# Bach, Mozart and Beethoven



## Polednice

I was just reading an interview of Michael Tilson Thomas which prompted me to do a quick search of him on the internet. I came across a quotation attributed to him with which he expressed a much (too) familiar sentiment when asked about his favourite composers:



Thomas said:


> You can't have Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as your favourite composers. They simply define what music is!


Whatever each of our individual tastes may be, I think it's fairly undeniable that these three composers have achieved a certain, untouchable, God-like status. My question is not why them, but rather, why _only_ them?

This idea quite clearly suggests that nobody since Beethoven has ever reached the same heights as these three Titans. We know of a tremendous number of masterpieces by later composers; we call them geniuses and we listen to their works with the same feeling of awe, but does _no one_ else qualify to be uttered in the same breath as being truly on par with these giants?

It seems to me that these three composers, deserving as they may be of the esteem in which they are held, have been somewhat removed from their works and idolised as entities of their own. Even if one could make the academic argument that a later composer was just as good (if not better), it almost feels like blasphemy to voice such an opinion.

Why? I get the impression that it's just too soon. What these three composers have on their side is a temporal distance - they stand as looming figures in history that we cannot reasonably challenge. Later composers are perhaps just a bit too close. Maybe in the next century we'll comfortably tack on a fourth or fifth name to this mightily exclusive list...


----------



## jhar26

I think part of the reason is that not only is their work of a very high quality, but there's also so much of it. That's also true for most of the other composers that usually end up in the top 6-8. - Schubert, Haydn and Handel. You can spend a lifetime listening to the music of any of those guys and still discover some jewel that you haven't heard before. Later composers usually have ended up with a much lower opus number. Some of them were arguably just as great, but they were less productive. Of course not every work from those baroque or classical greats is a masterpiece, but even if you only count what's really good it's still more than most romantic or modern greats' entire body of work.


----------



## Organum

History likes headliners. They just wound up the chosen ones. Not too hard to see why. Lots of great music, mass appeal, constant repetition and praise...soon enough they're the untouchables.

I'd guess Tchaikovsky is most likely 4th on any such list.


----------



## scytheavatar

Untouchable? I have seen lots of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven bashing, how often do you hear Mozart being called shallow and borderline pop music? How often do you hear about how all of Mahler/Dvorak/Brahms symphonies are born equal, unlike Beethoven's symphonies?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Polednice said:


> My question is not why them, but rather, why _only_ them?
> ...


Much or all of what Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart etc. composed are accessible to us modern folks, as were to their audiences (with the possible exception of some of Bach's "musical science" pieces). There is nothing elitist, bombastic, "hey, look at me", type of approach in their music. They didn't get out of their beds each day thinking "what shall I compose today that will be completely revolutionary for posterity, given that Mr. X composed a particular piece of such quality before me", but they usually wrote a piece for a scheduled evening's entertainment or for commission to get paid to pay bills, or as a CV piece as a job application; pragmatic considerations along the way, and they just happened to be geniuses too, which helped! There is also a consistency of quality in their works.

With many of the Romantic and beyond composers, you often read of them tearing up/destroying their own works because it wasn't good enough in their own minds. Many wanted to write an equivalent to Beethoven's ninth, or a piano concerto that was better than Mr X's. Or let's do away with recitatives and write a 15 hour long series of operas. Such thinking probably made the music less accessible, as a means of seeking new originality. Handel did not break new grounds in terms of developing a new genre or form, but wrote music of great uplifting quality based on existing styles and forms of his day; he basically "got on with composing".


----------



## Weston

I know there is an amount of lionization that takes place, but I also know I can hear a Beethoven work I'm not very familiar with come up in my random playlist, and not knowing it's Beethoven still be moved by it's undeniable appeal, as if some universal aspect of the human condition were made into sound. Or maybe I am just responding to the Beethovenian gestures of the unfamiliar piece. Who can say?

Many other composers do that, but not as consistently for me. 

If I had to pick another candidate for untouchable I'd bet on a Russian composer, but I am torn between Stravinsky and Shostakovich. Stravinsky is the more ground breaking, but maybe a little inconsistent. Shosty is consistently rewarding and might have been more ground breaking if he had been allowed. I'm sure other names will come to mind as soon as I hit the Post button.


----------



## nefigah

I simply find it amazing how, in a field so inherently defined by personal taste, we can still find absolutes like Bach, Beethoven, etc. Even someone who does not like e.g. Wagner will, no, _must_ admit that he was a genius.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> With many of the Romantic and beyond composers, you often read of them tearing up/destroying their own works because it wasn't good enough in their own minds.


let us remember that in each successive periods the composers composed less. I believe this was in a large part due to the body of work they had to study and master.
Bach wrote thousands of works, Mozart comes in at 626, Beethoven at 132 plus some Wo0, Brahms 120 only published.

Mozart basically had to master Handel and Bach. Haydn the same thing. Beethoven had to master Handel, Bach, Mozart, Haydn and Salieri. Mendelssohn had to master Handel, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Salieri and Beethoven. Brahms had to master Handel, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Salieri, and Beethoven etc.

Of course Raff was an exception.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'd guess Tchaikovsky is most likely 4th on any such list.

Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Handel would all certainly precede Tchaikovsky... after that...? All bets are off.


----------



## David58117

I don't think it's so much about mastering the previous generations styles...it's more so a "of the times" situation. In the Baroque period, composers were seen more as having a skill-set just as a wig maker had his, productivity was what was cherished, same for the classical period...the Romantic period is where people started taking notice of the greats and music became something people could readily cherish as it became more accessible. 

I think Bach Beethoven Mozart will always be untouchable because - they're popular, they're mythical, and they made some amazing music that still has it's place in todays mainstream culture (judge judy theme song anybody?).


----------



## Air

I find this a relevant topic to me because even though I have many favorites, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, Schubert, and Brahms have and will always remain "the greats" for me.

