case for 2nd or 3rd even though comparison becomes nearly meaningless at such heights. But you'd also grant that most rankings, lists, consensus, etc, outside TC put Mahler at a much lower position. It's really a case of "do you _accept _his music, his symbols as valid, his emotions as genuine- or not?" If you don't than absurdities such as Mahler below Elgar or Schumann make more sense.


----------



## chu42

Isaac Blackburn said:


> That's interesting to hear. Personally I still think that is only a fair assessment. I could make a case for 2nd or 3rd even though comparison becomes nearly meaningless at such heights. But you'd also grant that most rankings, lists, consensus, etc, outside TC put Mahler at a much lower position. It's really a case of "do you _accept _his music, his symbols as valid, his emotions as genuine- or not?" If you don't than absurdities such as Mahler below Elgar or Schumann make more sense.


2nd or 3rd is ridiculous. Are Mahler's symphonies so much superior to those of Beethoven that they can make up for his lack of contribution in chamber music, solo music, concertante works, etc.? It's not an issue



> If you don't than absurdities such as Mahler below Elgar or Schumann make more sense.


How is Mahler being below Schumann, one of the most important composers for piano and chamber music, an absurdity? Surely you aren't judging composers by symphonies alone?

An opera lover would certainly rank Wagner or Mozart over Mahler. A pianist would rank Schumann, Chopin, and even Rachmaninov over Mahler. A lieder singer would rank Schubert and Schumann over Mahler. A chamber musician would rank Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, or possibly Mendelssohn over Mahler. None of these are any more absurd than ranking Mahler over all of the above. There are others to consider like Debussy and Ravel and Prokofiev and Shostakovich who did great things in many many genres of music.

In my personal experience, having been through many walks of musicianship as a chamber musician, solo pianist, and orchestra violinist in semi-professional levels, I would rank Mahler in the very next tier after Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, next to greats like Brahms and Schubert and Stravinsky and Wagner. I don't believe he is underrated at all, as all of his symphonies are highly regarded and widely performed, which cannot be said for other strong symphonists like Dvorak or Tchaikovsky.

A reason why lists outside of TC may put Mahler in lower positions is due to his limited oeuvre and the impossibility of casual enjoyment. Personally, it took me years to get into Mahler, and even then I could not fully appreciate his music until I actually sat down and played his music with an orchestra.


----------



## chu42

Chopin is an interesting case. He tends to be overrated by pianists and underrated by non-pianists. 

As far as popularity, Chopin is possibly overexposed and overperformed in comparison to other great piano-composers like Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms. Young people especially flock to Chopin—on Spotify, where the below-30 demographic make up nearly 60% of usership, Chopin has 5,000,000 monthly listeners, in comparison to:

Beethoven: 6,000,000

Mozart: 5,600,000

Einaudi: 4,080,000

Brahms: 2,600,000

Schumann: 1,600,000

Pachelbel (no surprise there): 1,380,000

Wagner: 1,000,000

Mahler: 840,000

Stravinsky: 700,000

Interesting statistics? Never mind that Spotify is conceptually a poor platform for classical music, these are some pretty solid numbers for the most part.

Anyways, these are the composers I consider underrated: Schumann, Nielsen, Scriabin and Szymanowski, Ives, Janacek, Barber.


----------



## eric1

Overrated:
Vivaldi 
Chopin 
Schumann
Debussy 

Underrated:
Monteverdi 
Haydn
Mendelssohn 

Tchaikovsky is an interesting example as I think he is both overrated and underrated: overrated by the general public, underrated by the musical community.


----------



## Ethereality

chu42 said:


> Personally, it took me years to get into Mahler, and even then I could not fully appreciate his music until I actually sat down and played his music with an orchestra.


Personally, how does one simply not get into Mahler?


----------



## Bulldog

eric1 said:


> Underrated:
> Monteverdi
> Haydn
> Mendelssohn


For me, Mendelssohn is way overrated. Aside from his chamber works, his music has nothing to offer.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

chu42 said:


> Chopin is an interesting case. He tends to be overrated by pianists and underrated by non-pianists.
> 
> As far as popularity, Chopin is possibly overexposed and overperformed in comparison to other great piano-composers like Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms. Young people especially flock to Chopin-on Spotify, where the below-30 demographic make up nearly 60% of usership, Chopin has 5,000,000 monthly listeners, in comparison to:
> 
> Beethoven: 6,000,000
> 
> Mozart: 5,600,000
> 
> Einaudi: 4,080,000
> 
> Brahms: 2,600,000
> 
> Schumann: 1,600,000
> 
> Pachelbel (no surprise there): 1,380,000
> 
> Wagner: 1,000,000
> 
> Mahler: 840,000
> 
> Stravinsky: 700,000
> 
> Interesting statistics? Never mind that Spotify is conceptually a poor platform for classical music, these are some pretty solid numbers for the most part.
> 
> Anyways, these are the composers I consider underrated: Schumann, Nielsen, Scriabin and Szymanowski, Ives, Janacek, Barber.


These are interesting numbers; I'd bet if it were possible to look more closely at them we'd find that Chopin is being appreciated as 'relaxation' or background music, thus accounting for his coming in 'show' in this horse race.


----------



## chu42

eric1 said:


> Overrated:
> Vivaldi
> Chopin
> Schumann
> Debussy
> 
> Underrated:
> Monteverdi
> Haydn
> Mendelssohn
> 
> Tchaikovsky is an interesting example as I think he is both overrated and underrated: overrated by the general public, underrated by the musical community.


Explain to me how Debussy and Schumann are overrated


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> These are interesting numbers; I'd bet if it were possible to look more closely at them we'd find that Chopin is being appreciated as 'relaxation' or background music, thus accounting for his coming in 'show' in this horse race.


I would not say Chopin is overrated, but there's something about his fandom that doesn't seem "normal" to me. Larkenfield and Eva Yojimbo used to make claims about Chopin that I found rather extreme. Outside of TC, Chopin enthusiasts can be rather "vocal" (If you play classical piano for a hobby, he's pretty much the first composer you encounter, so that may be the reason). TwoSetViolin once did a "composer tier list" video on youtube, wherein they ranked major classical music composers in tiers A, B, C, D.. The TSV ranked Chopin at C, and the comment section was completely full of angry comments; _"how can you put Chopin at C?"_. TSV eventually had to delete the video. And this is not even the worst experience I had with Chopin enthusiasts. Some I've seen make Larkenfield look reasonable in comparison.
View attachment 130822


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> 2nd or 3rd is ridiculous. Are Mahler's symphonies so much superior to those of Beethoven that they can make up for his lack of contribution in chamber music, solo music, concertante works, etc.? It's not an issue.


I don't know. I think we can only say that in their greatest works Beethoven achieved perfectly what he was trying to achieve, and Mahler achieved perfectly what _he_ was trying to achieve. In motivic drive, or in the order and placement of movements, for example, Mahler's conception was a deeper one, but he stood on the shoulders of Beethoven, Wagner, and Bruckner to get there...just as Newton had a deeper understanding of the universe than Kepler, but- "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".



chu42 said:


> How is Mahler being below Schumann, one of the most important composers for piano and chamber music, an absurdity? Surely you aren't judging composers by symphonies alone?


Such a ranking is an absurdity because in no domain of music- counterpoint, tonal structure, harmony, aesthetic unity, philosophical and emotional depth, orchestration, formal structure- did that early romantic genius equal Mahler. 
At best, importance is a measure, of a measure, of "quality".



chu42 said:


> An opera lover would certainly rank Wagner or Mozart over Mahler. A pianist would rank Schumann, Chopin, and even Rachmaninov over Mahler. A lieder singer would rank Schubert and Schumann over Mahler. A chamber musician would rank Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, or possibly Mendelssohn over Mahler. None of these are any more absurd than ranking Mahler over all of the above. There are others to consider like Debussy and Ravel and Prokofiev and Shostakovich who did great things in many many genres of music.


In those specific domains, they would be correct. That does not mean their ranking retains its validity for the weighted sum of all domains.



chu42 said:


> In my personal experience, having been through many walks of musicianship as a chamber musician, solo pianist, and orchestra violinist in semi-professional levels, I would rank Mahler in the very next tier after Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, next to greats like Brahms and Schubert and Stravinsky and Wagner. I don't believe he is underrated at all, as all of his symphonies are highly regarded and widely performed, which cannot be said for other strong symphonists like Dvorak or Tchaikovsky.


The idea of a tier below the "big three", consisting of Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, (possibly Bruckner, Schubert) is certainly a fair one.
Tchaikovsky's symphonies are incredible, but few would put _any_ Tchaikovsky symphony, including the Sixth, above Beethoven's Ninth, and, IMO, almost _all _of Mahler's output surpasses the Ninth. I love Tchaikovsky's music; he had a tremendous gift for melody, orchestration, and harmony, and a too-often-overlooked sense of form and structural balance. But here he does not compare. 
Dvorak is...another step below. His symphonies have something magical to them; attractive, inspired, and rhetorically satisfying, but where is the _weight_, the _purity?_


----------



## Fabulin

Is this the unpopular opinion thread?


----------



## Xisten267

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Tchaikovsky's symphonies are incredible, but few would put _any_ Tchaikovsky symphony, including the Sixth, *above Beethoven's Ninth, and, IMO, almost all of Mahler's output surpasses the Ninth*. I love Tchaikovsky's music; he had a tremendous gift for melody, orchestration, and harmony, and a too-often-overlooked sense of form and structural balance. But here he does not compare.


It's my opinion that _no symphony_ surpasses Beethoven's Ninth, even if I agree that Mahler is a great symphonist and has created works that are milestones in the genre (the culmination of his music in my current opinion occurs in _Das Lied von Der Erde_ and in his own Ninth symphony). And even if I enjoy Mahler, I fail to consider his music _that_ good as you and some others in this forum do, my main problems with him being that I do not connect emotionally with his music (in my perspective he is much more a cerebral than an emotional composer) and that I think he sometimes stretches too much his structures.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> Cage? Disregarding his key position in the development of 20th-century musical thought (which listeners may or may not care about), how much intrinsic quality is in his actual works?


Quite a bit. Just focusing on his last period of Number Pieces, they are exceptional, IMO.



> I don't propose to answer that, but if people persist in ignoring or disparaging him after all these years we might wonder why.


No wondering why for me, it boils down to reducing him to the composer of 4'33". But Cage has a large following/audience. It just doesn't happen to be mostly from among the traditional classical music audience.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Allerius said:


> It's my opinion that _no symphony_ surpasses Beethoven's Ninth, even if I agree that Mahler is a great symphonist and has created works that are milestones in the genre (the culmination of his music in my current opinion occurs in _Das Lied von Der Erde_ and in his own Ninth symphony).


Very fair, although I have to ask how much you are weighing historical influence and perception into that ranking of B's Ninth. Also, at least from my listens of the 10th, it seems that it builds upon and even exceeds the Ninth and Das Lied, but unfortunately the Cooke orchestration is enough to shut the whole idea down for some people. I'm curious as to your view on that matter.



Allerius said:


> And even if I enjoy Mahler, I fail to consider his music _that_ good as you and some others in this forum do, my main problems with him being that I do not connect emotionally with his music (in my perspective he is much more a cerebral than an emotional composer) and that I think he sometimes stretches too much his structures.


Again very fair, although surely you'd recognize that your emotional disconnect cannot function as an indictment on the music's intrinsic emotional power, only, maybe, its ease of access. (I think the perception of the bloated structure is a side-effect of this disconnect.)
I agree with you in that the cerebral element has been neglected in the conventional view; for me that searching intellect is the main reason Gustav gets into the top 3 alongside Bach and Beethoven.


----------



## chu42

> Such a ranking is an absurdity because in no domain of music- counterpoint, tonal structure, harmony, aesthetic unity, philosophical and emotional depth, orchestration, formal structure- did that early romantic genius equal Mahler.


That's some far reaching claims you're making there!

I'm going to go through these one by one:

*Counterpoint:* Schumann's piano and chamber music show mastery of counterpoint equal or greater to any composer.

Case in point: Symphonic Etudes, Kreisleriana No.3, Carnaval, Humoreske No.2, and many others. Schumann certainly utilized more explicitly contrapuntal passages than any Romantic composer-canonic motion and fugues were his bread and butter.

Mahler lived in the era where you went big or you went home. Reger and Busoni wrote orchestral parts so thick and dark you could scarcely absorb all of it, Strauss and Sibelius were amping up textural diversity-Mahler's use of counterpoint was not unique.

But at a time where composers like Czerny, Thalberg, Liszt, and even Chopin were writing superficial variation works to show off their technical chops, Schumann writes an Op.13 where the first variation is a quasi-fugue so harmonically rich that you could score it for orchestra and still feel like every instrumental part is rich and important.

*Tonal structure:* Quite the vague idea but the two composers are so different in this regard that it's impossible to compare them. Does Schoenberg have superior tonal structure to Palestrina? Who can tell?

*Harmony:*Schumann's best harmonic work was at the keyboard and in chamber settings-such as the 
Symphonic Etudes, Faschingsswank aus Wien, Waldszenen, and the Piano Quintet. There is no way to cross-judge when both of them were the best at what they did, only in different mediums.

*Aesthetic unity:* Okay, almost nobody beats Mahler in aesthetic unity, other than maybe Wagner and Sibelius. Mahler only had nine major works after all.

The question is, how important is aesthetic unity?

*Philosophical and emotional depth:*This is a tricky one because both Mahler and Schumann are considered to be the most philosophically and emotionally affected of all the composers. Mahler of course wrote in enormous abstract themes and religious ideas into all his works, and Schumann's entire life autobiography can be found in his piano music.

Tchaikovsky wrote in a newspaper review that the second half of the 19th century would go down into music history as the "Schumannesque period", and how Schumann's music reflected "the mysteriously deep processes of our spiritual life" and of "the moments of doubt and despair" which beset man in his "striving for the ideal". Furthermore, Schumann's integration of fiction and philosophical literature into his music surpasses that of any other Romantic composer.

Certainly many pianists have professed that they feel more pathos from Schumann than any other composer-among them Horowitz, Argerich, Richter, Moiseiwitsch, Schiff, and many others.

So to say there is a great disparity between the philosophical/emotional inclinations of Mahler and Schumann is to misjudge one or the other.

*Orchestration:* It goes without saying that Mahler was a superior orchestrator against not only Schumann but perhaps any composer to ever exist. It also goes without saying that Schumann was a superior composer for solo and chamber instrumentation.

*Formal structure:* An odd one because surely we are in a point of time in musical history where formal structure is much less important than overall effect; and in fact Schumann was one of the first composers to make do without formal structure by inventing the free-form piano suite and upending sonata form (mystifying all the critics). Nobody has ever said they liked one composer more than another because they had better "formal structure" in their music.

So there you have it. Like you said, appreciation of Mahler is based on whether or not you accept his gestures and what he was trying to accomplish-certainly that would apply even more to a composer like Schumann who has never been noted for being technically prodigious like Mozart or Mendelssohn.



> In those specific domains, they would be correct. That does not mean their ranking retains its validity for the weighted sum of all domains.




Who decides the weighted sum of all domains? Are they all equally weighted-if so, then Schumann would certainly win by only losing one genre (symphonic works) and being top-tier in others like solo music, chamber music, concertante works, where his music is highly regarded and a staple of the standard repertoire.

If they are not all equally weighted then certainly whomever likes chamber music would weigh chamber music more heavily, giving Schumann the advantage; while someone who prefers symphonies would weigh symphonic works more heavily, giving Mahler the advantage.


----------



## chu42

Allerius said:


> And even if I enjoy Mahler, I fail to consider his music _that_ good as you and some others in this forum do, my main problems with him being that I do not connect emotionally with his music (in my perspective he is much more a cerebral than an emotional composer) and that I think he sometimes stretches too much his structures.


I can completely relate to this; I thought some of his works were too busy and all over the place.

But then I sat down and performed Mahler's 1st and 4th as a violinist-completely eye-opening and emotionally revelatory experiences. And I already loved the 2nd and 5th symphonies, although it took many many listens.


----------



## Theneasst4

most overrated: mahler.

most underrated: liszt's mephisto waltz no. 1


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Quite a bit. Just focusing on his last period of Number Pieces, they are exceptional, IMO.


No disrespect intended toward anyone's tastes, but I've tried listening to Cage's "Thirteen," suggested by Slate Book Review in their article "Where Do I Start With John Cage?", and after ten of the work's thirty minutes I was bored stiff by the lugubrious, crawling, meandering background harmony and the little staccato bursts unpredictably, but ultimately monotonously, popping out of it. In the context of music's extraordinary possibilities of form and expression as realized through the ages, what is "exceptional" about this sort of thing?



> No wondering why for me, it boils down to reducing him to the composer of 4'33". But Cage has a large following/audience. It just doesn't happen to be mostly from among the traditional classical music audience.


Well, there's a following for everyone and everything nowadays, isn't there? Doesn't necessarily mean a thing. I'll grant that Cage may be underrated simply with respect to the fact that most of his music isn't well-known. My question is simply: why isn't it? I don't think it's mainly because of 4'33," which after all has been around for 68 years. Cage has had more than enough time to live that down - but, looked at another way, the fame of that work may be viewed as bestowing a "rating" on him his actual music doesn't warrant.

I do in truth find all this "overrated/underrated composers" business fairly meaningless, useful only as a platform for saying what we like and don't like. I really don't care how anyone rates Cage, but when I see him highly regarded as a composer I have to wonder why. As far as I'm concerned, ASLSP needs to end ASAP, if not sooner.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Theneasst4 said:


> most overrated: mahler.
> most underrated: liszt's mephisto waltz no. 1


You remind me of "ricky3" who joined the forum last month to claim "Liszt's mephisto waltz No.1 is the greatest, and the most futuristic piece ever written" and "Mahler's music is trash":
Futuristic-sounding avant garde style classical music pieces
https://www.talkclassical.com/67913-your-unpopular-opinion-24.html?highlight=#post1939562
https://www.talkclassical.com/67913-your-unpopular-opinion-24.html?highlight=#post1939563


----------



## Comity

Larkenfield said:


> Chopin did creatively develop and mature in such later works as his F Minor Fantasy and Barcarolle where his sense of time was greatly expanded in a way that the music has a sense of floating in the air... the lines were more stretched and elongated. It was an advance in music that Schumann never achieved.
> Chopin was lightyears ahead of Schumann in the knowledge and exploitation of the full range of the piano. Technically his music is idiomatic and Schumann's wasn't - Chopin as harmonically precise and exact as Bach and Mozart but in the Romantic idiom -
> 
> And for those who fully appreciate Chopin's exquisite subtly and refinement that's probably just as true today as it was then. Nevertheless, Robert Schumann is one of my keyboard favorites too and he recognized the power in Chopin's Mazurkas."
> 
> Ugh, I accidentally deleted the quote code.
> 
> I haven't listened to Chopin on purpose in decades, but your post revives my interest in his work.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Comity said:


> And for those who fully appreciate Chopin's exquisite subtly and refinement that's probably just as true today as it was then.


I agree that he's a genius and a great composer, -his 2nd, 4th ballades, some of his etudes Op.10 Nos. 3, 4, 6, the passionate chromaticism of Op.25 No.11, etc show serious signs of genius. What troubles me though, is the sort of cringey language his enthusiasts use to describe his music. It's perfectly ok to do this sort of thing with Chopin, but you get ridiculed when you do the same with Tchaikovsky or Liszt. It just doesn't make sense to me. I think Chopin also has his "moments" where he's just hedonistic and showy - he's not much different from Tchaikovsky or Liszt in this regard, in my view.

"Chopin is consistently everything Mozart is not (or rarely is). There's the profound poetry, the depth of thought and feeling, the rich exploration of inner and outer worlds, the complex textures and moods and evocations. There's also a much more innovative and original musical language that was influential to Romanticism in general." -Eva Yojimbo

"Chopin was also called "the greatest harmonist since Bach" by one of his biographers, James Huneker, and I couldn't agree more. Chopin was as exacting and disciplined as Bach. One can hear the exactness by simply slowing down any passage to half-speed of anything he wrote. It's precise, carefully worked out, technically brilliant, skillfully chromatic, innovative, daring, and often revolutionary. He set out to create a new world, and he did." -Larkenfield


----------



## hammeredklavier

Comity said:


> Robert Schumann is one of my keyboard favorites too and he recognized the power in Chopin's Mazurkas."


Not many people know that, in his late years, Schumann actually became critical about Chopin:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar. He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."
In his 1841 review of Chopin's Sonata in B-flat minor in particular, Schumann did not seem to be happy with his fellow composer's progress. Although he talks about the abundance of beauty in the work, he also says that the "sonata" as a title must be in jest: "[Chopin] seems to have taken four of his most unruly children and put them together, possibly thinking to smuggle them, as a sonata, into company where they might not be considered individually presentable." To Schumann it seemed that Chopin had lost his way, and gotten too wrapped up in virtuosity for its own sake. He decries "obstacles on almost every page" with indecipherable progressions. The second movement - again claiming the marking "Scherzo" was in name alone - he describes as a "funeral march with something even repulsive about it.""
https://books.google.ca/books?id=FWNGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA235
"A book of Mazurkas by Chopin and a few new pieces of his are so mannered they are hard to stand"
-Felix Mendelssohn, 1835
https://books.google.ca/books?id=4gLQlHab4NsC&pg=PA162
"a composer for one right hand" -Richard Wagner


----------



## consuono

"Most overrated" for me would probably be Elgar and Ives. And Tchaikovsky (there, I said it).
Most underrated would probably be Rameau and the Couperins. And -- in a way -- Handel.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> *Counterpoint:* Schumann's piano and chamber music show mastery of counterpoint equal or greater to any composer.
> Mahler lived in the era where you went big or you went home...Mahler's use of counterpoint was not unique.


While it's certainly true that Schumann's counterpoint has been comparatively neglected, I don't think that any reading of the use of counterpoint in Mahler and Schumann could favor Schumann.... I disagree that Mahler's use of counterpoint was typical for his period: if you look at the counterpoint of Strauss, or Rachmaninoff, there are many lines, but often marshalled in service of a textural or harmonic effect. In Mahler the counterpoint is the very muscle of the music from which the harmony or texture emerges- Mahler himself even wrote that "the basis for all my music is counterpoint"- and because of Mahler's superb treatment of motifs, their joining together becomes the more significant.
Consider the Sonata-Form opening of the Eighth: casual combination, recombination of 3 themes, 1 theme against itself in augmentation or diminution, fugato, imitation- but every line is necessary. Their basis is not intellectual or textural, but structural. You can't say that with Strauss.



chu42 said:


> *Philosophical and emotional depth:*...both Mahler and Schumann are considered to be the most philosophically and emotionally affected of all the composers....


This I don't disagree with. But regardless of the true depth of their emotion, one composer was certainly more successful in raising it to objectivity. Emotion is embedded in the very structure itself- it is from the structure that the emotion emanates, and so our emotional experience is proportional to the structural and narrative skill with which the themes are handled. Mahler's structures are deeper and larger, correspondingly, they can reach emotional heights (or depths) that are simply impossible to reach within the span of 5-10 minutes. (Although Chopin's 4th Ballade might make a protest here).



chu42 said:


> *Formal structure:* An odd one because surely we are in a point of time in musical history where formal structure is much less important than overall effect and Schumann was one of the first to make do without formal structure...Nobody has ever said they liked one composer more than another because they had better "formal structure" in their music.


By formal structure I don't mean compliance to academic molds, but the entire structure of motivic material throughout the piece. In Mahler, the _logic_ of this structure leaps off the page. Despite Schumann's apparent amorphousness, this was a priority of his as well, but in many places one gets the sense that Schumann is thinking more harmonically or narratively than developmentally. 


chu42 said:


> Who decides the weighted sum of all domains? Are they all equally weighted-if so, then Schumann would certainly win....


Nobody can decide; this is just a way of saying that composers infuse different levels of profundity and craftsmanship into different genres (and different pieces within the same genre). With Tchaikovsky, we would "weigh" the symphonies much more than the string quartets. With Beethoven, those two genres would be much closer. In Dvorak's case chamber music might even carry more weight than the symphonies. What makes Beethoven, say, a better composer than Dvorak is simply that he puts more weight, into more domains. 
Mahler's 11 symphonies have more weight than Schumann's entire output. (In my opinion, this isn't even close- even 2 good symphonies by Mahler will do the trick). The reason for this is again going to go back to the elements of music (and by which we can only attempt to gauge musical "quality") that I mentioned earlier.

P.S. It may look like I am denigrating Schumann. I think, actually, that he is also very underrated, and I enjoy and respect greatly his music. But he is not so underrated that a proper evaluation would put him above Beethoven, or Mahler.


----------



## chu42

> Chopin was lightyears ahead of Schumann in the knowledge and exploitation of the full range of the piano. Technically his music is idiomatic and Schumann's wasn't - Chopin as harmonically precise and exact as Bach and Mozart but in the Romantic idiom -
> And for those who fully appreciate Chopin's exquisite subtly and refinement that's probably just as true today as it was then. Nevertheless, Robert Schumann is one of my keyboard favorites too and he recognized the power in Chopin's Mazurkas.


The full range of the piano is something Schumann was deeply capable of yet never bothered to work into his style. Listen to his very first work, written at 19 years old-the Abegg variations-sounds a lot like early Chopin, doesn't it? It's because Chopin and Schumann both were highly influenced by the technical developments at the time coming from Moscheles, Czerny, and all those other piano-virtuosos.

The difference is that Chopin continued to write in that style and perfect and improve upon it; Schumann decided he didn't care for it and completely abandoned that style of writing by the time he was starting his Opus 2. Indeed, there is no instance of a show of virtuosity in any subsequent piano works by Schumann, while there are dozens of such instances in Chopin's work. One may wonder if Schumann would've been more popular today if he had continued in the footsteps of Chopin.

Now the Mazurkas; the Mazurkas are the Chopin works that are closest to Schumann's style because they are so focused on intimacy and harmonic power that, like Schumann, completely abandon any pretense of virtuosity or "exploitation of the full range of the piano". Even Chopin's Nocturnes are chock full of cadenzas and showoff passages-the Mazurkas are threadbare. And yet many critics believe that the Mazurkas rank among his finest works, in spite of their lack of virtuosity, or even because of it.



> What troubles me though, is the sort of cringey language his enthusiasts use to describe his music. It's perfectly ok to do this sort of thing with Chopin, but you get ridiculed when you do the same with Tchaikovsky or Liszt. It just doesn't make sense to me.


In my experience, the Chopin fanbase is, among all the great composers, one the least musically literate groups of classical music enthusiasts. Someone like Stravinsky, Mahler, Schumann, even Mozart requires a certain understanding of what's what in order to appreciate it. But young people flock to Chopin because of how ridiculously accessible his music is-and it turns out they get sucked into the Romantic machine until they can't stand anything not idiomatic to Chopin. The most common ideas you will see floating around Chopin echo-chambers is that Mozart is the most overrated composer; Rachmaninov is the 2nd greatest composer behind Chopin; and a split opinion on Liszt where he's either all amazing or all banal finger gymnastics-neither of which are valid .



> I think Chopin also has his "moments" where he's just hedonistic and showy - he's not much different from Tchaikovsky or Liszt in this regard, in my view.


Grande Polonaise Brillante, the fan-favorite concertante work of Chopin, is possibly one of the most musically empty pieces in the standard repertoire, where the virtuosity-to-musicality ratio rivals even the most hackneyed showoff pieces by Liszt or Thalberg or any number of now forgotten composers.

The etudes are great, though. The etudes for me, represent the perfect virtuosity-to-musicality balance.



Isaac Blackburn said:


> Despite Schumann's apparent amorphousness, this was a priority of his as well, but in many places one gets the sense that Schumann is thinking more harmonically or narratively than developmentally.


I would say that this is not a detriment but one of the reasons why Schumann is so unique.



Isaac Blackburn said:


> Mahler's structures are deeper and larger, correspondingly, they can reach emotional heights (or depths) that are simply impossible to reach within the span of 5-10 minutes. (Although Chopin's 4th Ballade might make a protest here).
> 
> Mahler's 11 symphonies have more weight than Schumann's entire output. (In my opinion, this isn't even close- even 2 good symphonies by Mahler will do the trick). The reason for this is again going to go back to the elements of music (and by which we can only attempt to gauge musical "quality") that I mentioned earlier.


You are too focused on the "big". In terms of grand schematics and huge thematic gestures and musical ideas, nobody rivals Mahler except for perhaps Wagner. Every Mahler symphony is an entire world, with motifs and themes floating around like the many moons of Jupiter.

But within all that, is there anything rivalling the sheer intimacy and personal nature of Schumann's piano works? Even Mahler's most intimate symphony (likely the fourth) is still sitting on grand themes of Heaven and death and the devil and whatever else. There is no room for a single life, the heart of a single person-which is what Schumann was all about. It was his personal struggle and his inner joys and despairs flowing out on the music.

Can you really compare the two in this regard, much less declare that one is so superior to the other? Is Schumann a lesser composer just because he never wrote anything close to the grandeur of Mahler's 2nd? I am of the personal opinion that his solo piano masterpieces-notably Kreisleriana, the Fantasy, and Humoreske-say just as much about the human condition as any great orchestral work by Mahler or Sibelius or Beethoven.

"I feel inhibited to play the 3rd movement of the Fantasy, because it is so impossibly deep."
-Sviatoslav Richter

"I cannot explain it-but maybe irrationally, I feel a greater emotional connection to Schumann than any other composer." 
-Martha Argerich

"If I die and go to Heaven, the first thing I would like to do is meet Robert Schumann." 
-Vladimir Horowitz.

"When playing his music, my heart bleeds for him and his trials...everything in his life was translated into sound. There is no man I admire more than him...while he was not as technically brilliant as Chopin or Liszt, his music is so intense and gives me more emotional and spiritual satisfaction than anyone else." 
-Benno Moiseiwitsch

"A person who is not moved by his music is beyond help...For this reason I will be playing entire Schumann programmes. He is one of the few composers who can afford it." 
-Andras Schiff

In conclusion, I believe Schumann and Mahler are two of the greatest composers but so far apart in terms of goals and artistic ideals that there is no way to rank one above the other with even a little bit of objectivity. You say nothing beats the scope and climactic power of a Mahler symphony, I say nothing beats the emotional intimacy and personal pathos of a Schumann piano work-we can both be correct without having to figuratively bash heads.


----------



## chu42

hammeredklavier said:


> Not many people know that, in his late years, Schumann actually became critical about Chopin:
> 
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
> "In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar. He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."
> In his 1841 review of Chopin's Sonata in B-flat minor in particular, Schumann did not seem to be happy with his fellow composer's progress. Although he talks about the abundance of beauty in the work, he also says that the "sonata" as a title must be in jest: "[Chopin] seems to have taken four of his most unruly children and put them together, possibly thinking to smuggle them, as a sonata, into company where they might not be considered individually presentable." To Schumann it seemed that Chopin had lost his way, and gotten too wrapped up in virtuosity for its own sake. He decries "obstacles on almost every page" with indecipherable progressions. The second movement - again claiming the marking "Scherzo" was in name alone - he describes as a "funeral march with something even repulsive about it.""
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=FWNGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA235
> "A book of Mazurkas by Chopin and a few new pieces of his are so mannered they are hard to stand"
> -Felix Mendelssohn, 1835
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=4gLQlHab4NsC&pg=PA162
> "a composer for one right hand" -Richard Wagner


I will disagree with Schumann here-he complains about Chopin's recognizability and lack of significant development, and then when Chopin drops his most innovative and influential work yet (the 2nd Sonata), Schumann turns around and complains that it is too "indecipherable" and "unruly"? Weren't these the complaints that critics had about Schumann's own ultra-progressive works like Kreisleriana and Humoreske?



hammeredklavier said:


> "A book of Mazurkas by Chopin and a few new pieces of his are so mannered they are hard to stand"
> -Felix Mendelssohn, 1835


On Mendelssohn-whose music is excellent but almost _exclusively_ mannered-I won't comment.



hammeredklavier said:


> "a composer for one right hand" -Richard Wagner


However, Wagner has a point. Chopin's left hand is often very boring, whereas Schumann's utilization of a keyboard range/ambitus no greater than that of Mozart meant that he could dissolve the idea of there being a right hand or a left hand, or rather, both hands had almost equal weight to them. Looking at the Toccata alone one can see that the left hand commands the melody almost 50% of the time.

Furthermore, Schumann often left it up to the pianist to figure out how to play three or four voices with only two hands, making passages such as this and this very awkward when in fact they sound and appear very simple. Many critics note that Schumann writes for a string quartet or orchestra rather than a piano, making a peculiar abundance of voices that are unprecendented since the fugues of Bach.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I will add my agreement as well. When I first started listening to classical, I was surprised at the "rankings" I saw for some composers. I wondered why people spoke so highly of them. The more I listened, the more I have come to understand these assessments. Several composers have risen significantly in my assessment since I've had a chance to hear much more of their works or hear them more often. These include Haydn, Wagner, and Mahler.
> 
> Actually, in some sense the same is true of Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, who have pretty much always been my favorites. The more I hear and think about their music, the more I admire their ability. Perhaps one way to select truly "great" composers are those whose music continues to grow on you after many listenings.


" ..after many listenings."

Yes, we live in an era of pushbutton music. When I was young I could be amazed by listening to the same track on a LP over and over, but today everything is much more available and immediate. How many times did Beethoven hear the 24th Concerto? I think the 20th concerto is so much better, but I can click around the movements of each of them and experience them to the nth degree. If I'm so inclined I can put them in a bundle, for an exact context with the other Mozart concerto movements. ..And then compare them with the LvB concertos, and later works, on and on.

It's very helpful to talk about these issues, for learning and for raising our experience levels, but we should keep in mind that there have been big books exploring the points raised in these posts. So we're not going to adequately describe what can be studied, from posts in a forum. I mean, for every criticism there is also an exception to that criticism because these men spent so many years of their lives perfecting their craft for their time and for their audiences, and some aspects were more important at specific times than at other times. Why would any of these composers ever have entertained the notion that we would be able to push a button and 'dissect' a movement (performed at the world class level, with all the highly experienced personal interpretations which are available)? They wouldn't. They composed to make a living from concerts, to sell pieces to advanced amateurs, and to advance the development of music, as they saw it. They had different concerns than we have..


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> You are too focused on the "big". In terms of grand schematics and huge thematic gestures and musical ideas, nobody rivals Mahler except for perhaps Wagner. Every Mahler symphony is an entire world, with motifs and themes floating around like the many moons of Jupiter.
> But within all that, is there anything rivalling the sheer intimacy and personal nature of Schumann's piano works? Even Mahler's most intimate symphony (likely the fourth) is still sitting on grand themes of Heaven and death and the devil and whatever else. There is no room for a single life, the heart of a single person-which is what Schumann was all about. It was his personal struggle and his inner joys and despairs flowing out on the music. ...
> In conclusion, I believe Schumann and Mahler are two of the greatest composers but so far apart in terms of goals and artistic ideals that there is no way to rank one above the other with even a little bit of objectivity. You say nothing beats the scope and climactic power of a Mahler symphony, I say nothing beats the emotional intimacy and personal pathos of a Schumann piano work-we can both be correct without having to figuratively bash heads.


Thanks for the reply.
I think we agree (and are correct in agreeing) that size, scope, or big ideas for their own sake are irrelevant at best...Bach's fugues, for example, are short pieces for one solo instrument, yet the universe shines through them more clearly than in volumes of symphonies, concertos, and operas. What matters is the structural purity of the music itself. It is precisely because the purity of Mahler's ideas is retained and even _deepened_ by his huge structures that he ranks so highly. 
Is Schumann, late Schumann, more intimate? I think the answer is yes, but not because of the emotion itself. Rather the intimacy is generated in large part by the temporal and instrumental form of the pieces...solo, or chamber groups, as opposed to symphonies. 5 minute confessions, instead of 70 minute arguments. 
But Mahler's feelings were cosmic in nature; they respond to the deepest questions humanity faces, and in my mind his emotions are more meaningful for it. Thus they are simultaneously the thoughts and feelings of a single person- for that is just the kind of person he was- _and_ universal experience. While Schumann's greatest strength, his deep well of personal, fantastic feeling, was also his ultimate limitation (can you imagine Schumann writing a Bruckner symphony), Mahler was able to form the feeling into more objective structures.


