# Correctly rated works/composer



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

We tend to talk a lot about underrated and overrated music, but what about correctly rated? Haydn is a good example in my opinion. I basically agree with the consensus - he was a decent composer, undeniably influental but also obviously inferior to, and made pretty much redundant by Mozart. I don't think there's any controversy about this. trolololo

Your examples?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> We tend to talk a lot about underrated and overrated music, but what about correctly rated? Haydn is a good example in my opinion. I basically agree with the consensus - he was a decent composer, undeniably influental but also obviously inferior to, and made pretty much redundant by Mozart. I don't think there's any controversy about this. trolololo
> 
> Your examples?


Beethoven.

But I'd question your example. There are only two Mozart symphonies I bother with (40, 41), but at least 8 of Haydn's. 83, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104 (did I miss one out?)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Correctly rated according to whom/what criteria?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I rate them all correctly


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

The consensus is that Haydn is merely "decent" and "pretty much made redundant by Mozart"? I don't think so.


----------



## Proms Fanatic (Nov 23, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> [Haydn] was a decent composer, undeniably influental but also obviously inferior to, and made pretty much redundant by Mozart. I don't think there's any controversy about this. trolololo


Be prepared for the pushback on this comment...


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

Dim7 said:


> We tend to talk a lot about underrated and overrated music, but what about correctly rated? Haydn is a good example in my opinion. I basically agree with the consensus - he was a decent composer, undeniably influental but also obviously inferior to, and made pretty much redundant by Mozart. I don't think there's any controversy about this. trolololo
> 
> Your examples?





Proms Fanatic said:


> Be prepared for the pushback on this comment...


Yeah, I was fixing to push back, however I realized that engagement in this thread was highly unlikely to reach the proper threshold of reward/effort for me to participate.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Proms Fanatic said:


> Be prepared for the pushback on this comment...


Instead of _talking _about 'pushback'...push back!!!


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Wagner's pretty deserving of the worship/ demigod status he continues to receive.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

I'd say Poulenc falls in the sweet spot. Well respected, much liked, but not a big cult following.

(No wonder the rest of Les Six nicknamed him Goldilocks.)


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Ravel seems to be rated just right. An up to date composer who wrote pretty music and whose influence of importance was through orchestral craftsmanship.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

The Grosse Fuge is rightly regarded as one of the most amazing works ever written.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> There are only two Mozart symphonies I bother with (40, 41), but at least 8 of Haydn's. 83, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104 (did I miss one out?)


But is that Mozart's fault, or yours? Why limit the discussion of their music to the symphonies anyways?



Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Wagner's pretty deserving of the worship/ demigod status he continues to receive.


Definitely. All the adulation and worship is merely objective assessment of his work; the same for Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven is "incredibly overrating" them.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Roberta Bitgood seems a bit underrated, but judgments about Daniel Goode are probably about right.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

trazom said:


> But is that Mozart's fault, or yours? Why limit the discussion of their music to the symphonies anyways?


Because without any clear instructions from the OP to the contrary, I'm going on _my _rating - who else's should I go on? So, Mozart's, obviously.
Why symphonies? Because we were asked for our examples - and that's mine.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Beethoven.
> 
> But I'd question your example. There are only two Mozart symphonies I bother with (40, 41), but at least 8 of Haydn's. 83, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104 (did I miss one out?)


You may like more of Haydn's, but he did write an awful lot more.

I do agree though, Haydn is a wonderful composer, and not at all overrated.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> But I'd question your example. There are only two Mozart symphonies I bother with (40, 41), but at least 8 of Haydn's. 83, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104 *(did I miss one out?)*


At least three: 45, 46 and 80.

:tiphat:


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Because without any clear instructions from the OP to the contrary, I'm going on _my _rating - who else's should I go on? So, Mozart's, obviously.
> Why symphonies? Because we were asked for our examples - and that's mine.


The OP was referring to them by name only, implying their entire output. Comparing them on the basis of one genre is as dishonest as, say, criticizing your example of Beethoven by focusing on what he achieved in opera respective to Mozart, Wagner, or Handel.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

trazom said:


> The OP was referring to them by name only


Well, I read this...



Dim7 said:


> We tend to talk a lot about underrated and overrated *music*, but what about correctly rated?





trazom said:


> Comparing them on the basis of one genre is as dishonest as, say, criticizing your example of Beethoven by focusing on what he achieved in opera respective to Mozart, Wagner, or Handel.


Feel free to criticise. My opinion of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven stands as my opinion. I'm not making any claim greater than that, and will defer to no-one. After all, the OP did say,



> Haydn is a good example *in my opinion*


As for 'dishonesty'...that's a bit strong. I'll accept 'selective'.

[add]

You should also follow the exchange a little more carefully. What I was responding to in the OP was Dim7's assertion that the consensus on Haydn (his 'rating') was that he was both "inferior to and made redundant" by Mozart. In return, I offered an example of Haydn's music that could be considered against that analysis.

By all means show me some further examples of how Haydn is 'made redundant' by Mozart (though M's achievement in opera is great, I fail to see how it makes Haydn 'redundant').