Why are they so famous? Is it because they are the most accessible to the public? Or is it just that not enough listeners have pushed the boundaries to try anything else beyond these "trite cliches"?

Let me make it clear that Bach and Mozart are by no means accessible. Most beginners will prefer a Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, or Johann Strauss to the _boring_ music of Mozart or _purely intellectual_ fugues of Bach.

But what I discover, and this is just my personal speculation, is that as tastes mature, instead of starting from the "greats" and moving outwards, people do the exact opposite. Mozart and Bach have only become greater, Schubert, Brahms, and Wagner too. I will admit, though, that personally, I still have exploring Haydn to look forward to.

Saint-Saens, on the other hand, I rarely listen to now. Why is that if he engaged me so much when I first started listening to classical music?

It's simply because I have moved on from my starting point and have discovered new things, that I don't have time to bother with such composers much anymore.

It simply tires me when people think that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are cliches. They say that there are so many composers out there that are greater, for whatever reason. Let me remind you that any musicologist will consider these composers as great as they are claimed to be. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart's rise to fame has nothing to do with the mere opinion of the public, as the public seems to prefer their Johann Strauss's, Tchaikovsky's and such. In addition, do not assume that the musically educated do not know their Tubin's, Raff's, and Nogard's, because they probably do. They have heard many obscure composers, yet the greats continue to remain the greats. Maybe not favorites... but simply... and may I add indisputably... great.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I also agree that these three composers deserve all the recognition they receive. 

But what of other composers who are equally deserving?
Haydn certainly is. His music is the perfect example of classicism and he was a major innovator. Many students start with Haydn rather than Mozart.

Spohr was considered the equal of mozart during his life and today not many people have heard of him let alone consider him a great composer. Unfair I say...


----------



## jhar26

emiellucifuge said:


> I also agree that these three composers deserve all the recognition they receive.
> 
> But what of other composers who are equally deserving?
> Haydn certainly is. His music is the perfect example of classicism and he was a major innovator. Many students start with Haydn rather than Mozart.
> 
> Spohr was considered the equal of mozart during his life and today not many people have heard of him let alone consider him a great composer. Unfair I say...


Well, Haydn is usually ranked halfway through the top 10 of all time greats, so he's getting a lot of (fully deserved) recognition already. I have some cd's from Spohr and while I think he was a very talented composer I think he misses that little bit extra to consider him the equal of a Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. I agree that he deserves more attention than he's getting though.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

jhar26 said:


> I think part of the reason is that not only is their work of a very high quality, but there's also so much of it. That's also true for most of the other composers that usually end up in the top 6-8. - Schubert, Haydn and Handel. You can spend a lifetime listening to the music of any of those guys and still discover some jewel that you haven't heard before. Later composers usually have ended up with a much lower opus number. Some of them were arguably just as great, but they were less productive. Of course not every work from those baroque or classical greats is a masterpiece, but even if you only count what's really good it's still more than most romantic or modern greats' entire body of work.


I regard Mozart as a genius, but there are quite a few pieces I cannot listen to. Mozart didn't excrete gold from his quill every time.

Beethoven had many songs that could be called mediocre.

I think that these non-masterpieces were just fodder. Sometimes you just have to get paid.


----------



## Il Seraglio

emiellucifuge said:


> I also agree that these three composers deserve all the recognition they receive.
> 
> But what of other composers who are equally deserving?
> Haydn certainly is. His music is the perfect example of classicism and he was a major innovator. Many students start with Haydn rather than Mozart.
> 
> Spohr was considered the equal of mozart during his life and today not many people have heard of him let alone consider him a great composer. Unfair I say...


How did Spohr fall into obscurity anyway? I know it was common for composers from the 18th century who were massively popular in their time such as Süssmayr to wind up completely absent from the concert repertoire, but Spohr was around during Mendellsohn's time and their music was not that dissimilar.


----------



## Lukecash12

How many other composers would I utter in the same breath? Oh dear me. Could I try it with three breaths?

Albeniz
Tchaikovsky
Haydn
Handel
Scriabin
Poulenc
Honneger
Grieg
Wagner
Alkan
Mussorgsky
Smetana
Janacek
Sibelius
Bruckner
Feinberg
Schoenberg
Gershwin
Joplin
Medtner
Mendelssohn
Brahms
Froberger
Sammartini....

I really don't see the difference. There aren't just a few *Greats*; There are many of them.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Handel would all certainly precede Tchaikovsky... after that...? All bets are off.


Certainly???

My wife (Hot_townPhilly) would strenuously disagree with the sentiment that the above-mentioned quintet of composers are somehow  obviously better than Tchaikovsky. And you know what? Except for Wagnerp), I'm not inclined to argue with her.


----------



## kmisho

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Much or all of what Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart etc. composed are accessible to us modern folks, as were to their audiences (with the possible exception of some of Bach's "musical science" pieces). There is nothing elitist, bombastic, "hey, look at me", type of approach in their music. They didn't get out of their beds each day thinking "what shall I compose today that will be completely revolutionary for posterity, given that Mr. X composed a particular piece of such quality before me", but they usually wrote a piece for a scheduled evening's entertainment or for commission to get paid to pay bills, or as a CV piece as a job application; pragmatic considerations along the way, and they just happened to be geniuses too, which helped! There is also a consistency of quality in their works.
> 
> With many of the Romantic and beyond composers, you often read of them tearing up/destroying their own works because it wasn't good enough in their own minds. Many wanted to write an equivalent to Beethoven's ninth, or a piano concerto that was better than Mr X's. Or let's do away with recitatives and write a 15 hour long series of operas. Such thinking probably made the music less accessible, as a means of seeking new originality. Handel did not break new grounds in terms of developing a new genre or form, but wrote music of great uplifting quality based on existing styles and forms of his day; he basically "got on with composing".