----------



## Luchesi

chu42 said:


> The full range of the piano is something Schumann was deeply capable of yet never bothered to work into his style. Listen to his very first work, written at 19 years old-the Abegg variations-sounds a lot like early Chopin, doesn't it? It's because Chopin and Schumann both were highly influenced by the technical developments at the time coming from Moscheles, Czerny, and all those other piano-virtuosos.
> 
> The difference is that Chopin continued to write in that style and perfect and improve upon it; Schumann decided he didn't care for it and completely abandoned that style of writing by the time he was starting his Opus 2. Indeed, there is no instance of a show of virtuosity in any subsequent piano works by Schumann, while there are dozens of such instances in Chopin's work. One may wonder if Schumann would've been more popular today if he had continued in the footsteps of Chopin.
> 
> Now the Mazurkas; the Mazurkas are the Chopin works that are closest to Schumann's style because they are so focused on intimacy and harmonic power that, like Schumann, completely abandon any pretense of virtuosity or "exploitation of the full range of the piano". Even Chopin's Nocturnes are chock full of cadenzas and showoff passages-the Mazurkas are threadbare. And yet many critics believe that the Mazurkas rank among his finest works, in spite of their lack of virtuosity, or even because of it.
> 
> In my experience, the Chopin fanbase is, among all the great composers, one the least musically literate groups of classical music enthusiasts. Someone like Stravinsky, Mahler, Schumann, even Mozart requires a certain understanding of what's what in order to appreciate it. But young people flock to Chopin because of how ridiculously accessible his music is-and it turns out they get sucked into the Romantic machine until they can't stand anything not idiomatic to Chopin. The most common ideas you will see floating around Chopin echo-chambers is that Mozart is the most overrated composer; Rachmaninov is the 2nd greatest composer behind Chopin; and a split opinion on Liszt where he's either all amazing or all banal finger gymnastics-neither of which are valid .
> 
> Grande Polonaise Brillante, the fan-favorite concertante work of Chopin, is possibly one of the most musically empty pieces in the standard repertoire, where the virtuosity-to-musicality ratio rivals even the most hackneyed showoff pieces by Liszt or Thalberg or any number of now forgotten composers.
> 
> The etudes are great, though. The etudes for me, represent the perfect virtuosity-to-musicality balance.
> 
> I would say that this is not a detriment but one of the reasons why Schumann is so unique.
> 
> You are too focused on the "big". In terms of grand schematics and huge thematic gestures and musical ideas, nobody rivals Mahler except for perhaps Wagner. Every Mahler symphony is an entire world, with motifs and themes floating around like the many moons of Jupiter.
> 
> But within all that, is there anything rivalling the sheer intimacy and personal nature of Schumann's piano works? Even Mahler's most intimate symphony (likely the fourth) is still sitting on grand themes of Heaven and death and the devil and whatever else. There is no room for a single life, the heart of a single person-which is what Schumann was all about. It was his personal struggle and his inner joys and despairs flowing out on the music.
> 
> Can you really compare the two in this regard, much less declare that one is so superior to the other? Is Schumann a lesser composer just because he never wrote anything close to the grandeur of Mahler's 2nd? I am of the personal opinion that his solo piano masterpieces-notably Kreisleriana, the Fantasy, and Humoreske-say just as much about the human condition as any great orchestral work by Mahler or Sibelius or Beethoven.
> 
> "I feel inhibited to play the 3rd movement of the Fantasy, because it is so impossibly deep."
> -Sviatoslav Richter
> 
> "I cannot explain it-but maybe irrationally, I feel a greater emotional connection to Schumann than any other composer."
> -Martha Argerich
> 
> "If I die and go to Heaven, the first thing I would like to do is meet Robert Schumann."
> -Vladimir Horowitz.
> 
> "When playing his music, my heart bleeds for him and his trials...everything in his life was translated into sound. There is no man I admire more than him...while he was not as technically brilliant as Chopin or Liszt, his music is so intense and gives me more emotional and spiritual satisfaction than anyone else."
> -Benno Moiseiwitsch
> 
> "A person who is not moved by his music is beyond help...For this reason I will be playing entire Schumann programmes. He is one of the few composers who can afford it."
> -Andras Schiff
> 
> In conclusion, I believe Schumann and Mahler are two of the greatest composers but so far apart in terms of goals and artistic ideals that there is no way to rank one above the other with even a little bit of objectivity. You say nothing beats the scope and climactic power of a Mahler symphony, I say nothing beats the emotional intimacy and personal pathos of a Schumann piano work-we can both be correct without having to figuratively bash heads.


 "But within all that, is there anything rivalling the sheer intimacy and personal nature of Schumann's piano works? Even Mahler's most intimate symphony (likely the fourth) is still sitting on grand themes of Heaven and death and the devil and whatever else. There is no room for a single life, the heart of a single person-which is what Schumann was all about. It was his personal struggle and his inner joys and despairs flowing out on the music."

We should at least mention that Schumann was composing many of his new and innovative works in the 1830s -- while for Mahler it was around 1900 and beyond. Think about all the progress of science and worldviews during those 7 decades. The Origin of Species was 1859. They were trying to find the aether around 1890 because it made such common sense to everyone, but they couldn't find it!! I wonder if Mahler understood the spooky ramifications of this for his hypersensitive worldview..


----------



## chu42

mmsbls said:


> Well, I have stated on TC that I do not view 4'33" as music although I'm happy to discuss it on a music forum because I know many others do believe it's music. However, I don't view examining 4'33" as disparaging Cage. Disparaging Cage is calling him a charlatan and dismissing all his music as garbage.


The very point of 4'33" is that silence, ambience, and background noise can be considered music whether you like it or not-because the composer says so. Whether it is music worth listening to is up to the debate but there is no cutoff for a sound being "music" or "not music".

Much like the famous Brâncuși lawsuit, where his sculpture _Bird in Space_ was subject to a large shipping tax because it was judged an "imported good" rather than art by the customs officials. Despite dividing opinion in the art world, Brâncuși managed to convince the judge that his sculpture was indeed a work of art, and it was the first instance of the US court recognizing a non-representational sculpture as art.

And what of Marcel Duchamp's _Fountain_, an artwork consisting of nothing but a urinal with a signature? It was rejected from an art competition because a majority of the board members (of which Duchamp was a leading member of) did not consider it to be art. The New York Dadaists argued:



> Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view - created a new thought for that object.


And today, _Fountain_ is recognized as one of the most revolutionary works of art and is taught in every high school art class.

It doesn't matter what you think is art or isn't-or what is music and what isn't music-what matters is the thought that the composer/artist applies to it.

Of course you can judge said thought and dismiss it as paltry or nonsense-but bad art is still art.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck said:


> No disrespect intended toward anyone's tastes, but I've tried listening to Cage's "Thirteen," suggested by Slate Book Review in their article "Where Do I Start With John Cage?", and after ten of the work's thirty minutes I was bored stiff by the lugubrious, crawling, meandering background harmony and the little staccato bursts unpredictably, but ultimately monotonously, popping out of it. In the context of music's extraordinary possibilities of form and expression as realized through the ages, what is "exceptional" about this sort of thing?


The gradual evolution of the harmony, achieved by the entering and leaving of the wide variety of instruments, some of them playing few-note figures, is beautiful and constantly varying. The harmony isn't crawling that slowly either - instruments enter, melodically turn, and leave at a good rate.

The one-note staccatos are not aberrations, but naturally part of the sonic palette that focuses on instruments entering and leaving - an instrument entering on a held pitch has an "attack", so it's natural to have in some cases just have the attack, the staccato, without holding the note. The few-note figures are also an important element. They give a melodic sense, even somewhat evocative of Fuxian counterpoint in a chorale with a faster motion playing against a slower motion. The few-note figures also relate to the one-note staccatos: we can have one "colored dot", or three/four "colored dots" in a section on our painting, as an analogy.

The music gives a sense that it's never at rest, even though there are almost always sustained notes. The rhythmic "floating" gives an unpredictability, and the instrumental palette of the mid-sized chamber ensemble (love the occasional xylophone interjections! to say nothing of the beauty of the sustained usual strings, winds, and brass) is so varied.

Just the first three minutes are, to me, captivating, and leave me with a desire to see where it goes (and the music does explore different places over the 30 minutes!), and there's no intellectual secret to enjoying or "decoding" those first minutes. The music is, to those who enjoy it, compelling stuff and I'm so glad it's there.


----------



## Eclectic Al

The concept behind 4'33" is something that a 15 year old might think was clever. Beyond that ... meh


----------



## chu42

Dimace said:


> Underrated : Liszt (he is certainly between the 5 best composers in human history)


Liszt being between the 5 best composers in human history? Now why would that be?

Even for keyboard alone I can name many more than 5 composers with a stronger overall oeuvre: Chopin, Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Ravel, and Debussy.

I've listened through Leslie Howard's gargantuan pianistic collection of every single Lisztian work-easily more than 80 hours total, ten times the output of his contemporaries. Perhaps 90% of it goes completely unplayed, because most of it is a sorry representation of Liszt's true genius. The same arpeggios, the same tremolos, the same rousing octaves, in all of his middle and early works. In the later period he wisened up and realized that all that stuff was starting to get banal, and he composed some truly progressive works, like Les jeux d'eau à la Villa d'Este and his Bagatelle sans tonalité.

Personally, I used to play a lot of Liszt as a high schooler. I gave public performances of his Reminiscences de Don Juan, Valse de Faust, some of his Transcendental Etudes, parts of his Beethoven and Berlioz transcriptions, Hungarian Rhapsodies. At home I read through perhaps twenty or thirty hours of his music in order to solve the infantile question of "what is truly the most difficult Liszt work", and you can find the results here:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/piano/comments/i1t09y

Nowadays I play much more Schumann than Liszt.


----------



## chu42

I see a lot of people here saying "such-and-such is overrated because I have never been able to 'get' his music".

I used to think that way and I don't anymore, not with any composer that I don't fully understand yet. It took me about a year and a half to "get" Schumann, and up until a week ago I thought his piano masterpiece _Kreisleriana_ was just about the most boring and overrated of all of Schumann's works-now I think it's his greatest creation.

I am liking Schoenberg more and more nowadays after years of indifference. I have just come to the realization that Stravinsky is perhaps the greatest composer out of all the great Russians.

So, you can't judge a composer until you really know what they are all about. The average person is going to be bored by Shakespeare until they can really understand what is going on in his plays.

Now, with all that being said, here are some composers that are perhaps not overrated, but don't say anything really important in the majority of their works:

*Carl Czerny*. Incredibly vapid and forgettable composer. It boggles my mind that there are rabid Czerny defenders all over the Internet-I find them akin to flat earthers or anti-vaxxers. Any decent pianist could churn out improvisations in Czerny-esque style for hours at time-that's how easy it is to mimic his ideas. He uses the same chord progressions in every piano work, with the same athletic figurations that often makes his music stupidly difficult to play. His sonatas and concerto are an unending cadenza, all development and no real themes or melodic beauty.

And no wonder that every early 19th century composer wrote Op.1s and Op.2s that sound like Czerny or improved Czerny. He influenced them, but he was never their idol or ideal.

*Leroy Anderson:* He's fun to listen to once or twice, and then it gets annoying.

*Niccolo Paganini:* He is the Liszt of the violin, except Liszt actually wrote artistically meaningful works from time to time. His contributions to violin technique is the sole reason why he is at all performed today. Paganini's counterpart Heinrich Ernst was perhaps even more outlandish in violin technique while having even less musical substance.

*Cesar Cui:* Competent but uninteresting. Much like many of the Romantic slog of the time.

*Fritz Kreisler:* Beloved by violinists, his greatest talent was his performance chops and his ability to emulate a random, uninteresting, composer at will.

*Pablo Sarasate:* Much of the problems I have with Paganini can be applied to Sarasate. It turns out that a lot of great violinists back then were more focused on writing ego-boosting showpieces rather than anything with any real body to them. Add Bazzini, Wieniawski, Eduard Lalo, and occasionally Vieuxtemps to that list.


----------



## SanAntone

chu42 said:


> The very point of 4'33" is that silence, ambience, and background noise can be considered music whether you like it or not-because the composer says so. Whether it is music worth listening to is up to the debate but there is no cutoff for a sound being "music" or "not music".
> 
> Much like the famous Brâncuși lawsuit, where his sculpture _Bird in Space_ was subject to a large shipping tax because it was judged an "imported good" rather than art by the customs officials. Despite dividing opinion in the art world, Brâncuși managed to convince the judge that his sculpture was indeed a work of art, and it was the first instance of the US court recognizing a non-representational sculpture as art.
> 
> And what of Marcel Duchamp's _Fountain_, an artwork consisting of nothing but a urinal with a signature? It was rejected from an art competition because a majority of the board members (of which Duchamp was a leading member of) did not consider it to be art. The New York Dadaists argued:
> 
> And today, _Fountain_ is recognized as one of the most revolutionary works of art and is taught in every high school art class.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think is art or isn't-or what is music and what isn't music-what matters is the thought that the composer/artist applies to it.
> 
> Of course you can judge said thought and dismiss it as paltry or nonsense-but bad art is still art.


One of the hallmarks of art is the transformation of an everyday object and enhancing our appreciation of it. Artists have done this in a variety of ways, using paint to represent the object but in a way that is not exactly as it appears in life. The peaches in a Cezanne do not look like peaches in a bowl on a table, but everyone knows they are peaches. After seeing the Cezanne, we might now look at all peaches differently. This is one of the primary purposes of art: to enrich and broaden our experience of the world around us.

This is exactly what Cage and Duchamp accomplished with their work. The fact that the public and even the professional critical class were slow on the uptake is not surprising. Artists have always been ahead of the curve.

What is sad is how long some people continue to hold on to the backward beliefs about what Cage and Duchamp did and why.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> ...
> And what of Marcel Duchamp's _Fountain_, an artwork consisting of nothing but a urinal with a signature? It was rejected from an art competition because a majority of the board members (of which Duchamp was a leading member of) did not consider it to be art. The New York Dadaists argued:
> 
> And today, _Fountain_ is recognized as one of the most revolutionary works of art and is taught in every high school art class.
> 
> ...


And it's also now a tired cliché, and unnecessary since the desired alienation of the audience was achieved a long time ago.


----------



## Lisztian

chu42 said:


> Liszt being between the 5 best composers in human history? Now why would that be?
> 
> Even for keyboard alone I can name many more than 5 composers with a stronger overall oeuvre: Chopin, Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Ravel, and Debussy.
> 
> I've listened through Leslie Howard's gargantuan pianistic collection of every single Lisztian work-easily more than 80 hours total, ten times the output of his contemporaries. Perhaps 90% of it goes completely unplayed, because most of it is a sorry representation of Liszt's true genius. The same arpeggios, the same tremolos, the same rousing octaves, in all of his middle and early works. In the later period he wisened up and realized that all that stuff was starting to get banal, and he composed some truly progressive works, like Les jeux d'eau à la Villa d'Este and his Bagatelle sans tonalité.
> 
> Personally, I used to play a lot of Liszt as a high schooler. I gave public performances of his Reminiscences de Don Juan, Valse de Faust, some of his Transcendental Etudes, parts of his Beethoven and Berlioz transcriptions, Hungarian Rhapsodies. At home I read through perhaps twenty or thirty hours of his music in order to solve the infantile question of "what is truly the most difficult Liszt work", and you can find the results here:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/piano/comments/i1t09y
> 
> Nowadays I play much more Schumann than Liszt.


It does need to be said that, amazing as the achievement is and fantastic as it is that it's available (I've gotten a lot out of it myself), Howard is IMO not really a great pianist. There is quite a lot of music in the collection where it would be very interesting to hear what a truly first rate pianist would make of it.

I personally don't think Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Mozart (unless you include the concerti), Schubert, and Brahms have a stronger overall oeuvre for the keyboard than Liszt, but then I am less knowledgeable and have less experience. All I know is that, while I enjoy all of these composers, I prefer Liszt on the keyboard to all of them (also Chopin, Debussy, Schumann).

Who cares that Liszt is more inconsistent. There are still enough of his stronger works to match (and often surpass) in quantity the other composers you mention (Annees, Etudes, HPER, Sonata, Weinen Klagen, Legends, late works (many!), Norma fantasy, Funeral Odes, the transcriptions, Mephisto Waltzes, Ballades, Consolations, some of the Rhapsodies, just off the top of my head).

Also, before you point out that I'm simply a partisan towards Liszt, I could say the same back to you re Schumann (who, by the way, is one of my favourite composers).

All this being said, I definitely don't agree with Liszt being one of the 5 greatest composers.


----------



## Xisten267

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Very fair, although I have to ask how much you are weighing historical influence and perception into that ranking of B's Ninth.


Few things in life give me as much pleasure as listening to Beethoven's Ninth. When I listen to it (last time was about one and a half years ago) I usually enter in a state of ecstasy. It's my ideal, my reference, my benchmark in music. Therefore I can tell you with certainty that although historical influence and perception matter to me, they have very limited relevance in my reverence for this symphony.



Isaac Blackburn said:


> Also, at least from my listens of the 10th, it seems that it builds upon and even exceeds the Ninth and Das Lied, but unfortunately the Cooke orchestration is enough to shut the whole idea down for some people. I'm curious as to your view on that matter.


Well, I don't like the Cooke orchestration at all, so I'm stuck with a single movement in Mahler's 10th, and due to this I tend to think more highly of his two previous symphonies. Perhaps "culmination" was not a good word for me to use, but I think that DLVDE represents Mahler's final and IMO more successful musical statement in his quest to merge the two genres he worked with all his life, the lied and the symphony, while the ninth symphony constitutes to me his major achievement in the genre and at the moment is my favorite piece by him (I love the funeral march in the middle of the first movement, somehow it reminds me of the processions in Wagner's _Parsifal_ albeit in a kind of oriental fashion).



Isaac Blackburn said:


> Again very fair, although surely you'd recognize that your emotional disconnect cannot function as an indictment on the music's intrinsic emotional power, only, maybe, its ease of access. (I think the perception of the bloated structure is a side-effect of this disconnect.)





chu42 said:


> I can completely relate to this; I thought some of his works were too busy and all over the place.
> 
> But then I sat down and performed Mahler's 1st and 4th as a violinist-completely eye-opening and emotionally revelatory experiences. And I already loved the 2nd and 5th symphonies, although it took many many listens.


Yes, yes, I now think of Mahler's music as a kind of blind spot to me, not because I don't like it (I do), but actually because I fail to consider it as being _so_ great as many people here seen to do. But I keep returning to him to see if I reconsider: yesterday night for example I decided to listen to his 4th symphony, and did so twice and with attention. As usual, I was delighted by the timbristic richness of his music and by it's counterpoint, but I failed to be moved, even in the most pungent moments of the slow movement. I certainly enjoyed the experience though.


----------



## chu42

Lisztian said:


> It does need to be said that, amazing as the achievement is and fantastic as it is that it's available (I've gotten a lot out of it myself), Howard is IMO not really a great pianist. There is quite a lot of music in the collection where it would be very interesting to hear what a truly first rate pianist would make of it.


I agree that Howard is at many times a dull pianist, he is quantity over quantity. A much better collection (but not 100%) was done by France Clidat. Jorge Bolet is generally my favorite Liszt pianist. You can check out my ideas on the subject of performance here:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/piano/comments/i1t09y


----------



## Lisztian

chu42 said:


> I agree that Howard is at many times a dull pianist, he is quantity over quantity. A much better collection (but not 100%) was done by France Clidat. Jorge Bolet is generally my favorite Liszt pianist. You can check out my ideas on the subject of performance here:
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/piano/comments/i1t09y


Damn that's in depth! Obviously I didn't need to let you know about his output then  We probably just disagree about the quality of some works, which is fine.


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> The gradual evolution of the harmony, achieved by the entering and leaving of the wide variety of instruments, some of them playing few-note figures, is beautiful and constantly varying. The harmony isn't crawling that slowly either - instruments enter, melodically turn, and leave at a good rate.
> 
> The one-note staccatos are not aberrations, but naturally part of the sonic palette that focuses on instruments entering and leaving - an instrument entering on a held pitch has an "attack", so it's natural to have in some cases just have the attack, the staccato, without holding the note. The few-note figures are also an important element. They give a melodic sense, even somewhat evocative of Fuxian counterpoint in a chorale with a faster motion playing against a slower motion. The few-note figures also relate to the one-note staccatos: we can have one "colored dot", or three/four "colored dots" in a section on our painting, as an analogy.
> 
> The music gives a sense that it's never at rest, even though there are almost always sustained notes. The rhythmic "floating" gives an unpredictability, and the instrumental palette of the mid-sized chamber ensemble (love the occasional xylophone interjections! to say nothing of the beauty of the sustained usual strings, winds, and brass) is so varied.
> 
> Just the first three minutes are, to me, captivating, and leave me with a desire to see where it goes (and the music does explore different places over the 30 minutes!), and there's no intellectual secret to enjoying or "decoding" those first minutes. The music is, to those who enjoy it, compelling stuff and I'm so glad it's there.


You describe Cage's "Thirteen" nicely, but the mix of pure description with personal evaluation seems unlikely to persuade anyone. Here is your post with terms of evaluation removed:

_"The gradual evolution of the harmony, achieved by the entering and leaving of the instruments, some of them playing few-note figures, is constantly varying. Instruments enter, melodically turn, and leave.

"The one-note staccatos are part of the sonic palette that focuses on instruments entering and leaving - an instrument entering on a held pitch has an "attack", so it's natural to in some cases just have the attack, the staccato, without holding the note. The few-note figures are also an important element. They give a melodic sense, even somewhat evocative of Fuxian counterpoint in a chorale with a faster motion playing against a slower motion. The few-note figures also relate to the one-note staccatos: we can have one "colored dot", or three/four "colored dots" in a section on our painting, as an analogy.

"The music gives a sense that it's never at rest, even though there are almost always sustained notes. The rhythmic "floating" gives an unpredictability, and the instrumental palette of the mid-sized chamber ensemble is varied."_

As I read it, that description is about as compatible with my evaluation of the piece as unremarkable and boring as with your feeling that it's beautiful and compelling. Which of course proves nothing. Which is my point.


----------



## Luchesi

chu42 said:


> Now, with all that being said, here are some composers that are perhaps not overrated, but don't say anything really important in the majority of their works:


I expect that you're correct about those composers ...and I hope you are because I don't want to miss anything significant. As a pianist I've spent hardly anytime at all with the composing virtuoso violinists. The others are just a curiosity for me so I guess I've chosen correctly for these many decades. 
For me, the ranking of composers and the ranking of similar works across composers is chiefly in the interest of saving time! There's so much music to study and to learn to play that there needs to be a system - and it can be a personal system. You don't need to debate with other people (though occasionally it might help to save time, like in this forum). They're not where you are in your life.

The question I have about these minor composers is, did they know what was significant in the furtherance of the art? Was it too much effort to work toward that lofty goal? Were they depressed? were they distracted by all their engagements? I assume they just didn't know what the good composers were doing… at the deeper level. Anderson did.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Allerius said:


> Few things in life give me as much pleasure as listening to Beethoven's Ninth. When I listen to it (last time was about one and a half years ago) I usually enter in a state of ecstasy...


This is my experience with Mahler, except, depending on the symphony, it may also be transcendence, or feelings so elevated they have no name.



Allerius said:


> I keep returning to him to see if I reconsider...I listened with attention...and was delighted by the timbristic richness and by its counterpoint, but I failed to be moved.


To every man his own taste. My experience is that the symphonies are criminally difficult to finally "get", and I suspect that those who claim to easily click with the works probably only understand at a very superficial, general-emotional level. I was lucky to "get" the fifth immediately, which is perhaps the only reason why I bashed myself against the other symphonies for so long (dozens of full listens each) in order to achieve the same degree of understanding. It helped immensely to have the score and follow the motives on a purely cerebral level- in other words, forget about the emotions completely. At least for me, that causes the emotions to be imparted on an almost unconscious level while the conscious mind follows the narrative. The experience is more complete that way.


----------



## Luchesi

Isaac Blackburn said:


> This is my experience with Mahler, except, depending on the symphony, it may also be transcendence, or feelings so elevated they have no name.
> 
> To every man his own taste. My experience is that the symphonies are criminally difficult to finally "get", and I suspect that those who claim to easily click with the works probably only understand at a very superficial, general-emotional level. I was lucky to "get" the fifth immediately, which is perhaps the only reason why I bashed myself against the other symphonies for so long (dozens of full listens each) in order to achieve the same degree of understanding. It helped immensely to have the score and follow the motives on a purely cerebral level- in other words, forget about the emotions completely. At least for me, that causes the emotions to be imparted on an almost unconscious level while the conscious mind follows the narrative. The experience is more complete that way.


"It helped immensely to have the score and follow the motives on a purely cerebral level- in other words, forget about the emotions completely. At least for me, that causes the emotions to be imparted on an almost unconscious level while the conscious mind follows the narrative. The experience is more complete that way."

Thanks. That's helpful. With some difficult works this is what I've been doing, without thinking about it in those words. What a mind Mahler had! To create all that and even experienced musicians seek such an approach.

Such creating would be so far beyond my abilities, but i can surely appreciate it.


----------



## wormcycle

Most overrated: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky in category of his own
Most Underrate: Carl Maria von Weber, Cherubini


----------



## hammeredklavier

Joseph Haydn seems a bit like a second-rate kapellmeister to me compared to his brother. There's also a bit too much overhype about what he did with the symphony (which he did not even "invent" himself).


----------



## consuono

wormcycle said:


> Most overrated: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky in category of his own
> Most Underrate: Carl Maria von Weber, Cherubini


I think those are some good choices.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> I think those are some good choices.


Cherubini? But LvB thought highly of him. A few of his effects impressed LvB.


----------



## Woodduck

Cherubini is more admired than performed. If he were performed just a little more often but not too much more (I decline to say how much is too much), he would be correctly rated.


----------



## Ariasexta

I definitely have found the most overrated composers of all time, they are legion, they are many, this is ascertained.

1-Ignorant people, ignorant people always overrate themself in any respect, even though they can compose no music, understand nothing, they still overrate themself to be the judge of everything.

2-Ignorant people can not make better statements than overrating this one and underrate the another.

*Media hyping and spinning has nothing to do with overrating any one. Media always try to make sensations does not mean the subject itself is overrated, but a victim of mass media vulgarity. *

JS Bach is certainly not overrated by always underrated and the victim of media hyping, some people can not listen to the music for themself but always stay subjugated to the media manipulation, what a waste of oxygen.


----------



## Ariasexta

"BACH is good, is excellent!!" we have heard too many of this type of praise it is why some people think Bach is overrated, many other composers can also be applied to this case. These cheap praises mean nothing, if you can listen for yourself. This is why I am against talking in public about music too much, even talking in praises. *Any praise is cheap !!! 
*
*There is definitely no composers being overrated or underrated, people themself are overrated and underrated by themselves. Composers do not need your ratings just listen or leave them alone. *

I can not rate JS Bach enough, because beling fond of his music does not mean I understand his music enough to rate him or praise him. I still consider I am underrating his music for all these years. Never think praising a composer or picking on his faults and critically acclaiming his genius elsewhere is making a proper rating, if you can not listen more than trying to rate anyone.

If you want to praise composers you like, write in your private journals, in terminological and theoretical details, write in volumes, and edit them to refined essays. Then publish, face the critics like your composers did, claim some money, then, you can say you are rating yourself as a devoted listener, still not rating for anyone. Stop all the praising and demeaning, just listen and learn and write and play.


----------



## Machiavel

Overrated : Strauss operas

Underrated: Gluck operas.

Opéra is by far my least fav genre, yet I cannot understand why the first is performed so much with gigantic production and Gluck is barely performed.

First is a showman with fillers and great orchestration.

Gluck is, was a genius just a bit below Mozart.

Why?


----------



## Xisten267

Machiavel said:


> Overrated : Strauss operas
> 
> Underrated: Gluck operas.


I don't know if I agree that Strauss' operas are overrated, but I do sympathize with the idea of more performances of Gluck, a revolutionary composer that in my opinion could achieve great expression through simple means. I think that the original mind behind the idea of continuous action in opera instead of those (IMO) boring secco recitatives surely deserves more credit.


----------



## consuono

Machiavel said:


> Overrated : Strauss operas
> 
> Underrated: Gluck operas.
> 
> Opéra is by far my least fav genre, yet I cannot understand why the first is performed so much with gigantic production and Gluck is barely performed.
> 
> First is a showman with fillers and great orchestration.
> 
> Gluck is, was a genius just a bit below Mozart.
> 
> Why?


Aside from Salome and Rosenkavalier, are Strauss operas really performed that often? (I don't know.)

(Edit) by the way, I'll have to admit that with both of those I usually fast forward to the last 10 minutes or so. I don't know much about Gluck aside from snippets here and there, illustrating the original point I guess. However,


> Gluck is, was a genius just a bit below Mozart.
> 
> Why?


...the question may have answered itself.


----------



## Richard8655

Baroque period underrated (to me) - Jan Dismas Zelenka. Original complex harmonic structures and counterpoint not really similar to any other Baroque composer I've heard.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Richard8655 said:


> Baroque period underrated (to me) - Jan Dismas Zelenka. Original complex harmonic structures and counterpoint not really similar to any other Baroque composer I've heard.


I agree his use of dissonance is noteworthy:







Allerius said:


> Gluck, a revolutionary composer that in my opinion could achieve great expression through simple means. I think that the original mind behind the idea of continuous action in opera instead of those (IMO) boring secco recitatives surely deserves more credit.


Gluck also removed da capo arias, btw
https://www.operadeparis.fr/en/magazine/how-gluck-revolutionised-opera
"Gluck was regarded as a prophet by the Berlioz/Liszt/Wagner triad."


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Joseph Haydn seems a bit like a second-rate kapellmeister to me compared to his brother.






 ( 6:32 ~ 7:45 )
This is way too much. The guy apparently has found something good for a melody. He clings to it with all his might, trying to arouse emotion in the listener with it. Way too artificial (almost sickening, imv).


----------



## Calipso

The most overrated composer in history is Beethoven. I always laugh when people take him in same category with Mozart and Bach. I cant believe. Jesus, are you crazy! Mozart and Bach are class above him. Inferior melodic and vocal writing, mediocre harmonist, counterpoint writing and orchestrator. On other side, he is creative and have great sense for note selection and this is his main strengts. Of course, Beethoven had great works as every famous composer, but he is not nearly good composer as Mozart. Loud and ugly music with some excellent moments. 

My vote for underrated composer goes to Prokofiev. Yes, he is famous and well recognized composer, but I think he should be significantly higher on composers Olimp. Most versatile composer after Mozart, who cover every musical genre and wrote masterpiece in each. Intelligent and creative with great humour, beatiful melodist, great voice writing, and incredible range and variety of compositions. Prokofiev was absolutely genius. But, he is Russian and West is always rusophobic.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Calipso said:


> Prokofiev was absolutely genius. But, he is Russian and West is always rusophobic.


Which is why no one in America listens to Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Xisten267

Calipso said:


> The most overrated composer in history is Beethoven. I always laugh when people take him in same category with Mozart and Bach. I cant believe. Jesus, are you crazy! Mozart and Bach are class above him. Inferior melodic and vocal writing, mediocre harmonist, counterpoint writing and orchestrator. On other side, he is creative and have great sense for note selection and this is his main strengts. Of course, Beethoven had great works as every famous composer, but he is not nearly good composer as Mozart. Loud and ugly music with some excellent moments.


I disagree that Beethoven is overrated and totally disagree with your points. For me his achievements as a composer were at least as extraordinary as those of Mozart and Bach. He was a master of rhythm, of dynamic and mood contrast, of counterpoint (many of his symphonies have brilliant fugal passages for example), of melody (some of the most known themes of classical music come from him), of vocal writing (the _choral_ symphony usually is placed among one of the very greatest works of CM in many lists of enthusiasts), an impressive harmonist (he could modulate to very distant keys and still maintain dramatic unity in his works) and great orchestrator (Berlioz cites him more than any other composer, including Gluck and Mozart, in his treatise of orchestration). He was deaf yet he could listen much better than most people, including haters.


----------



## Luchesi

Calipso said:


> The most overrated composer in history is Beethoven. I always laugh when people take him in same category with Mozart and Bach. I cant believe. Jesus, are you crazy! Mozart and Bach are class above him. Inferior melodic and vocal writing, mediocre harmonist, counterpoint writing and orchestrator. On other side, he is creative and have great sense for note selection and this is his main strengts. Of course, Beethoven had great works as every famous composer, but he is not nearly good composer as Mozart. Loud and ugly music with some excellent moments.
> 
> My vote for underrated composer goes to Prokofiev. Yes, he is famous and well recognized composer, but I think he should be significantly higher on composers Olimp. Most versatile composer after Mozart, who cover every musical genre and wrote masterpiece in each. Intelligent and creative with great humour, beatiful melodist, great voice writing, and incredible range and variety of compositions. Prokofiev was absolutely genius. But, he is Russian and West is always rusophobic.


The three of them had different upbringings, different formative years, exposures to different music, different artistic circumstances, different conditions for their composing, different audiences, different supporters for their music (the church, the wealthy people of leisure, the intellectuals), and different goals for their outputs.

Prokofiev was a great craftsman and he was very clever, but he wasn't transforming the musical landscape like Stravinsky or Schoenberg.

Welcome to the forum - we need more people for more ideas.


----------



## sstucky

Over: Mahler
Under (until recently) Holmboe


----------



## etipou

Allerius said:


> I disagree that Beethoven is overrated and totally disagree with your points. For me his achievements as a composer were at least as extraordinary as those of Mozart and Bach. He was a master of rhythm, of dynamic and mood contrast, of counterpoint (many of his symphonies have brilliant fugal passages for example), of melody (some of the most known themes of classical music come from him), of vocal writing (the _choral_ symphony usually is placed among one of the very greatest works of CM in many lists of enthusiasts), an impressive harmonist (he could modulate to very distant keys and still maintain dramatic unity in his works) and great orchestrator (Berlioz cites him more than any other composer, including Gluck and Mozart, in his treatise of orchestration). He was deaf yet he could listen much better than most people, including haters.


I too disagree that Beethoven is overrated, but I think Calipso's point of view is a coherent one and many of the points are correct. The proportion of great sustained melodies in his work is not high (though he certainly wrote some beautiful ones) - this was not his way. The 9th symphony is as great as it gets, but the vocal writing is awful from a singer's point of view: it's a ridiculous strain on the soprano voices, and the inner parts are nonsensical without any real vocal quality (smooth logical movement) at all. The _effect_ is sublime, but it is not "well-made".

His harmony, especially in the middle period, can be quite bare-bones and emphasise the tonic-dominant polarity to an exaggerated degree. His counterpoint is not of the very best either. It's no use saying there are good fugal passages here and there - even Berlioz has good fugal passages here and there.

I agree he is a good orchestrator though, can't defend that one. But as you say, where he is supreme is in rhythm, dramatic contrast, the large scale building and release of tension.


----------



## Agamenon

Beethoven and Mozart are overplayed. That´s the point!

:angel:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> I disagree that Beethoven is overrated and totally disagree with your points. For me his achievements as a composer were at least as extraordinary as those of Mozart and Bach.


I agree. I don't think it's totally fair to judge Beethoven by 18th century stylistic procedures. Late Beethoven stuff isn't any less interesting compared to Schubert quartet G major D887 and Berlioz symphonie fantastique in terms of early 19th century "imaginative creativity". That's what's most important.



hammeredklavier said:


> We've had several polls on this already, not so long ago: Favorite of the Big Three (poll)
> Anyway, I think both are apples and oranges; Mozart has good things of the old age, whereas Beethoven has of the new age.
> While generally I feel more "depth of dissonance" and fluidity in the part-writing of Mozart, (I don't mean "musical depth", which I don't think either of them lacks), Mozart doesn't quite have the "poetic content" of Beethoven, the "fantastic feel" of the Romantic lied. And Beethoven tends to be less "predictable" in cadential resolutions. ("predictability" wasn't really a bad thing in the 18th century, it was more like a Classical virtue).
> I also can understand why people find Beethoven to be more "majestic", "heroic"; Beethoven was good at bringing out his kind of drama, but I think there are merits in Mozart's sense of drama as well.
> I prefer the vocal music of Michael Haydn and instrumental music of Carl Philip Emanuel over Schubert and Berlioz. I'm generally more drawn to the older sounds in these situations (late 18th century vs early 19th century), which perhaps may explain my preference for Mozart over Beethoven.


----------



## consuono

My opinion at the moment:

Most overrated may be Stravinsky or Ives.
Most underrated may be Rameau.


----------



## Luchesi

etipou said:


> I too disagree that Beethoven is overrated, but I think Calipso's point of view is a coherent one and many of the points are correct. The proportion of great sustained melodies in his work is not high (though he certainly wrote some beautiful ones) - this was not his way. The 9th symphony is as great as it gets, but the vocal writing is awful from a singer's point of view: it's a ridiculous strain on the soprano voices, and the inner parts are nonsensical without any real vocal quality (smooth logical movement) at all. The _effect_ is sublime, but it is not "well-made".
> 
> His harmony, especially in the middle period, can be quite bare-bones and emphasise the tonic-dominant polarity to an exaggerated degree. His counterpoint is not of the very best either. It's no use saying there are good fugal passages here and there - even Berlioz has good fugal passages here and there.
> 
> I agree he is a good orchestrator though, can't defend that one. But as you say, where he is supreme is in rhythm, dramatic contrast, the large scale building and release of tension.


Who are you comparing LvB to? Someone composing at the time?

The way I see it, LvB's IQ was only a little above average. He was averagely naive for the time and so he spoke directly to the average enthusiast (then and now). Who else composed such effective (affective) pieces from the simple musical elements as the Pathetique, Waldstein and Appassionata?

added 
And his concerti have more artisitic ambiguity than Mozart's. But that's unfair to Wolfie, because he lived the "Mozart years".


----------



## Xisten267

Luchesi said:


> The way I see it, LvB's IQ was only a little above average.


Yep, like Einstein's, Newton's, da Vinci's, Bach's, Wagner's and Mozart's.


----------



## hammeredklavier

It's doubtful if Joseph Haydn really wrote better symphonies than his contemporaries






"Wranitzky's tempest encompasses the entire final movement and takes roughly 10 minutes to perform. A compendium of storm-like gestures, such as rapid scales, tremolos, and diminished chords, these devices are set loosely within the confines of sonata form. Ultimately, the storm subsides, as evidenced in the rejoicing D-major coda section."



hammeredklavier said:


> I also like Michael's symphonies better than Joseph's. They seem to be less about "jokes" (not that I have anything against jokes in general, -I just find Joseph's jokes "lame" and "unfunny" to be honest), but more about interesting counterpoint and wind-writing. He seems to be a true direct descendant of the Baroque, and seems to establish _serious_ Classicism (more than Joseph is/does).
> I'm also not quite impressed by the way Joseph handles his variation movements where he adds "accompaniment" to the theme in the subsequent passages. They seem kind of "cheap" to me, like the Ole Ole variations from the Neo-romantic composer Richard Kastle's 9th piano concerto, or the God save the king Variations (1829) by Samuel Wesley.
> It seems to me that Michael "churned out" less (albeit with the same degree of quality as Joseph) in this department.
> 
> Michael's writing for winds really seems reminiscent of Mozart's divertimentos like K.251. (Also look at the use of the oboe in his Missa sancti Hieronymi) It's quite telling that Mozart in his Vienna period studied Michael's scores, but not Joseph's (I don't find any significant case of Joseph's influence on Mozart during this period except his 52th and 78th, which might have been an inspiration for Mozart's "stile Pathétique" , and some minor influences in string quartet writing).
> 
> I like Michael's ways to create tension**, -they're not as dramatic or character-changing as Mozart's, but still effective.
> 
> M. Haydn - P 24, MH 425 - *Symphony No. 33 in B flat major*: [ 1:55 ]
> Michael Haydn *Symphony No.28 in C major* Perger 19: [ 17:06 ]
> (we can also hear his obvious influence on Mozart's final symphony in certain sections)
> 
> **also look at these sections of Michael's own Missa sancti Hieronymi, or this from his Missa sancti Joannis Nepomuceni
> 
> M. Haydn - P 32, MH 507 - *Symphony No. 40 in F major* (Salzburg, 1789): [ 7:29 ]
> compare the style with Mozart's K.184 symphony (Salzburg, 1773): [ 2:45 ]
> or his final, K.551 (Vienna, 1788): [ 16:30 ]
> (the first movement of Michael's MH507 F major symphony is also melodically memorable, btw)
> 
> M. Haydn - P 20, MH 393 - *Symphony No. 29 in D minor*: [ 0:01 ] , [ 12:52 ]
> the last movement isn't as "half-baked" as Joseph's and is reminiscent of the first movement.
> "The third movement is a rondeau, Presto scherzante. Horns are in F, trumpets in D. The A theme could be seen as a metamorphosis of the first subject of the first movement. The final statement of the A theme in D minor is almost the same as the first except the horns are absent while they change crooks to D. After a fermata on a V7 chord, the A theme is given in D major, the only difference from the first statement being the key signature."
> 
> Michael Haydn *Symphony No.27 in B flat major* Perger 18: [0:01]
> the slow introduction is memorable
> 
> *Symphony No. 34 in E flat major*: [ 5:24 ]
> *Symphony No.39 in C major*: [7:02]
> short, overture-like symphonies with fugato finales, the C major (No.39, MH 478) written in the same year as Mozart's K.551
> 
> *Symphony No. 22 in D major*: [ 12:15 ]
> Mozart copied out this fugato finale as study (K.291)





hammeredklavier said:


> I think the slow movement of the 80th symphony (probably my favorite Haydn symphony slow movement) is also decent. To me, like the 1st cello concerto, it evokes a feeling of nostalgia for the Classical period in a different way from that of Mozart's 34th, for example. I used to be impressed by the sustained note in the brass in the development of the 78th symphony 1st movement. That "bam~~~~~" the brass does while the strings do their own stuff. It thought it was dramatic in effect, in a way distinctive and unique from the styles of other Classicists. But then I became somewhat less enthusiastic about it when I learned that it's actually not Haydn's orignal orchestration, but H. C. Robbins Landon's reorchestration of the Haydn work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, the Svanisce in un momento from Il ritorno di Tobia, and Sonata V and the Earthquake finale from the Seven Last Words of Christ also strike me as somewhat dramatic. But generally, there's something about Joseph's sense of drama that puts me off a little. The fast movements of the "sturm-und-drang-in-a-teapot" 44th and 49th for example, strikes me as rather "annoyingly whiny" rather than "dramatic".
> Perhaps I would have regarded him more highly if he could write like these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (11:20 ~ 13:39)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the well-known stories about Joseph's contribution to the classical music tradition (about how he was "The Founding Father of Classicism" or whatever) are in my view, quite overblown to be honest. Nowadays I find more common traits between stuff like Michael's string quintet MH189, symphonies MH287, 384 with Mozart's K.458, K.387, K.551. (In catholic music, their Salzburgian practice proved exemplary to Beethoven, Weber, Schubert, Bruckner, etc to a far greater extent than Joseph's.)
> On the whole, I find Joseph to be a bit too much a "nice guy" and a "joke symphonist". A "failed opera composer who turned to catholic music". Sorry. He's not an epitome of anything, imv, but just one of many composers. He wrote good stuff (such as the chaos intro to Die schöpfung and 78th symphony) but his contemporaries always wrote "better" stuff. (the adagio intro to the dissonance quartet K.465 and the C minor concerto K.491)
> Sorry to be negative, but I really had to "say it".


----------



## AeolianStrains

Wranitzky was 20 years Haydn's junior; hardly his contemporary. And everything you mentioned is a matter of taste.


----------



## etipou

^A matter of taste? That Wranitzky is atmospheric and enjoyable but it doesn't come within a million miles of a Haydn finale in any department. The most fundamental shortcoming is that it's got no "go" in it, no forward momentum whatsoever, no sense of one thing leading to the next and to the next... It's just a series of isolated effects.


----------



## hammeredklavier

etipou said:


> ^A matter of taste? That Wranitzky is atmospheric and enjoyable *but it doesn't come within a million miles of a Haydn finale in any department.* The most fundamental shortcoming is that it's got no "go" in it, no forward momentum whatsoever, no sense of one thing leading to the next and to the next... It's just a series of isolated effects.


I don't think the Wranitzky suffers from "lack of content" as the finales of this Haydn symphony and piano sonata No.60 in C major do.

*[ 22:57 ]*







AeolianStrains said:


> Wranitzky was 20 years Haydn's junior; hardly his contemporary. And everything you mentioned is a matter of taste.


Wranitzky was born in the same year as Mozart and died 1 year before Haydn, saying that he wasn't Haydn's contemporary is like saying Mozart wasn't Haydn's contemporary.
_"From 1790, he conducted both royal theater orchestras. He was highly respected by Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven; the latter two preferred him as conductor of their new works (e.g., Beethoven's First Symphony in 1800)."_


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> It's doubtful if Joseph Haydn really wrote better symphonies than his contemporaries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Wranitzky's tempest encompasses the entire final movement and takes roughly 10 minutes to perform. A compendium of storm-like gestures, such as rapid scales, tremolos, and diminished chords, these devices are set loosely within the confines of sonata form. Ultimately, the storm subsides, as evidenced in the rejoicing D-major coda section."


The Wranitzky sounds pretty grindy, tedious, and uninspired to me compared to J. Haydn and Mozart. Compare with this among many finales by Papa.


----------



## etipou

In hand-picking one of the smaller and less interesting finales you only confirm exactly the point I made. It goes like like a stack of dominoes once it's started. Those 3 minutes of simple material have ten times the life in them that Wranitzky's 10 do.


----------



## hammeredklavier

etipou said:


> In hand-picking one of the smaller and less interesting finales you only confirm exactly the point I made. It goes like like a stack of dominoes once it's started. Those 3 minutes of simple material have ten times the life in them that Wranitzky's 10 do.


I disagree. The Wranitzky is just as good as this symphony Joseph wrote in 1785 : 



 (17:32~17:54). Joseph was in his "maturity", he should have moved away from doing this sort of thing (spamming the motif with chords ad-nauseam). But he didn't. I consider his brother a greater melodist/harmonist/contrapuntist/structurist.


----------



## AeolianStrains

etipou said:


> ^A matter of taste? That Wranitzky is atmospheric and enjoyable but it doesn't come within a million miles of a Haydn finale in any department. The most fundamental shortcoming is that it's got no "go" in it, no forward momentum whatsoever, no sense of one thing leading to the next and to the next... It's just a series of isolated effects.


Clearly someone prefers that to actual development. :angel:

I do like Wranitzky, though to my ears and eyes Haydn is far superior. But I can see how someone could theoretically prefer the Wranitzky if their tastes dictated the criteria (as everyone's do).


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> I disagree. The Wranitzky is just as good as this symphony Joseph wrote in 1785 :
> 
> 
> 
> (17:32~17:54). Joseph was in his "maturity", he should have moved away from doing *this sort of thing (spamming the motif with chords ad-nauseam)*. But he didn't. I consider his brother a greater melodist/harmonist/contrapuntist/structurist.


By 'this sort of thing' you mean those altered chord progressions? That's what sets Haydn above Wranitzky, who is playing safe. Haydn is more forward looking.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> By 'this sort of thing' you mean those altered chord progressions? That's what sets Haydn above Wranitzky, who is playing safe. Haydn is more forward looking.


I don't think that passage by Joseph is any more striking in terms of dissonance than the Wranitzky though. Yes, Joseph uses chromaticism, as he does in the slow movements of quartets Op.54 No.2, and Op.76 No.3, and the chaos intro from the Creation (yawn..), but not effectively in my view. The chords in the 83th just sound like a series of samey repetitions to my ears. 
Why is it so forbidden to "ask questions" about Joseph's "greatness and achievements"? Have you ever asked yourself "what if Joseph was really just a mundane 18th-century composer who has been promoted way out of proportion?"
Why does Joseph always have to lauded as the "Father of the symphony and the string quartet" when his contemporaries accomplished and pioneered just as much as him in various fields (such as the double exposition form in the concerto, for instance) and still never get "titles" like him?
Why does all of Joseph's baryton trios have to be recorded when his own younger brother's 20 litanies languish in obscurity and never get recorded? Isn't the dogma of the Joseph Haydn Cult doing more harm than good to the classical music world? 
Why is the name "Joseph Haydn" absent from the list below? Maybe deep down, Mozart didn't consider him really that important (as people do today)?:
http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4
"Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn."


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think that passage by Joseph is any more striking in terms of dissonance than the Wranitzky though. Yes, Joseph uses chromaticism, as he does in the slow movements of quartets Op.54 No.2, and Op.76 No.3, and the chaos intro from the Creation (yawn..), but not effectively in my view. The chords in the 83th just sound like a series of samey repetitions to my ears.
> Why is it so forbidden to "ask questions" about Joseph's "greatness and achievements"? Have you ever asked yourself "what if Joseph was really just a mundane 18th-century composer who has been promoted way out of proportion?"
> Why does Joseph always have to lauded as the "Father of the symphony and the string quartet" when his contemporaries accomplished and pioneered just as much as him in various fields (such as the double exposition form in the concerto, for instance) and still never get "titles" like him?
> Why does all of Joseph's baryton trios have to be recorded when his own younger brother's 20 litanies languish in obscurity and never get recorded? Isn't the dogma of the Joseph Haydn Cult doing more harm than good to the classical music world?
> Why is the name "Joseph Haydn" absent from the list below? Maybe deep down, Mozart didn't consider him really that important (as people do today)?:
> http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4
> "Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn."


It's not the dissonance. It's the movement. The Wranitzsky doesn't have that movement. There are no progressions in the Wranitzsky that elevates it above standard fare, and just keeps grinding away.

I don't see a problem with question Haydn's greatness, or Mozart's, or anyone's.


----------



## Bulldog

Phil loves classical said:


> The Wranitzky sounds pretty grindy, tedious, and uninspired to me compared to J. Haydn and Mozart.


Yes. That last movement of Wranitzky's symphony is the most boring and useless music I've heard in the past few weeks.


----------



## Dimace

Mozart, until the time he started to compose his late Symphonies, Piano Sonatas & Concertos, Violin Sonatas etc (dates are varying, so let us say his last period 1781 -1791 in Vienna, time he worked as freelancer composer) he is extremely overrated. If we see only his last period is underrated because his music isn't from this world. Beethoven had also composed as a young composer second class works (or nonsense like his Für Elise...) but not so many. His general outcome is on higher level, but he hasn't this divine ''explosion'' Mozart has with many with his late works.

Haydn is nowhere in the near. He isn't over or underrated. He is on another, inferior composing level and that's it. If someone has the time to see the story with his Lost Sonatas he will understand my point of view.

For me the most underrated composer I know is the Williams Wallace. All the others are in their respective places. The history doesn't make big mistakes with the composers. Some listeners make...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Dimace said:


> Mozart, until the time he started to compose his late Symphonies, Piano Sonatas & Concertos, Violin Sonatas etc (dates are varying, so let us say his last period 1781 -1791 in Vienna, time he worked as freelancer composer) he is extremely overrated. If we see only his last period is underrated because his music isn't from this world.


Even after all these years I've "corrected" you, you're still going around saying these things? I really doubt how much of Mozart and Beethoven works you actually know. Maybe you're excessively praising late Mozart at the expense of early Mozart. Or you don't know the English language properly; what "underrated/overrated" really means. Or you're just not interested in general 18th century stuff, you're unable to "recognize" what's good. (No offense, I know you're more interested in 19th century piano stuff such as Liszt). I'm curious what kind of opinions you have on other 18th century giants such as J.A. Hasse, G. Benda, or J.J. Quantz, if you have any. The first time I've heard the credo of K.192 for example, I was amazed how a movement in F major can have so much color and contrast (consolation vs passion) with natural flow. Who overrates stuff like these?:























Dimace said:


> Beethoven had also composed as a young composer second class works (or nonsense like his Für Elise...) but not so many. His general outcome is on higher level, but he hasn't this divine ''explosion'' Mozart has with many with his late works.


Do you know all of Beethoven's works, not just ones catalogued as Opuses, but also WoOs, Hesses? They're also very numerous. Have you listened to them all? Your post comes across more nonsensical than Für Elise does to me. Maybe you're just being a blind Beethoven enthusiast again, fantasizing about the greatness of Beethoven's early achievements.



hammeredklavier said:


> although I appreciate his 9th symphony finale,
> I have nothing positive to say about the vocal writing of the cantatas.


----------



## Dimace

hammeredklavier said:


> Even after all these years I've "corrected" you, you're still going around saying these things? I really doubt how much of Mozart and Beethoven works you actually know. Maybe you're excessively praising late Mozart at the expense of early Mozart. Or you don't know the English language properly; what "underrated/overrated" really means. Or you're just not interested in general 18th century stuff, you're unable to "recognize" what's good. (No offense, I know you're more interested in 19th century piano stuff such as Liszt). I'm curious what kind of opinions you have on other 18th century giants such as J.A. Hasse, G. Benda, or J.J. Quantz, if you have any. The first time I've heard the credo of K.192 for example, I was amazed how a movement in F major can have so much color and contrast (consolation vs passion) with natural flow. Who overrates stuff like these?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know all of Beethoven's works, not just ones catalogued as Opuses, but also WoOs, Hesses? They're also very numerous. Have you listened to them all? Your post comes across more nonsensical than Für Elise does to me. Maybe you're just being a blind Beethoven enthusiast again, fantasizing about the greatness of Beethoven's early achievements.


The only comment I could write here, my dear friend, is that I respect your opinion and I carefully red your post. I wish to you a nice Sunday evening.


----------



## open

Oskar Sala is definitely the most underrated composer I can think of.

It's basically perfect music for my ears. So evocative.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> It's doubtful if Joseph Haydn really wrote better symphonies than his contemporaries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Wranitzky's tempest encompasses the entire final movement and takes roughly 10 minutes to perform. A compendium of storm-like gestures, such as rapid scales, tremolos, and diminished chords, these devices are set loosely within the confines of sonata form. Ultimately, the storm subsides, as evidenced in the rejoicing D-major coda section."


I don't know how an 18th-century listener felt about this, but it sounds pretty cheesy to me. The "stormy" gestures are repetitious and overworked, the phrase structures are too predictably symmetrical, and it just doesn't add up to a well-formed whole the way Beethoven's much more concise and coherent storm does in his "Pastoral." I laughed out loud a couple of times, and if Beethoven knew it he probably laughed too when he thought of how much better his storm was. I can't imagine ever wanting to hear this again.

If this is typical (which I'm guessing it isn't), Wranitzky is not underrated.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

open said:


> Oskar Sala is definitely the most underrated composer I can think of.
> 
> It's basically perfect music for my ears. So evocative.


I've never heard of him before but I'm listening now to Elektronische Impressionen and... wow. Evocative is a good word.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Nevermind .......... (overrated album, by the way)


----------



## consuono

Woodduck said:


> I don't know how an 18th-century listener felt about this, but it sounds pretty cheesy to me. The "stormy" gestures are repetitious and overworked, the phrase structures are too predictably symmetrical, and it just doesn't add up to a well-formed whole the way Beethoven's much more concise and coherent storm does in his "Pastoral." I laughed out loud a couple of times, and if Beethoven knew it he probably laughed too when he thought of how much better his storm was. I can't imagine ever wanting to hear this again.
> 
> If this is typical (which I'm guessing it isn't), Wranitzky is not underrated.


That could be a storm, or it could be me looking for my glasses. :lol:


----------



## open

Woodduck said:


> I don't know how an 18th-century listener felt about this, but it sounds pretty cheesy to me. The "stormy" gestures are repetitious and overworked, the phrase structures are too predictably symmetrical, and it just doesn't add up to a well-formed whole the way Beethoven's much more concise and coherent storm does in his "Pastoral." I laughed out loud a couple of times, and if Beethoven knew it he probably laughed too when he thought of how much better his storm was. I can't imagine ever wanting to hear this again.


Actually storms meant quite a different thing in the XVIII. century.

For starters, common people didn't really have windows, just holes in the walls. It was quite a symbol of wealth if someone could afford windows. Often times they protected it in such manner that whenever they were away, they removed them and hid them to a secure place, as they were truly the jewel of the house.

I guess it's similar to Varese's usage of fire sirens. It's quite meek if you listen to Ameriques. Still, in the day & age it was composed, a fire siren would mean indefinite chaos, perhaps tragedy. For some it would even mean memories of war sirens.

I guess it's like the usage of triangle for denoting bell/phone rings. We know what are they, how they should sound. Wait two-three generations and it will be as obscure as the meaning of a painted cloth on a Braque painting.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I don't know how an 18th-century listener felt about this, but it sounds pretty cheesy to me. The "stormy" gestures are repetitious and overworked, the phrase structures are too predictably symmetrical, and it just doesn't add up to a well-formed whole the way Beethoven's much more concise and coherent storm does in his "Pastoral." I laughed out loud a couple of times, and if Beethoven knew it he probably laughed too when he thought of how much better his storm was. I can't imagine ever wanting to hear this again.
> If this is typical (which I'm guessing it isn't), Wranitzky is not underrated.


Another lovely comment, Mr. Woodduck. Yes, I agree, lol. :angel:
I can imagine in my mind Beethoven laughing at Wranitzky and Wranitzky saying "It wasn't Beethoven who was laughing at me; it was God!" (although Wranitzky died 3 months before the premiere of the Beethoven symphony)

Btw, I don't know why, but certain parts in Beethoven uncannily remind me of Christian Bach these days.







hammeredklavier said:


> This part of Beethoven Piano Sonata No.7 1st Movement has always reminded me of "Quantus tremor" from Christian Bach's Missa da Requiem.
> *[ 0:44 ]*
> *[ 5:37 ]*


----------



## consuono

> Btw, I don't know why, but certain parts in Beethoven uncannily remind me of Christian Bach these days.


Certain parts in Mozart definitely remind me of J. C. Bach.


----------



## haziz

peeyaj said:


> I can't believe that we don't have a specific thread regarding this subject. So, I'll post this. Feel free to argue the merits of your lists, and some of us we'll be compelled to defend ours.
> 
> Here are my guilty suspects.
> 
> * Most Overrated *
> 
> ........
> 
> b. Tchaikovsky
> 
> ........
> 
> * Most Underrated *
> 
> ..............
> 
> d. Schoenberg
> 
> .............
> 
> .............. Tchaikovsky, in my opinion, is very competent composer, but his music doesn't ''do'' me. Same to Mahler' symphonies.
> 
> I am tempted to include LvB in the overrated, but I don't wanna die..
> 
> It's important to distinguish between ''overrated'' and ''underappreciated''.
> 
> What's in your list?


Of course you had to put in my favorite composer (Tchaikovsky) and one of my most disliked (Schoenberg).... Oh well, to each his own.


----------



## Bxnwebster

*Most Overrated:*
- J.S. Bach (I certainly think that he is a great composer-he composed some of my favorite works- but I just cannot understand the culture surrounding him)
- Bernstein (his music bores me and I cannot find a single piece of his that I like)
- Copland (same reasoning as Bernstein and Hindemith)
- Hindemith (same reasoning as Copland and Bernstein)
- Stravinsky (I'm not sure if I think he is overrated, I just cannot understand the appeal to many of his pieces)

*Most Underrated:*
- Buxtehude (IMO, Buxtehude is a stronger and more inspired composer than J.S. Bach)
- Korngold (there's just no other music like Korngold's)
- Villa-Lobos (there's more to him than Bachianas Brasileiras...)
- Vivaldi (probably a controversial opinion, but I love his music despite his infamous reputation)
- Szymanowski (while his output is not as extensive as other composers, his music is underplayed)
- Zelenka (by no means is he a household name but definitely deserves recognition within the Baroque canon, especially in regards to sacred music)

I am denoting composers as overrated or underrated by their positive/negative reception, not by their notoriety


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bxnwebster said:


> Buxtehude (IMO, Buxtehude is a stronger and more inspired composer than J.S. Bach)






























Bxnwebster said:


> Korngold (there's just no other music like Korngold's)


Korngold (more corn than gold)


----------



## Musicaterina

Christoph Graupner, Luigi Boccherini and Nicola Porpora are in my opinion prime examples for really underrated composers.


----------



## John O

Whether he is overrated as a composer or not, John Cage is surely the only avant-garde composer that the average member of the public could name. A genius of self promotion more than composition.


----------



## John O

Mozart is overrated by the general public:
Because they heard he was a child genius/ prodigy (ignoring the fact that all his great works were written as a adult and that Beethoven and Schubert and Mendelssohn were child geniuses too : and in the latter case he did write masterpieces while a child.

Because of the ‘Mozart Effect’ - that playing Mozart will make your baby more intelligent and your cows yield more milk.


----------



## hammeredklavier

John O said:


> Mozart is overrated by the general public:
> Because they heard he was a child genius/ prodigy (ignoring the fact that all his great works were written as a adult and that Beethoven and Schubert and Mendelssohn were child geniuses too : and in the latter case he did write masterpieces while a child.
> Because of the 'Mozart Effect' - that playing Mozart will make your baby more intelligent and your cows yield more milk.


*O RLY?* You're entitled to your views and preference, but I'm curious what about Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn's teenage works you regard so highly. Honestly, Mendelssohn is slightly overhyped in this regard, let's face it. In his early period, he has his way of "going over the top" -(or "chatting away"; it always goes like this: "ta~ ta~ ta~ ta~ ta~ ta~", it rises in the next measures -> "TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~", it rises further in the next -> *"TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~"*; this apparently didn't sound like the "prattle of a child" to Goethe for some reason )- that just isn't my cup of tea. He wrote a lot of masterpieces in his maturity though, the violin concerto, F minor string quartet, D minor piano trio, etc. But frankly, the octet would not have been regarded so highly today if he wrote it in his 30s. I cringe whenever I read this: 
"Conrad Wilson summarizes much of its reception ever since: "Its youthful verve, brilliance and perfection make it one of the miracles of nineteenth-century music.""

Beethoven Op.131/i, Brahms Op.98/i, the Tristan prelude are examples of what I would consider as "miracles of 19th century music". The octet is not even worthy of consideration.
I mean it's still a fine work, but there's just no need to make such a big deal about it as everyone does today. The excessive praise and attention everyone gives about the work seems a little "irrational" to me. 
(As Spohr, Cherubini and the others demonstrated), writing in that sort of extended form for strings was pretty commonplace in the 1820s, (he also tries to mimic Beethoven in the A minor quartet) -but the actual contents themselves aren't really all that mind-blowingly miraculous. 


hammeredklavier said:


> I know everyone talks of Mendelssohn's octet as being impressive for the age he was when he wrote it. Sure it is IMPRESSIVE, but I don't think all that highly of passages like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ( I think he's slightly "overhyped" about his precociousness: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/23/the-youngest-master-2 , https://www.classical-scene.com/2009/10/24/1692/ ) sorry, I think it's chatty, and seems to me like a worse version of the finale of Beethoven's C major Razumovsky , -and in terms of expressive dissonance, I find Mozart's works from years 1773~4 more interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K.167:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schubert? Did he write anything interesting in his teens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mozart wrote this 2 weeks before his 13th birthday, btw:





hammeredklavier said:


> although I appreciate his 9th symphony finale,
> I have nothing positive to say about the vocal writing of the cantatas.


----------



## Aries

Underrated:
- Friedrich der Große
- Georg Christoph Wagenseil (Symphonies were not invented by Haydn)
- Franz Lachner (kind of a missing link between Schubert and Bruckner, better forget Schumann and Mendelssohn)
- Wilhelm Furtwängler
- Martin Scherber
- Georgy Sviridov (simple technique but mindblowing, a genius)











Overrated:
- Georg Friedrich Händel (Bach, Vivaldi are just better)
- Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
- Robert Schumann
- Frederic Chopin
- Felix Mendelssohn
- Johannes Brahms
- the formalists (Berg, von Webern, Stockhausen etc. etc., Schoenberg was actually a good composer, what can be heard in his early work, but he decided to create the terrible formalistic music for whatever reason)


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> Underrated:
> - Friedrich der Große
> - Georg Christoph Wagenseil (Symphonies were not invented by Haydn)
> - Franz Lachner (kind of a missing link between Schubert and Bruckner, better forget Schumann and Mendelssohn)
> - Wilhelm Furtwängler
> - Martin Scherber
> - Georgy Sviridov (simple technique but mindblowing, a genius)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overrated:
> - Georg Friedrich Händel (Bach, Vivaldi are just better)
> - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
> - Robert Schumann
> - Frederic Chopin
> - Felix Mendelssohn
> - Johannes Brahms
> - the formalists (Berg, von Webern, Stockhausen etc. etc., Schoenberg was actually a good composer, what can be heard in his early work, but he decided to create the terrible formalistic music for whatever reason)


I wonder why those would be considered overrated?


----------



## Knight769

*Underrated*

1. Tomaso Albinoni
2. Antonio Vivaldi
3. Telemann
4. Ralph Vaughan Williams
5. Schubert (Early symphonies)

*Overrated*

1. Mahler
2. Debussy
3. Verdi
4. Rachmaninov
5. Berlioz


----------



## Aries

Luchesi said:


> I wonder why those would be considered overrated?


Händel is good but some consider him as No. 1 composer of Baroque. I disagree to that.
Mozart is ok too but some consider him as No. 1 overall composer. He has an simple accessible style, so it is not surprising that he is popular, but I think depth is missing.
I think the conservative path of Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms was boring and had a weak expression. New German School was better.
Chopins virtuosity is not interesting for me.
And the formalist composers of the 20th century are a reason for a decline of classical music. They took away playtime from good composers, what they only could do because they were/are overrated.


----------



## ArtMusic

John O said:


> Mozart is overrated by the general public:


The general public itself is overrated ....


----------



## ArtMusic

Knight769 said:


> *Underrated*
> 
> 1. Tomaso Albinoni
> 2. Antonio Vivaldi
> 3. Telemann
> 4. Ralph Vaughan Williams
> 5. Schubert (Early symphonies)
> 
> *Overrated*
> 
> 1. Mahler
> 2. Debussy
> 3. Verdi
> 4. Rachmaninov
> 5. Berlioz


I could add Bruckner and Stravinsky to the overrated list.


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> Händel is good but some consider him as No. 1 composer of Baroque. I disagree to that.
> Mozart is ok too but some consider him as No. 1 overall composer. He has an simple accessible style, so it is not surprising that he is popular, but I think depth is missing.
> I think the conservative path of Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms was boring and had a weak expression. New German School was better.
> Chopins virtuosity is not interesting for me.
> And the formalist composers of the 20th century are a reason for a decline of classical music. They took away playtime from good composers, what they only could do because they were/are overrated.


We have to understand that in any of those generations they were the cutting edge of expression. When we compare them to some universal ideal from our perspective TODAY we're being unfair and even ignorant. Because if we can't grasp the span and the limits of human expression (musical expression) of their times we will miss out on so much that is Art (art as a reflection and an exploration in the settings, the human condition, in which they found themselves). Chopin, for example, worked very hard and was extremely self-critical. To think about virtuosity is shallow and uninformed. In Paganini yes, but in Chopin?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> We have to understand that in any of those generations they were the cutting edge of expression. When we compare them to some universal ideal from our perspective TODAY we're being unfair and even ignorant. Because if we can't grasp the span and the limits of human expression (musical expression) of their times we will miss out on so much that is Art (art as a reflection and an exploration in the settings, the human condition, in which they found themselves). Chopin, for example, worked very hard and was extremely self-critical. To think about virtuosity is shallow and uninformed. In Paganini yes, but in Chopin?


Are you saying that when we judge a piece of music we have to take in to consideration the historical context in which it was created and the effect it had in that time? Not sure if I've understood you correctly.

Ultimately we *must* judge a piece of music on how it good it is regardless of the time it came from, we love pieces of music just because they're great music we don't have to start thinking about the time period it came from and what was going on then, that may be helpful but great music is great music.


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Are you saying that when we judge a piece of music we have to take in to consideration the historical context in which it was created and the effect it had in that time? Not sure if I've understood you correctly.
> 
> Ultimately we *must* judge a piece of music on how it good it is regardless of the time it came from, we love pieces of music just because they're great music we don't have to start thinking about the time period it came from and what was going on then, that may be helpful but great music is great music.


How good it is? So you just listen to a piece and say that's great and that's not great? It's very mysterious, isn't it..

I want to think about where the piece came from and what it influenced later on. What were the limitations of the instruments and especially his audiences. What were the composer's working conditions, what was his childhood like, his loving relationships, on and on.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

"So you just listen to a piece and say that's great and that's not great?"

Exactly.

Do you love a piece of music because of _"where the piece came from and what it influenced later on. What were the limitations of the instruments and especially his audiences. What were the composer's working conditions, what was his childhood like, his loving relationships, on and on."_....???

Its fine to be interested in these things but at the end of the day a piece is judged to be good/great purely on the music.


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> "So you just listen to a piece and say that's great and that's not great?"
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Do you love a piece of music because of _"where the piece came from and what it influenced later on. What were the limitations of the instruments and especially his audiences. What were the composer's working conditions, what was his childhood like, his loving relationships, on and on."_....???
> 
> Its fine to be interested in these things but at the end of the day a piece is judged to be good/great purely on the music.


So music is for enjoyment like taking a Sunday drive or looking at sunsets, or supermodels. I'm glad you're getting something out of it.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> So music is for enjoyment like taking a Sunday drive or looking at sunsets, or supermodels. I'm glad you're getting something out of it.


Music offers many paths to enjoyment and pays dividends with any kind of involvement, and all these ways of enjoying music are worthwhile. If listening to a piece of music brings someone a little joy, or takes their mind off something depressing, or just relieves boredom - those are all wonderful benefits to listening to music.

Your description sounds more like studying music, which is fine as well. But, I'm with Wilhelm Theophilus, with the caveat that I don't think much about whether a work I am enjoying is good or great; I am just happy to be listening to some music that engages my senses and mind in a positive manner.

Also, aside from reading a composer's biography or a critical study of his life and work, why a work was composed, or the historical context are not things I concern myself with. I treat a musical work somewhat like the New Criticism treated literature, basing my appraisal and response to a work on the four corners of the work itself without relying on any external information.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> *Music offers many paths to enjoyment and pays dividends with any kind of involvement, and all these ways of enjoying music are worthwhile. If listening to a piece of music brings someone a little joy, or takes their mind off something depressing, or just relieves boredom - those are all wonderful benefits to listening to music.*
> 
> Your description sounds more like studying music, which is fine as well. But, I'm with Wilhelm Theophilus, with the caveat that I don't think much about whether a work I am enjoying is good or great; I am just happy to be listening to some music that engages my senses and mind in a positive manner.
> 
> Also, aside from reading a composer's biography or a critical study of his life and work, why a work was composed, or the historical context are not things I concern myself with. I treat a musical work somewhat like the New Criticism treated literature, basing my appraisal and response to a work on the four corners of the work itself without relying on any external information.


I wonder which of the great composers would agree with that being their objective or goal, if any of them would.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> I wonder which of the great composers would agree with that being their objective or goal, if any of them would.


You know, I couldn't care less.  Once the music is released to the public, a composer's involvement ends; the work has to stand on its own, and rise or fall based solely on its content - perceived and appreciated in a myriad of ways by any listener.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> You know, I couldn't care less.  *Once the music is released to the public, a composer's involvement ends;* the work has to stand on its own, and rise or fall based solely on its content - perceived and appreciated in a myriad of ways by any listener.


I agree with that. When I play a piece I just read the score and express MYSELF with it. I don't care who wrote it at that moment. We probably can't know how they wanted it. Their rendition would probably change every time they played it anyway. But even if we could know, they're long gone.

But attempting to appreciate the background details of their lives, and the musical antecedents of a work and the consequential ongoing development afterwards is to me a huge part of the understanding and appreciation of any music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Why is the name "Joseph Haydn" absent from the list below? Maybe deep down, Mozart didn't consider him really that important (as people do today)?:
> http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4
> "Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn."


https://www.talkclassical.com/69083-what-most-overrated-work-11.html#post1992655
Michael Haydn wrote his string quintet MH189 in 1773, in Salzburg - 1 year before Joseph (who was already working as a kapellmeister for the Esterhazies) published his Sun quartets (Op.20).