I was just thinking something similar to this about "2nd tier" composers following Beethoven, people like Franck, Grieg, Dvorak, Rimsky-Korsakov. These were mostly work-a-day composers that were just trying to write solid attractive music. And they were pretty darn good at it.


----------



## C_Bach

It's just kind of common sense or such things.You can have your own greatest composers regardless of whether they are accepted as greatest by the general public.As to why they are widely high-valued,I think it must be the amount of their masterpieces.One could probably compose great compositions such as Pachelbel's canon in d , but their other compositons may be meaningless.


----------



## emiellucifuge

kmisho said:


> I was just thinking something similar to this about "2nd tier" composers following Beethoven, people like Franck, Grieg, Dvorak, Rimsky-Korsakov. These were mostly work-a-day composers that were just trying to write solid attractive music. And they were pretty darn good at it.


I cant tell whether this is a compliment or a serious offence to their spiritual and emotional creativity.


----------



## kmisho

emiellucifuge said:


> I cant tell whether this is a compliment or a serious offence to their spiritual and emotional creativity.


Most artists in any genre are not particularly committed to maintaining a reputation as cutting-edge. They are artists and they do art. A lot of archetypal lasting work, the bulk of what defines a genre or period, exists here in what I'm thinking of as the workhorses of the time.


----------



## Joaf

Polednice said:


> I was just reading an interview of Michael Tilson Thomas which prompted me to do a quick search of him on the internet. I came across a quotation attributed to him with which he expressed a much (too) familiar sentiment when asked about his favourite composers:
> 
> Whatever each of our individual tastes may be, I think it's fairly undeniable that these three composers have achieved a certain, untouchable, God-like status. My question is not why them, but rather, why _only_ them?
> 
> This idea quite clearly suggests that nobody since Beethoven has ever reached the same heights as these three Titans. We know of a tremendous number of masterpieces by later composers; we call them geniuses and we listen to their works with the same feeling of awe, but does _no one_ else qualify to be uttered in the same breath as being truly on par with these giants?
> 
> It seems to me that these three composers, deserving as they may be of the esteem in which they are held, have been somewhat removed from their works and idolised as entities of their own. Even if one could make the academic argument that a later composer was just as good (if not better), it almost feels like blasphemy to voice such an opinion.
> 
> Why? I get the impression that it's just too soon. What these three composers have on their side is a temporal distance - they stand as looming figures in history that we cannot reasonably challenge. Later composers are perhaps just a bit too close. Maybe in the next century we'll comfortably tack on a fourth or fifth name to this mightily exclusive list...


I see what you are saying, but I honestly believe there hasn't been a composer since Van Beethoven who has been as good. Tchaikovsky, Mendelsohn, and a couple of others may come close but Beethoven's 5th, 3rd, 6th, and 9th symphonies, Für Elise, Moonlight.., and so on are the pinnacles of musical brilliance and have earned him a deserved legacy (even if he is a bit fortunate to be mentioned in the same breath as Bach and Mozart.)

As for the two I just mentioned, everything they put on paper was magic. They were like aliens from a different planet.

Personally, I would include Handel with these 3 masters.


----------



## hankz

*Regarding MTT on Bach, Mozart, Beethoven*

My nomination is:

Gustav Mahler; Stravinsky; Arnold Schoenberg

Hank Z.
Aptos, California; USA


----------



## kmisho

Under hanks' inspiration, it strikes me that the list has the character of The One Big Guy for each era...but what's missing?: the post-Romantic (I'll call it).

Bach clearly is the winner of the baroque contest. No one else comes close. Indeed he approaches being the One Biggest Guy of All Time.

In the Classical arena I would be tempted to nominate Haydn over Mozart. Sorry.

Beethoven was the start of Romantic era (oversimplifying, of course). It would be rather sad if Romanticism never had a greater figure than the one who started it, as if Romanticism was a sort of one hit wonder of the age. But thinking about it, it is hard to come up with someone bigger. Mahler was influential and comes close, but was he really better than Beethoven? I don't know. Tchaikovsky comes close with a number of factors in his favor as an audience favorite and iconoclast with a sizable output.

Now to post-Romantic or Modern. Schoenberg was definitely an important figure and a major influence on several generations of composers. Stravinsky though might have an edge as a better composer. Just about anyone can listen to the Firebird or Petrouchka and understand and enjoy them. His output was huge and diverse, eveything from Pulcinella to the Rite of Spring. I can't say the same for Schoenberg.

So here's my list:
JS Bach, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky

And for best composer of all time: JS Bach


----------



## Polednice

kmisho said:


> Beethoven was the start of Romantic era (oversimplifying, of course). It would be rather sad if Romanticism never had a greater figure than the one who started it, as if Romanticism was a sort of one hit wonder of the age. But thinking about it, it is hard to come up with someone bigger. Mahler was influential and comes close, but was he really better than Beethoven? I don't know. Tchaikovsky comes close with a number of factors in his favor as an audience favorite and iconoclast with a sizable output.


Beethoven certainly isn't Romantic enough to be champion of Romanticism. But, if we're going to assign somebody as the greatest figure of the Romantic period, then I'm afraid no one can argue with me, it simply _has_ to be, _without question_, JOHANNES BRAHMS!


----------



## Lukecash12

kmisho said:


> Under hanks' inspiration, it strikes me that the list has the character of The One Big Guy for each era...but what's missing?: the post-Romantic (I'll call it).
> 
> Bach clearly is the winner of the baroque contest. No one else comes close. Indeed he approaches being the One Biggest Guy of All Time.
> 
> In the Classical arena I would be tempted to nominate Haydn over Mozart. Sorry.
> 
> Beethoven was the start of Romantic era (oversimplifying, of course). It would be rather sad if Romanticism never had a greater figure than the one who started it, as if Romanticism was a sort of one hit wonder of the age. But thinking about it, it is hard to come up with someone bigger. Mahler was influential and comes close, but was he really better than Beethoven? I don't know. Tchaikovsky comes close with a number of factors in his favor as an audience favorite and iconoclast with a sizable output.
> 
> Now to post-Romantic or Modern. Schoenberg was definitely an important figure and a major influence on several generations of composers. Stravinsky though might have an edge as a better composer. Just about anyone can listen to the Firebird or Petrouchka and understand and enjoy them. His output was huge and diverse, everything from Pulcinella to the Rite of Spring. I can't say the same for Schoenberg.
> 
> So here's my list:
> JS Bach, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky
> 
> And for best composer of all time: JS Bach


I beg to differ once again.  I give just as much credit to Sammartini, Frogberger, Handel, Haydn, Palestrina, Byrd, Dittersdorf, Boccherini, as Bach. Bach may be a popular name, but that doesn't earn him superiority. Suffice to say that doesn't mean that he isn't fantastic. But so many others are fantastic too. Opinions are like armpits, we all have them and they all smell. I could listen to Russian Avante Garde composers for an eternity, but that doesn't make them better. A composer isn't good because he/she is obscure, well respected, wrote more works, was full of different sized ponds and different sized ducks (that's a rather old saying, isn't it?), made progress, perfected the current ideas, or wrote complex works.

A composer is great because he/she is a composer. Each contributes to something on a massive scope, and each has their respective part in it. As long as the composer earnestly contributes a set of good works, they deserve every bit as much credit as someone else who has done the same. You can't compare two entirely different things, and on a fundamental level (I don't mean to offend anyone) it is immoral to judge people on such a cold, calculating tier system.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> I beg to differ once again.  I give just as much credit to Sammartini, Frogberger, Handel, Haydn, Palestrina, Byrd, Dittersdorf, Boccherini, as Bach. Bach may be a popular name, but that doesn't earn him superiority. Suffice to say that doesn't mean that he isn't fantastic. But so many others are fantastic too. Opinions are like armpits, we all have them and they all smell. I could listen to Russian Avante Garde composers for an eternity, but that doesn't make them better. A composer isn't good because he/she is obscure, well respected, wrote more works, was full of different sized ponds and different sized ducks (that's a rather old saying, isn't it?), made progress, perfected the current ideas, or wrote complex works.
> 
> A composer is great because he/she is a composer. Each contributes to something on a massive scope, and each has their respective part in it. As long as the composer earnestly contributes a set of good works, they deserve every bit as much credit as someone else who has done the same. You can't compare two entirely different things, and on a fundamental level (I don't mean to offend anyone) it is immoral to judge people on such a cold, calculating tier system.


I think so too. All these discussions about "greatness" therefore, can only be a _relative_ discussion at most. Bach and Handel are perfect examples. Both born in 1685 (also Domenico Scarlatti) but led very different lives and wrote different types of works during their careers. One wrote music for the glory of God, while the other wrote it for theatre. "Each contributed to something on a massive scope"; as you wrote and enriched the musical development of later composers. One can only assess the relative differences of their works, on a level that is already within greatness.


----------



## Argus

I may be mistaken but I thought the idea behind this thread was why are Bach, Beethoven and Mozart seen as being the 3 greatest composers in the conciousness of the _general public_. With that in mind I can't see how you can argue against that. People who have no interest in classical music will at least have heard of one of them 3. And I'll wager if you were to poll everyone who listened to classical music and asked them their favourite composers, about 90% of people will mention one of them three.

Maybe it's because Bach, Mozart and Beethoven transcend the divisions of the arts. They fit in nicely alongsided Shakespeare, da Vinci, Tolstoy, Michelangelo, Picasso and others of such magnitude. Do others attain this place?

As for composers that are almost on their level I'd say Brahms belongs up there to complete's the 3 Great B's. Tchaikovsky, Haydn, Handel, Wagner, Stravinsky are all excellent and are among the greatest composers but many people will not be familiar with a lot of their output.

As to why those 3 are considered better than all others may be because they _are_ better than all others.



> I see what you are saying, but I honestly believe there hasn't been a composer since Van Beethoven who has been as good. Tchaikovsky, Mendelsohn, and a couple of others may come close but Beethoven's 5th, 3rd, 6th, and 9th symphonies, Für Elise, Moonlight.., and so on are the pinnacles of musical brilliance and have earned him a deserved legacy (even if he is a bit fortunate to be mentioned in the same breath as Bach and Mozart.)
> 
> As for the two I just mentioned, everything they put on paper was magic. They were like aliens from a different planet.


All I'm going to say is the best of old Ludwig van is better than the best of the other two, but the worst of Beethoven is worse than the worst of the other two. Therefore the main difference is consistency. I personally would rather listen to any Beethoven symphony over any of Mozart's. Some people like to traverse the Himalayas, whilst others like a summer stroll along the beach.

If Bach and Mozart were aliens, then Beethoven was deeply human. Bach was concerned with achieving the spiritual through his music and writing for God, whereas Beethoven, in my mind, wrote only for himself and the art.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

A composer isn't good because he/she is obscure, well respected, wrote more works, was full of different sized ponds and different sized ducks (that's a rather old saying, isn't it?), made progress, perfected the current ideas, or wrote complex works.

A composer is great because he/she is a composer. Each contributes to something on a massive scope, and each has their respective part in it. As long as the composer earnestly contributes a set of good works, they deserve every bit as much credit as someone else who has done the same. You can't compare two entirely different things, and on a fundamental level (I don't mean to offend anyone) it is immoral to judge people on such a cold, calculating tier system.

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!


----------



## kmisho

polednice, lukecash and harpsichord make some great points. But still there is the presistence of the Big Three Bach, Mozart and Beethoven despite our more experienced and refined opinions.

There is always the interesting problem of whether to call Beethoven romantic or classical. This brings up another question of why the heck are the top three guys selected from such a small range in time, c.1650 to c.1750. Whatever the answer, I think here lies the reason why we can use the term "classical music" to lump together composers as divergent as Buxtehude and Frank Zappa, which in just about any other arena would seem insane.