This impassioned passage ( 



 ) of the slow movement from Michael's MH189 seems to anticipate
Mozart's K.551 ( 



 )

Also look at;
Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]

Some treatment of chromaticism in the minuet ( 



 ) and phrases in the finale also remind me of Mozart.

also look at these sections from MH189 ( 



 )
and Mozart K.533 ( 



 )

Btw, I hate to say it, but I find Joseph's inner harmonies (especially in slow movements of Op.20 Nos. 1, 2, 3, Op.76 Nos. 3, 6, TSLWOC, etc) rather "dragged-out" and "lukewarm" in comparison to be honest. I don't really find him to be a fabulous composer of SATB.

Just look at the level of recognition Joseph gets compared to his brother today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Quartets,_Op._20_(Haydn)
String Quartets: Haydn vs. Mozart
String quartets: Mozart versus Haydn

But just how significant were his "innovations", compared to these, for example? Think about it:


hammeredklavier said:


> 14.1 - Piano Concerto in D minor
> "Mozart was the father of the piano concerto. He set out the structural framework of the piano concerto, one that lasted into the romantic era, here it is. Mozart developed a stereotypical approach to the first movement of the concerto. It goes by several names, concerto form, double exposition form are the two most common."





hammeredklavier said:


> "the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)"
> < Opera's Second Death / Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar / P.128 >
> "Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score."
> < Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >





hammeredklavier said:


> "Gregorian melodies, of course, continued to be used in the Mass throughout the eighteenth century; but by Beethoven's time they were relatively rare, especially in orchestral Masses. The one composer who still used them extensively is Michael Haydn, in his a cappella Masses for Advent and Lent. It is significant that in some of these he limits the borrowed melody to the Incarnatus and expressly labels it "Corale." In the Missa dolorum B. M. V. (1762) it is set in the style of a harmonized chorale, in the Missa tempore Qudragesima of 1794 note against note, with the Gregorian melody (Credo IV of the Liber Usualis) appearing in the soprano. I have little doubt that Beethoven knew such works of Michael Haydn, at that time the most popular composer of sacred music in Austria."
> < Beethoven / Michael Spitzer / P.123~124 >


https://www.talkclassical.com/56299-mozart-le-nozze-di-9.html#post1982257
https://www.talkclassical.com/56299-mozart-le-nozze-di-9.html#post1982298
https://www.talkclassical.com/69483-beethoven-vs-danzi.html#post1995664


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, I hate to say it, but I find Joseph's inner harmonies (especially in slow movements of Op.20 Nos. 1, 2, 3, Op.76 Nos. 3, 6, TSLWOC, etc) rather "dragged-out" and "lukewarm" in comparison to be honest. I don't really find him to be a fabulous composer of SATB.


Oh, come on. You love to dump on Joseph Haydn and do so with regularity.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> Oh, come on. You love to dump on Joseph Haydn and do so with regularity.


Sorry about the negativity, but the more I go through threads in this forum (including the old ones), the more I feel there's something weird about people's treatment of Joseph Haydn. So I'm merely asking some questions .
I won't "bash for the sake of bashing". I still feel guilty about some unfair things I've said about some composers in the past. -frankly, I was pessimistic about the state and future of classical music communities in general. I saw people like these https://forums.abrsm.org/?showtopic=16967&page=25 practically everywhere I went. Then I came to TC, and I was rather disturbed to see that some members of TC (NL***, Ja***, ca***, etc) held the same view as them. ( I also remember seeing this at the time: What is the greatest string quintet? )


----------



## John Lenin

Most over rated Mendlessohn without a doubt..... under rated is harder..... maybe Prokofiev


----------



## Luchesi

John Lenin said:


> Most over rated Mendlessohn without a doubt..... under rated is harder..... maybe Prokofiev


I don't think Mendlessohn is overrated, because he was older than Chopin.


----------



## Botschaft

Most underrated composer: Brahms

Least overrated composer: Brahms


----------



## cybernaut

I will go to my grave not understanding why Allan Pettersson is not more appreciated. He is my favorite symphonist from the 20th Century...but he remains completely overlooked.


----------



## John O

I certainly wouldn't include Mendelsohn quartet in a top 10 of the 19th century or anything like that
Schuberts 5th symphony was written while still just a teenager too - I would tate this higher than the Mozart violin concertos

Anway the point isn't which of Mozart or Schubert or Mendelsohn wrote the best music while under 20 , all wrote far greater music later . The point is that it is not relevant to their greatness. 

What irritates my is that popular press eg. The Times of London always try to get the name Mozart in the headline or subline of any classical music story however tenious the link.


----------



## hammeredklavier

John O said:


> I certainly wouldn't include Mendelsohn quartet in a top 10 of the 19th century or anything like that
> Schuberts 5th symphony was written while still just a teenager too - I would tate this higher than the Mozart violin concertos
> Anway the point isn't which of Mozart or Schubert or Mendelsohn wrote the best music while under 20 , all wrote far greater music later . The point is that it is not relevant to their greatness.
> What irritates my is that popular press eg. The Times of London always try to get the name Mozart in the headline or subline of any classical music story however tenious the link.


Again, missa sancti trinitatis K.167 (1773), string quintet K.174 (1773), fugue in G minor K.401 (1773), symphony in G minor K.183 (1773), missa brevis in F K.192 (1774), missa brevis in D K.194 (1774), Litaniae lauretanae de beata maria virgine K.195 (1774) , La finta giardiniera K.196 (1774), misericordias domini K.222 (1775), etc, etc. To me they show greater signs of "maturity" than Mendelssohn or Schubert's early stuff. (I have some reservations about Mendelssohn's stuff, as I said in post1992665. He even revised his octet in 1832.) At least none of Mozart's early works gets this irrational level of adulation:

"Conrad Wilson summarizes much of its reception ever since: "Its youthful verve, brilliance and perfection make it *one of the miracles of nineteenth-century music.*""
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/23/the-youngest-master-2
https://www.classical-scene.com/2009/10/24/1692/

---


hammeredklavier said:


> To me, these expressions are strictly Mozart's -
> 
> Look at this part of Bernstein's lecture on Mozart's symphony in G minor K.550: [ 8:07 ]
> "Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? ... Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is Classically-contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor."
> > and then look at this modulation from G minor to E major in
> missa sancti trinitatis K.167 [ 3:52 ]
> 
> Look at - Bernstein: [ 2:03 ] "But notice that Mozart's theme is already chromatically formed. And even more so when it repeats."
> > and then look at these passages in
> missa brevis K.275 [ 3:07 , 3:18 ] , [ 10:33 , 10:58 ] , [ 14:00 , 14:37 ]
> missa brevis K.257 [ 3:57 , 4:10 ] , [ 8:22 , 9:50 ]
> 
> Look at - Bernstein: [ 2:59 ] "There's that Classical balance we were talking about -chromatic wandering on the top, firmly supported by tonic-and-dominant structure underneath."
> > and then look at these passages in missa brevis K.258 [ 2:53 ~ 3:31 ]
> 
> Look at - Bernstein: [ 6:02 ] "Even this lead-in to the home key, is chromatically written, firmly held in place by a dominant pedal."
> > and then look at this passage in
> missa brevis K.275 [ 7:12 ~ 7:21 ]
> 
> Look at the introduction to the K.465 "dissonance" quartet,
> > and then look at this contrapuntal passage of chromatic fourths in
> missa sancti trinitatis K.167 [ 10:47 ]
> 
> Also compare K.551/iv with K.192/iii
> 
> Luchesi or Salieri, for example, ([E.M.], [H.M.], [R]) don't orchestrate like this:
> spatzenmesse K.220 [ 2:30 ~ 4:00 ]
> "On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not 'one of us' from a national point of view. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music."
> <
> View attachment 130858
> >


----------



## Haydn70

Haydn is still under-rated.

Yes, he is widely performed and recorded but I have found in writings, reviews and conversations with fellow musicians a somewhat condescending attitude...something along the lines of "yes, he is good but he is no Mozart".

Much of this is because they do not know his more adventurous, daring works. Also his music is seldom dark, and is just not hip.

In 2009, the bicentennial of his death, the celebrations, festivals, etc. were minimal. Very sad.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Honestly, Mendelssohn is slightly overhyped in this regard, let's face it. In his early period, he has his way of "going over the top" -(or "chatting away"; it always goes like this: "ta~ ta~ ta~ ta~ ta~ ta~", it rises in the next measures -> "TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~", it rises further in the next -> *"TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~ TA~"*; this apparently didn't sound like the "prattle of a child" to Goethe for some reason )- that just isn't my cup of tea. He wrote a lot of masterpieces in his maturity though, the violin concerto, F minor string quartet, D minor piano trio, etc. But frankly, the octet would not have been regarded so highly today if he wrote it in his 30s. I cringe whenever I read this:
> "Conrad Wilson summarizes much of its reception ever since: "Its youthful verve, brilliance and perfection make it one of the miracles of nineteenth-century music.""


"Recent research by Nicolas Kitchen of the Borromeo Quartet reveals that a more mature Mendelssohn somewhat substantially edited the score before its final publication in 1832." https://www.earsense.org/chamber-music/Felix-Mendelssohn-Octet-in-E-flat-major-Op-20/


----------



## mmsbls

Haydn70 said:


> Haydn is still under-rated.
> 
> Yes, he is widely performed and recorded but I have found in writings, reviews and conversations with fellow musicians a somewhat condescending attitude...something along the lines of "yes, he is good but he is no Mozart".
> 
> Much of this is because they do not know his more adventurous, daring works. Also his music is seldom dark, and is just not hip.
> 
> In 2009, the bicentennial of his death, the celebrations, festivals, etc. were minimal. Very sad.


I tentatively agree, but I think it depends on where you look for the rating. There have been several TC polls on composers. This one ranks Haydn at 7. This one ranks him at 14. Monthly listeners at Spotify place him 31st in popularity. The book, The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works, by Goulding places Haydn at 5. So some sources place Haydn solidly in the top 10 while others place him significantly lower.

I personally would think Haydn should be in the top 10 and having him near 5 certainly doesn't bother me. Incidentally, when I first started listening, I wondered why people thought so highly of Haydn. I liked him a lot but didn't feel his music was on the level of "greater" composers. As I continued to listen, especially to string quartets and masses, my estimation continued to rise.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Haydn70 said:


> Haydn is still under-rated.
> 
> Yes, he is widely performed and recorded but I have found in writings, reviews and conversations with fellow musicians a somewhat condescending attitude...something along the lines of "yes, he is good but he is no Mozart".
> 
> Much of this is because they do not know his more adventurous, daring works. Also his music is seldom dark, and is just not hip.
> 
> In 2009, the bicentennial of his death, the celebrations, festivals, etc. were minimal. Very sad.


I must confess that I am a Haydn fan too, and struggle with much Mozart (although some I do get - Clarinet Quintet, Symphony 40, etc).

I see posts from Hammeredklavier, and have no capability (or indeed desire) to challenge his erudite posts regarding the quality of Mozart's counterpoint, and the inferiority of Haydn's.

However, if I accept what he says I am still left with the fact that when listening to Mozart (not all, but much of his music) my mind wanders, whereas with Haydn I usually end up tickled.

I suspect what's going on is that music involves a whole range of different attributes, counterpoint (certainly), but also melody, rhythmic effects, instrumentation, surprise (and also its equally satisfying opposite, a fulfilment of expectations), etc. The key word for all of this might be "taste". I guess Haydn's taste just suits me more than Mozart's. Maybe all it takes is for a little drop of spice in the instrumentation to lift a piece from chicken casserole to chicken jalfrezi (- a piquant squeak on an oboe when a more emollient flute could have done the job, say, and might have been more proper), and I just prefer a spicy jalfrezi to the most elegantly balanced casserole. Quite a lot of recipes might ask you to make a sauce and sieve it to remove lumps, or to grind spices rather than leave them whole: I usually prefer the leave the lumps and include some whole spices. A bit of irregularity, something that jars a little can add delight to the mix. You might analyse something and say, "that isn't quite right", but to some it might seem to be wrong in just the right way.

Analysing any one of the underlying attributes of a substantial piece of music (such as the quality of the counterpoint) is fine, but the overall effect on a listener will inevitably depend on the combination of all of them. Haydn, to me, very often delivers a beautiful whole, in a way that only a few other composers match. He certainly gives me more pure joy than (probably) all the rest.

It's no good asking why, because it is the mysterious way in which the whole affects the listener that is just that: a mystery.


----------



## Eclectic Al

mmsbls said:


> Incidentally, when I first started listening, I wondered why people thought so highly of Haydn. I liked him a lot but didn't feel his music was on the level of "greater" composers. As I continued to listen, especially to string quartets and masses, my estimation continued to rise.


Me too. I think, though, it was because I had been led to believe that he was an inferior version of Mozart or early Beethoven, and so avoided him. When I finally gave him a chance, I discovered marvels. (It could also be my age, and an associated tendency to have become bored with angst, and more attracted to positivity.)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I see posts from Hammeredklavier, and have no capability (or indeed desire) to challenge his erudite posts regarding the quality of Mozart's counterpoint, and the inferiority of Haydn's.


I still think Joseph Haydn is good, it's just that I think his younger brother seems neglected in comparison, (



 - even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today, they managed to record Joseph's baryton trios, whereas Michael's 20 litanies still languish in obscurity), and occasionally there are some bizarre comments about Joseph and his music too.



Knorf said:


> I rate Haydn extremely highly. That his music is much less popular in recent decades than Mozart and Beethoven speaks far more to the Zeitgeist than it does to the music's quality.





Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I do prefer the harmony of Mozart's darker pieces, but, again, I find them rhythmically toothless. The finale of his 40th tries to be vicious without abandoning the same elegant phrasing Mozart always employs, which sounds neat in a way, but Haydn's 44th or La Passione actually drives forward with intensity when I listen to it. In any case, I don't base my high opinion of Haydn on the sturm und drang stuff much anyway. I just find the gestures of his material one minute to the next far more interesting. I'm supposed to end up whistling the slow movement of the 27th concerto, but I never do. Bland twinkle twinkle same old. I constantly have any number of Haydn's melodies stuck in my head. Each his own.





Gallus said:


> I agree with the general view here that other than the 'Haydn' quartets Mozart's efforts in the genre are generally uninteresting compared to his elder's.


^These comments would seem a little unreasonable
when we consider:








https://www.henle.de/blog/en/2016/0...e-finale-of-the-f-major-string-quartet-k-590/


----------



## Haydn70

Eclectic Al said:


> I must confess that I am a Haydn fan too, and struggle with much Mozart (although some I do get - Clarinet Quintet, Symphony 40, etc).
> 
> I see posts from Hammeredklavier, and have no capability (or indeed desire) to challenge his erudite posts *regarding the quality of Mozart's counterpoint, and the inferiority of Haydn*'s.


No surprise that hammeredklavier said that...and no surprise that he is wrong again.

The final movement of Haydn's Symphony #70...triple fugue...


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> I still think Joseph Haydn is good, but I think his younger brother seems neglected in comparison, (
> 
> 
> 
> - even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today, they managed to record Joseph's baryton trios, whereas Michael's 20 litanies still languish in obscurity)


I do need to have more of a go with Michael. Any recommendation for a single top piece from Michael (- avoid anything vocal, as that's not really my sweet spot)?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Haydn70 said:


> No surprise that hammeredklavier said that...and no surprise that he is wrong again.
> The final movement of Haydn's Symphony #70...triple fugue...


sure, it seems decent to me.
btw, _Cum sanctu spiritu_ from Mozart missa longa K.262... triple fugue... (combines the subject "cum sanctu spiritu", with two amen themes from the rest of the gloria movement)


----------



## Haydn70

Eclectic Al said:


> Me too. I think, though, it was because *I had been led to believe that he was an inferior version of Mozart or early Beethoven, and so avoided him*. When I finally gave him a chance, I discovered marvels. (It could also be my age, and an associated tendency to have become bored with angst, and more attracted to positivity.)


That is exactly the problem.

Here is a comment from a YouTube page containing a video of Haydn's 60th symphony:
"This performance has turned upside down everything I though about Haydn's symphonies. I thought them somewhat boring, interesting mostly because in the young Beethoven their influence is clearly apparent. I didn't know that Haydn could be played with such brilliance and so much gusto. Thank you @Haydn2032 for posting what has become a turning point in my "career" as a listener and lover of Baroque music."

The condescending "Papa Haydn" image still exists and is still propagated by some. "Ah, yes he wrote that cute tune to which we sing: Papa Haydn wrote a tune, etc." (sung to the opening theme of the slow movement of the "Surprise" Symphony)", blah, blah, blah.

When it comes to symphonies, most listeners know Haydn through his late ones (which are superb). But there are *numerous *treasures in his early and middle symphonies...amazing things! Like this...symphony #39:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I do need to have more of a go with Michael. Any recommendation for a single top piece from Michael (- avoid anything vocal, as that's not really my sweet spot)?


Michael is primarily a catholic music composer, so his best stuff is vocal music and not all his music has been recorded, but -



hammeredklavier said:


> Michael Haydn wrote his string quintet MH189 in 1773, in Salzburg
> This impassioned passage (
> 
> 
> 
> ) of the slow movement from Michael's MH189 seems to anticipate
> Mozart's K.551 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> Also look at;
> Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
> Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]
> Some treatment of chromaticism in the minuet (
> 
> 
> 
> ) and phrases in the finale also remind me of Mozart.
> also look at these sections from MH189 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> and Mozart K.533 (
> 
> 
> 
> )





hammeredklavier said:


> Michael's string quintets, *MH187, MH189, MH367, MH411, MH412*. notice the similarities in the openings of Michael's G major, MH189 and Mozart's K.387, and the finales of Michael's 23rd symphony (MH 287) and Mozart's K.387.
> Maybe Mozart intended to outdo Joseph in some moments like the finales of K.464 (monothematicism) and K.590 (phrasing and rhythm), but I still think Michael was just as big a source of inspiration for him as Joseph, if not more. With the C major, MH187, I find the interplay of upper strings in the slow movement and the chromatic fun in the finale memorable.





hammeredklavier said:


> (pay attention to the harmony around 2:25 and compare it with
> 
> 
> 
> )


----------



## Haydn70

In his book_ Lives of the Great Composers_, Harold Schonberg gives a reasonable assessment of Haydn:

"[Haydn's music] may have lacked the passion of Mozart's, but a good case can be made that *Haydn's music is as consistently on as high a plane, perhaps higher*, even if he never reached the mighty levels of Mozart at his greatest. From about 1780 to his death there is scarcely a Haydn symphony, quartet, mass, or oratorio that cannot legitimately be called a masterpiece. The fertility of the man was breathtaking."

I, however, disagree with the "may have lacked the passion"...that is baloney. I wonder how many of Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies he heard. Just one example is the one I posted earlier, Symphony #39...passionate and turbulent.

And how about this for passion:


----------



## Haydn70

How about some more passionate Haydn:


----------



## Haydn70

One of my Top 10 Haydn symphonies. The opening movement is so uplifting, joyous, ebullient...no passion did you say Mr. Schonberg?


----------



## Simon23

Overrated:

Vivaldi, Paganini, Telemann, Schostakovich, Schoenberg & Co. May be - Stravinsky.

As for the underrating, I believe, that there are practically no such composers. Time has put everything in its place quite objectively. As an exception, it is possible to name Scriabin.


----------



## Haydn70

Here is a wonderful aria from Haydn's opera _Lo speziale_:


----------



## McCall3

I’m new to classical music, and my knowledge is mostly confined to the Baroque era, but my impressions are:

I think Vivaldi is underrated, I’ve found his music to be beautiful and very human somehow, I’ve felt an immediate connection with it.
I think Handel is overrated, I enjoy his music, it’s stately and pleasant, but I don’t feel much personal connection with it.
And for what it’s worth, I think Bach’s extremely high rating is completely deserved.


----------



## Simon23

McCall3 said:


> I'm new to classical music, and my knowledge is mostly confined to the Baroque era, but my impressions are:
> 
> And for what it's worth, I think Bach's extremely high rating is completely deserved.


Yes, definitely. I believe that there is a huge gap between Bach and the rest of the Baroque.


----------



## Xisten267

I think that F. Couperin's vocal music is very beautiful and underrated compared with his keyboard pieces.


















McCall3 said:


> I'm new to classical music, and my knowledge is mostly confined to the Baroque era, but my impressions are:
> 
> I think Vivaldi is underrated, I've found his music to be beautiful and very human somehow, I've felt an immediate connection with it.
> I think Handel is overrated, I enjoy his music, it's stately and pleasant, but I don't feel much personal connection with it.
> And for what it's worth, I think Bach's extremely high rating is completely deserved.


I'm not new to classical music and my impressions are the same as yours.


----------



## hammeredklavier

McCall3 said:


> I think Vivaldi is underrated, I've found his music to be beautiful and very human somehow, I've felt an immediate connection with it.
> I think Handel is overrated, I enjoy his music, it's stately and pleasant, but I don't feel much personal connection with it.
> And for what it's worth, I think Bach's extremely high rating is completely deserved.


I think none of them is as underrated as Zelenka, a fine harmonist who inspired Bach in several ways. (Ex. credo of Missa votiva (1739)).
When I listen to Handel's operas like Acis and Galatea, I can see why Beethoven admired him for his use of effect.


----------



## Red Terror

Underrated: Iannis Xenakis

No one sounds like him, even today. There are relatively few composers one can say that about.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Simon23 said:


> Overrated:
> 
> Vivaldi, Paganini, Telemann, Schostakovich, Schoenberg & Co. May be - Stravinsky.
> 
> As for the underrating, I believe, that there are practically no such composers. Time has put everything in its place quite objectively. As an exception, it is possible to name Scriabin.


Why are the ones in the first line overrated if "Time has put everything in its place quite objectively"? Why and how does this mechanism mostly avoid underrating but allows overrating? This seems a bit mysterious.,

FWIW, I think a composer can be both. Vivaldi is overrated for his concerti but his vocal music is underrated.

Telemann is clearly underrated, IMO. I consider him at least as good as Vivaldi and his chamber/orchestral music is about as good as Handel's. Telemann's vocal music is mostly unknown and some of it is quite good (one or two cantatas used to be attributed to Bach). The main problem with Telemann is that he lacks that one or handful of extraordinary works, like 4 seasons. He has a bunch of programmatic and picturesque suites (Hamburg water music, Don Quixote etc.) but overall too much stuff, so the only very frequently played pieces are a few woodwind (mostly oboe or recorder) pieces because they are among the best for these insruments and the viola concerto (which is also quite nice).

A somewhat similar composer I find underrated, is Boccherini. Again, his curse is that he wrote too many pieces (although he does not have cover as many genres as Telemann or other baroque composers), the best ones are chamber music which is a bit niche, and there are too few clearly rising above the multitude. (And the ones that are most famous, are this for somewhat silly reasons, like the famous menuet or the musica notturna di Madrid.)


----------



## Neo Romanza

I believe Philip Glass to be one of the most overrated composers ever. In fact, I created a meme for this occasion:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> "Time has put everything in its place quite objectively"?


I always laugh when I read statements like that. It just seems more like "tyranny of the majority". There's even this one poll "Composer A vs. Composer B". Composer A has use of harmonies so plain and meager that it seems like an emperor without clothes; but the fans of A demand we all accept that A is objectively greater just cause A is much more popular and gets many more votes, and even though all authentic sources corroborate with the fact that A was never more influential, and more than half the people who voted A in that thread seem like they've spent less than an hour in total listening to the music of B. I like how someone said in that; "it's significant to keep in mind that nobody's being fooled by the outlier rantings _that the emperor is naked!"_


----------



## Kreisler jr

I was quoting someone else who claimed this as reason for why hardly anyone is underrated but strangely named a bunch of "overrated" composers, so I was wondering why this mechanism should work not symmetrically.

It is not the tyranny of majority, but of history. Anyone who claims that x is underrated is also dependent on the "tyranny of history", only in more subtle ways. 
First of all, the "underrated" were not really forgotten but sufficiently well known to have their music preserved, otherwise they'd not be rated at all and nobody would care either way. 
Secondly, the criteria that "x is better in counterpoint/orchestration/whatever than y" are every bit as historical as the more summarizing verdicts that lead to a composer or piece being highly valued overall (without specifying technical or other details), sometimes they are more specific for a particular time or genre, sometimes not but if anything the summarizing verdict takes a broader perspective. We can rate Palestrina and Stravinsky as great composers despite large differences, maybe incommensurabilitis in genres and technical details.
Thirdly, until the late 19th century, musicians and experts had a higher influence than "majorities" of mere listeners, especially if dealing with non-contemporary music. Again, these are basically the same experts who determine what is good in detail (i.e. the criteria according to which someone could be under/overrated). They will sometimes differ, there will be "schools", animosities etc. but it is not unreasonable that most of these factors will balance each other in the long run. We have plenty of colorful criticism against Beethoven but this didn't change anything in the middle to long run.


----------



## fbjim

Neo Romanza said:


> I believe Philip Glass to be one of the most overrated composers ever. In fact, I created a meme for this occasion:


Much like John Cage, I find it hard to believe he's overrated when he is literally only brought up here as the subject for the same three jokes (ironically) repeated over and over.


----------



## strawa

Underrated: Grétry, Reicha and Koechlin are the first names that comes to my mind.


----------



## Calipso

Bethoven and Mozart are overrated.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

overrated : Shostakovich
underrated : Offenbach


----------



## Ice Berg

Overrated: Vivaldi, Mozart (only slightly), Webern, Orff, Adams (1947-), Britten

Underrated: Haas (1879-1960), Reger, Cui, Salieri, Adorno, Delius, Moszkowski, Hauer, Nietzsche (only slightly), Hashimoto


----------



## Ethereality

Underrated:
Bach
Schumann
Uematsu
Rimsky-Korsakov
Rachmaninoff 
Williams

Overrated:
Wagner
Mahler
Beethoven
Messaien 
Monteverdi
Britten


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Ethereality said:


> Underrated:
> Bach
> Schumann
> Uematsu
> Rimsky-Korsakov
> Rachmaninoff
> Williams
> 
> Overrated:
> Wagner
> Mahler
> Beethoven
> Messaien
> Monteverdi
> Britten


but Bach couldn't be more highly rated


----------



## Ethereality

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> but Bach couldn't be more highly rated


Sorry. Doesn't compute.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Carl Philipp Emanuel, Wilhelm Friedemann, Johann Christian, Joh. Christoph Friedrich, Johann Michael etc.


----------



## Xisten267

I'm starting to think that composers such as Weinberg, Alfvén, Koechlin, Merikanto and Hovhaness are underrated. I had never heard of them before joining TC. Some composers of the Classical era such as G.B. Sammartini, J. Mysliveček and M. Haydn also deserved to be more known in my opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Xisten267 said:


> Some composers of the Classical era such as G.B. Sammartini, J. Mysliveček and M. Haydn also deserved to be more known in my opinion.


+++++++++++++++++



hammeredklavier said:


> *Franz Ignaz von Beecke* (28 October 1733 - 2 January 1803) was a classical music composer born in Wimpfen am Neckar, Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Ignaz_von_Beecke
> Von Beecke served in the Bavarian Dragoon Regiment of Zollern from 1756, during which time he fought in the Seven Years' War. He served with distinction and was promoted to Captain. He was known at the time chiefly for his great skill in playing the harpsichord, although he composed a wide range of music as well, having studied with Christoph Willibald Gluck. He died in Wallerstein, Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1775, von Beecke met the 19-year-old Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Munich and the two engaged in a piano playing competition at the well-known inn Zum Schwarzen Adler. The poet and composer Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, who was in the audience, wrote in his Teutsche Chronik (27 April 1775) that in his opinion, von Beecke played far better than Mozart: "In Munich last winter I heard two of the greatest clavier players, Mr Mozart and Captain von Beecke. Mozart's playing had great weight, and he read at sight everything that we put before him. But no more than that; Beecke surpasses him by a long way. Winged agility, grace and melting sweetness."





hammeredklavier said:


> http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2019/Apr/Beecke_chamber_7776822.htm
> "The *Piano Quintet in A minor* (ca. 1770) can lay claim to being one of the earliest examples of its genre, though its appearance as a kind of reduced-forces piano concerto is also pointed out in the booklet. The alternating solo/ripieno character of the writing in the first movement would seem to bear this out, but the piano part is not particularly virtuoso and it all works well as even-handed and nicely finished chamber music. There is a thematic element in the opening few bars that seems to look forward to Schubert, but the style in general is closer to Mozart, with a poignantly lyrical Andante più tasto larghetto central movement and a final Allegretto that teases us with inventive tonal ambiguities, playful variations and a very soft ending indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The String Quartet in G major may not actually be by Beecke, but is an attractively light work with two of its five brief movements being Minuet and Trio almost has the feel of an old-fashioned suite. The *Quartet in C major* (ca. 1780) is more substantial by contrast, giving more or less equal weight to all of the parts and breaking with the convention of the day which tended to favour the lead violin. The first movement has a distinctive and quite lengthy slow introduction which explores some interesting harmonic tensions. The following Allegro maestoso is certainly not something you would mistake for anything by Mozart, though it's hard to pin down quite why. The central Siciliana. Un poco adagio is a lovely movement with plenty of melancholy in its mood, also being unusual of its kind for being in rondo form. The final movement is marked Allegro. Tempi di giaconne, which we're told is an indication to moderation in terms of speed. This has a dance character in its triple metre, but has intriguing inner voices and the working out of some fine ideas."
> -Dominy Clements





hammeredklavier said:


> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-3349/
> "Ignaz von Beecke (1733-1803) belongs to the silent army of 18th century composers eclipsed by the genius of Gluck, Haydn, and Mozart (who were nonetheless his friends). Gifted dilettante composer and harpsichordist, he wrote music as a hobby, in addition to pursuing a successful military career. His catalogue includes works in every genre, from Singspiels to piano concertos and symphonies. If his music sounds interesting, it's not only for its own qualities, but also because it gives us an idea of the standard of music making at the time. The three string quartets presented here (out of 17) have in common a taste for flowing melodic lines, simple contrapuntal writing, and expressive development sections, sometimes with an effective use of the minor mode. Also noteworthy are the instances of "sotto voce" dynamics in the introduction of the quartet in G major M. 11 and the Adagio of the B-flat major.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had he only written the beautiful and moving Adagio of the *quartet in G major M. 9*, von Beecke would have deserved the present resurrection.
> Review by: ClassicsToday"


----------



## 59540

Underrated: S. L. Weiss.


----------



## Livly_Station

Liszt and Scriabin are underrated.


----------



## mmsbls

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> but Bach couldn't be more highly rated


Not everyone rates Bach as the best so he could be more highly rated. It's also possible someone might think Bach is truly on a different level than everyone else, so saying he is #1 and, say, Beethoven is #2 does not properly separate him from other composers.

I have jokingly thought that Mozart is woefully underrated because he is rarely placed first.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> Not everyone rates Bach as the best so he could be more highly rated. It's also possible someone might think Bach is truly on a different level than everyone else, so saying he is #1 and, say, Beethoven is #2 does not properly separate him from other composers.
> 
> I have jokingly thought that Mozart is woefully underrated because he is rarely placed first.


I'd like to see the information content of their works run through a computer. Who would have the most content? This approach wouldn't be concerned with the effectiveness of their expressive achievements. Perhaps we could compare only works from the last few years of their lives. Maybe just their most clever/inventive phrases..


----------



## Neo Romanza

Overrated: Mozart, Brahms, Verdi, Rossini, Schumann
Underrated: Schoenberg (!!!), Zemlinsky, K. A. Hartmann, Glazunov, Schnittke


----------



## saboteur

Mine's Vivaldi.
Pretty hard to realize that his works were found accidentally, not long ago. Lots of them must be lost.


----------



## Shea82821

There really aren't too many in my books who are distinctly "overrated."

Like sure, there's Mozart for example. Yeah his music isn't too distinct from what the period was generally writing, and his greatness mostly lies in biographical details. Philip Glass is another. His music is pretty tame and mediocre to be honest, and yet is revered as amongst the greats of both the last century, and our current century. Wagner's music is quite nice, his cult-like fan-base is typically insane beyond help. Liszt as pianist and transcriber? Marvelous. As composer? Occasionally pretty good, more often mediocre. And yeah: Vivaldi concerti do have a decency to sound...suspiciously alike between one another.

But none of these are "bad." I still like each of them in some way. Ones I do find legitimately overrated, though, and without the benefit of their music (usually) being pleasing in any imaginable way, well only a few come to mind.

Cage? A rather contrasting character, bound in opposites. A pious Taoist layman on the one hand, a charlatan who thought silence and electrified cactus noises were concert pieces. Feldman? _snores._ Xenakis? Pretty impressive and imaginative on paper, I won't lie. But have you ever heard the results? At best it sounds like kids left alone in a stocked-full rehearsal room for too long. At worst it's the orchestrated sounds of a dying computer, or the moans of something having a stroke. Elliot Carter? Early works are passable, but as he got older: everything fell to bits. And in his last works, frankly, you could tell me he composed them, by plinking random keys and calling it a day. Webern? A more tepid, restrained Xenakis. _Slightly_ more listenable and less vomit-inducing than him, but not something I'd willingly call "good." There are likely some others I've missed here, but off my head: those are a few.

Now as for underrated, there's a good number of them. Martinu's eclectic yet individual style, though somewhat of a cult classic, is horribly under noticed. Kapustin's weird but unique synthesis of jazz and classical forms is the same. Havergal Brian, although repetitive and maybe a little heavy of marches, is lovely. Poulenc gets seen as too immature for a serious composer far more than he really was. Milhaud is lovely, if offbeat every now and then. Rubbra...well he isn't really seen as anything, much to my regret, but I see him as a fine successor to the English tradition, most famously exemplified by Elgar. Similarly, to his contemporaries Villiers-Stanford and Parry. I'd at times say they were better than Elgar! And Delius...Delius is nothing short of heavenly - ironic given his passionate atheism. Better than all 4 combined I find. Frankel's style is extremely weird but something I'm into. First it's a kind-of vague, tonal atonality. Then a paradox of mixing tonality and dodecaphony. It's pretty weird, but lovely in results. His string quartets (particularly the 4th and 5th) are just to die for. And finally for now: Weinberg. As said elsewhere: undoubtedly the finest Russian composer after Shostakovich. I'm glad he's getting some recognition these days, but it's far off from what he truly earned. I could go on forever, but that's enough at present.


----------



## advokat

Underrated:
Bach
Buxtehude
Schumann
Hummel
Field
Bruch
Rachmaninov
Taneyev
Huber


Overrated:
The Second Viennese School


----------



## haziz

Massively over-rated:
Schoenberg
Bruckner

Over-rated:
Mahler
Wagner
Brahms

Under-rated:
Rimsky-Korsakov
Glazunov
Bruch
Goldmark
Raff
Vieuxtemps

Massively under-rated:
Tchaikovsky
Kalinnikov
Borodin
Dvořák
Grieg


----------



## mmsbls

haziz said:


> ...Massively under-rated
> Tchaikovsky
> Kalinnikov
> Borodin
> Dvořák
> Grieg


Can I ask where you think Tchaikovsky and Dvorak are generally rated and where you would rate them?


----------



## haziz

mmsbls said:


> Can I ask where you think Tchaikovsky and Dvorak are generally rated and where you would rate them?


This is of course highly subjective, but as far as I am concerned Tchaikovsky shares first place with Beethoven. Since I don't expect everybody to share my adulation for Tchaikovsky, I would at least expect (or hope) for a top 5 ranking. Dvořák I think has also earned a top 5 ranking; to some extent displacing his friend Brahms' ranking in people's affection. This, of course, is extremely subjective, but then so is this entire forum, for the most part.


----------



## Strange Magic

haziz said:


> This of course [is] extremely subjective, but then so is this entire forum, for the most part.


You got that right.


----------



## DaveM

One shouldn’t confuse the fact that subjectivity may rule as to which composers we prefer, but it’s more appropriate to use at least some objectivity when rating composers. Dvorak, much as I like him, in the top 5? Mahler, Wagner, Brahms overrated? On what possible basis?


----------



## Red Terror

Underrated-*Jan Dismas Zelenka*

As good as J.S. Bach.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> it's more appropriate to use at least some objectivity when rating composers.


But then one asks the inevitable question.......


> On what possible basis?


What indeed? Other than opinion(s).


----------



## mmsbls

haziz said:


> This is of course highly subjective, but as far as I am concerned Tchaikovsky shares first place with Beethoven. Since I don't expect everybody to share my adulation for Tchaikovsky, I would at least expect (or hope) for a top 5 ranking. Dvořák I think has also earned a top 5 ranking; to some extent displacing his friend Brahms' ranking in people's affection. This, of course, is extremely subjective, but then so is this entire forum, for the most part.