And, also, why all from such a small part of the world? Any less myopic view would have to discard the notion that Germany in 1700 was The Pinnacle of Western Music.


----------



## scytheavatar

If you use ArkivMusic's number of recordings as a yardstick for the popularity of the composer:

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (6,545) 
Bach, Johann Sebastian (5,849) 
Beethoven, Ludwig van (4,884) 

Brahms, Johannes (3,389)
Schubert, Franz (3,373) 
Verdi, Giuseppe (3,202) 
Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilyich (2,957) 
Handel, George Frideric (2,582) 
Schumann, Robert (2,328) 
Mendelssohn, Felix (2,279)
Wagner, Richard (2,150) 
Debussy, Claude (2,084)  
Chopin, Frédéric (2,066)
Puccini, Giacomo (2,041) 
Haydn, Franz Joseph (1,998) 
Vivaldi, Antonio (1,757) 
Ravel, Maurice (1,705) 
Dvorák, Antonín (1,703) 
Rossini, Gioachino (1,663) 
Strauss, Richard (1,639) 
Rachmaninov, Sergei (1,607) 

Like it or not, it's impossible to deny that the big 3 are more popular than the other composers by a more than significant margin. Popularity =/= quality, so all we are talking about is the popularity and not the quality of the composers.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

kmisho said:


> This brings up another question of why the heck are the top three guys selected from such a small range in time, c.1650 to c.1750.


Say what??

J.S. Bach: 1685-1750
W.A. Mozart: 1756-1791
L. van Beethoven: 1770-1828

The span of time from Bach's birth to Beethoven death is 143 years. For some perspective, the analogous period of time from Beethoven's birth (to compare like to like) to 143 years forward would take us to 1913-- at this time, Gustav Mahler had already been dead two years. Your 'Classical Greatest Hits' of 1913 include Debussy's _Jeux_ and- most comprehensively well-known- Stravinsky's _Le Sacre du Printemps_.


----------



## Il Seraglio

scytheavatar said:


> If you use ArkivMusic's number of recordings as a yardstick for the popularity of the composer:


Not surprised by that list at all, except I expected to see the highly popular Handel in there.


----------



## scytheavatar

Il Seraglio said:


> Not surprised by that list at all, except I expected to see the highly popular Handel in there.


Oops, I left him out.  Added him to the list.


----------



## Polednice

The thing I find most curious is the question of popularity with the general public vs. 'more refined' listeners.

To take the latter group first (and lumping all of us into it), I think we can all quite easily reach the consensus that there is not much sense in ranking _any_ composers. After all, when we comment on 'Bach', 'Mozart' or 'Beethoven', what we really mean is 'Bach/Mozart/Beethoven's oeuvre' - and it doesn't take much to be aware of the simple fact that _the quality of art cannot be objectively assessed_. In other words, the 'best' composers are relative and individual, making the troublesome trio irrelevant.

Thus, the giants' place in history seems to owe more to a general perception of listeners whose tastes only really dip into the classical world; people who have heard _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_ but have never heard of Mahler. I could understand their ensuing popularity, then, _if_ they were the most accessible composers - but are they? It seems to me that the style and attitudes of the mid-late Romantic period are _much_ more accessible to 'easy listeners'. Tchaikovsky easily ranks at the top for writing the music that most people would actually recognise, and I'd imagine that most people would prefer to listen to an unknown but incredibly melodic Rachmaninoff symphony than an academic Bach fugue.

So, perhaps all this business about them being at the top is less to do with listeners, and more to do with the subsequent composers themselves. Looking back at the creative influences of many later geniuses, there are few who didn't revere Beethoven and/or Mozart and/or Bach, and may have felt that they were composing in their shadow. These three - albeit perhaps arbitrarily - were the benchmark that 19th century composers chose to measure themselves by, and we just seem to be stuck with it because the geniuses thought it was a good idea.


----------



## starry

If Schubert had lived longer he may have been seen as being up there with the other 3?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

scytheavatar said:


> If you use ArkivMusic's number of recordings as a yardstick for the popularity of the composer:
> 
> Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (6,545)
> Bach, Johann Sebastian (5,849)
> Beethoven, Ludwig van (4,884)
> 
> etc


Don't you realise that these ArkivMusik figures need to be treated with a big pinch of salt?

For a start, they include recordings where the named composer is only one of several whose works appear on the CD. Take Beethoven as an example. He is listed as having 18 recordings for organ works, but if you look at the detail you will see that most of these CDs mostly contain works by other composers (as is obvious since Beethoven hardly composed anything for organ). The same applies to "arias from operas" and "choral works". It may affect other categories too.

Another problem is that they count SACD recordings and CD versions of the same thing twice over.

Third, there are often anomolies between the number of recordings listed in the summary table and the numbers given in detailed tables.

Fourth, they sometimes double count the same recording if it is on more than one label (eg Bohm's recording of the Pastoral Sympony is shown twice, once on DG and again on EMI).

In other words, the figures are indicative only and need a lot of adjustment to derive more useful net results.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Say what??
> 
> J.S. Bach: 1685-1750
> W.A. Mozart: 1756-1791
> L. van Beethoven: 1770-1828


This one was well spotted. Quite definitely accident prone if you ask for my opinion. Needs to be watched. Some are hilarious, eg Beethoven's Waldstein sonata is not "classical period".


----------



## starry

Polednice said:


> It seems to me that the style and attitudes of the mid-late Romantic period are _much_ more accessible to 'easy listeners'. Tchaikovsky easily ranks at the top for writing the music that most people would actually recognise, and I'd imagine that most people would prefer to listen to an unknown but incredibly melodic Rachmaninoff symphony than an academic Bach fugue.
> 
> So, perhaps all this business about them being at the top is less to do with listeners, and more to do with the subsequent composers themselves. Looking back at the creative influences of many later geniuses, there are few who didn't revere Beethoven and/or Mozart and/or Bach, and may have felt that they were composing in their shadow. These three - albeit perhaps arbitrarily - were the benchmark that 19th century composers chose to measure themselves by, and we just seem to be stuck with it because the geniuses thought it was a good idea.