Thanks. Based on this response, I can see why you consider them both massively underrated.


----------



## ansfelden

underrated

Albinoni
Bach (C.P.E.)
Biber (H.I.F., just in case...)
Telemann
Saint Saens 
Stamitz 
Zelenka

overrated

Mozart


----------



## dko22

Red Terror said:


> Underrated-*Jan Dismas Zelenka*
> 
> As good as J.S. Bach.


better, actually.


----------



## Andante Largo

Underrated:

Sibelius, Jean (1865 - 1957) [Finland] 
Respighi, Ottorino (1879 - 1936) [Italy] 
Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Mario (1895 - 1968) [Italy] 
Karłowicz, Mieczysław (1876 - 1909) [Poland] 
Reinecke, Carl (1824 - 1910) [Germany]
Perosi, Lorenzo (1872 - 1956) [Italy]
Rheinberger, Josef (1839 - 1901) [Liechtenstein]
Wieniawski, Henryk (1835 - 1880) [Poland]
Chopin, Fryderyk (1810 - 1849) [Poland]
Noskowski, Zygmunt (1846 - 1909) [Poland]
Rachmaninov, Sergei (1873 - 1943) [Russia]
Melartin, Erkki (1875 - 1937) [Finland]
Delius, Frederick (1862 - 1934) [England]
Saint-Saëns, Camille (1835 - 1921) [France]
Paganini, Niccolò (1782 - 1840) [Italy]
Fuchs, Robert (1847 - 1927) [Austria]
Peterson-Berger, Wilhelm (1867 - 1942) [Sweden]
Bruch, Max (1838 - 1920) [Germany]
Glazunov, Alexander (1865 - 1936) [Russia]
Novák, Vítězslav (1870 - 1949) [Czechia]
Żeleński, Władysław (1837 - 1921) [Poland]
Sgambati, Giovanni (1841 - 1914) [Italy]
Lipiński, Karol (1790 - 1861) [Poland]
Różycki, Ludomir (1884 - 1953) [Poland]
Gretchaninov, Alexander (1864 - 1956) [Russia]


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> But then one asks the inevitable question.......
> 
> What indeed? Other than opinion(s).


Ideally, the act of rating something is the act of making comparisons based on available information and the person doing the rating being as educated on the subject and objective as possible, otherwise the 'rating' is just something off the top of one's head.

In the case of rating composers of the CP era on this forum, being educated can simply mean having being exposed to a broad range of classical composers and music for several years and having made legitimate attempts to learn something about the composers and their relative contributions to the canon. Being objective can simply mean removing one's subjective feelings about the composer and music as much as possible.

On the other hand one can be locked in a headset that all opinions are equal and valid such that Englebert Humperdinck can be rated in the top 10 of composers if that's the opinion of a random person on the street.


----------



## 59540

dko22 said:


> better, actually.


No, actually. And I've listened to Zelenka. The historical verdict in that case has been just.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM:* On the other hand one can be locked in a headset that all opinions are equal and valid such that Englebert Humperdinck can be rated in the top 10 of composers if that's the opinion of a random person on the street.


Again the repeated failure to understand the subjectivist viewpoint. Anyone and everyone can have a valid grading system--from best to worst or along whatever another opinion spectrum one chooses The idea is the validity, the legitimacy, the authenticity of each individual's taste/judgement is just as important to them and trumps all voting, polling, or other agglomerated opinions of some in-group or anyone else. All judgement in the arts is purely opinion, with clusters agreeing to this and to that and passing this off as some kind of objective excellence embedded within the artwork itself as some kind of Platonic all-permeating ether.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Again the repeated failure to understand the subjectivist viewpoint. Anyone and everyone can have a valid grading system--from best to worst or along whatever another opinion spectrum one chooses The idea is the validity, the legitimacy, the authenticity of each individual's taste/judgement is just as important to them and trumps all voting, polling, or other agglomerated opinions of some in-group or anyone else. All judgement in the arts is purely opinion, with clusters agreeing to this and to that and passing this off as some kind of objective excellence embedded within the artwork itself as some kind of Platonic all-permeating ether.


The repeated failure is distinguishing between one's subjective preference for a composer and one's ability to, as objectively as possible, appreciate and acknowledge the accomplishments of a composer that have been evaluated over a long period of time resulting in plentiful available information to make valid comparisons.

That is not to say that such ratings will be exactly the same for everybody, but they usually consistently have a remarkable similarity.

Of course, how does one respond to the premise that the CP era does not provide a basis for any objective comparisons of skill and accomplishment? Well, where someone is locked in a belief system that defies reason, it's probably best not to.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Isn't the most overrated composer James MacMillan?


----------



## dko22

dissident said:


> No, actually. And I've listened to Zelenka. The historical verdict in that case has been just.


what has "historical verdict" have to do with anything (assuming you can support this with evidence anyway that he was a technically superior composer)? This thread is specifically about individual preferences. For me Zelenka is a fresher and more unpredictable composer. Bach is too staid. Many, of course, think completely differently and I'm perfectly happy with that!


----------



## Ethereality

Unless historical verdict has burned the art, it hasn't done jack for instructing my hands and ears.



DaveM said:


> appreciate and acknowledge the accomplishments of a composer that have been evaluated over a long period of time resulting in plentiful available information to make valid comparisons.


You haven't addressed whether they're right or wrong, so I'd rather make no judgement as to their validity or misguidedness unless proven. Instead, honestly judging for myself is the only verifiable route, something haziz seems to possess perfectly well.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM:* Of course, how does one respond to the premise that the CP era does not provide a basis for any objective comparison of skill and accomplishment? Well, where someone is locked in a belief system that defies reason, it's probably best not to.


Two responses: A) It is or it can be an established objective fact, well supported by rigorous polling, that more people prefer Beethoven to Humperdinck. But that is all that is established.

B) It is all just polling as to whether Beethoven is "better" than Humperdinck. Just polling. The E.H. Die-Hard Fan Club may universally vote that their guy is "better". I prefer Beethoven, think he is better, and so belong to the larger group as do you.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> The repeated failure is distinguishing between one's subjective preference for a composer and one's ability to, as objectively as possible, appreciate and acknowledge the accomplishments of a composer that have been evaluated over a long period of time resulting in plentiful available information to make valid comparisons.


What do you think of my posts from the thread, "Why do you overrate or underrate composers?"; Posts #233 [Why do you overrate or underrate composers?] and #173 [Why do you overrate or underrate composers?]? (they directly address your points in this thread).
Most people have spent hundreds of times more listening time with Bach's music than they have with Zelenka's; this does not mean Bach is overrated -it's just that it's less presumptuous to say, _"We have no way of knowing if Bach is inherently superior to Zelenka (not just more popular). But we prefer Bach, based on our personal experiences and/or received wisdom."_


----------



## That Guy Mick

Regarding subjectivity vs objectivity.

Isn't it the case that both deserve equal due? A fairly objective framework for comparison can be laid out, but subjectivity will intervene at some point. I don't listen to Bach very often for subjective reasons, but don't feel that he is an overrated composer for a few very objective reasons: great innovation and impact, prolific output, and massive fan following. Of course, an objective comparison between Bach and Mozart, or Chopin and Liszt, might be more murky. 

The Austrian composer and music professor Robert Fuchs may be underrated in this era. I was not aware of his existence until very recently and have listened to CM for decades. Apparently he was highly regarded by his contemporaries, but shunned the spotlight.

Some say Erik Satie is overrated. I don't really know.


----------



## 59540

dko22 said:


> what has "historical verdict" have to do with anything (assuming you can support this with evidence anyway that he was a technically superior composer)? This thread is specifically about individual preferences. For me Zelenka is a fresher and more unpredictable composer. Bach is too staid. Many, of course, think completely differently and I'm perfectly happy with that!


Maybe because you're less familiar with him. Zelenka sounds a bit Italianate and not too awfully different from Handel to my ears. The historical verdict has to do with consensus and lots of individual reactions that are along the same lines. Subjective/objective, I couldn't care less. But hey, if you're of that opinion, more power to you. What instrumental compositions is Zelenka known for? How do they stack up against the Bach WTC, the solo cello and violin works, the other keyboard music etc etc? Tell a cellist that the Bach suites are "staid".


----------



## Red Terror

Decades of marketing/brainwashing have convinced some of you that Bach can never be equaled. However, to my ears (and many others), Zelanka was every bit the composer Bach was.


----------



## 59540

Red Terror said:


> Decades of marketing/brainwashing have convinced some of you that Bach can never be equaled. However, to my ears (and many others), Zelanka was every bit the composer Bach was.


I could just as easily say that recent brainwashing and marketing has convinced you that Zelenka is "just as good". I'll have to look up Zelenka's keyboard music sometime and compare.

Anyway by what objective standards are you determining that Zelenka "was every bit the composer that Bach was"? People here talk about the extreme subjectivity of taste but then engage in "X is better than Y". Rameau was every bit as good as Zelenka, if not better, in that case. (And he probably actually was.)


----------



## Ethereality

If someone can't even trust and utilize their own judgement, they're certainly not to be trusted with others.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Two responses: A) It is or it can be an established objective fact, well supported by rigorous polling, that more people prefer Beethoven to Humperdinck. But that is all that is established.
> 
> B) It is all just polling as to whether Beethoven is "better" than Humperdinck. Just polling. The E.H. Die-Hard Fan Club may universally vote that their guy is "better". I prefer Beethoven, think he is better, and so belong to the larger group as do you.


If one is going to dumb the subject down to which one is 'better', a term that infers one's subjective opinion then one is always going to come to the same simplistic subjectivity-based conclusions. On the other hand, the enlightened perspective, requiring a little more thought and analysis, addresses the fact that composers have different levels of skill and accomplishment. Like it or not, believe it or not, there is objective evidence to support it.


----------



## 59540

Ethereality said:


> If someone can't even trust and utilize their own judgement, they're certainly not to be trusted with others.


Hummel was every bit the composer that Beethoven was, if not better. Prove me wrong.


Strange Magic said:


> Two responses: A) It is or it can be an established objective fact, well supported by rigorous polling, that more people prefer Beethoven to Humperdinck. But that is all that is established.


And why is that? If I say "Humperdinck was every bit the composer that Mozart was, if not better"...then if you think otherwise, it's obviously due to marketing and brainwashing.


----------



## Ethereality

Why pretend to hear and understand what makes them better to others? If you truly agree with others, then you have similar subjective tastes. But in truth you may have no musical judgement, and just pretend to hear and understand. You and Dave may be going off my credible list.


----------



## 59540

Ethereality said:


> Why pretend to hear and understand what makes them better to others? In truth you may have no musical judgement, but just pretend to. You're off my credible list.


"Musical judgement" sounds suspiciously like an appeal to something objective.


----------



## Ethereality

Then you might not understand the definition of objective.

It's no doubt we can learn from studying other points of view, whether considered critical or esoteric. It's also no doubt we can all share similar musical tastes. But it doesn't make our tastes objective; it makes us similar.

You can't say a composer is objectively great; that's an oxymoron. Greatness or talent is a value, not a fact, so it's subjective. You can definitely say a composer is widely considered great. That is objective.

The reason we focus a lot on the objective fact that composers are widely considered great, is only because we want to listen to music that could be recommended for us. If someone wants to read up on esoteric opinions on composers, it's no better or worse than reading up on the popular ones. Neither are 'correct,' the latter is just subjectively more useful to people. It brings some of them more immediate enjoyment.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> If one is going to dumb the subject down to which one is 'better', a term that infers one's subjective opinion then one is always going to come to the same simplistic subjectivity-based conclusions. On the other hand, the enlightened perspective, requiring a little more thought and analysis, addresses the fact that composers have different levels of skill and accomplishment. Like it or not, believe it or not, there is objective evidence to support it.


There is nothing wrong with having the tastes and preferences that you do--you are fully entitled to them. But you are clearly comforted, as are many, in being among like-minded souls or simpatico critics......


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> "Musical judgement" sounds suspiciously like an appeal to something objective.


And what might that be?


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> And what might that be?


I don't know. Let's ask Ethereality. What might that be?


Ethereality said:


> . It's also no doubt we can all share similar musical tastes. But it doesn't make our tastes objective; it makes us similar.
> 
> You can't say a composer is objectively great; that's an oxymoron. Greatness or talent is a value, not a fact, so it's subjective. You can definitely say a composer is widely considered great. That is objective.


But it doesn't address the question as to why so many different tastes converge and are similar in this or that. If I say "Satie is the greatest composer of all time" the first reaction isn't a philosophical dissection of objective "greatness" and the subjectivity of taste. The first reaction is "Crackpot", and you know it.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> I don't know. Let's ask Ethereality. What might that be?
> But it doesn't address the question as to why so many different tastes converge and are similar in this or that. If I say "Satie is the greatest composer of all time" the first reaction isn't a philosophical dissection of objective "greatness" and the subjectivity of taste. The first reaction is "Crackpot", and you know it.


Let's take a poll: What is the best wine or ice cream? Objectively, other than the results of a poll.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Let's take a poll: What is the best wine or ice cream? Objectively, other than the results of a poll.


Let's take another: what is the "best" literature, Shakespeare or Dr Seuss?


----------



## Ethereality

dissident said:


> I don't know. Let's ask Ethereality. What might that be?


Musical judgement is something which you can't prove right or wrong, hence it falls into the subjective category. When I listen to a few pieces, and like the second one, and go back to listen and theorize about it, and write critiques on it, it's all subjective: my determination about it can't be objectively proven or reasoned as correct or incorrect. However, an even worse scenario, when you notice there are many people with similar tastes, many throughout history have liked Beethoven, and that is not a _musical_ judgement but an objective judgement about how humans are wired, because we're not judging the music but the actions of people, this fact of his appeal can't be determined as _valid_ or not. The latter is certainly a worse scenario, because at least I know my musical judgement is valid. I have no way to determine whether the universal human taste is valid, it has nothing to do with actually understanding and enjoying music itself, and I don't pretend to like some do.



dissident said:


> Let's take another: what is the "best" literature, Shakespeare or Dr Seuss?


Just like this example, the poll doesn't tell you the answer, but tells you what answer others subjectively value.


----------



## 59540

Ethereality said:


> ...
> Just like this example, the poll doesn't tell you the answer, but tells you what answer others subjectively value.


Using what criteria?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Let's take a poll: What is the best wine or ice cream? Objectively, other than the results of a poll.


Depends on how skilled the wine or ice cream is..


----------



## Ethereality

dissident said:


> Using what criteria?


Their musical judgement.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> ..You and Dave may be going off my credible list.


I didn't know I was on it.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Using what criteria?


It's like an election. We assume that such polls conducted about art and artists are valid. If they are not, then one moves even deeper into subjectivity, uncertainty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> the enlightened perspective, requiring a little more thought and analysis, addresses the fact that composers have different levels of skill and accomplishment.


I sometimes wonder what good that has done to the classical music industry. The dogma seems rather disturbing even. It's 2022 now, and there still seems to be no hope of ever hearing-


hammeredklavier said:


> Der Schulmeister MH204, Der Englische Patriot MH285, Beschluss-Arie MH295, and especially Die Ährenleserin MH493 (1788), which is said to contain greater boldness of chromatic language, Lied-like qualities of the northern tradition (as opposed to coloratura) than Haydn's earlier works, and 3 instances of homage to Mozart's Don Giovanni.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> I sometimes wonder what good that has done to the classical music industry. The dogma seems rather disturbing even. It's 2022 now, and there still seems to be no hope of ever hearing-


There's no reason to, as they say, throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Zelenka sounds a bit Italianate and not too awfully different from Handel to my ears.


the "crucifixus" - "sub pontio pilato" double fugue from ZWV21


----------



## That Guy Mick

Ethereality said:


> You can't say a composer is objectively great; that's an oxymoron. Greatness or talent is a value, not a fact, so it's subjective. You can definitely say a composer is widely considered great. That is objective.


There is a lack of continuity in your reasoning.



> The reason we focus a lot on the objective fact that composers are widely considered great, is only because we want to listen to music that could be recommended for us.


Buddy Bolden is considered a great talent because he created a method of playing music on his instrument that was copied by many others and became a much beloved and staple element of the music that eventually become known as jazz. Despite his efforts to hide his techniques by hanging a rag over his horn when playing publicly, and declining recording offers, his style reached the status of mainstream. He was never recorded, therefore he cannot be recommended for us. Yet, his contribution as an innovator is valued. He is recognized as a greater musician than the manifold, unknown contemporaries who played the same tunes.
Objectively speaking, Bolden is great. Objectively speaking, Bolden is greater than his contemporaries. Similar to many CM composers.


----------



## That Guy Mick

DaveM said:


> If one is going to dumb the subject down to which one is 'better', a term that infers one's subjective opinion then one is always going to come to the same simplistic subjectivity-based conclusions. On the other hand, the enlightened perspective, requiring a little more thought and analysis, addresses the fact that composers have different levels of skill and accomplishment. Like it or not, believe it or not, there is objective evidence to support it.


Why not expand on the topic? You seem to be spinning your wheels in an unproductive rut.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

dissident said:


> Zelenka sounds a bit Italianate and not too awfully different from Handel to my ears.


Given they were all a part of the Holy Roman Empire at the time, it could be said they were from the same federation, if not actually fellow countrymen…


----------



## DaveM

That Guy Mick said:


> Why not expand on the topic? You seem to be spinning your wheels in an unproductive rut.


Been there. Done that before your time. Besides what I have said above is self-explanatory.


----------



## That Guy Mick

DaveM said:


> Been there. Done that before your time. Besides what I have said above is self-explanatory whether you get it or not.


I get the repetitive head butting with simpleton objectivity explanations when more interesting opinions could be expressed. Looks like thread pollution complex to me.

So what next? Its a free world, go away, if you don't like it?


----------



## That Guy Mick

Strange Magic said:


> It's like an election. We assume that such polls conducted about art and artists are valid. If they are not, then one moves even deeper into subjectivity, uncertainty.


J.S Bach is certainly not overrated. His influence on Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven is quite profound as I have read. Unlike like composer and professor Robert Fuchs, whose was widely regarded in his time, but mostly lost to time, Bach's notoriety rose to celebrity status among peers and audiences.


----------



## DaveM

That Guy Mick said:


> I get the repetitive head butting with simpleton objectivity explanations when more interesting opinions could be expressed...


Then why not express one. Simpleton criticism is boring.


----------



## That Guy Mick

DaveM said:


> Then why not express one. Simpleton criticism is boring.


Already did. Threads are for reading, not just knee jerk replies.


----------



## Strange Magic

That Guy Mick said:


> There is a lack of continuity in your reasoning.
> 
> Buddy Bolden is considered a great talent because he created a method of playing music on his instrument that was copied by many others and became a much beloved and staple element of the music that eventually become known as jazz. Despite his efforts to hide his techniques by hanging a rag over his horn when playing publicly, and declining recording offers, his style reached the status of mainstream. He was never recorded, therefore he cannot be recommended for us. Yet, his contribution as an innovator is valued. He is recognized as a greater musician than the manifold, unknown contemporaries who played the same tunes.
> Objectively speaking, Bolden is great. Objectively speaking, Bolden is greater than his contemporaries. Similar to many CM composers.


Bolden is great if you (and others I'm sure) think he is great, or at least greater than his contemporaries. If others have different opinions, they must be wrong, and have no right to have such opinions.

Esthetics is about opinions--personal or shared, nothing more. A vast body of objective facts can be confidently stated about artworks and their creators--creator, size, color, weight, when created, odor, complexity, duration (music), _ad nauseum_,etc. One can even measure a work's or artist's popularity by sales, units moved, even polling data and which groups are polled. Greatness is then determined by a show of hands. It is not in the art object, which only triggers people to bring their individual notions of greatness to it. Some works draw more votes from select groups polled. It's as simple as that. Just like wines or ice cream.


----------



## SanAntone

That Guy Mick said:


> There is a lack of continuity in your reasoning.
> 
> Buddy Bolden is considered a great talent because he created a method of playing music on his instrument that was copied by many others and became a much beloved and staple element of the music that eventually become known as jazz. Despite his efforts to hide his techniques by hanging a rag over his horn when playing publicly, and declining recording offers, his style reached the status of mainstream. He was never recorded, therefore he cannot be recommended for us. Yet, his contribution as an innovator is valued. He is recognized as a greater musician than the manifold, unknown contemporaries who played the same tunes.
> Objectively speaking, Bolden is great. Objectively speaking, Bolden is greater than his contemporaries. Similar to many CM composers.


You might be conflating Buddy Bolden with *Freddie Keppard*, who passed up the opportunity to record in 1917 because he was afraid other musicians would steal his stuff. The same reason he was said to drape a handkerchief over his fingers.

Buddy Bolden was never recorded and his last known performance was in 1906. Everything we know about him (not much) is from questionable oral history. But the general consensus is that Bolden was a charismatic musician who played with great power and style and is considered the progenitor of the early, New Orleans, Jazz style. It is a tragedy of music history that we do not have any recordings of Bolden's playing.


----------



## That Guy Mick

Strange Magic said:


> Bolden is great if you (and others I'm sure) think he is great, or at least greater than his contemporaries. If others have different opinions, they must be wrong, and have no right to have such opinions.


You are incorrectly thinking that the value of music can only based upon a personal, emotional weighting of its enjoyment. Certainly I, you, or anyone can opine that the person primarily responsible for creating a new genre of music that became a world wide sensation is of little value to that genre. Bolden is credited with the invention of the Big Four. That is an objective measure of his worth. Take it or leave it. Elementary.



> Esthetics is about opinions--personal or shared, nothing more. A vast body of objective facts can be confidently stated about artworks and their creators--creator, size, color, weight, when created, odor, complexity, duration (music), _ad nauseum_,etc. One can even measure a work's or artist's popularity by sales, units moved, even polling data and which groups are polled. Greatness is then determined by a show of hands. It is not in the art object, which only triggers people to bring their individual notions of greatness to it. Some works draw more votes from select groups polled. It's as simple as that. Just like wines or ice cream.


An aesthetic argument can be a measure of music and the composer's value, but it doesn't negate an objective evaluation. You may not like popularity of a composer's works as a measure, but I don't see why it should be shunned as meaningless. Perhaps you should be arguing against popularity of music as a measure of a composer's worth, rather than objectivity on a "whole cloth" basis.


----------



## That Guy Mick

Thanks SanAntone. I believe that you are correct that I confused Bolden with Keppard. Good to be accompanied by someone well versed in Jazz!


----------



## Ethereality

That Guy Mick said:


> That is an objective measure of his worth. Take it or leave it. Elementary.


The problem is the topic isn't about a musician or composer's worth. It's about their quality.



That Guy Mick said:


> You may not like popularity of a composer's works as a measure, but I don't see why it should be shunned as meaningless.


No one is shunning popularity as meaningless. It's how every human has not only garnered artistic recommendations from the dawn of time, but also how they've biasedly, culturally developed their ear and identity. The fact that someone is popular, is an objective measure. What it's an objective measure of, is just that; let's ease up on the Orwellian tactics of building paper castles out of soot and stone. In order to claim some composer is objectively better than another, it can't then not apply to half of experienced people who have proven the opposite. An objective reality is something which applies to _everyone_ regardless of their psychological situation. Now, it may be so that music's mechanism only functions under certain physical parameters within our universe, and if so, that should be discussed. In the meantime however, some people here seem to have trouble with the English language and what linguistic category of valuation art falls under. It is enough to currently pinpoint that the art of the greats, although not _objectively_ proven under any scientific status, is universally appreciated by humanity in its new, enlightened zeitgiest.


----------



## That Guy Mick

Ethereality said:


> The problem is the topic isn't about a musician or composer's worth. It's about their quality.


Quality and worth are the same.



> No one is shunning popularity as meaningless. It's how every human has not only garnered artistic recommendations from the dawn of time, but also how they've biasedly, culturally developed their ear and identity. The fact that someone is popular, is an objective measure. What it's an objective measure of, is just that; let's quit with the Orwellian tactics of building paper castles out of soot and stone. In order to claim some composer is objectively better than another, it can't then not apply to half of experienced people who have proven the opposite. An objective reality is something which applies regardless of the psychological situation. It applies to _everyone_. People here seem to have trouble with the English language.


Popularity was shunned by the person who I replied to, but I have no problem with someone who questions with a sound argument. Popularity is an objective argument. The reasons behind the popularity may be purely aesthetical. Do you have any in mind? Is there a composer who is overrated primarily because of popularity based upon aesthetic reasons?


----------



## Ethereality

That Guy Mick said:


> Quality and worth are the same.


By this definition, Classical music has very little quality, and can't find any reason to be bothered with someone who believes in this ideological framework. The art music community's _relative_ framework is exponentially more suited here, and wouldn't mind continuing this conversation if you come down to our idealistic reality.


----------



## That Guy Mick

It isn't an ideological framework. If something of is of worth, then it has a quality that is admired. If something has worth, then is has a quality that is admired. Am I confused? It seems like we have a miscommunication, but I don't know.


----------



## That Guy Mick

Oops! Meant to say, if something has quality, it has worth. If something has worth, it has quality.


----------



## Ethereality

Not to have been anywhat rude, but merely skeptical, of the fruitfulness of a conversation where you say "music has lots of worth to humanity" and "we should discount some aesthetical reasons for composers' quality." Not that I don't mind discussing differing opinions, but these are really some of the most foreign words I've heard. Where do we begin? Some people might value Russian classical music, others who are professional musicologists might not value Classical music, and let alone a majority of people. But when it comes to the worth of Classical music to humanity, it is so very little, we can live without it. The only thing making it valuable are the subjective ideals of the individual, who likes to hear or compose certain things, in their appropriate times and scenarios. I happen to value aesthetics a lot, because it's the very foundation of anything musical and I love music. Whether or not the quality _within_ music, not its _worth_ to humanity, is scientifically objective, has yet to even be demonstrated as possible. If someone wants to bring forth a convincing study in physics on the sounds of Beethoven resonating better than Humperdinck, do so--but then go on to show how this resonation is actually _objectively_ better than interference. What a claim. Or you can just keep saying everybody pees and poops and it's artistically great because it's so popular. That's probably not going to work for everyone.


----------



## dko22

dissident said:


> Maybe because you're less familiar with him. .


fair point! I'll just quickly add two things 1. it's more some choral rather than instrumental works by Zelenka which I have found particularly appealing, above all the _Missa Votiva._ 2. Baroque isn't my period anyway so I don't have particularly strong feelings on most aspects of it.


----------



## Strange Magic

That Guy Mick said:


> You are incorrectly thinking that the value of music can only based upon a personal, emotional weighting of its enjoyment. Certainly I, you, or anyone can opine that the person primarily responsible for creating a new genre of music that became a world wide sensation is of little value to that genre. Bolden is credited with the invention of the Big Four. That is an objective measure of his worth. Take it or leave it. Elementary.
> 
> An aesthetic argument can be a measure of music and the composer's value, but it doesn't negate an objective evaluation. You may not like popularity of a composer's works as a measure, but I don't see why it should be shunned as meaningless. Perhaps you should be arguing against popularity of music as a measure of a composer's worth, rather than objectivity on a "whole cloth" basis.


You are correct in that I assert that the value of music or any art can only be based upon a personal, emotional weighting of its enjoyment. This is the only view that makes sense in a real world where that is how we as individuals experience art, with our single mind and senses. Beyond that, all esthetic judgements going beyond individual experience are merely polling, and the group opinion is clearly just a show of hands. The alternative is to assert that group opinion (what group?) rather than individual opinion confirms an inherent, integral greatness within the art object, or that the value is an integral, inherent property saturating the art object like an ichor of the gods--Plato would love this view, as it asserts that an art object is of value to the inhabitants of other cultures or even of other planets as it floats in an ideal space. Why doesn't everyone therefore think Beethoven is the greatest composer of all time?


----------



## 59540

dko22 said:


> fair point! I'll just quickly add two things 1. it's more some choral rather than instrumental works by Zelenka which I have found particularly appealing, above all the _Missa Votiva._ 2. Baroque isn't my period anyway so I don't have particularly strong feelings on most aspects of it.


Yes, if someone really feels that Zelenka is > or = Bach, that's fine and I don't really have an argument against it. Bach doesn't need some online dork.like me to "defend" his work. I do find though that a good many people with opinions like that aren't very familiar with Bach's work.


----------



## Red Terror

dissident said:


> Yes, if someone really feels that Zelenka is > or = Bach, that's fine and I don't really have an argument against it. Bach doesn't need some online dork.like me to "defend" his work. I do find though that a good many people with opinions like that aren't very familiar with Bach's work.


What's to defend? There's no denying Bach's greatness but Zelenka is just as great-the man's music is there to be listened to and studied as evidence of his significant achievement.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ..Why doesn't everyone therefore think Beethoven is the greatest composer of all time?


So, in your belief system _everyone_ has to agree in order for there to be significance?


----------



## 59540

Red Terror said:


> What's to defend? There's no denying Bach's greatness but Zelenka is just as great-the man's music is there to be listened to and studied as evidence of his significant achievement.


Here's the thing: the vastness, variety and consistent quality of Bach's entire body of work sets him apart from every other composer in the history of (at least) Western music. Now you can take this or that Zelenka composition and say that it's "as good as" this or that cantata...but in overall achievement Zelenka just doesn't come close. Granted that's just my opinion, but it's one that shared by quite a few people.


----------



## fbjim

That Guy Mick said:


> You are incorrectly thinking that the value of music can only based upon a personal, emotional weighting of its enjoyment. Certainly I, you, or anyone can opine that the person primarily responsible for creating a new genre of music that became a world wide sensation is of little value to that genre. Bolden is credited with the invention of the Big Four. That is an objective measure of his worth. Take it or leave it. Elementary.


i actually agree that historical fact is one of the most objective ways to evaluate composers- the problem is that you're stepping outside the bounds of aesthetic evaluation when you do that. I can tell you that Wagner was one of the most influential, historically important composers who ever lived, and that this is an objective measure of his music's worth. The problem is that I can do this without listening to a single note of Wagner, which is where the problem comes from - people like calling music great when they enjoy it, not when a book tells them it's important.

Some of us are musicologists, or are otherwise interested in the history and development of music - but I'd say almost all of us are primarily *listeners* of classical music first.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> So, in your belief system _everyone_ has to agree in order for there to be significance?


Again, failure to understand my position. Under the strange Objectivist position, art objects are imbued with inherent value. If this is indeed so, then everyone not suffering from a brain lesion should be immediately aware of this Platonic excellence radiating from the art. Therefore, universal and even extra-planetary acclaim should be given to whatever has been determined to be "great art". There is not a scintilla of evidence to support this position. Only polling retroactively imbues a art object with "greatness" beyond the personal opinion of each individual, hardly a robust path to the "certainty" of Objectivists in the intrinsic value of their favored art objects or creators. Art objects are great only if you think they are; other than that, art objects just exist in time and space as tabulae rasae, awaiting the imposition of greatness upon them by an act of will on the part of the perceiver.


----------



## hammeredklavier

A certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread:

// "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.

In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is." //


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Now you can take this or that Zelenka composition and say that it's "as good as" this or that cantata...but in overall achievement Zelenka just doesn't come close.


Of course Baroque period composers were prolific, and not all of Zelenka's works have been recorded. Why is it so wrong to have this view, with Bach, subjectively?:


dissident said:


> I think Mozart frequently resorted to musical cliché with the best of them.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Strange Magic said:


> Again, failure to understand my position. Under the strange Objectivist position, art objects are imbued with inherent value. If this is indeed so, then everyone not suffering from a brain lesion should be immediately aware of this Platonic excellence radiating from the art. Therefore, universal and even extra-planetary acclaim should be given to whatever has been determined to be "great art". There is not a scintilla of evidence to support this position.


This is a parody of the position. Mathematical truths are objective if anything is. But many such truths have remained without demonstrative proof for centuries despite the finest minds trying to demonstrate them. Even to grasp the content of many theoremes, let alone proofs, one needs years of higher education. Are all of us less gifted brain-damaged? 
Similarly, there is no need to postulate brain lesions as the only explanation for people not always universally recognizing or agreeing wrt aesthetics. Finally, the pseudonaturalist "radiation" metaphor betrays that you apparently don't understand that aesthetic values, if they exist, function differently. Does "2+2=4" need to "radiate truth"? Obviously not.
There is lots of prima facie evidence for objective aesthetic values/properties. 
E.g. that it was the dominant position for all of human cultural history and philosophy until yesterday (despite Plato and Aristotle knowing very well that the Scythians had some preferences that were different from the Greeks). In some way or another is still a common position in philosophical aesthetics. 
Just think for a second why you find a position that most who thought about the subject in the last 2500 years held so strange that you have trouble making any sense of it. This in itself is surely a strange thing and should give one pause, shouldn't it? Especially as this is not dependent on any modern science or technology. One doesn't get more proficient in thinking about aesthetics or in producing beautiful things because one has a microscope or a particle accelerator.

There is also intercultural convergence on many (not all) aspects of beauty. Like in the case of ethics and law, there are also differences, of course it is not exactly like maths (maths is obviously an extreme case, most other fields of cognition and knowledge are not like maths without becoming subjective by that relative distance to math-like precision and certainty). This is not conclusive but again, some evidence for objective aethetics.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Not to have been anywhat rude, but merely skeptical, of the fruitfulness of a conversation where you say "music has lots of worth to humanity" and "we should discount some aesthetical reasons for composers' quality." Not that I don't mind discussing differing opinions, but these are really some of the most foreign words I've heard. Where do we begin? Some people might value Russian classical music, others who are professional musicologists might not value Classical music, and let alone a majority of people. But when it comes to the worth of Classical music to humanity, it is so very little, we can live without it. The only thing making it valuable are the subjective ideals of the individual, who likes to hear or compose certain things, in their appropriate times and scenarios. I happen to value aesthetics a lot, because it's the very foundation of anything musical and I love music. Whether or not the quality _within_ music, not its _worth_ to humanity, is scientifically objective, has yet to even be demonstrated as possible. If someone wants to bring forth a convincing study in physics on the sounds of Beethoven resonating better than Humperdinck, do so--but then go on to show how this resonation is actually _objectively_ better than interference. What a claim. Or you can just keep saying everybody pees and poops and it's artistically great because it's so popular. That's probably not going to work for everyone.


I guess all we can do is ask the experienced/knowledgeable for their rankings. It saves so much in other technical subjects.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> You are correct in that I assert that the value of music or any art can only be based upon a personal, emotional weighting of its enjoyment. This is the only view that makes sense in a real world where that is how we as individuals experience art, with our single mind and senses. Beyond that, all esthetic judgements going beyond individual experience are merely polling, and the group opinion is clearly just a show of hands. The alternative is to assert that group opinion (what group?) rather than individual opinion confirms an inherent, integral greatness within the art object, or that the value is an integral, inherent property saturating the art object like an ichor of the gods--Plato would love this view, as it asserts that an art object is of value to the inhabitants of other cultures or even of other planets as it floats in an ideal space. Why doesn't everyone therefore think Beethoven is the greatest composer of all time?


Your point is weak because MANY knowledgeable people understand that LvB is great. But I wonder how a musical illiterate could understand the concepts, the objective elements in logical arrangements in the score.

But I can't see the way ahead, I mean how do we progress from these your opinions? How do we get the next generation to continue CM into the future, learning to perform and of course appreciating it all? How do we convince young people that music education might be very important to them as the decades pass?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> A certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread:
> 
> // "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.
> 
> In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is." //


I think this cycling has happened many times with minor composers and yet the rankings have eventually become consistent in the main stream anyway. The minor composers have been weeded out and most people agree.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Of course Baroque period composers were prolific, and not all of Zelenka's works have been recorded. Why is it so wrong to have this view, with Bach, subjectively?:


What justifies it? It's not "wrong", it's just...odd. Like saying Marlowe blows the socks off Shakespeare.


----------



## Neo Romanza

haziz said:


> Massively over-rated:
> Schoenberg
> Bruckner
> 
> Over-rated:
> Mahler
> Wagner
> Brahms
> 
> Under-rated:
> Rimsky-Korsakov
> Glazunov
> Bruch
> Goldmark
> Raff
> Vieuxtemps
> 
> Massively under-rated:
> Tchaikovsky
> Kalinnikov
> Borodin
> Dvořák
> Grieg


How are Tchaikovsky or Dvořák "massively underrated"? They're played in concert programs around the world and have works that have been a part of the mainstream repertoire forever. Also, your swipe at Schoenberg indicates a person who clearly doesn't understand the composer and, honestly, you seem to go out of your way to put him down whenever the opportunity presents itself. Mahler, Bruckner, Brahms and Wagner are compositional giants (as is Schoenberg). I know this is your opinion, but I have to say it's clearly misguided and misinformed.


----------



## mmsbls

Neo Romanza said:


> How are Tchaikovsky or Dvořák "massively underrated"? They're played in concert programs around the world and have works that have been a part of the mainstream repertoire forever. Also, your swipe at Schoenberg indicates a person who clearly doesn't understand the composer and, honestly, you seem to go out of your way to put him down whenever the opportunity presents itself. Mahler, Bruckner, Brahms and Wagner are compositional giants (as is Schoenberg). I know this is your opinion, but I have to say it's clearly misguided and misinformed.


haziz answered my question about Tchaikovsky or Dvořák by saying he felt they are both top 5 composers. Presumably haziz feels they are generally ranked significantly lower (e.g. 10 or under?). In that sense, Tchaikovsky or Dvořák are rated by others significantly lower than haziz believes they should be rated.

I believe many view rating as their personal enjoyment of the composer or possibly how well composers write music that includes what they appreciate. For example, many on TC have stated that Mozart is overrated - a view clearly not shared by the overwhelming majority of music experts. If so, one's rating of composers cannot be much misguided or misinformed.


----------



## Strange Magic

*Kreisler jr. *Your assertion that there are objective truths, esthetic or otherwise, that have existed without demonstrated proof is itself offered without proof. Please also give examples of people who can, under objectivist esthetics, not recognize these obvious and inherent esthetic truths unless there is a brain lesion. Your thesis that esthetic values function differently from other values/truths is a poor and unsupported "fact". 2+2=4 indeed radiates its essential proof by its very definition. And your resort to alleged prima facie evidence reminds me of the prima facie evidence (such as the persistence of the notion of objective esthetic values) that similarly supports the "truth" of astrology and witchcraft. Because people have believed something for a long time doesn't make it true. Is the world flat? sorry, No Cigar!

The only way your version of esthetics works is that a group of people who agree with each other have declared that there are objective measures of esthetic values because they all say so to their own satisfaction. There are surely neurological, psychological, sociological, and personal experience factors that govern our approaches to art objects, but the idea that inherent properties of value exist within an art object is a chimera. As the Bandar-Log in Kipling's Mowgli story _Kaa's Hunting_ are fond of saying to one another, "We all say so, so it must be true!".


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Your point is weak because MANY knowledgeable people understand that LvB is great. But I wonder how a musical illiterate could understand the concepts, the objective elements in logical arrangements in the score.
> 
> But I can't see the way ahead, I mean how do we progress from these your opinions? How do we get the next generation to continue CM into the future, learning to perform and of course appreciating it all? How do we convince young people that music education might be very important to them as the decades pass?


My approach to esthetics has nothing to do with whether CM will survive into the future. As the man said, CM will Never Die. The existing body of CM will survive as long as civilization (and its means of preserving CM) survive. CM just has to be content with a smaller slice of the musical pie and to think of ways of better introducing the young to it. To the horror of too many, Andre Rieu can be regarded as someone helping to keeping people exposed to CM. Think about it.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> What justifies it? It's not "wrong", it's just...odd. Like saying Marlowe blows the socks off Shakespeare.


I think we all have such "odd" views, though Appeal to Authority and Groupthink Do Not Approve.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> I guess all we can do is ask the experienced/knowledgeable for their rankings. It saves so much in other technical subjects.


If we ask experts about evolution or plate tectonics or meteorology or contemporary astrophysics, we will get one sort of set of answers. If we ask about esthetic rankings, we will get an entirely different sort of answers from the experts--we will get the results of polling data.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> What justifies it? It's not "wrong", it's just...odd. Like saying Marlowe blows the socks off Shakespeare.


Maybe Marlowe does blow the socks off Shakespeare depending on how you look at it.
https://www.critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm
(I'm not saying the things said in the article are right though)


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe Marlowe does blow the socks off Shakespeare depending on how you look at it.


Not really.


> https://www.critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm
> (I'm not saying the things said in the article are right though)


Complaining about "idolatry" of Bach doesn't really say anything about the quality of Zelenka's (or Vivaldi's, or Handel's) work. We're supposed to over-value or re-value those and de-value Bach just to show we're not "Bacholaters", I guess. Or say, "hey, one isn't 'better' than any others", which I'm afraid runs counter to human nature. After all we heard that Zelenka is "just as good as Bach". Well then Graupner is "just as good as" Zelenka and Stölzel is "just as good as" Graupner. Even the Stölzel cantatas that didn't survive are every bit as good as Bach's. They must be, or rather must have been. _Someone_ or _some people_ today, unencumbered by "Bach idolatry", would certainly consider these lost Stölzel works to be equal to anything Bach wrote. And Franz Joseph is "just as good as" Michael. Hummel is just as good as Beethoven and on and on. We can play that matryoshka doll game into infinity. They're all at the same absolute level, and some of us think they aren't merely because of brainwashing and marketing and Forkel in 1802.

It's weird, because the sermon usually is "art has no value except what the individual ascribes to it". But if millions of individuals say that the work of this particular artist is pre-eminent in their estimations, then that's not really valid because you must not have artistic hierarchies, which are non-existent. Or else millions feel that way because of nefarious influences.


----------



## DaveM

In another thread, I posted a YouTube video of a live performance of the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique by a very large orchestra. Listening to the Scene aux Champs, I was moved in a way that I haven’t been for a long time not only by the magical and masterful nature of the composition, but also by the skill of each member of the orchestra. It was a reminder of the complexity and sophistication of classical music at its best. I don’t know of any other form of music that brings together this many musicians that are required to perform at this level of competence. Just one string, horn or brass player with one bad note can ruin the sound of the entire work.

The perseveration on the subjectivity involved in one’s attraction to classical music, and whatever else, ignores the fact that when a composer has the ability to create the feeling of a country scene with bird calls and other sounds of nature, something that is likely to be interpreted in much the same way by listeners -notwithstanding their individual subjectivity- there is objective evidence of the skill of said composer. Not to mention the objective evidence of the skill of the performers interpreting the work.

To ignore objective evidence of creativity of humans in the arts at its best is a sad commentary on one’s view of the accomplishment.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> My approach to esthetics has nothing to do with whether CM will survive into the future. As the man said, CM will Never Die. The existing body of CM will survive as long as civilization (and its means of preserving CM) survive. CM just has to be content with a smaller slice of the musical pie and to think of ways of better introducing the young to it. To the horror of too many, Andre Rieu can be regarded as someone helping to keeping people exposed to CM. Think about it.


I was merely ruminating, what if everyone had your opinion of CM, where would CM be? How would have it survived since the 1900s? I mean your idea of preferences is extreme in any art criticism. Everyone's preferences? It doesn't lead anywhere.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> If we ask experts about evolution or plate tectonics or meteorology or contemporary astrophysics, we will get one sort of set of answers. If we ask about esthetic rankings, we will get an entirely different sort of answers from the experts--we will get the results of polling data.


So you don't think highly of such experts. That's OK. You're more of a scientist than a student of art.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> In another thread, I posted a YouTube video of a live performance of the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique by a very large orchestra. Listening to the Scene aux Champs, I was moved in a way that I haven't been for a long time not only by the magical and masterful nature of the composition, but also by the skill of each member of the orchestra. It was a reminder of the complexity and sophistication of classical music at its best. I don't know of any other form of music that brings together this many musicians that are required to perform at this level of competence. Just one string, horn or brass player with one bad note can ruin the sound of the entire work.
> 
> The perseveration on the subjectivity involved in one's attraction to classical music, and whatever else, ignores the fact that when a composer has the ability to create the feeling of a country scene with bird calls and other sounds of nature, something that is likely to be interpreted in much the same way by listeners -notwithstanding their individual subjectivity- there is objective evidence of the skill of said composer. Not to mention the objective evidence of the skill of the performers interpreting the work.
> 
> To ignore objective evidence of creativity of humans in the arts at its best is a sad commentary on one's view of the accomplishment.


We are dealing here with straw men--armies of them. Your observation about the wonderfulness of a symphony orchestra all gathered together is shared by millions, including me. Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand. Nor do I have much of an argument with the idea that composers can produce works that when we are told elicit reactions of recognition of a sort that we are meant to bring to mind a certain time and place. I recall a critic of _La Mer_ writing that he neither heard nor saw nor felt the sea in the work, or words to that effect. People here on TC recently complained that _Nightride and Sunrise_ was even irritating in its depiction, and the same thing could be said of Villa-Lobos' BB No.2, and _On the Trail_ from the Grand Canyon Suite. But we hear what the composer has told us he wants us to hear. That humans are creative is an objective fact--no one denies this--but again this has nothing to do with my central argument--that all esthetics are personal and subjective. Question What would someone blind since birth make of Respighi"s _Birth of Venus?_


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> I was merely ruminating, what if everyone had your opinion of CM, where would CM be? How would have it survived since the 1900s? I mean your idea of preferences is extreme in any art criticism. Everyone's preferences? It doesn't lead anywhere.


You mean what if everyone behaved under my philosophy as they do with a different esthetic philosophy? The answer is--just the same. I like what I like in music and art the same as everyone else. I just don"t need outside validation that my preferences are worthy and authentic.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> So you don't think highly of such experts. That's OK. You're more of a scientist than a student of art.


Yes. I much prefer facts over opinions, certainly opinions in esthetic matters that are, essentially, just opinions. A simple example-- I can and do read books on art/music and art/music history and both enjoy them and learn something from them. But my opinions of the pieces discussed remain entirely my own.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand...


And therein lies the problem.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> And therein lies the problem.


Exactly. Creativity is not the issue. The issue is whether the created object is inherently "good", hence everyone with a well mind must like it. It's good if you think it is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> But if millions of individuals say that the work of this particular artist is pre-eminent in their estimations, then that's not really valid because you must not have artistic hierarchies, which are non-existent. Or else millions feel that way because of nefarious influences.


We all know and admit that some things are more popular or have qualities to be more popular than other things. Popular things have many fans following them. "Attributing greatness" is what fans do to glorify things they love. Just cause something has a lot of fans, it's unquestionably "great"? Isn't that rather like, "tyranny of the majority"? Whether or not something is popular because it has depth, or because it's superficially appealing, sentimental, over the top, or whatnot, belongs in the realm of subjectivity.


----------



## DaveM

I’m always surprised when it is inferred that popularity has no relationship to accomplishment, exceptional talent and even, in some cases, greatness. Popularity doesn’t guarantee these qualities, but the fact is that it is often associated with one or more of them.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

DaveM said:


> The perseveration on the subjectivity involved in one's attraction to classical music, and whatever else, ignores the fact that when a composer has the ability to create the feeling of a country scene with bird calls and other sounds of nature, something that is likely to be interpreted in much the same way by listeners -notwithstanding their individual subjectivity- there is objective evidence of the skill of said composer. Not to mention the objective evidence of the skill of the performers interpreting the work.


I really just think that people are biologically predisposed to appreciate similar things, and that when one speaks of objective greatness, it's implicitly referring to qualities that appeal to what people are generally(!) predisposed to like. There is of course, variation in tastes, & that's where a lot of the subjectivity comes from.


----------



## DaveM

4chamberedklavier said:


> I really just think that people are biologically predisposed to appreciate similar things, and that when one speaks of objective greatness, it's implicitly referring to qualities that appeal to what people are generally(!) predisposed to like. There is of course, variation in tastes, & that's where a lot of the subjectivity comes from.


That's not a bad way of putting it.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> We all know and admit that some things are more popular or have qualities to be more popular than other things. Popular things have many fans following them. "Attributing greatness" is what fans do to glorify things they love. Just cause something has a lot of fans, it's unquestionably "great"? ...


No, but "greatness" in art could be a situation in which essentially the same response is stirred within a large group of individuals. It's not necessarily true that just because something is "popular" that it's tainted somehow with "brainwashing techniques" or marketing. Or that there is no such thing as relative merit and quality.


----------



## Strange Magic

4chamberedklavier said:


> I really just think that people are biologically predisposed to appreciate similar things, and that when one speaks of objective greatness, it's implicitly referring to qualities that appeal to what people are generally(!) predisposed to like. There is of course, variation in tastes, & that's where a lot of the subjectivity comes from.


It does, finally, all come down to a poll. Bigger and smaller clusters like this and that.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I'm always surprised when it is inferred that popularity has no relationship to accomplishment, exceptional talent and even, in some cases, greatness. Popularity doesn't guarantee these qualities, but the fact is that it is often associated with one or more of them.


It does, finally, all come down to a poll. Bigger and smaller clusters like this and that.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> No, but "greatness" in art could be a situation in which essentially the same response is stirred within a large group of individuals. It's not necessarily true that just because something is "popular" that it's tainted somehow with "brainwashing techniques" or marketing. Or that there is no such thing as relative merit and quality.


It does, finally, all come down to a poll. Bigger and smaller clusters like this and that.

Regarding relative merit and quality, I would rather listen to Bob Dylan singing any one of dozens of songs than to any number of empty, long-winded, gaseous late 19th or early 20th century symphonies. But that's just me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Strange Magic said:


> Regarding relative merit and quality, I would rather listen to Bob Dylan singing any one of dozens of songs than to any number of empty, long-winded, gaseous late 19th or early 20th century symphonies. But that's just me.


I'm reminded of:


Tchaikov6 said:


> that's silly. There are plenty of rap albums I enjoy more than certain 19th century sleep-inducing Romantic symphonies. Comments like these are what make other genre lovers look upon classical fans as snobs.





Tchaikov6 said:


> Music is subjective. Period. I don't think anyone would argue against that? There is plenty of rap music I enjoy than certain Bach and Mozart pieces (that happen to be my two favorite composers). There is no "greatest work" and someone's junk can be someone else's masterpiece.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> I'm always surprised when it is inferred that popularity has no relationship to accomplishment, exceptional talent and even, in some cases, greatness. Popularity doesn't guarantee these qualities, but the fact is that it is often associated with one or more of them.





dissident said:


> No, but "greatness" in art could be a situation in which essentially the same response is stirred within a large group of individuals. It's not necessarily true that just because something is "popular" that it's tainted somehow with "brainwashing techniques" or marketing. Or that there is no such thing as relative merit and quality.


All these descriptions can describe a clown too. A clown can be considered a "genius" in what he does. Whether or not he is "great" is up to each individual to decide. Music in the end is an abstract combination of sounds.
Perhaps "brainwashing" isn't the right term to use, but we need to realize even the academics who have preached of "Mozart's greatness compared to his contemporaries" could be "wrong" in various things. It seems that you and SanAntone, including some other people, consider Mozart's contemporaries "easy targets" (a term you use in political discussions). But on what basis are we assuming they were "fools" who tried to be like Mozart, but ended up being "failed Mozarts"? On what basis are we assuming they all tried to achieve the same style, but eventually "lost" against Mozart artistically?
I think it's all wishful thinking propagated by the later generations. There could be so many unknowns, things we still don't know or haven't discovered yet. There could be a composer more obscure than Gluck, Salieri, Boccherini and having characteristics like, for instance,


hammeredklavier said:


> For example, look at the style of the "S'altro che lacrime" from Mozart's La Clemenza di Tito, and then that of the "Quel ruscelleto" from Haydn's Endimione (or the "Quel viso adorato" from his Andromeda e Perseo) side by side.





hammeredklavier said:


> How can we logically prove that the Gloria from Mass K.427 (1782) is inherently superior to the Gloria from Missa sancti Ruperti (1782) regardless of their popularity and people's "preferences" today?


but even if there's one, all of you would listen to his music for only for several hours at most, pretend you've given him enough chance, and simply conclude "he's worse than Mozart  (not just different)". You see what's the problem here?


----------



## SanAntone

I have begun reading a book that I think all "subjectivists" (of whom I count myself) might benefit from reading, since it offers some interesting (imo) points to bear on the idea of "greatness."

*The Indispensable Composers: A Personal Guide*
by Anthony Tommasini


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Strange Magic said:


> It does, finally, all come down to a poll. Bigger and smaller clusters like this and that.


Oh, I don't disagree. It's just that both the subjective & objective sides have merit.

I will have to add to what I said. It's simpler to determine if a piece of music "appeals to what people are generally predisposed to like". That involves checking if certain qualities are present. Which is to say, checking if a piece has a certain level of variety or complexity in its melody, harmony, & rhythm that's enough to make you think that at least a large number of people will appreciate.

In other words, is it crafted in a way, that, even if you personally don't like the piece of music, you can still acknowledge that it's well-crafted enough for a majority of people* to enjoy? 
*a majority of people who are willing to put in the effort to listen to art music

The tricky & subjective part is determining which piece of music is better than another. You can easily say that two works are complex enough to appeal to people, but it's very difficult to say that one work is better than the other, because you'd have to somehow quantify the complexity, which is different from simply checking if the complexity is present at all.

This implies that while we can be reasonably sure that the works of the big name composers are "great", we cannot conclusively claim that they are the "greatest".

I may be generalizing a bit, but I hope I'm clear enough


----------



## DaveM

4chamberedklavier said:


> Oh, I don't disagree. It's just that both the subjective & objective sides have merit.
> 
> I will have to add to what I said. It's simpler to determine if a piece of music "appeals to what people are generally predisposed to like". That involves checking if certain qualities are present. Which is to say, checking if a piece has a certain level of variety or complexity in its melody, harmony, & rhythm that's enough to make you think that at least a large number of people will appreciate.
> 
> In other words, is it crafted in a way, that, even if you personally don't like the piece of music, you can still acknowledge that it's well-crafted enough for a majority of people* to enjoy?
> *a majority of people who are willing to put in the effort to listen to art music
> 
> The tricky & subjective part is determining which piece of music is better than another. You can easily say that two works are complex enough to appeal to people, but it's very difficult to say that one work is better than the other, because you'd have to somehow quantify the complexity, which is different from simply checking if the complexity is present at all.
> 
> This implies that while we can be reasonably sure that the works of the big name composers are "great", we cannot conclusively claim that they are the "greatest".
> 
> I may be generalizing a bit, but I hope I'm clear enough


It makes sense. As has been said before, but seems to be ignored in these discussions, a blueprint or foundation developed for the music that was attracting people during the CP era consisting of melody, harmony, counterpoint etc. As that developed over the 18th and 19th century, there was a basis on which to make some objective comparisons as to how well various composers were creating music that was appealing to people who happened to be drawn to music with CP characteristics.

Anything that has to do with the 5 senses can be said to be subjective. How people respond to chocolate is subjective, but the fact is that chocolate among a group of people almost anywhere is likely to be a guaranteed attraction. Still, there are manufacturers of chocolate that are more successful than others. They do a better job of appealing to what is already a positive taste shared by many and there are often objective reasons for their success.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> ....
> Perhaps "brainwashing" isn't the right term to use, but we need to realize even the academics who have preached of "Mozart's greatness compared to his contemporaries" could be "wrong" in various things. It seems that you and SanAntone, including some other people, consider Mozart's contemporaries "easy targets" (a term you use in political discussions). But on what basis are we assuming they're "fools" who tried to be like Mozart, but ended up being "failed Mozarts"? Or on what basis they all tried to achieve the same style, but eventually "lost" against Mozart artistically?
> I think it's all wishful thinking propagated by the later generations. There could be so many unknowns, things we still don't know or haven't discovered yet. There could be a composer more obscure than Gluck, Salieri, Boccherini and having characteristics like, for instance,
> 
> but even if there's one, all of you would listen to his music for only for several hours at most, pretend you've given him enough chance, and simply conclude "he's worse than Mozart  (not just different)". You see what's the problem here?


So are you saying that Mozart, Gluck and Salieri produced music that is all at the same level of quality?


----------



## SanAntone

> Perhaps "brainwashing" isn't the right term to use, but we need to realize even the academics who have preached of "Mozart's greatness compared to his contemporaries" could be "wrong" in various things. It seems that you and SanAntone, including some other people, consider Mozart's contemporaries "easy targets" (a term you use in political discussions). But on what basis are we assuming they're "fools" who tried to be like Mozart, but ended up being "failed Mozarts"? Or on what basis they all tried to achieve the same style, but eventually "lost" against Mozart artistically?


You are attributing opinions to me that I do not hold.

I do not consider Mozart's contemporaries "easy targets" and I also do not consider them "failed Mozarts."

The contemporaries of Mozart wrote music in the same style as Mozart because that was the prevailing style of their period. Music historians, musicologists, and other scholars who have made the Classical period their specialty have done the spade work of analyzing Mozart's music relative to the other music of the period and, for a number of technical reasons, have concluded that Mozart brought the prevailing style to its greatest expression.

There is still plenty of other music of the period that is worthwhile to listen to and we need not limit ourselves to only that music which historians have pronounced "the greatest." I had a professor who responded to a fellow student who claimed that Mendelssohn was a second rate composer, "there is a lot of wonderful music written by 'second rate' composers."

However, I don't concern myself much with the issue of greatness, except to educate myself about which composers have been considered great by the consensus of Classical musicians, as a part of my overall musical education.

But I listen to music not because it is considered great but because I enjoy what the composer has accomplished with his work irrespective of any judgment about him or his music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> So are you saying that Mozart, Gluck and Salieri produced music that is all at the same level of quality?


Have you looked at this thread:


hammeredklavier said:


> How can we prove Mozart's "greatness" is not a result of the amount of his "exposure" to the public? How do we know for sure the kind of chromatic harmony and vocal writing Mozart employs, for instance, proves his music has "depth" intrinsically, compared to his contemporaries? (Isn't it rather something "creamy"?)


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> The contemporaries of Mozart wrote music in the same style as Mozart ...
> and, for a number of technical reasons


Bob Dylan has produced inferior "tonal music" than Beethoven. Yes or no?


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Bob Dylan has produced inferior "tonal music" than Beethoven. Yes or no?


Since they do not write in the same style and are not from the same period there is no basis for comparison. I've posted this same response to other posts like this you've directed at me. I don't know what else I can tell you, but only hope you will discontinue this line of questioning since there is no hope of it leading anywhere - as is the case with circles.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you looked at this thread:


You sure do a lot of writing about a composer (Mozart) who you apparently have serious doubts about his superiority over his contemporaries.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> Bob Dylan has produced inferior "tonal music" than Beethoven. Yes or no?


This will be about as productive a discussion as discussing whether Beethoven or Armando Gallop was a better Acid House artist


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> All these descriptions can describe a clown too. A clown can be considered a "genius" in what he does. Whether or not he is "great" is up to each individual to decide. Music in the end is an abstract combination of sounds.
> Perhaps "brainwashing" isn't the right term to use, but we need to realize even the academics who have preached of "Mozart's greatness compared to his contemporaries" could be "wrong" in various things. It seems that you and SanAntone, including some other people, consider Mozart's contemporaries "easy targets" (a term you use in political discussions). But on what basis are we assuming they were "fools" who tried to be like Mozart, but ended up being "failed Mozarts"? On what basis are we assuming they all tried to achieve the same style, but eventually "lost" against Mozart artistically?
> I think it's all wishful thinking propagated by the later generations. There could be so many unknowns, things we still don't know or haven't discovered yet. There could be a composer more obscure than Gluck, Salieri, Boccherini and having characteristics like, for instance,
> 
> but even if there's one, all of you would listen to his music for only for several hours at most, pretend you've given him enough chance, and simply conclude "he's worse than Mozart  (not just different)". You see what's the problem here?


I see. The case you make is helpful with those guys. Can you think of others?


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> It does, finally, all come down to a poll. Bigger and smaller clusters like this and that.


As with other topics, the results of polls can be predicted from what we've learned about music fans, but the results of scholarship and musicologists can't be predicted.


----------



## Ethereality

I think part of the natural response of composing music, or creating favorite composers lists, is expressing your individuality, preparing those whom only you enjoy. It's often the exact reason people talk so much about certain composers, and the most deep in understanding aspect of this forum, those individual experiences. Hence we can see that in this thread, Borodin may be one of the objectively greatest composers in haziz's and my individual worlds, and even in Borodin's. His music strikes no direct semblance to the Big 3, for his own objective logic: literally one of the millions of objective perspectives. That is, it's an objective fact that Borodin is great. Within certain worlds. Yes, humans share natural propensities in perception, but what is objective? Objective is this: (a) It's an objective fact that the quality of music is has striking similarities for most everyone. (b) It's an objective fact that Messiaen is the greatest composer, in certain worlds. Both a and b are equally objective. When I hear people say, be more objective because you're wrong, they fail to notice that they're utilizing only one point of view, and the second person is utilizing a more realistic, experiential point of view. When we actually analyze the quality of interesting information to read about composers, they're each fitting within one of the different individual perspectives. Literally almost nothing is written about the average objective perspective, so the question is, where do some of you get this presumed learning from, and why do you call it _deep_ learning? It is broad, trendy learning. I have learned so many deeper musical topics than this, because I'm listening to the actual originator of the topic's material, not an averaged-out benchmark of a ghost that never existed.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> So are you saying that Mozart, Gluck and Salieri produced music that is all at the same level of quality?





SanAntone said:


> Since they do not write in the same style and are not from the same period there is no basis for comparison.


// "On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not 'one of us' from a national point of view. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music." //

Were people in those times "musically dumb", to think this way?


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Ethereality:* Objective is this: (a) It's an objective fact that the quality of music is has striking similarities for most everyone.


This is "true" only in the obvious case where polling reveals that the polled group is not "most everyone" but rather those predisposed to like the work in question (as the poll reveals). Most everyone (in the world), in groups and clusters, differs from one another as to the quality of any music or art. Yet again, we return to polling, thus turning the backbone of the objectivist view to jelly. It can be stated with some confidence that Beethoven may be considered the greatest composer in some polls, and that would constitute an objective but trivial fact.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> How can we prove Mozart's "greatness" is not a result of the amount of his "exposure" to the public? ...


A little bit of chicken-and-egg. Maybe Mozart's music has had greater exposure due to the perception of its unique quality. Prove otherwise.


hammeredklavier said:


> On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not 'one of us' from a national point of view.


What does that have to do with aesthetic appreciation? Glenn Gould disliked Mozart too. So what? There has to be unanimity? "If ANYbody dislikes this composer you consider 'great', then...ZAP! There goes 'greatness'."


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> What does that have to do with aesthetic appreciation? Glenn Gould disliked Mozart too. So what? There has to be unanimity? "If ANYbody dislikes this composer you consider 'great', then...ZAP! There goes 'greatness'."


Not at all; there goes objective greatness as anything other than the results of a poll. Each of us as individuals can hold greatness as a characteristic of anyone or anything we choose. I have an enormous list of artists and artworks that I affirm are, for me, great. We all do. Parts of our lists may be congruent and that's certainly a pleasure; it always feel nice to know that others share at least some of our likes and esthetic values.


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> Not at all; there goes objective greatness as anything other than the results of a poll. Each of us as individuals can hold greatness as a characteristic of anyone or anything we choose. I have an enormous list of artists and artworks that I affirm are, for me, great. We all do. Parts of our lists may be congruent and that's certainly a pleasure; it always feel nice to know that others share at least some of our likes and esthetic values.


The way I see it, there is greatness which is based on the "judgment of history" concerning some composers whose work has consistently been lauded as the best work from their period. This is a consensus made up of historians, musicians, scholars, as well as the non-professional Classical music lover. Then there are our individual subjective likes and dislikes regarding composers in general.

If someone dislikes Mozart that is an outlier judgment reflecting one individual's subjective taste - which is valid and important for that person's enjoyment of music. But it does not cancel out the centuries old consensus that has deemed Mozart one of the greats.

There is no obligation for anyone to like the music of any composer who has been judged great. But hiding your head in the sand and claiming the judgment of history either doesn't exist or is just another subjective opinion are false claims in denial of the historical record.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Not at all; there goes objective greatness as anything other than the results of a poll. Each of us as individuals can hold greatness as a characteristic of anyone or anything we choose..


I find that bordering on the bizarre. At the very least it has become an affectation. What it says is that the skill of an artist is merely based on subjective opinions with no acknowledgement that, particularly in the case of the CP era where there are accepted expectations for the music, there is objective evidence of skill and talent on the part of composers and artists.


----------



## Ethereality

SanAntone said:


> There is no obligation for anyone to like the music of any composer who has been judged great. But hiding your head in the sand and claiming the judgment of history either doesn't exist or is just another subjective opinion are false claims in denial of the historical record.


Where do we begin addressing this elitist bull. Let's see.

There's no real problem denying the validity of this certain meter you propose the objective, end-all be-all to valid judgement. Strange Magic I invite you to symbolically burn the German flag, what have you. Who cares. The actual problem lies in people claiming "I understand why this music is considered great by others." They don't. They understand _that_ what they're hearing and analyzing is deemed great writing, but only those who think it's good music are perceiving why. All these appeals to popular historic criticisms are pretentious and elusive, and we don't need to acknowledge, or ignore their chirping champions. They're _intrinsically_ inferior arguments.

What's really going on is a bunch of people who fit that average mind use them as leverage for their superior opinions, and that's exactly what they are. Opinions. We've already acknowledged they're plentiful in trend; how many times more must we admit people have converging tastes in order to get you people to chill and stop ganging up on others? Hasn't this forum succumbed to enough cleansing of anti-establishment?

Haziz began by saying that certain composers he likes he strongly believes to be underrated, and too bad smarty pants, there's nothing you can do to prove him objectively wrong.


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> Where do we begin addressing this elitist bull. Let's see.
> 
> There's no real problem denying the validity of this certain meter you propose the objective, end-all be-all to valid judgement. The problem is people claiming "I understand why this music is considered great by others." They don't. They understand _that_ what they're hearing and analyzing is deemed great writing, but only those who think it's good music are perceiving why. All these appeals to historic polls are pretentious and elusive, and we don't need to acknowledge, or ignore their chirping champions. They're _intrinsically_ inferior arguments.
> 
> What's really going on is a bunch of people who fit that average mind use them as leverage for their superior opinions, and that's exactly what they are. Opinions. We've already acknowledged they're plentiful in trend; how many times more must we admit people have converging tastes in order to get you people to chill and stop ganging up on others?
> 
> Haziz began by saying he believes certain composers are underrated, and too bad, there's nothing you can do to prove him wrong


Do you deny that a group of composers, e.g. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, etc., have been considered great by a consensus of scholars as well as laypersons for centuries, as well as today?

Do you think this judgment is not the result of scholarly musicological analyses as well as audiences and performers consistently finding more in their music than other composers - a process that has continued to the present day?

If you don't consider the Classical music canon correct, whose body of work would you substitute for that of Bach, or Mozart, or Beethoven, or Wagner, or Brahms?


----------



## Ethereality

SanAntone said:


> Do you deny that a group of composers, e.g. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, etc., have been considered great by a consensus of scholars as well as laypersons for centuries, as well as today?
> 
> Do you think this judgment is not the result of scholarly musicological analyses as well as audiences and performers consistently finding more in their music than other composers - a process that has continued to the present day?


Still true for the 1,000th time it's been said this month alone. Yawn. Nobody is denying this; you and your side seems to be dodging the final result of your failed debate, addressed right above 



SanAntone said:


> If you don't consider the Classical music canon correct, whose body of work would you substitute for that of Bach, or Mozart, or Beethoven, or Wagner, or Brahms?


Anyone I strongly feel about. That's what this thread is about but we went a little off topic with this failed debate.


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> Still true for the 1,000th time it's been said this month alone. Yawn. Nobody is denying this; you and your side seems to be dodging the final result of your failed debate, addressed right above
> 
> Anyone I strongly feel about. That's what this thread is about but we went a little off topic with this failed debate.


There is no debate. I am on no "side" other than the side of the reality of history. I like who I like and ignore those I don't enjoy no matter if they appear or not on the list of canonical composers. But that is beside the point.

The group of composers that have been and continue to be considered great exists no matter if you acknowledge it or not. You are free to deny the validity of the accepted list, but the list exists nonetheless. It is a fact of history.

Your opinion about composers is relevant to you alone, and since it guides your listening and enjoyment, it is important - to you. And I am the first to agree that the issue of greatness is of absolutely no importance when we come to decide for ourselves whose music we enjoy.

However, it is important from a music history and pedagogical perspective, which is larger than any single individual.


----------



## Ethereality

SanAntone said:


> There is no debate. The group of composers that have been and continue to be considered great exists no matter if you acknowledge it or not. You are free to deny the validity of the accepted list, but the list exists nonetheless.


Your personal list exists somewhere in there no matter what. You're free to deny its validity, it doesn't mean you'll lose any judgement because of it. As an example, an official list is compiled from biographies of the most popular critics in musical history. You can now deny this list and you won't lose any musical judgement. Sorry to say, your judgement won't be effected by this trivial action. You may learn more musically from other composers with their own objectivist vision, or you can change your mind and listen to more Beethoven. What is true, and what you haven't acknowledged, is your _intrinsic_ pretentiousity of trying to validate some list you'll never understand as emotionally as its average-minded founders. Good luck with that one and tell me when you've reached the peak of artistic knowledge, by inferiorizing your own, more sensible list.



SanAntone said:


> Your opinion about composers is relevant to you alone, and since it guides your listening and enjoyment, it is important - to you. And I am the first to agree that the issue of greatness is of absolutely no importance when we come to decide for ourselves whose music we enjoy.


Firstly, my list is of the greatest composers as I can possibly understand the word. I can't claim to understand the 'official' list and no one can, because it's not coming from their underestimated point of view. For all I know my list is objectively the greatest and the critics isn't. It's more likely some very esoteric member has the most objectively great list, some composer who is unpopular. I'm not claiming either, but for all I know it is--because we _don't_ know. Hopefully that makes sense. Secondly, my list is not important to me alone. Others may agree with and discuss it, to different extents. I just don't get as many hits as the average (or predictable) taste does.

What's true is there might be one human on earth with the most objectively correct list, and we may never know who it is in this lifetime.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *SanAntone:* The group of composers that have been and continue to be considered great exists no matter if you acknowledge it or not. You are free to deny the validity of the accepted list, but the list exists nonetheless. It is a fact of history.


Only an idiot would deny the truth of your statement. It is an objective fact--such a list or lists exist. Therefore What?. It smells suspiciously again like elevating the results of a poll or polls into some sort of proof of intrinsic greatness that exists as I have said many times within the artwork itself, suspended in time and space. Idealism masquerading as objectivity.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> I find that bordering on the bizarre. At the very least it has become an affectation. What it says is that the skill of an artist is merely based on subjective opinions with no acknowledgement that, particularly in the case of the CP era where there are accepted expectations for the music, there is objective evidence of skill and talent on the part of composers and artists.


Many people seem to think that polls result in a smoothing out of all the good and bad opinions, and therefore polls are the worth the effort to run them. 
But even with modern means of polling, we're inevitably back to learning about the achievements in the scores which is far more constructive. After all, it's all in the scores and nowhere else.


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> Your personal list exists somewhere in there no matter what. You're free to deny its validity, it doesn't mean you'll lose any judgement because of it. As an example, an official list is compiled from biographies of the most popular critics in musical history. You can now deny this list and you won't lose any musical judgement. Sorry to say, your judgement won't be effected by this trivial action. You may learn more musically from other composers with their own objectivist vision, or you can change your mind and listen to more Beethoven. What is true, and what you haven't acknowledged, is your _intrinsic_ pretentiousity of trying to validate some list you'll never understand as emotionally as its average-minded founders. Good luck with that one and tell me when you've reached the peak of artistic knowledge, by inferiorizing your own, more sensible list.
> 
> Firstly, my list is of the greatest composers as I can possibly understand the word. I can't claim to understand the 'official' list and no one can, because it's not coming from their underestimated point of view. For all I know my list is objectively the greatest and the critics isn't. It's more likely some very esoteric member has the most objectively great list, some composer who is unpopular. I'm not claiming either, but for all I know it is--because we _don't_ know. Hopefully that makes sense. Secondly, my list is not important to me alone. Others may agree with and discuss it, to different extents. I just don't get as many hits as the average (or predictable) taste does.
> 
> What's true is there might be one human on earth with the most objectively correct list, and we may never know who it is in this lifetime.