Well maybe Tchaikovsky might have more great tunes than Rachmaninov. But I do think that in terms of general popularity Beethoven and Mozart probably rank in general above JS Bach. The further back you go maybe the harder it can be for some people to fully relate to the music. Baroque music if anything may have slightly too much quantity in some cases as well, maybe the ideal balance in work created with brilliance but with still some generosity of output was potentially in the classical period (up to Schubert's death). This period was when composers started to not just write for an employer but also went freelance as well. But it wasn't at the point were they had yet become so critical that they threw away alot of their work or just didn't need to write as much.

I think the point made earlier (which I myself have made on this board) than quality WITH quantity is hard to beat is still the main point. Of course the continued high reputation of composers is likely to gain them an entrenched position at the top. It doesn't mean other composers haven't done good music as well though and anyone who starts looking at classical music would find that out soon enough.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> ....
> 
> So, perhaps all this business about them being at the top is less to do with listeners, and more to do with the subsequent composers themselves. Looking back at the creative influences of many later geniuses, there are few who didn't revere Beethoven and/or Mozart and/or Bach, and may have felt that they were composing in their shadow. These three - albeit perhaps arbitrarily - were the benchmark that 19th century composers chose to measure themselves by, and we just seem to be stuck with it because the geniuses thought it was a good idea.


I find your last paragraph, as quoted above, very curious.

Despite your first two words "So, perhaps …", I cannot see how you consider that your assertion in this paragraph follows on from anything you have argued in your previous three. The point you are making here seems to be a completely new point without any prior justification from what you said earlier. This being the case, it's difficult to work out which of the two alternative theories you are actually advancing as your favoured one (the one in the final paragraph or the earlier one concerning the view that mass market opinion allegedly swamps that of true classical music fans).

As for your argument that mass market opinion swamps that of true classical music fans, this must be false as it's a "tail wagging the dog" type of argument. It's so silly that it doesn't deserve any further discussion.

Your assertion in the last paragraph is that Beethoven/Mozart/Bach are revered as the top 3 composers by today's classical music fans purely because generations of other composers have revered them as being the supreme three. This must be highly questionable.

First and most obviously, you appear to be suggesting that people can't form an independent opinion of which composers they like based on their own tastes and preferences. Instead, you assume that our tastes are based heavily on what various composers may have thought about their predecessors. Surely, this does modern classical music fancs a great injustice to suggest that we are all slavishly basing our preferences on what a handful of people may have thought about their own musical idols.

Secondly, not all composers from since the time of Beethoven have revered Beethoven/Mozart/Bach as the "top dogs" in the composing game. Sure, this was prevalent for a number of decades but in terms of compositional style new ideas emerged and new sets of "master" composers became the models upon which those in a lower league of genius began to fashion their work. For example, the likes of Liszt and especially Wagner invented a new style of music, and much more drastic changes were to take place later with the arrival of Debussy and Schoenberg.

All in all, I'm not impressed with any of your viewpoints.


----------



## Polednice

Andy Loochazee said:


> Despite your first two words "So, perhaps …", I cannot see how you consider that your assertion in this paragraph follows on from anything you have argued in your previous three. The point you are making here seems to be a completely new point without any prior justification from what you said earlier. This being the case, it's difficult to work out which of the two alternative theories you are actually advancing as your favoured one (the one in the final paragraph or the earlier one concerning the view that mass market opinion allegedly swamps that of true classical music fans).
> 
> _etc. etc._


Please allow me a few moments to compose myself before I respond, for I am utterly brimming with shame at the recognition of my unimpressive ideas, and I must spend a few moments crying in a corner while I consider how I might be able to redeem myself after such tremendous humiliation.

... 

In chronological order then:

First of all, I would point out the (very obvious) fact that this is a _forum_ - a forum which is, like most fora, a vehicle for _casual discussion_. If I were submitting a thesis on this subject, indeed, I would have done very poorly if I were to have compiled all of my arguments on this thread into one, incredibly unsatisfactory theory. However, I made no pretence of coming to this discussion _with an already formed answer_. If you can recall my original post, you might recognise that this whole thread has been _a question_. In other words, that meant I didn't know. I had no idea. I didn't say I knew. I was unsure. I asked everybody else for their ideas. _*My mind, like any other mind filled with uncertainty, was open to change*_. Thus, the contradictory opinions that I have voiced in no way betrays any kind of intellectual inconsistency on my part, for I have not hidden my ignorance of the answer to this question, and I am still searching for my own, firm opinion.

Secondly, I can understand your frustration with the notion that "mass market opinion swamps that of true classical music fans." However, if I were you, I would be wary at jumping to the conclusion that this idea - voiced by multiple people on this thread - is to be immediately rejected. We could only accept this hypothesis as futile if we can definitively categorise listeners of classical music into just these two distinct groups. The fact of the matter is that 'mass market vs. classical music fans' is a gross over-simplification that was utilised for the sake of discussion - the reality is that 'fans' or 'listeners' of 'art music' are contained with a spectrum of preferences and tastes. It is too complex an issue to decide whether one side of the market has an undue effect on the other, but it certainly is not an irrational suggestion.

Thirdly, though this rather lengthy response is feeling increasingly pointless due to the more-than-evident fact that you dismissed all of the discussion on this thread _without any justifications of your own, except a pretended intelligence and, apparently, a secret knowledge_, I will not withdraw my suggestion that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven may be popular due to the awe they inspired in later composers until somebody adequately refutes the idea.

As for your penultimate point, where you accused me of suggesting that "people can't form an independent opinion of which composers they like based on their own tastes and preferences," all I can say is that you should read people's posts rather carefully before you jump to such ridiculous conclusions. If you refer to my most recent post on this thread, you will in fact find that I stated _the exact opposite_ of your accusation when I declared that we can all easily reach the consensus that tastes are highly individual, as art cannot be objectively assessed. You have essentially digressed from the original question, and you should rein yourself back in.

As for your last point, which would have more logically been placed earlier in your 'rebuttal' (I use the term extremely cautiously), I would point out the rather simple notion that reverence does _not_ equal imitation; thus, the examples you cited as being different in style to Beethoven are largely irrelevant.

To conclude, I would have liked to return the feeling that I am unimpressed by your points, but I am afraid that this is impossible seeing as you didn't actually make any. Instead, all I can say is that your marvellous array of seemingly random words that were compiled into a rather grotesque mound of nonsense have had little effect, and I sincerely doubt that a reasoned debate will ever take place if you continue to force your vacuous opinions onto the discussion.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> Please allow me a few moments to compose myself before I respond, for I am utterly brimming with shame at the recognition of my unimpressive ideas, and I must spend a few moments crying in a corner while I consider how I might be able to redeem myself after such tremendous humiliation.


That's nice of you but please don't feel too bad about it. It's also generous of you to admit that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about on this subject and are simply looking for some advice. As I hope is clear, I am only too pleased to be able to enlighten you. As you say, this Forum is for learning about classical music. Sadly, though, there are some people who tend to use it to practise their pompous, half-baked semi-philosophical twaddle, as if we're all a bunch of foreign school kids who can't answer back. But enough about them; it's good to see which side you belong to.

Now to enlighten you slightly further, I would only add that you started out this whole discussion by asking a very silly question: why Beethoven/Mozart/Bach have achieved a certain, untouchable, God-like status. I say "silly" question because you didn't specify either what you meant by "untouchable", or "God-like", and nor did you specify the audience which you consider regards them in this way. Specifically, it isn't clear whether you are referring to (i) fans of these composers in particular, or (ii) all classical music fans, or (iii) the general public at large? And clearly the answer depends crucially on definitions of terms, as I'm sure someone as philosophical as you must appreciate.

It's downright obvious that fans of these composers will be more likely to regard them in the fashion you describe than the generality of all classical music fans. If the former is the group of people you are referring to then you have your answer: they simply prefer them to all others. If however you are referring to the general public it is obvious that they don't regard Beethoven/Mozart/Bach as having "achieved a certain, untouchable, God-like status", as most of them give a hoot about classical music and few only would consider buying any of it. In that sense, it's ridiculous to suggest that the "opinion" of the general public has any influence whatsoever on why Beethoven/Mozart/Bach are so highly esteemed.

I have already told you that it is also ridiculous to suggest that modern audiences of classical music have their preferences of the best composers shaped by the views of past composers about who they regarded as their distinguished role models. People generally choose the music they like, not because other people like it. But you still argue. What a shame.

So yet again, I rather conclude that, while you have shown yourself to be a willing learner showing some promise, you have a way to go yet. But don't despair as there's plenty of time yet.


----------



## Polednice

Andy Loochazee said:


> That's nice of you but please don't feel too bad about it. It's also generous of you to admit that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about on this subject and are simply looking for some advice. As I hope is clear, I am only too pleased to be able to enlighten you. As you say, this Forum is for learning about classical music. Sadly, though, there are some people who tend to use it to practise their pompous, half-baked semi-philosophical twaddle, as if we're all a bunch of foreign school kids who can't answer back. But enough about them; it's good to see which side you belong to.
> 
> _etc. etc._


I'm going to make the slightly risky assumption that the pompous tone you used in your last post was nothing more than a poor exercise in sarcasm, rather than a demonstration of extremely bad character and hypocrisy (if it was in fact the latter, then 1) I am sorry for misunderstanding, 2) I am ashamed for having a higher estimation of you than you're worth, and 3) I pity you severely). I think it should be quite clear that I'm not going to waste any more time throwing _logic_ at ears that cannot or won't understand, because your mouth wishes only to spout pseudo-intellectual, self-aggrandising, pretentious and unnecessarily unpleasant absurdities. I fail to see how you have landed yourself on a website for casual, public discussion with strangers when you so easily feel disdain for someone who you're not physically presented with, and someone that you are more than ready to make cringe after yet another descent into unjustified vitriol, as if anyone actually cared. I'm quite sure that you're amazed by your own existence enough as it is, so I needn't say any more, for it would be quite tragic should you ever stumble upon the bleak reality.


----------



## jhar26

Here's a novel idea: Maybe they are regarded as the three greatest composers because they are the three greatest composers.

I already duck to avoid those mudpies I can see coming in my direction.


----------



## Polednice

In order to stop the discussion getting completely jumbled, it might be good to approach the question from a fresh perspective by looking at a specific example.

So, take the quotation that prompted me to start the thread in the first place. Michael Tilson Thomas - currently the music director of the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra - responded as follows, when asked about his favourite composers:



Thomas said:


> You can't have Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as your favourite composers. They simply define what music is!


So, why would _this particular man_ say the above? It utterly defies the notion that any 'serious' admirer of classical music would regard great composers as a matter of personal reflection and taste. Here, Thomas is suggesting that the three composers' extreme reputation is a matter of _objectivity_. They are the _definition_ of music.

Now, I could easily say that about Brahms and/or Dvorak, because those two geniuses are _my_ favourite composers. To me, _they_ 'define' what music is (though I'm sure I would use that word in a very different way to Thomas). However, Thomas's words cannot simply be a confession that _his_ favourite composers are Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, just as mine are Brahms and Dvorak, because he explicitly prefaces his comment with the statement that they _are not_ and _cannot_ be his favourites, because they transcend such boundaries. How could/why would he say that?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jhar26 said:


> Here's a novel idea: Maybe they are regarded as the three greatest composers because they are the three greatest composers.
> 
> I already duck to avoid those mudpies I can see coming in my direction.