(I have no personal list of "great" composers. My list is of composers I enjoy more than others. When I speak of the "great" composers it is in reference to the established canon.)

There is nothing to understand; it is simply a historical list of composers whose music has been consistently valued by a consensus of scholars and Classical music listeners over a long period of time. It can either be acknowledged and the knowledge added to our appreciation of these composers - or it can be ignored and our enjoyment of our favorite composers is not cheapened by ignoring it.

The body of knowledge of Classical composers is of interest to some people who find in it avenues of investigation and history that deepens their appreciation of their favorite composers. They also may discover some new composers because they've read something about their life and music; or find out more about a composer they had ignored - or they read musical analyses of a composer's works which provides them with a broader context for their enjoyment of it.

The canon of Classical music is knowledge to be used as we wish. Or ignored if we wish.

The list itself is benign.

Personally I have found reading about composers and music history beneficial to my continued enjoyment of it. But it isn't mandatory. However, you sound angry about the existence of this list, and that seems misplaced, IMO.


----------



## Ethereality

Strange Magic said:


> Only an idiot would deny the truth of your statement. It is an objective fact--such a list or lists exist. Therefore What?. It smells suspiciously again like elevating the results of a poll or polls into some sort of proof of intrinsic greatness that exists as I have said many times within the artwork itself, suspended in time and space. Idealism masquerading as objectivity.


Two thoughts.

1. This forum has succumbed to lots of cleansing of the classical anti-establishment throughout the past decade or so, people who were once members but got tired of the group-think, so this idea of 'objective greatness' has propogated more on this forum in the past few years. It needn't even be a subject, but it is do to our forum's exclusive-minding evolution.

2. If there is objective greatness, an average of popular people throughout time might not be the best place to look. When you find one golden egg, and then average it with everything else, you can't tell what color it was anymore. It's possible that some vaguely-known esoteric composer is the greatest musical genius, with a very scant following of other geni, barely memorable to history. We don't know if greatness exists _objectively_, so we can't say, but if you find one person who agrees with you, and they find one person, and so on, suddenly you have an average-minded party who thinks they solved everything.


----------



## Ethereality

SanAntone said:


> Personally I have found reading about composers and music history beneficial to my continued enjoyment of it. But it isn't mandatory. But you sound angry about the existence of this list, and that seems misplaced, IMO.


I also do the same thing but randomly with composers. What I may hate, using your words, despite very unconcernedly, is purposefully succumbing myself to the bias of a majority who are then biased, for example, the self-propogating convenience-sample reading you recommend there, is sample bias. I read analyses of random composers.


----------



## SanAntone

I haven't said anything about "objective greatness." My comments have been about the existence of a Classical music canon. I am not interested in debating if music can be objectively proven to be great. I have not been arguing that at all.

The debate of whether music (or any art) can objectively proven to be great is a philosophical discussion which, from what I've witnessed, has no end or agreement. 

The Classical music canon is a real thing - with a group of composers and works - a concrete reality.

It is body of knowledge; not a debate; the list was created over time by consensus.

But as I said earlier, it isn't mandatory. A person can go their entire life ignorant of this canon and still enjoy Classical music and their favorite composers.


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> I also do the same thing but randomly with composers. What I may hate, using your words, despite very unconcernedly, is purposefully succumbing myself to the bias of a majority who are then biased, for example, the self-propogating convenience-sample reading you recommend there, is sample bias. I read analyses of random composers.


I don't remember using the word "hate."

I am not threatened by the canon of composers and works. It is simply another body of knowledge which I use as I choose.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Two thoughts.
> 
> 1. This forum has succumbed to lots of cleansing of the classical anti-establishment throughout the past decade or so, people who were once members but got tired of the group-think, so this idea of 'objective greatness' has propogated more on this forum in the past few years. It needn't even be a subject, but it is do to our forum's exclusive-minding evolution.
> 
> 2. If there is objective greatness, an average of popular people throughout time might not be the best place to look. When you find one golden egg, and then average it with everything else, you can't tell what color it was anymore. It's possible that some vaguely-known esoteric composer is the greatest musical genius, with a very scant following of other geni, barely memorable to history. We don't know if greatness exists _objectively_, so we can't say, but if you find one person who agrees with you, and they find one person, and so on, suddenly you have an average-minded party who thinks they solved everything.


As I look at the history there seems to be a 'great' composer born every 15 to 20 years. A lot of greatness over centuries, so sadly there's dilution. 
To me, 'great' is composing works which are clearly better than others (it's clear to musicians). When musicians seek something 'great', what do they play? There's objective reasons for the choices.

Non-musicians can believe it or not, -- communication breaks down, as in any technical subject.


----------



## DaveM

To acknowledge that a given composer has risen to a level of accomplishment above some others does not require that composer being a favorite or even that one even likes that composer’s music. All that is necessary is the act of stepping out of one’s subjective preferences and using an inquiring mind to access available objective evidence.


----------



## Ethereality

1. One must do so by using their subjective preferences, just a bit suspended or muted, not objective evidence or science.

2. They can achieve this false belief due to expecting the answer already given to them. There's no actual magic going on. Wagner for example, is one converging item in this group's list. But member Ghanditempi told me that composer Wooloy was the greatest genius who ever lived, people are just not capable ears, and I took this to heart and heard the magnificent objective greatness in Wooloy. It was just, I wasn't listening right before. The sheer confidence by these historical critics, ehm I mean that user, persuaded me to use my "objectivity."

3. No. I was able to hear some great subjective beauty in that composer because we humans are related. When humans garner more experience with music, their 'beliefs' will slightly shift towards the group they're in, but not for better or worse: just for how they're all similar.

I don't expect most people to prefer this symphony over Mozart's Jupiter Symphony:






but it's because people are similar to one another, in their default approach, their tastes, their cultural expectation, not because the Szymanowski work is worse. People dislike eating their veggies for example, it doesn't mean they're worse. You won't reach a more fulfilled life listening to Mozart over Szymanowski. Whatever is 'great' is your own definition of how you spend your time and what meaning you can draw from it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> When musicians seek something 'great', what do they play.


What do they play when they are on stage before an audience--or what do they play alone or among a small group of musical friends (1 to 4 instruments) or what do they play on their home sound systems? It would be interesting to have such data.


----------



## 59540

Ethereality said:


> Two thoughts.
> 
> 1. This forum has succumbed to lots of cleansing of the classical anti-establishment throughout the past decade or so...


What composers make up the "classical anti-establishment"? I see a lot of discussion of composers like Stockhausen and Cage, and despite the references to 4'33" ad nauseam (that one work isn't all of Cage's output, after all) it's fairly civil. Plus I think composers like those two are more or less "establishment" now too. So what is "anti-establishment"?


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> This is a consensus made up of historians, musicians, scholars, as well as the non-professional Classical music lover.


You have good points, but one thing to bear in mind is that those 20th century critics and academics aren't authorities to be relied upon unquestioningly, as they obviously _did not know everything._



hammeredklavier said:


> Aren't these "appeal to authority", "appeal to popularity" fallacies? Isn't it more reasonable to think there can be various factors other than "traits/qualities of artistic work" that ultimately decide who/what get remembered and who/what don't?
> Let's say there was a composer A, whose music had not been distributed widely in his lifetime because he didn't want it printed or published, and it had been "misattributed" to various other composers up until the end of the 20th century. How could "professional critics/academics" during most of the 20th century have had an accurate view of his "greatness"?


For instance,

1. Donald Tovey said of Beethoven's Missa solemnis: "There is no earlier choral writing that comes so near to recovering some of the lost secrets of the style of Palestrina."

But look at "Missa in Dominica Palmarum" (1794) 




2. M. Owen Lee said of the quartet in Mozart's Idomeneo: "Mozart's is by common consent the first great ensemble in opera, a forerunner of the trio in Der Rosenkavalier, the quartet in Rigoletto, the quintet in Die Meistersinger."

But look at the ones from "Die Wahrheit der Natur" (1769) 



 (at 1:56, the similarity of harmony to the "Colpa è vostra, oh Dei tiranni" from Idomeneo is striking, btw),
and "Die Hochzeit auf der Alm" (1768) 




3. Charles Rosen said of Mozart's quintet K.174 (in page 281 of his book, "The Classical Style"): "The immediate model for this work is not at all Michael Haydn, as has been thought, much less Boccherini, but ..."

But look at quintet in G (1773) 



, and quintet in C (1773) 




So there are 3 obvious errors committed by these famous critics, just from their lack of knowledge of the ouevre of one obscure composer alone. Would you buy into opinions of individuals just cause they were highly regarded, even though they _did not know the stuff?_ Also, if we're unwilling to "adjust" our views with the discovery of new knowledge, it shows we're nothing more than a 'religious group' worshiping a few selected composers who've been dead for hundreds of years.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> the references to 4'33" ad nauseam (that one work isn't all of Cage's output, after all)


To be fair, that's his most famous work-




 7.6 million views




 1.4 million views
no other works by him come anywhere close.


----------



## NicoleEB

I think Rachmaninoff's importance and music is overrated by pianists, from my experience in online discussion spaces. I only really can speak about those online spaces for this one.

I think Telemann is underrated, I think there's a lot to enjoy in his music if you like baroque music, especially underrated compared to Handel. I think D. Scarlatti also is a little underrated, but not because he isn't appreciated, just because I think his music is so wonderful, and I have heard his sonata's compared to finger exercises by some people. I'd also nominate Medtner compared to Rachmaninoff and other popular Russian composers. I'd be tempted to say Buxtehude is underrated a little bit too.


----------



## mmsbls

Ethereality said:


> Two thoughts.
> 
> 1. This forum has succumbed to lots of cleansing of the classical anti-establishment throughout the past decade or so, people who were once members but got tired of the group-think, so this idea of 'objective greatness' has propogated more on this forum in the past few years. It needn't even be a subject, but it is do to our forum's exclusive-minding evolution.


I'm not sure what you mean by "classical anti-establishment" and "exclusive-minding evolution", but I would say the forum seems more open to new music and composers than earlier. It's true that there does appear to be more threads discussing objective greatness than I recall before, but in those threads there is rather strong opposition to that idea. I would say the forum in no way could be described as thinking alike on that issue. I'm not sure I can think of any views or ideas that have been "cleansed" from the forum. Maybe you could list some?



> 2. If there is objective greatness, an average of popular people throughout time might not be the best place to look. When you find one golden egg, and then average it with everything else, you can't tell what color it was anymore. It's possible that some vaguely-known esoteric composer is the greatest musical genius, with a very scant following of other geni, barely memorable to history. We don't know if greatness exists _objectively_, so we can't say, but if you find one person who agrees with you, and they find one person, and so on, suddenly you have an average-minded party who thinks they solved everything.


I agree there is no objective greatness. I actually believe everyone on the forum agrees that there is an element (or several) of subjectivity to assessments of composers. I also suspect that everyone could agree there are some objective elements. I interpret most of the posts as arguing against complete subjectivity or complete objectivity, but I don't think anyone is arguing either of those positions so the arguments go nowhere.


----------



## Ethereality

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "classical anti-establishment" and "exclusive-minding evolution", but I would say the forum seems more open to new music and composers than earlier. It's true that there does appear to be more threads discussing objective greatness than I recall before, but in those threads there is rather strong opposition to that idea. I would say the forum in no way could be described as thinking alike on that issue. I'm not sure I can think of any views or ideas that have been "cleansed" from the forum. Maybe you could list some?


I haven't noticed such a trend looking at member posts and favorite composer data. Maybe you're viewing a different data set, but older posts and members seem much more individualistically content and open to talk about their unique Classical tastes, that is the loose but obvious anti-establishment that's felt slowly more uncomfortable in an increasingly similar-minded forum where many of these unique members haven't found a distinct group to speak in, because their similar-minded friends have been distracted by the same phenomenon, and have left. Divide and conquer. I proposed a way to reverse this and bring more natural diversity to this forum, several times. The idea is to simply mathematically notice where people most comfortably group around within Classical sub-genres, and build logical forums based on those schools or genres, which will in turn increase freer diverse thought within those schools due to their independence from the main establishment. This is the main method, a very draft example [*1*], as in, don't be distracted by the groups I arbitrarily chose for this example, but by the method list I used. Essentially the formula ignores popularity as a measure of success for open discussion, and focuses on density of groups. Hence, the "Classical/Baroque era" subforum joins both eras, because while it would be the most popular subforum by far, it would never reach the density of natural, esoteric grouping and discussion as other subforums if they were separated into two. In other words, it shows mathematically it would be a waste of space for diverse discussion potential to have two separate forums on these eras. So the link in that link, gives the spread for how to group composers at the top of the list equally with others if you wanted to come up with the subforums yourself, ie. 6-8 top benchmark composers in that list per subforum.


----------



## DaveM

The above post should be moved elsewhere, probably Area 51. It is an unnecessary distraction here.


----------



## Bulldog

Keep it simple. Listen to the music, and come to your own conclusions - it's so easy to do.


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM said:


> The above post should be moved elsewhere, probably Area 51. It is an unnecessary distraction here.


Fine. Goodbye.....


----------



## Strange Magic

> *mmsbls:* I agree there is no objective greatness. I actually believe everyone on the forum agrees that there is an element (or several) of subjectivity to assessments of composers. I also suspect that everyone could agree there are some objective elements. I interpret most of the posts as arguing against complete subjectivity or complete objectivity, but I don't think anyone is arguing either of those positions so the arguments go nowhere.


As one of the hard-core subjectivists here on TC, I will affirm that among the clusters of folks liking CM, there is likely a greater-than-average degree of education, and/or wealth, and/or maybe social status. In other words, conforming to J. Robert Oppenheimer's advice to his brother that the best music/art is that which the best people favor. But all this does--if true, and likely it is--is to define the characteristics of that particular group as opposed to lovers of Rock, or Country, or Hip-Hop or whatever. The only objectivity here, and it's wobbly and uncertain, is that these clusters exist and possibly can be quantified.


----------



## fbjim

I've joked before that the entire canon is overrated just because there's a great deal of wonderful music by "second-rate" composers. 

Whether or not you like it, the canon exists - even if you reject it, artists certainly didn't, and made art in the this context. This isn't entirely the case, to be fair - there are a great deal of composers who were considered great, or highly influential in the times of composers that we don't particularly care about now, and I do think people underrate accidents of history when it comes to who gets canonized and when - but regardless, it's a different question with regards to whether or not you actually care about the canon when it comes to your own evaluations.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> As one of the hard-core subjectivists here on TC, I will affirm that among the clusters of folks liking CM, there is likely a greater-than-average degree of education, and/or wealth, and/or maybe social status. In other words, conforming to J. Robert Oppenheimer's advice to his brother that the best music/art is that which the best people favor. But all this does--if true, and likely it is--is to define the characteristics of that particular group as opposed to lovers of Rock, or Country, or Hip-Hop or whatever. The only objectivity here, and it's wobbly and uncertain, is that these clusters exist and possibly can be quantified.


I was referring to objective aspects of the music. I think when experts discuss works, they say more than "I kinda like this section" or "I like strings, and he uses them a lot here." They discuss form, innovations, orchestration, etc.. When they discuss those things, I suspect there is significant agreement on what a composer has done and why those aspects of the music are more interesting than other music.

Having said that, there are two subjective parts to an expert's evaluation. First, while the vast majority of experts may agree on what a composer has done, not all will agree on how well a composer has accomplished that. Second, even if every composer gave a score of exactly 76.67 to the orchestration of a work, not all would agree on how important orchestration is to an overall assessment of value. For example, Beethoven's Symphony #9 might get extremely high scores in many areas, but we can all ask whether it brings the funk as Parliament's Mothership Connection does. And we know that funkiness is roughly 99.9% of a work's value.

So, yes, there is plenty of subjectivity, but there are also objective aspects that knowledgeable people can discuss and agree on.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> The above post should be moved elsewhere, probably Area 51. It is an unnecessary distraction here.


Technically, it's in Area 51 although none of us understand why .

The first part is a response to my post which is an extension of discussions ongoing in the thread. The second part is a bit off-topic, but unless it leads to thread disruption, we generally let it go.


----------



## fbjim

just for an obvious example, by the way, of where historical import and contemporary reputation might not necessarily lead to modern-day "canonization", there's Gluck (and CPE Bach was only revived and "re-canonized" within our lifetimes).


----------



## SanAntone

I think we can see how canonical status is achieved by a composer, in our lifetime.

*Stephen Sondheim* has been widely acknowledged as a master of the musical. There have been many celebrations of his works, a number of books analyzing them, and plenty of critical attention, most of it laudatory. It does not take much imagination to assume that his work will live on and his reputation will become enshrined in the canon of at least musical theater. But I think his stature as a composer will rise in general.

The same thing has happened with *Beethoven*. He was acknowledged during his lifetime as a master of composition and his works celebrated. Sure, not without some negative reviews, but overall his fame was assured for future generations. This is true for most of the composers you will find in books like *Harold Schonberg*'s _The Lives of the Great Composers_.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> To acknowledge that a given composer has risen to a level of accomplishment above some others does not require that composer being a favorite or even that one even likes that composer's music. All that is necessary is the act of stepping out of one's subjective preferences and using an inquiring mind to access available objective evidence.


Well put, yes. I think there's a trust issue. Non-musicians won't believe in what they haven't experienced or can't experience. It's the same with any experiential claim, because so many should be ignored. Drug experiences or religious experiences or fasting experiences or maybe "you're going to win the lottery!" etc..


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> 1. One must do so by using their subjective preferences, just a bit suspended or muted, not objective evidence or science.
> 
> 2. They can achieve this false belief due to expecting the answer already given to them. There's no actual magic going on. Wagner for example, is one converging item in this group's list. But member Ghanditempi told me that composer Wooloy was the greatest genius who ever lived, people are just not capable ears, and I took this to heart and heard the magnificent objective greatness in Wooloy. It was just, I wasn't listening right before. The sheer confidence by these historical critics, ehm I mean that user, persuaded me to use my "objectivity."
> 
> 3. No. I was able to hear some great subjective beauty in that composer because we humans are related. When humans garner more experience with music, their 'beliefs' will slightly shift towards the group they're in, but not for better or worse: just for how they're all similar.
> 
> I don't expect most people to prefer this symphony over Mozart's Jupiter Symphony:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but it's because people are similar to one another, in their default approach, their tastes, their cultural expectation, not because the Szymanowski work is worse. People dislike eating their veggies for example, it doesn't mean they're worse. You won't reach a more fulfilled life listening to Mozart over Szymanowski. Whatever is 'great' is your own definition of how you spend your time and what meaning you can draw from it.


Szymanowski composed 150 years after Mozart, so we should expect him to have more effective devices from his toolbox. But part of our admiration and appreciation of Mozart is surely his place in early history, changing the gallant style into a more universally inspiring style. So this is apples and oranges in my view.

Perhaps compare similar pieces by Brahms and Szymanowski.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> To be fair, that's his most famous work-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.6 million views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million views
> no other works by him come anywhere close.


This should confirm to us what we already know about the throngs, and their 'preferences'. Even a 5 year old would be curious about 4"33", or an old person who's never heard any CM.
Therefore what? Preferences can be (and usually are) temporary/fleeting evolving from good impressions or something surprising. 'Not reliable because any preference drifts and changes with the life experiences.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *mmsbls:* I was referring to objective aspects of the music. I think when experts discuss works, they say more than "I kinda like this section" or "I like strings, and he uses them a lot here." They discuss form, innovations, orchestration, etc.. When they discuss those things, I suspect there is significant agreement on what a composer has done and why those aspects of the music are more interesting than other music.


Everything here is true. Form, innovation, orchestration can and usually are discussed by experts who then can be polled about how "successfully" the composer has approached each objective fact-task..... but these are facts like color, weight, size, duration, date of creation, etc. The result is an agglomeration (or a cluster) of opinions.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> Everything here is true. Form, innovation, orchestration can and usually are discussed by experts who then can be polled about how "successfully" the composer has approached each objective fact-task..... but these are facts like color, weight, size, duration, date of creation, etc. The result is an agglomeration (or a cluster) of opinions.


So I think we both believe that experts can evaluate some objective and some subjective criteria and then make an overall subjective assessment of a composer's works. Do you think there's anyone on TC who would disagree with that view? I'm not asking if you can point to a particular post that seems to disagree but whether you think anyone truly disagrees based on their overall posts.

I think the interesting question is why there exists a clear consensus on lists of highly valued composers (one could use the term "great" in a general sense). Obviously there is some variation between assessments, but I suspect that the variation is relatively modest and trivial compared to a random selection. Given that experts in the fields I know well do not appear influenced in a trivial manner by the collective view, I doubt the consensus can be attributed to a similar effect.


----------



## DaveM

I would suggest that significant innovation and originality that differentiate the work of a given composer from contemporaries or those who preceded can be objective rather than subjective information. It is either there or it isn’t.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> I think the interesting question is why there exists a clear consensus on lists of highly valued composers (one could use the term "great" in a general sense).


One cannot avoid the fact that such a consensus exists. But this is all in the field of human choice and hence is subjective. My critique has never been with graded lists of greatness, both group entities or individual entities. You have lists; I have lists; we have lists. The items on our lists are graded on the degree to which we believe that certain goals have been reached or that certain 
objective criteria are appropriate to the work at hand. My argument is with the notion that the art object itself can be "great", just ike a planet cannot be great, only different. Its properties can be determined and set forth but it greatness (not size or mass) cannot be subject to greatness/non-greatness determination. Greatness as we use the term is opinion.


----------



## Lewis Doll

Overrated: Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn

Underrated: Scriabin, Karlowicz, Medtner, Alkan, Widor


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> One cannot avoid the fact that such a consensus exists. But this is all in the field of human choice and hence is subjective. My critique has never been that graded lists of greatness, both group entities or individual entities. You have lists; I have lists; we have lists. The items on our lists are graded on the degree to which we believe that certain goals have been reached or that certain
> objective criteria are appropriate to the work at hand. My argument is with the notion that the art object itself can be "great", just ike a planet cannot be great, only different. Its properties can be determined and set forth but it greatness (not size or mass) cannot be subject to greatness/non-greatness determination. Greatness as we use the term is opinion.


As I've said, I agree. I just wonder if you think there's anyone on TC who would disagree with the view that experts can evaluate some objective and some subjective criteria and then make an overall subjective assessment of a composer's works.


----------



## Chibi Ubu

haziz said:


> Massively over-rated:
> Schoenberg
> Bruckner
> 
> Over-rated:
> Mahler
> Wagner
> 
> Under-rated:
> Rimsky-Korsakov
> Glazunov
> 
> Massively under-rated:
> Kalinnikov
> Borodin
> Dvořák
> Grieg


*My adds (with mods to the above list)*

Massively over-rated:
Varese
Britten
Cage


----------



## SanAntone

I don't think any composer is over-rated or under-rated. I take them as they come; it doesn't much matter, vis a vis my response to their music. 

Composer's reputations are arrived at by a process of attrition: some composer's music loses its audience over time while others maintain an audience, and sometimes it even grows. It is also probably cyclical where the reputation of a composer waxes and wanes.

Finally, to inveigh against the idea that a composer does not deserve the esteem in which he is held simply because you don't like his music strikes me as a little inappropriate.

Life is too short: listen to the composers you like and praise them to the high heavens.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I was referring to objective aspects of the music. I think when experts discuss works, they say more than "I kinda like this section" or "I like strings, and he uses them a lot here." They discuss form, innovations, orchestration, etc.. When they discuss those things, I suspect there is significant agreement on what a composer has done and why those aspects of the music are more interesting than other music.
> 
> Having said that, there are two subjective parts to an expert's evaluation. First, while the vast majority of experts may agree on what a composer has done, not all will agree on how well a composer has accomplished that. Second, even if every composer gave a score of exactly 76.67 to the orchestration of a work, not all would agree on how important orchestration is to an overall assessment of value. For example, Beethoven's Symphony #9 might get extremely high scores in many areas, but we can all ask whether it brings the funk as Parliament's Mothership Connection does. And we know that funkiness is roughly 99.9% of a work's value.
> 
> So, yes, there is plenty of subjectivity, but there are also objective aspects that knowledgeable people can discuss and agree on.


"I was referring to objective aspects of the music. I think when experts discuss works, they say more than "I kinda like this section" or "I like strings, and he uses them a lot here." They discuss form, innovations, orchestration, etc.. When they discuss those things, I suspect there is significant agreement on what a composer has done and why those aspects of the music are more interesting than other music."

Musicians immediately see and recognize (without words) those things (what's new in the work, what's clever, what's noteworthy and especially what's translatable in terms of musical analysis). That's what's so difficult to convey about being musically literate. It's like reading a familiar language, it's direct and immediate, it's not like studying.

It's a language you acquire while quite young, hopefully. Which makes it as personally mysterious as other languages are, when we ponder them. We don't remember a time before.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> I would suggest that significant innovation and originality that differentiate the work of a given composer from contemporaries or those who preceded can be objective rather than subjective information. It is either there or it isn't.


Yes, isn't that a straightforward, logical answer to this? There has been a logical development, everywhere in music, because creative people aren't patient with the past. If it's not there, then as they say, I don't know what I don't know.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> One cannot avoid the fact that such a consensus exists. But this is all in the field of human choice and hence is subjective. My critique has never been that graded lists of greatness, both group entities or individual entities. You have lists; I have lists; we have lists. The items on our lists are graded on the degree to which we believe that certain goals have been reached or that certain
> objective criteria are appropriate to the work at hand. My argument is with the notion that the art object itself can be "great", just ike a planet cannot be great, only different. Its properties can be determined and set forth but it greatness (not size or mass) cannot be subject to greatness/non-greatness determination. Greatness as we use the term is opinion.


Preferences in the past have been clearly wrong about pointing to greatness, many times.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> just for an obvious example, by the way, of where historical import and contemporary reputation might not necessarily lead to modern-day "canonization", there's Gluck (and CPE Bach was only revived and "re-canonized" within our lifetimes).


Yes, people didn't have a strong preference CPE Bach. But now they do. Wow. Education?

I can see myself tending toward leaps of assumption here. Art is so difficult to talk about if it needs explanations.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> So I think we both believe that experts can evaluate some objective and some subjective criteria and then make an overall subjective assessment of a composer's works. Do you think there's anyone on TC who would disagree with that view? I'm not asking if you can point to a particular post that seems to disagree but whether you think anyone truly disagrees based on their overall posts.
> 
> I think the interesting question is why there exists a clear consensus on lists of highly valued composers (one could use the term "great" in a general sense). Obviously there is some variation between assessments, but I suspect that the variation is relatively modest and trivial compared to a random selection. Given that experts in the fields I know well do not appear influenced in a trivial manner by the collective view, I doubt the consensus can be attributed to a similar effect.


"Given that experts in the fields I know well do not appear influenced in a trivial manner by the collective view, I doubt the consensus can be attributed to a similar effect."

I like that. That gives us a huge hint.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> What do they play when they are on stage before an audience--or what do they play alone or among a small group of musical friends (1 to 4 instruments) or what do they play on their home sound systems? It would be interesting to have such data.


I missed this post..
A musician who is on a very high level doesn't listen to music at all? But they're eccentrics, like Glenn Gould. He loved music more than anything else in his life, and yet, he was kooky about it.

Added: I think the vagaries and potentials of counterpoint devices tickled his brain, not beautiful sounds. He's not a helpful case.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> As I've said, I agree. I just wonder if you think there's anyone on TC who would disagree with the view that experts can evaluate some objective and some subjective criteria and then make an overall subjective assessment of a composer's works.


Sounds OK to me, Actually, we all can do that.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> A musician who is on a very high level doesn't listen to music at all?


What are you saying in the sentence above? The question mark has me confused.


----------



## Roger Knox

Luchesi said:


> "I was referring to objective aspects of the music. I think when experts discuss works, they say more than "I kinda like this section" or "I like strings, and he uses them a lot here." They discuss form, innovations, orchestration, etc.. When they discuss those things, I suspect there is significant agreement on what a composer has done and why those aspects of the music are more interesting than other music."
> 
> Musicians immediately see and recognize (without words) those things (what's new in the work, what's clever, what's noteworthy and especially what's translatable in terms of musical analysis). That's what's so difficult to convey about being musically literate. It's like reading a familiar language, it's direct and immediate, it's not like studying.
> 
> It's a language you acquire while quite young, hopefully. Which makes it as personally mysterious as other languages are, when we ponder them. We don't remember a time before.


I was going to abstain from this discussion but I see that a number of important new points have been raised. Your analogy with language is spot on, and it can be developed further. Although music is a language of a different kind than verbal language, it shares the aspects of being listened to and comprehended, produced orally, and written. In addition it is played on an instrument. Unlike verbal language it is mainly connotative rather than denotative. It's not surprising that both natural endowment and early learning are needed for one to realize musical abilities to the maximum. And the gap between people who do and those who don't is extraordinary and multi-dimensional.

It is not simply a matter of expertise, it is a state of being, as you seem to suggest. There are cognitive, physical (kinesthetic), and emotional dimensions involved -- acting and interacting at lightning speed whether one is playing or conducting an advanced level piece, providing substantive judgements of someone else as a teacher or adjudicator, or analysing and evaluating a recording or composition. Listening can become as much a high-level performance act as playing, e.g. choosing the winners of the world's top piano competition, or producing a recording of the Ring Cycle. People who haven't mastered the language cannot do these things properly. There will always be subjective opinions, but so much else is involved at certain levels that count.

Nevertheless by no means are listeners deprived of choices or of meaningful opportunities to express opinions and tastes about classical music. Buying concert tickets, recordings, and online content, participating in discussion groups, polls and events, developing contacts locally and in the wider world are some ways. Many things are free including some concerts, learning opportunities, radio, certain music on the internet. While the preceding paragraph emphasizes elite situations, in fact in classical music there is a continuum of musical involvement among listeners, musicians and other participants nowadays. But we continue to hear the complaint of elite control and I'm sure there's more to be said.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> What are you saying in the sentence above? The question mark has me confused.


Sorry I've been fighting a war with rodents here. They've been eating my car and twice now it's cost me over $4000, but I might've found a solution with car covers.

In that post above I believe I would've made a big mistake. I was going to talk about how looking at scores might be as satisfying to some people as listening, and then I came across this BELOW, and the inspiring visual experience can't be this indirect and ancient;

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/publicat...il.asp?pub=1#2

PET scans look at "…the brain regions activated by musical dissonance. While dissonance triggered responses in the parahippocampus - the seat of negative emotions - music that generated chills activated regions linked to reward and motivation, such as the ventral striatum, the dorsomedial midbrain, the amygdala and the hippocampus, the same systems triggered by food, sex, and drugs."

This is a clue. "The Russian composer Vissarion Shebalin suffered a stroke in 1953 which robbed him of the power of language. He could neither talk nor understand speech, yet he went on composing music until his death 10 years later."


----------



## Luchesi

Roger Knox said:


> I was going to abstain from this discussion but I see that a number of important new points have been raised. Your analogy with language is spot on, and it can be developed further. Although music is a language of a different kind than verbal language, it shares the aspects of being listened to and comprehended, produced orally, and written. In addition it is played on an instrument. Unlike verbal language it is mainly connotative rather than denotative. It's not surprising that both natural endowment and early learning are needed for one to realize musical abilities to the maximum. And the gap between people who do and those who don't is extraordinary and multi-dimensional.
> 
> It is not simply a matter of expertise, it is a state of being, as you seem to suggest. There are cognitive, physical (kinesthetic), and emotional dimensions involved -- acting and interacting at lightning speed whether one is playing or conducting an advanced level piece, providing substantive judgements of someone else as a teacher or adjudicator, or analysing and evaluating a recording or composition. Listening can become as much a high-level performance act as playing, e.g. choosing the winners of the world's top piano competition, or producing a recording of the Ring Cycle. People who haven't mastered the language cannot do these things properly. There will always be subjective opinions, but so much else is involved at certain levels that count.
> 
> Nevertheless by no means are listeners deprived of choices or of meaningful opportunities to express opinions and tastes about classical music. Buying concert tickets, recordings, and online content, participating in discussion groups, polls and events, developing contacts locally and in the wider world are some ways. Many things are free including some concerts, learning opportunities, radio, certain music on the internet. While the preceding paragraph emphasizes elite situations, in fact in classical music there is a continuum of musical involvement among listeners, musicians and other participants nowadays. But we continue to hear the complaint of elite control and I'm sure there's more to be said.


Yes, we never seem to disagree.

Yes, the longer I play music the more it feels like a total physical act for me, a curious takeover in the moment, like playing tennis with finesse but there's so much more to it mentally (not to denigrate tennis players, my friend's a state champion and he easily beats me with his left hand alone, grrrr..). There's so much to memorize and assimilate, but it comes naturally, slowly without effort. 'Just takes a long time to get to know every note's functions in every key. There's no time to think about their derived relationships while you're sight-reading. It's a unique activity.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> As I've said, I agree. I just wonder if you think there's anyone on TC who would disagree with the view that experts can evaluate some objective and some subjective criteria and then make an overall subjective assessment of a composer's works.


What's the subjective aspect for? Just popularity? Nobody ever says. I assume it's what many people prefer in their music, whatever that means in each case. Who are these people? Don't we need to know something about them?


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> What's the subjective aspect for? Just popularity? Nobody ever says. I assume it's what many people prefer in their music, whatever that means in each case. Who are these people? Don't we need to know something about them?


My interpretation of mmsbls' remarks are that popularity with each individual, individually considered, is the subjective aspect, and we all are those people. If you need to know something about them, _temet nosce._


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> My interpretation of mmsbls' remarks are that popularity with each individual, individually considered, is the subjective aspect, and we all are those people. If you need to know something about them, _temet nosce._


It's meaningless, unless I've been missing something beyond trite generalities.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> As I've said, I agree. I just wonder if you think there's anyone on TC who would disagree with the view that experts can evaluate some objective and some subjective criteria and then make an overall subjective assessment of a composer's works.


I suppose, but that doesn't speak well of experts who operate that way.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> I would suggest that significant innovation and originality that differentiate the work of a given composer from contemporaries or those who preceded can be objective rather than subjective information. It is either there or it isn't.


How do we even measure that objectively?



hammeredklavier said:


> But look at the ones from "Die Wahrheit der Natur" (1769)
> 
> 
> 
> (at 1:56, the similarity of harmony to the "Colpa è vostra, oh Dei tiranni" from Idomeneo is striking, btw),
> and "Die Hochzeit auf der Alm" (1768)





> "According to contemporary reports, instead of the usual Baroque scenery, in the subsidiary piece the theatre was made up »in the manner of an alpine hut. On one side there was a waterfall, on the other a high mountain cliff. In the morning and evening sunlight [...] one could see the cattle up on the Alpine pastures.« Haydn's Wedding on the Alpine Pasture was no doubt a pioneering work for the Salzburg Theatre. The individual arias and instrumental movements together with the entire singspiel were adapted by Haydn himself and other composers and - as witness numerous copies of the work - were soon in wide distribution in the abbeys of Kremsmünster and Seitenstetten or being taken further afield by the boatsmen who plied the waters of the Salzach river at Laufen." (an excerpt from the booklet from Brunner's recording)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Classical music appreciation is a niche interest today, mostly done only by a small minority that comprises like less than 0.01% of the population of the world today. Why not also discuss the "general consensus" of this? Fans of A will always say "the world is full of people who haven't given A enough chance (listening time)!", but then they'll not see that they themselves haven't given B enough chance when they rate A more favorably than B.
And just cause the audiences of the late 18th century who appreciated Mozart's contemporaries more than Mozart are all dead, it doesn't mean their opinions somehow don't matter in topics like this. (Fluteman and SanAntone used to talk of African natives who would appreciate their own African traditional music more than any other music. The same logic applies.) What is "quality"?; "technicality"? Since when have we judged all classical music composers by "technicality"? People sometimes resort to convenient excuses to justify their prejudices against certain music. Tastes change, and greatness changes, with time and place and perspective. How can it be "absolute"?


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> It's meaningless, unless I've been missing something beyond trite generalities.


What is meaningless? Are your preferences meaningless? What do you think you might be missing? Try this: Different art objects have different audiences, or, put another way, each person brings a unique net of knowledge, history, neurology, psychology, and just plain whim to throw over an art object and give it meaning for them. All esthetics that is not personal and subjective is the polling data about who and how many like what and why they say they like it. The art object just sits there, inert, neutral, awaiting someone to clothe it with their own personal meaning. When something in the arts is said to be "objectively" great, it is because a large enough cluster of like-mined individuals say so.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> What is "quality"?; "technicality"? Since when have we judged all classical music composers by "technicality"? People sometimes resort to convenient excuses to justify their prejudices against certain music. Tastes change, and greatness changes, with time and place and perspective. How can it be "absolute"?


For one thing the audience during Mozart's or Beethoven's time was far more musically literate than ours today, and they could judge the quality of a work with more expertise than the audience today. Audiences today rely on CD booklet essays and other sources of popular musicology and most can't judge the craft of the composition on their own. The appreciation of "technicality" you speak of was second nature to an 18th century audience and is still the baseline threshold for judging any piece of Classical music, i.e. how well a composer exhibits the craft of musical composition.

Regarding your last question, the fact that audiences for over two centuries continue to find the music of Mozart and Beethoven meaningful alludes to a universal quality not tied to the specific 18th century style.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> *For one thing the audience during Mozart's or Beethoven's time was far more musically literate than ours today, and they could judge the quality of a work with more expertise than the audience today.* Audiences today rely on CD booklet essays and other sources of popular musicology and most can't judge the craft of the composition on their own. The appreciation of "technicality" you speak of was second nature to an 18th century audience and is still the baseline threshold for judging any piece of Classical music, i.e. how well a composer exhibits the craft of musical composition.
> 
> Regarding your last question, the fact that audiences for over two centuries continue to find the music of Mozart and Beethoven meaningful alludes to a universal quality not tied to the specific 18th century style.


What is the evidence for the bolded sentence?


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> What is the evidence for the bolded sentence?


It is a fact of music history.

If you are interested these books might be worth reading:

*Haydn and the Performance of Rhetoric*

*The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven*

*Music in the Eighteenth Century
*


----------



## SanAntone

A few other books I've thought of -

Taruskin, Richard. Music in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

Downs, Philip G. Classical Music: The Era of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: W.W. Norton, 1992. Print.

The three volume set by Daniel Heartz is excellent but hard to find, however, they are among the best.

Heartz, Daniel. Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School, 1740-1780. New York [etc.: Norton, 1995. Print.

Heartz, Daniel. Mozart, Haydn and Early Beethoven 1781-1802. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2009. Print.

Heartz, Daniel. Music in European Capitals: The Galant Style, 1720-1780. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003. Print.

These as well a the primary biographies of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven offer much in the way of descriptions of the style, and audience expectations of their period.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> What is meaningless? Are your preferences meaningless? What do you think you might be missing? Try this: Different art objects have different audiences, or, put another way, each person brings a unique net of knowledge, history, neurology, psychology, and just plain whim to throw over an art object and give it meaning for them. All esthetics that is not personal and subjective is the polling data about who and how many like what and why they say they like it. The art object just sits there, inert, neutral, awaiting someone to clothe it with their own personal meaning. When something in the arts is said to be "objectively" great, it is because a large enough cluster of like-mined individuals say so.


Thanks for your outlook.
An objective evaluation can be merely be what a large number of people are saying? In my experience, teenagers say absurd things like that for the shock effect (because they feel overlooked and powerless).

But you've looked this over and concluded that little about it reliably objective can be found. You could probably put all you remember about the technical side of music in one small paragraph, so the rest naturally follows, I guess. It's the same with any deep subject.

I'm honestly still fuzzy on why you care about what individuals, unknown to you, bring to this (as you imagine)? This subject must be so different from other subjects you've studied. But it isn't for me. It's something so mysterious (endlessly effective patterns and how they affect us) straddling many intellectual crosscurrents, BUT it's still foremost another fascinating topic for objective study/reduction and elaboration, on all levels (take your pick).

I'm wondering whether after studying music for years, in order to catch up with what musicians do all the time, you would have the same attitude about this? It's the question I've had of other acquaintances of mine who LOVE music so much, and what happens next? - we'll never get an answer.. (but it makes life interesting, people like them and you).

There are some unanswered questions. 
Why get an advanced degree in music? Why spend so much of our time doing music, and more music and new music and old music? People might say it's because my preferences are meaningless like so much else in this existence. I'm not disagreeing with this big picture, but I won't dwell on it, or promote such a 'resignation'. So I guess we're both right (neither of us is wrong, except when we consider the lost opportunities for self-actualization).


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> How do we even measure that objectively?


So you don't see any significant objective evidence of innovation and originality in the manner of Beethoven's compositions? It's all a matter of opinion? Very interesting coming from someone who posts a lot of (interesting) material comparing composers.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> So you don't see any significant objective evidence of innovation and originality in the manner of Beethoven's compositions? It's all a matter of opinion? Very interesting coming from someone who posts a lot of (interesting) material comparing composers.


Some people can see objective evidence of innovation and originality and excellence of craft and the advancement of music as art and a work as an important step in centuries of development, on and on. It's either there or it isn't.


----------



## fbjim

I don't need to like Beethoven to find historical evidence of his popularity or historical import. In fact, I don't need to _listen_ to Beethoven to find historical evidence of his popularity or historical import.

The issue I have with this being the be-all and end-all of musical evaluation is: If I don't need to listen to a single note of Beethoven (or Wagner, or Brahms) to have evidence of his consensus status as a great figure, and an all-time influential figure of music - does this constitute an _aesthetic_ evaluation of Beethoven's work at all?


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> I don't need to like Beethoven to find historical evidence of his popularity or historical import. In fact, I don't need to _listen_ to Beethoven to find historical evidence of his popularity or historical import.
> 
> The issue I have with this being the be-all and end-all of musical evaluation is: If I don't need to listen to a single note of Beethoven (or Wagner, or Brahms) to have evidence of his consensus status as a great figure, and an all-time influential figure of music - does this constitute an _aesthetic_ evaluation of Beethoven's work at all?


Why else would the audiences of his time have thought him a great composer? Usually a musician's fame is based on their work.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> It is a fact of music history.
> 
> If you are interested these books might be worth reading:
> 
> *Haydn and the Performance of Rhetoric*
> 
> *The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven*
> 
> *Music in the Eighteenth Century
> *


Thanks for the library list, but this being TC, I would be content with the very briefest summary of how we know these things--how the data was captured and what it tells us.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> I don't need to like Beethoven to find historical evidence of his popularity or historical import. In fact, I don't need to _listen_ to Beethoven to find historical evidence of his popularity or historical import.
> 
> The issue I have with this being the be-all and end-all of musical evaluation is: If I don't need to listen to a single note of Beethoven (or Wagner, or Brahms) to have evidence of his consensus status as a great figure, and an all-time influential figure of music - does this constitute an _aesthetic_ evaluation of Beethoven's work at all?


There is no question that we all can agree that there is a consensus among a great many CM listeners that Beethoven is a great composers. No one will gainsay this.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Luchesi:* An objective evaluation can be merely be what a large number of people are saying? In my experience, teenagers say absurd things like that for the shock effect (because they feel overlooked and powerless)


The existence of such an evaluation is a determinable objective fact. The evaluation itself is subjective.


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> Thanks for the library list, but this being TC, I would be content with the very briefest summary of how we know these things--how the data was captured and what it tells us.


That would require an investment of my time to go back through these books looking for the pertinent quotes, and then type out the relevant passages, an investment of my time I am not interested in doing. I've suggested some very good books on this subject, which in itself took some effort on my part to go back over my shelves refreshing my memory and then to retrieve the bibliographical information for you.

I find your response less than gracious and one which offers no incentive for me to spend more time on your behalf.

But I will offer you a simple analogy.

Today most of us have trouble reading and understanding the plays of Shakespeare without copious notes explaining the language, vocabulary, and idiom. The audience of his time had no difficulty since they were of the Elizabethan period and very familiar with his language.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> That would require an investment of my time to go back through these books looking for the pertinent quotes, and then type out the relevant passages, an investment of my time I am not interested in doing. I've suggested some very good books on this subject, which in itself took some effort on my part to go back over my shelves refreshing my memory and then to retrieve the bibliographical information for you.
> 
> I find your response less than gracious and one which offers no incentive for me to spend more time on your behalf.
> 
> But I will offer you a simple analogy.
> 
> Today most of us have trouble reading and understanding the plays of Shakespeare without copious notes explaining the language, vocabulary, and idiom. The audience of his time had no difficulty since they were of the Elizabethan period and very familiar with his language.


 My response was and was intended to be of the same character as yours. As to Shakespeare, I do well enough, but this shall not become a micturation challenge.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Overrated: Handel, Haydn, Sibelius

Underrated: Puccini, R. Strauss, Bruckner


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> The existence of such an evaluation is a determinable objective fact. The evaluation itself is subjective.


Yes, but paradoxically, non-musicians (the majority of people) only have their own subjectivity to be objective with.


----------



## Luchesi

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Overrated: Handel, Haydn, Sibelius
> 
> Underrated: Puccini, R. Strauss, Bruckner


I would think we would need to refer to whatever ratings we're using. We need such a listing first. How else can overrating or underrating be even talked about?

What ranking are you using as a reference rating? You must have one in mind from experience.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> I would think we would need to refer to whatever ratings we're using. We need such a listing first. How else can overrating or underrating be even talked about?
> 
> What ranking are you using as a reference rating? You must have one in mind from experience.


Great question! What ranking do each of us use to determine who's better, who worse?


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Great question! What ranking do each of us use to determine who's better, who worse?


It gets murky.

For me as a pianist, Chopin surpasses Haydn.

For me as a pianist, D.Scarlatti surpasses Vivaldi.

For me as a pianist, LVB surpasses Mozart.

For me as a pianist, Debussy surpasses Bruckner.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> I would think we would need to refer to whatever ratings we're using. We need such a listing first. How else can overrating or underrating be even talked about?
> 
> What ranking are you using as a reference rating? You must have one in mind from experience.


Exactly right. In my thread (Why do you overrate or underrate composers?) I specifically give a ranking that everyone can use to compare their own ranking with (for me it's not so much their ranking but their enjoyment of the various composers). Without that ranking people can't know if they overrate or underrate. Ideally, everyone would say whom they feel is overrated and what they think that composers rating actually is.

Example:
Mozart is underrated because he is #1 but generally he's considered 2 or 3. That's a bit of a joke, but the idea is clear.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> Exactly right. In my thread (Why do you overrate or underrate composers?) I specifically give a ranking that everyone can use to compare their own ranking with (for me it's not so much their ranking but their enjoyment of the various composers). Without that ranking people can't know if they overrate or underrate. Ideally, everyone would say whom they feel is overrated and what they think that composers rating actually is.
> 
> Example:
> Mozart is underrated because he is #1 but generally he's considered 2 or 3. That's a bit of a joke, but the idea is clear.


Always fun to compare one's own ranking to that of a master hybrid list that probably is indicative of a huge cluster of CM enthusiasts but matches no one's personal list. My list will vary quite a bit from the Master List, and I believe many other TCers will also have quite varying lists.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> Exactly right. In my thread (Why do you overrate or underrate composers?) I specifically give a ranking that everyone can use to compare their own ranking with (for me it's not so much their ranking but their enjoyment of the various composers). Without that ranking people can't know if they overrate or underrate. Ideally, everyone would say whom they feel is overrated and what they think that composers rating actually is.
> 
> Example:
> Mozart is underrated because he is #1 but generally he's considered 2 or 3. That's a bit of a joke, but the idea is clear.


So you're ranking the expected enjoyment? That's wild.

I think of it as akin to enjoying Isaac Newton's forays into a handful of weird subjects. Likewise, I'm intrigued, but it's not constructive.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> So you're ranking the expected enjoyment? That's wild.
> 
> I think of it as akin to enjoying Isaac Newton's forays into a handful of weird subjects. Likewise, I'm intrigued, but it's not constructive.


I don't understand what you're saying here. I think people can look at the list and compare how much they like certain composers relative to other composers and compare their relative enjoyment to the list.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> Always fun to compare one's own ranking to that of a master hybrid list that probably is indicative of a huge cluster of CM enthusiasts but matches no one's personal list. My list will vary quite a bit from the Master List, and I believe many other TCers will also have quite varying lists.


I agree most people will see variation between what they like and what an estimated average of listeners like. I think it's interesting to see if there are very large variations with particular composers. People have responded with particular composers whom they like much more (they overrate compared to the average) or much less (they underrate compared to the average).


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I don't understand what you're saying here. I think people can look at the list and compare how much they like certain composers relative to other composers and compare their relative enjoyment to the list.


Sorry. The thought came into my mind and I contributed it. No worries.

The thought was that science fans enjoy Newton's ideas about alchemy and old writings. Likewise, I'm intrigued, but it's not constructive.
Levels of musical enjoyment by various people with various baggage? If levels could be listed out it would merely tell us about a random grouping of music listeners (experiences, education, psychology), but maybe this is what we want?

Rankings by music scholars would be interesting. We'd surely learn a lot more.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> ...Levels of musical enjoyment by various people with various baggage? If levels could be listed out it would merely tell us about a random grouping of music listeners (experiences, education, psychology), but maybe this is what we want?


I find it fascinating that average (non-expert) classical music listeners have significantly varied tastes. When I came to TC, I assumed that just about everyone would consider Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart among the most enjoyable composers (or highly rated). In addition, I assumed pretty much everyone would love Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, and others we find highly rated. That is true of everyone I knew personally, and many are/were professional musicians. Of course, I quickly found out that TC members do not all view Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, and others as very enjoyable or highly rated.

I wondered if people knew why some of their tastes were so different from "the average". It's a bit of a difficult question to answer, but in some cases it could simply be exposure. In others it might be a dislike of a particular king of music (e.g. period - Classical or Baroque). Anyway, I'm always interested in seeing the variation among communities such as TC.



> Rankings by music scholars would be interesting. We'd surely learn a lot more.


Well, we'd learn something different. I also think it would be interesting to compare general listeners' tastes to experts' tastes in music.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I find it fascinating that average (non-expert) classical music listeners have significantly varied tastes. When I came to TC, I assumed that just about everyone would consider Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart among the most enjoyable composers (or highly rated). In addition, I assumed pretty much everyone would love Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, and others we find highly rated. That is true of everyone I knew personally, and many are/were professional musicians. Of course, I quickly found out that TC members do not all view Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, and others as very enjoyable or highly rated.
> 
> I wondered if people knew why some of their tastes were so different from "the average". It's a bit of a difficult question to answer, but in some cases it could simply be exposure. In others it might be a dislike of a particular king of music (e.g. period - Classical or Baroque). Anyway, I'm always interested in seeing the variation among communities such as TC.
> 
> Well, we'd learn something different. I also think it would be interesting to compare general listeners' tastes to experts' tastes in music.


I really didn't expect people to agree with my rankings of the composers when I arrived here.

And the reason is that I find it advantageous for me to approach every subject in the same manner. There is a logical approach to study any scientific subject and to me it's the best way to approach any subject. 
So, for music, you also study the history, development, theory and techniques, and what experts tell us (to learn and to have a correct overview to save time).


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> I agree most people will see variation between what they like and what an estimated average of listeners like. I think it's interesting to see if there are very large variations with particular composers. People have responded with particular composers whom they like much more (they overrate compared to the average) or much less (they underrate compared to the average).


As someone who is convinced of the power of early imprinting, and who grew to adulthood chiefly hearing 20-century CM, I would boost many 20th-century composers above the standard list, though I have grown to love much of the music of the oldies but goodies. I prefer joyous music, richly-textured Brahmsian music, and music with a light touch of bite and acidity. And really good concertos.

Another factor is listener fatigue upon contemplating pieces heard just too much over a long period of listening. This includes several warhorses that do not hold up over the years but does not include someone like Rachmaninoff, who never palls.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> This includes several warhorses that do not hold up over the years..


Just because one listens to them so often that one has to give them a rest does not mean that they don't hold up as warhorses. I have listened to all the Beethoven 'warhorses' so much that it takes an original performance to get me to return to them, but when I do, I'm always reminded of how great they are. And, once again, I end up humming or whistling them for the next several days.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Just because one listens to them so often that one has to give them a rest does not mean that they don't hold up as warhorses. I have listened to all the Beethoven 'warhorses' so much that it takes an original performance to get me to return to them, but when I do, I'm always reminded of how great they are. And, once again, I end up humming or whistling them for the next several days.


As i have indicated in a thread on the Musicians forum, I have found that a good YouTube video of a live concert can breathe new life into some old and fatigued chestnuts. But only some.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Two responses: A) It is or it can be an established objective fact, well supported by rigorous polling, that more people prefer Beethoven to Humperdinck. But that is all that is established.
> 
> B) It is all just polling as to whether Beethoven is "better" than Humperdinck. Just polling. The E.H. Die-Hard Fan Club may universally vote that their guy is "better".  I prefer Beethoven, think he is better, and so belong to the larger group as do you.


Very true, though you are hardly the first to figure that out. A famous philosopher wrote a famous treatise on exactly that point in 1757, which I have cited and quoted extensively here in numerous and near endless threads on this topic. However, by saying "It is all *just* polling", I hope you are not missing the significance or importance of what you are calling "polling". The existence of a commonly-held opinion on a matter of artistic taste, and it's persistence over decades or even centuries, does nothing to prove objective or inherent greatness (or badness) of the art in question, but nor is it entirely a matter of random chance or accident, though those are always factors.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Very true, though you are hardly the first to figure that out. A famous philosopher wrote a famous treatise on exactly that point in 1757, which I have cited and quoted extensively here in numerous and near endless threads on this topic. However, by saying "It is all *just* polling", I hope you are not missing the significance or importance of what you are calling "polling". The existence of a commonly-held opinion on a matter of artistic taste, and it's persistence over decades or even centuries, does nothing to prove objective or inherent greatness (or badness) of the art in question, but nor is it entirely a matter of random chance or accident, though those are always factors.


I agree (mostly). As humans, we share similar neurological and psychological states. But our life experiences and our individual settings make each of us unique. So while we can determine certain gross, common factors that, over populations, account for the various clusters in favor of this or that, we can never eradicate the singularity of individual perception or appreciation. Hence all esthetics is a matter of polling and only bizarre circumstance, of low probability, will account for a complete congruence of tastes.


----------



## marlow

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Overrated: Handel, Haydn, Sibelius
> 
> Underrated: Puccini, R. Strauss, Bruckner


Interesting you think Handel over-rated. Beethoven considered him the greatest of all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

marlow said:


> Beethoven considered him the greatest of all.


This plays in my head everytime I think about it.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I agree (mostly). As humans, we share similar neurological and psychological states. But our life experiences and our individual settings make each of us unique. So while we can determine certain gross, common factors that, over populations, account for the various clusters in favor of this or that, we can never eradicate the singularity of individual perception or appreciation. Hence all esthetics is a matter of polling and only bizarre circumstance, of low probability, will account for a complete congruence of tastes.


Yes, and those "gross, common factors" are just as important a part of who we are as humans as our individual uniqueness. It is no accident that we carefully group those gross, common factors into categories and call them "the humanities".


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes, and those "gross, common factors" are just as important a part of who we are as humans as our individual uniqueness. It is no accident that we carefully group those gross, common factors into categories and call them "the humanities".


Again we (sort of) agree. But it still remains--not a matter of intrinsic "greatness" within art objects--but the degree to which a work coheres to the opinions of some group, select or otherwise. Like Galileo said, "It's Still Polling". Remember, most people do not give a fig for/about CM, but those who like it, like it. And those who like Beethoven best--think he or his works "the best"--belong to the cluster who like Beethoven and/or his works "the best".


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Again we (sort of) agree. But it still remains--not a matter of intrinsic "greatness" within art objects--but the degree to which a work coheres to the opinions of some group, select or otherwise. Like Galileo said, "It's Still Polling". Remember, most people do not give a fig for/about CM, but those who like it, like it. And those who like Beethoven best--think he or his works "the best"--belong to the cluster who like Beethoven and/or his works "the best".


That's a non-musicians' view and it's adequate for your life. It wouldn't work very well (or very long) for a growing musician.
But I can't convince you because you've had a different life.

It takes a lot of effort to be a musician and there are aspects you like and don't like, as in any other challenge, but other peoples' preferences? That's never come to my serious attention nor affected me at all. But I can put myself in the place of a music fan and various preferences become somewhat helpful to them I guess (or misleading or a waste of time).


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Again we (sort of) agree. But it still remains--not a matter of intrinsic "greatness" within art objects--but the degree to which a work coheres to the opinions of some group, select or otherwise. Like Galileo said, "It's Still Polling". Remember, most people do not give a fig for/about CM, but those who like it, like it. And those who like Beethoven best--think he or his works "the best"--belong to the cluster who like Beethoven and/or his works "the best".


I think we agree entirely. The Vatican put Galileo under house arrest for daring to claim that the Earth and other planets orbited around the central Sun rather than the Earth being at the center. But ultimately, Galileo's theory gained acceptance and the mighty Church had to back down and abandon a basic principle of its dogma. Why? Because Galileo's theory was consistently supported by empirical observation. And for no other reason. Similarly, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, from empirical observation we learn certain things appear beautiful to many eyes, and especially, many eyes in the same time era and geographic area. We "know" that to be true, but only from an empirical standpoint. I'm not sure why so many here have trouble accepting that.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I think we agree entirely. The Vatican put Galileo under house arrest for daring to claim that the Earth and other planets orbited around the central Sun rather than the Earth being at the center. But ultimately, Galileo's theory gained acceptance and the mighty Church had to back down and abandon a basic principle of its dogma. Why? Because Galileo's theory was consistently supported by empirical observation. And for no other reason. Similarly, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, from empirical observation we learn certain things appear beautiful to many eyes, and especially, many eyes in the same time era and geographic area. We "know" that to be true, but only from an empirical standpoint. I'm not sure why so many here have trouble accepting that.


So you're saying that evidence and objective data have always eventually convinced people down to the centuries, but the objective data in music scores is somehow much less important as evidence in your view? Of course we assume that the audiences are experienced and educated so that the universals will be recognized and appreciated.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> I think we agree entirely. The Vatican put Galileo under house arrest for daring to claim that the Earth and other planets orbited around the central Sun rather than the Earth being at the center. But ultimately, Galileo's theory gained acceptance and the mighty Church had to back down and abandon a basic principle of its dogma. Why? Because Galileo's theory was consistently supported by empirical observation. And for no other reason. Similarly, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, from empirical observation we learn certain things appear beautiful to many eyes, and especially, many eyes in the same time era and geographic area. We "know" that to be true, but only from an empirical standpoint. I'm not sure why so many here have trouble accepting that.


I think some must feel that their love (or hate) for certain art objects is validated, authenticated, by some "power" or agent or philosophical imperative. For me, I am the self-authenticator and validator of the worth of my own tastes in the arts--a cluster of at least one.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I think some must feel that their love (or hate) for certain art objects is validated, authenticated, by some "power" or agent or philosophical imperative. For me, I am the self-authenticator and validator of the worth of my own tastes in the arts--a cluster of at least one.


I'm happy for you.


----------



## marlow

fluteman said:


> I think we agree entirely. The Vatican put Galileo under house arrest for daring to claim that the Earth and other planets orbited around the central Sun rather than the Earth being at the center. But ultimately, Galileo's theory gained acceptance and the mighty Church had to back down and abandon a basic principle of its dogma. Why? Because Galileo's theory was consistently supported by empirical observation. And for no other reason. Similarly, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, from empirical observation we learn certain things appear beautiful to many eyes, and especially, many eyes in the same time era and geographic area. We "know" that to be true, but only from an empirical standpoint. I'm not sure why so many here have trouble accepting that.


Just to say that historically it was the scientific philosophers who first quarrelled with Galileo. They accepted Aristotle's view of the universe. The church sided with the scientists.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> So you're saying that evidence and objective data have always eventually convinced people down to the centuries, but the objective data in music scores is somehow much less important as evidence in your view? Of course we assume that the audiences are experienced and educated so that the universals will be recognized and appreciated.


There are no universal principles in art. Art is a way people celebrate what is unique about their particular culture, and so is inherently non-universal. There is a very good general discussion of this by Morris Weitz (summarized in his essay, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics"), and a more specific and technical discussion relating specifically to music by Leonard B. Meyer ("Style and Music: Theory, History and Ideology").



marlow said:


> Just to say that historically it was the scientific philosophers who first quarrelled with Galileo. They accepted Aristotle's view of the universe. The church sided with the scientists.


"Scientific philosophers" is another term for rationalists. The rationalists lost out to the empiricists in western society, and eventually worldwide, except perhaps in some very remote areas, and in the case of some fringe groups like the flat-earth society.



Strange Magic said:


> I think some must feel that their love (or hate) for certain art objects is validated, authenticated, by some "power" or agent or philosophical imperative. For me, I am the self-authenticator and validator of the worth of my own tastes in the arts--a cluster of at least one.


Seeking to validate or authenticate one's subjective artistic tastes is a fool's errand, and precisely what seems to drive some away from empiricism towards the false comfort of rationalism. Good for you for not running this fool's errand. Sharing artistic and other aesthetic tastes with others serves a useful purpose in society, as we are social animals. But that is no reason to try to endow our tastes with some magical validity.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> There are no universal principles in art. Art is a way people celebrate what is unique about their particular culture, and so is inherently non-universal. There is a very good general discussion of this by Morris Weitz (summarized in his essay, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics"), and a more specific and technical discussion relating specifically to music by Leonard B. Meyer ("Style and Music: Theory, History and Ideology").


Thanks. I don't think I can be convinced that the harmonic series isn't a universal. And the universals in linguistics and music are curiously similar to me. It's a big subject.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I'm happy for you.


Me too!...............


----------



## DaveM

What strikes me is how those who keep repeating a sermon on subjectivity either miss or purposely avoid the basis for the place of objectivity in judging certain classical works and composers. There seems to be an inability to perceive the subject broadly and the need to simplify it down to ‘everything to do with the arts is subjective to the point that whether any individual work is a special creation over many others or whether any artist/composer has been blessed with gifts beyond many others is determined by the judgment of any individual no matter the experience or education on the subject of said individual.

So, whether a violinist is gifted or not depends on the subjective opinion of any individual which means that, in the extreme, being gifted could be applied to a violinist that reminds of nails on a blackboard. Likewise, the level of accomplishment of a composer can be determined by the subjective opinion of any given individual. IMO, the accomplishment of artists, in general, is better judged by a broad cross-section of people familiar with the art in question such as the listeners, musicologists and composers in the CP era rather than being dependent on any given individual’s subjective opinion.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^DaveM: in other words, a cluster. Though I am happy to affirm that some violinists are more skilled than others, as typists differ (measurably) But beyond this, what? And what does it possibly matter to the individual auditor of CM or any other music or art what The Group thinks? Why/how is this important? As fluteman wisely points out and as I suggested in my post about David Riesman's book _The Lonely Crowd_, it is all about Taste Exchanging with others. Social glue.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^DaveM: in other words, a cluster. Though I am happy to affirm that some violinists are more skilled than others,..


Which implies that there is objective evidence.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Which implies that there is objective evidence.


Absolutely! Some violinists can play a Paganini caprice faster and/or with fewer errors than others.. A computer wired to the score and the scene can quantify this--don't even need a human auditor present. Whether someone likes the performance is another kettle of fish.


----------



## 59540

> Similarly, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, from empirical observation we learn certain things appear beautiful to many eyes, and especially, many eyes in the same time era and geographic area.


And also especially many eyes across vast reaches of time and geographical area.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> ... And what does it possibly matter to the individual auditor of CM or any other music or art what The Group thinks? Why/how is this important?


It matters enormously to me what The Group thinks, and The Group's suggestions have made a phenomenal impact on my life. When I first started to get serious about classical music, I worked my way through Goulding's book, The 50 Greatest Composers..., to get suggestions for listening. I was stunned by the beauty of those works. I was hooked and continued to explore further suggestions leading eventually to my joining TC in search of more suggestions. That book is essentially an attempt to catalog The Group of experts' opinions on classical music, but I could have used the TC lists of top recommended works as well since there is significant overlap between the two.

Contrast that with another method of finding wonderful music. Not too long after I had worked through many of the top 50 composers, I began to use the Naxos Classical Library to hear music. At one point I started to alphabetically work through all the composers on the Naxos website. I would select a composer and listen to a somewhat random work of theirs. As a result, I listened to a large number of works that did not especially move me. They were fine but not remarkable. Those works were not recommended by The Group. If I had started with those works, I would not listen to much classical music now.

Recommendations by The Group were enormously valuable to me because The Group's musical tastes were very similar, though not identical, to mine. Based on years of reading TC posts, I think that's true of almost everyone here. So now, I vastly prefer to hear recommendations from others than to select works at random.

You know that I agree musical tastes are subjective, but I also think that there are aspects of classical music along with characteristics of the brain coupled with generic environmental experiences that cause many to have similar tastes. The reason for that is extraordinarily complex and based on neurological details we don't understand. Yes, we can't say that Brahms is objectively better than Saint-Saens or that Bach is definitively batter than Vivaldi, but in general, people would rather listen to Bach than Edwin Henry Lemare, Willy Trapp, or Johan Adam Faber.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^DaveM: in other words, a cluster. Though I am happy to affirm that some violinists are more skilled than others, as typists differ (measurably) But beyond this, what? And what does it possibly matter to the individual auditor of CM or any other music or art what The Group thinks? Why/how is this important? As fluteman wisely points out and as I suggested in my post about David Riesman's book _The Lonely Crowd_, it is all about Taste Exchanging with others. Social glue.


like what mmsbls said, I think knowing what people tend to like can give me an idea of what works & pieces I should be listening to. Time is finite after all, sometimes we can't just listen to everything available & decide which one best suits our tastes. Sometimes we gotta use shortcuts

If people have a tendency to like certain works, who's to say that I am different enough from everyone else that their preferences will give me zero indication of what my preferences will be too?


----------



## SanAntone

4chamberedklavier said:


> like what mmsbls said, I think knowing what people tend to like can give me an idea of what works & pieces I should be listening to. Time is finite after all, sometimes we can't just listen to everything available & decide which one best suits our tastes. Sometimes we gotta use shortcuts
> 
> If people have a tendency to like certain works, who's to say that I am different enough from everyone else that their preferences will give me zero indication of what my preferences will be too?


I agree with you - especially if someone gives your more reasons than just saying, "I liked it." I will quote a post I made in the other thread on this subject where I did that:



> The list below is an average of 4 lists: Goulding's 50 Greatest Composers, The DDD composer list, the top 500 composers from the Western Kentucky site, and a list averaging TC members' picks. The top 30 composers averaged from these lists are shown below.
> 
> 1 Bach
> 2 Mozart
> 3 Beethoven
> 4 Wagner
> 5 Brahms
> 6 Schubert
> 7 Haydn
> 8 Tchaikovsky
> 9 Handel
> 10 Chopin
> 11 Schumann
> 12 Stravinsky
> 13 Mendelssohn
> 14 Debussy
> 15 Dvorak
> 16 Liszt
> 17 Mahler
> 18 Verdi
> 19 R. Strauss
> 20 Prokofiev
> 21 Shostakovich
> 22 Berlioz
> 23 Puccini
> 24 Ravel
> 25 Vivaldi
> 26 Sibelius
> 27 Bartok
> 28 Rossini
> 29 Bruckner
> 30 Rachmaninov
> 
> Could you pick one composer that you significantly "overrate" and one composer that you significantly "underrate" compared to this "average" list and try to say why your tastes differ?


_According to my personal preferences, I seriously underrate Tchaikovsky (he would not even appear in a list of my own creation of 30 composers) and overrate Mahler (who would be in my top ten).

The reason is because I find Tchaikovsky's music superficially "pretty" without much meat on the bones. Whereas Mahler's music seems to be created with more motivic strength, a rigorous organic development of that motivic material, and the architecture of his large works I find impressive._

Offering something closer to objective reasoning will give someone more to use when considering composers and works.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *mmsbls:* You know that I agree musical tastes are subjective, but I also think that there are aspects of classical music along with characteristics of the brain coupled with generic environmental experiences that cause many to have similar tastes. The reason for that is extraordinarily complex and based on neurological details we don't understand. Yes, we can't say that Brahms is objectively better than Saint-Saens or that Bach is definitively batter than Vivaldi, but in general, people would rather listen to Bach than Edwin Henry Lemare, Willy Trapp, or Johan Adam Faber.


Glad we agree. Glad that you, like me, have gained much knowledge of and exposure to CM and other musics from lists, books, the opinions of others. But when we sit down to listen to what we like, our personal preferences come strongly into play (for most people. Actually the decision to follow the examples or suggestions of others is a personal choice.)


----------



## Strange Magic

4chamberedklavier said:


> like what mmsbls said, I think knowing what people tend to like can give me an idea of what works & pieces I should be listening to. Time is finite after all, sometimes we can't just listen to everything available & decide which one best suits our tastes. Sometimes we gotta use shortcuts
> 
> If people have a tendency to like certain works, who's to say that I am different enough from everyone else that their preferences will give me zero indication of what my preferences will be too?


Who is talking zero? We are all, except for troglodytes and anchorites, social beings. I think some here are overthinking just what the subjectivist position is and using bizarre and extreme self-constructed expositions of our position. If I lived alone on another planet, I would have no exposure at all to CM or any other art (other than what I might produce.) But esthetics is all about opinion, personal or clustered.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Strange Magic said:


> Who is talking zero? We are all, except for troglodytes and anchorites, social beings. I think some here are overthinking just what the subjectivist position is and using bizarre and extreme self-constructed expositions of our position. If I lived alone on another planet, I would have no exposure at all to CM or any other art (other than what I might produce.) But esthetics is all about opinion, personal or clustered.


I apologize for any misrepresentation of your position. We all agree that preferences at large show some similarities, and that these group preferences somehow also affect our individual preferences.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that esthetics all boils down to opinion, but I'd like to know what you're trying to imply from that, especially with respect to group preferences. I assume that the point of disagreement is to what extent this 'collective opinion' is relevant?


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Absolutely! Some violinists can play a Paganini caprice faster and/or with fewer errors than others.. A computer wired to the score and the scene can quantify this--don't even need a human auditor present. Whether someone likes the performance is another kettle of fish.


One of the big goals of art is expression. Some works are more effective. Why and how? Well, that's what we study, among all the rest of it. 
Our preferences are wholly separate and they change with our moods. What's there to discuss about preferences?


----------



## Strange Magic

4chamberedklavier said:


> I apologize for any misrepresentation of your position. We all agree that preferences at large show some similarities, and that these group preferences somehow also affect our individual preferences.
> 
> I don't think anyone disagrees with you that esthetics all boils down to opinion, but I'd like to know what you're trying to imply from that, especially with respect to group preferences. I assume that the point of disagreement is to what extent this 'collective opinion' is relevant?


We have no disagreement, as far as I can tell. My problem with some is their insistence that the "greatness" of certain pieces of music or art is an inherent, intrinsic property permeating the art object like a Platonic gas, and their insistence that somehow a cluster of opinions offers us a fact about the piece beyond individual or clustered opinions. Art, as I have said over dozens--nay hundreds--of posts, just is. We, as individuals or as groups, bring to the art object our own net of expectations, desires, preferences and thus but only thus, endow the art object with its qualities of excellence or greatness as we perceive them.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> One of the big goals of art is expression. Some works are more effective. Why and how? Well, that's what we study, among all the rest of it.
> Our preferences are wholly separate and they change with our moods. What's there to discuss about preferences?


I see you are separating the expressiveness of art from preferences. Again this is a matter of opinion. When one (I, anyway) hear _Die Jugend Marchiert_, the Nazi youth marching song, I can similarly call the song expressive but certainly not a preference. But that's just me. For someone else, the song may not be expressive but pedestrian, hackneyed, and boring.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> And also especially many eyes across vast reaches of time and geographical area.


Of course, things can and have qualities to be popular. Who denies that?


----------



## DaveM

People with special skills and accomplishments are often popular.


----------



## Artran

I think most of the overrated answers are ridiculous. If some composers are overrated, they're living. So for example maybe Glass (because his late oeuvre is not very good), but he's known by many people who usually don't listen to classical music. Or accessible, mediocre composers like Yoshimatsu (but he's still pretty unknown).

If anything there're underrated composers by a general audience, like many composers of the late 20th and 21st century, or composers of the early baroque like Schütz, Marenzio, Sweelinck, or Gesualdo. Or basically all renaissance (including Palestrina).


----------