Not quite right but you are nearly there. The correct answer is actually the reverse of what you said: they are the three greatest composers because they are regarded as such by the majority of people who are active participants as consumers of this kind of material (mainstream classical music).

By way of clarification, there is no suggestion that these three composers are liked by all classical music fans, as clearly that isn't the case. It is very unlikely that the three composers would be listed as their own top three favourites by many individual consumer in a random sample. It is also unlikely that all three composers would appear within, say, their top 10 favourites. But compared with any other composers these three three would in all probability come out top the polls if all the results were tallied up. The margin of preference over the next group of preferred composers would be significant, i.e. not likely to have been produced by pure chance alone. For this reason they are widely seen as "untouchable Gods", i.e. no other group of three composers could, in the current or forseeable future, topple these three as overall favourites of the majority.

Now this is quite a simple matter once one understands a few key things. Perception of quality by the relevant market of consumers, and the scarcity value of the material itself, is at the heart of the explanation. One only needs to understand the first principles of the _"theory of value"_ in economics to understand it. This underlies the whole basis of why some things (whether goods, services, perception of the quality of different art forms and results, or whatever) are valued more highly than others, i.e. command a higher price or otherwise given higher priority. An early issue was the question of why diamonds are more valuable than water. Some previous theories concerning this matter were very fanciful but essentially invalid. In essence, it's all a question of marginal valuations by consumers and the relative scarcity of different resources. This gave strong impetus to the emerging study of economics as a behavioural social science.

There is no need to seek any further or alternative explanation. Seen in proper light, alternative arguments based on such silly things as what non-consumers of classical music thing of certain composers, or what a small number of deceased former composers thought about the prowess of certain antecedents, are very clearly a pile of irrelevant twaddle. But that's typical of the the low quality of opinion of many amateur philosophers who venture into areas outside their narrow sphere of useful knowledge.


----------



## Polednice

Andy Loochazee said:


> Not quite right but you are nearly there. The correct answer is actually the reverse of what you said: they are the three greatest composers because they are regarded as such by the majority of people who are active participants as consumers of this kind of material (mainstream classical music).
> 
> By way of clarification, there is no suggestion that these three composers are liked by all classical music fans, as clearly that isn't the case. It is very unlikely that the three composers would be listed as their own top three favourites by many individual consumer in a random sample. It is also unlikely that all three composers would appear within, say, their top 10 favourites. But compared with any other composers these three three would in all probability come out top the polls if all the results were tallied up. The margin of preference over the next group of preferred composers would be significant, i.e. not likely to have been produced by pure chance alone. For this reason they are widely seen as "untouchable Gods", i.e. no other group of three composers could, in the current or forseeable future, topple these three as overall favourites of the majority.
> 
> Now this is quite a simple matter once one understands a few key things. Perception of quality by the relevant market of consumers, and the scarcity value of the material itself, is at the heart of the explanation. One only needs to understand the first principles of the _"theory of value"_ in economics to understand it. This underlies the whole basis of why some things (whether goods, services, perception of the quality of different art forms and results, or whatever) are valued more highly than others, i.e. command a higher price or otherwise given higher priority. An early issue was the question of why diamonds are more valuable than water. Some previous theories concerning this matter were very fanciful but essentially invalid. In essence, it's all a question of marginal valuations by consumers and the relative scarcity of different resources. This gave strong impetus to the emerging study of economics as a behavioural social science.
> 
> There is no need to seek any further or alternative explanation. Seen in proper light, alternative arguments based on such silly things as what non-consumers of classical music thing of certain composers, or what a small number of deceased former composers thought about the prowess of certain antecedents, are very clearly a pile of irrelevant twaddle. But that's typical of the the low quality of opinion of many amateur philosophers who venture into areas outside their narrow sphere of useful knowledge.


I hope that everybody else can see as clearly as I can that the post quoted above is incredibly patronising and not worth paying attention to. The above individual wishes to do nothing other than throw around insults at people, both because of extreme self-adoration, and a great insecurity about his own intelligence. I hope that we can all just ignore said person from now on, because responses to his ideas are wasted space. To that end, I'd just ask people to take a look at my refined question at the end of p. 3 and see what you think.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> I hope that everybody else can see as clearly as I can that the post quoted above is incredibly patronising and not worth paying attention to. The above individual wishes to do nothing other than throw around insults at people, both because of extreme self-adoration, and a great insecurity about his own intelligence. I hope that we can all just ignore said person from now on, because responses to his ideas are wasted space. To that end, I'd just ask people to take a look at my refined question at the end of p. 3 and see what you think.


I am not going to respond in kind to your gratuitous taunts in this post but merely wish to note that I have reported to the Moderators your comments in the last paragraph of your post 41, post 43, and post 47. They are clearly *Ad Homs * aimed directly at me without any hint of concealment, and all inspired apparently by your disliking of my questioning of your arguments.

I will only re-affirm what I have already said that (a) I think your initial question posed at the beginning of this thread was so vague as to defy proper answer, and (b) your own attempted explanations of the phenomenon (which you have admitted you do not know the answer to) are seriously defective. Now that this has been pointed out to you, you can see that I am right and it is evidently a matter you find embarrassing.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Andy Loochazee said:


> I am not going to respond in kind to your gratuitous taunts in this post but merely wish to note that I have reported to the Moderators your comments in the last paragraph of your post 41, post 43, and post 47. They are clearly *Ad Homs * aimed directly at me without any hint of concealment, and all inspired apparently by your disliking of my questioning of your arguments...


That is, as opposed to _concealed_ ad-hominems, which we find to be scarcely any more meritorious.

*And* (as long as we're on the general topic), we don't find a lot of distinction between belittling a member's person and engaging in an open campaign of ridicule concerning their ideas.

It is time to draw the curtain down on this discussion.


----------