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Feldman's fairly rated. There are people who like him, and people who don't like him. But for the people who do like him, they f--king worship him. OMG he's so good.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

My own compositions have been rated as very nice by my friends and associates, but are unrated by everyone else.

That's about right.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Ravel seems to be rated just right. An up to date composer who wrote pretty music and whose influence of importance was through orchestral craftsmanship.


I think 'beautiful' is a better descriptor than 'pretty', and I feel there is a lot of genuine depth in many of the works as well, but it is not exactly the 'heart on the sleeve' kind of depth, it is more composed and introspective.

There is joy, nostalgia, sentimentality and heartbreak in his music, and a profound sensitivity to beauty and I think sometimes that can be a rather lonely place to be.

In some pieces he does wear a mask, (ie. La Valse, Tzigane) - but he doesn't do this as often as say Stravinsky.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Cool idea for a thread, but I'm going to pretend I didn't read the initial example, assuming instead that the Post button was pushed too soon.

I would say almost all composers are neither over nor under rated especially now in the information age when we have access to so much unavailable before. There is just something in human nature, especially classical music listeners' natures, that makes us want to dethrone the royalty and cheer for the underdog. Hence we all have lesser known composers we champion as underrated (e.g. Reinecke for me) and giants we'd like to take down a notch or two (Mozart in my case). The vast majority of the rest seem just about right in terms of importance. 

I think this process is normal and healthy.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2015)

Kurtag is rated at 104th which is spot on. 103 and he'd be flattering to deceive; 105 and he'd be criminally neglected.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

tdc said:


> I think 'beautiful' is a better descriptor than 'pretty', and I feel there is a lot of genuine depth in many of the works as well, but it is not exactly the 'heart on the sleeve' kind of depth, it is more composed and introspective.
> 
> There is joy, nostalgia, sentimentality and heartbreak in his music, and a profound sensitivity to beauty and I think sometimes that can be a rather lonely place to be.
> 
> In some pieces he does wear a mask, (ie. La Valse, Tzigane) - but he doesn't do this as often as say Stravinsky.


I think some of Ravel's music is more about beauty than emotion (Jeux d'eau, piano trio, Daphnis and Chloe). It's taken for granted that music expresses an emotion in the WCM world, but it can also be unemotionally beautiful the way a ruby, emerald or sapphire would be.

I think his music is more intensely beautiful than the Austro-Germans save Wagner, but if we judge it in the context of the conventional emotion it expresses, it is going to be disadvantaged. Of course, everything is considered in the context of Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach being the indisputable best, even though their music conspicuously lacks the kind of opulence and high-octane beauty as some of the composers who would later build on their ideas, or even works that have very little to do with them.

IMO Ravel should be higher than Debussy, but the system is rigged in favor of innovation and not solely on quality, in addition to its glaringly Teutonic bias.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> the system is rigged in favor of innovation and not solely on quality, in addition to its glaringly Teutonic bias.


"The system"? Which system is that?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Overall, no composers are judged exactly due to their quality and value, since judgments, popularity and their basis vary perpetually .


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

My uninspired compositional/music-theory exercises and experiments are correctly rated by me as useful demonstrations of theoretical concepts but nothing else and justly ignored by everyone else, as I haven't even asked anyone to listen to them.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I think some of Ravel's music is more about beauty than emotion (Jeux d'eau, piano trio, Daphnis and Chloe).


I agree here for sure in the case of Daphis and Chloe, but there is something more in the other two works I think - it is hard to put into words, I certainly sense some emotion in the Passacaille from the Trio for example. I also think beauty can stir profound emotions. It can remind us of something eternal. I sense a profound remembrance, or an observation of something 'magical' (wish I could think of a better word) and eternal in those works.



Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> in addition to its glaringly Teutonic bias.


I don't perceive the same bias here. I think many acknowledge French music as being over-all superior in the 20th century and that Italian music was more important pre-Bach. From around 1700 to the later part of the 19th century I genuinely think the best composers were coming from Germany and Austria. Music tends to develop 'hot spots' in certain areas at certain times for whatever reason. That is what I think happened with music from that region.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

tdc said:


> I agree here for sure in the case of Daphis and Chloe, but there is something more in the other two works I think - it is hard to put into words, I certainly sense some emotion in the Passacaille from the Trio for example. I also think beauty can stir profound emotions. It can remind us of something eternal. I sense a profound remembrance, or an observation of something 'magical' (wish I could think of a better word) and eternal in those works.
> 
> I don't perceive the same bias here. I think many acknowledge French music as being over-all superior in the 20th century and that Italian music was more important pre-Bach. From around 1700 to the later part of the 19th century I genuinely think the best composers were coming from Germany and Austria. Music tends to develop 'hot spots' in certain areas at certain times for whatever reason. That is what I think happened with music from that region.


I totally agree about the slow movement actually, I don't know why it slipped my mind. Though I think the emotion is still completely different and incomparable to a common-practice composer, it has a very non-classical, vaguely eastern quality about it.

Also I think your observation is right, but my thought wasn't that the best music in the 18th and 19th centuries wasn't coming from German-speakers most of the time, but that their music is considered the pinnacle of composition today and the paradigms influencing expression by those composers are still the measure by which others' music is evaluated, hence why Ravel's completely different music is often explained in the same terms as beethoven's, even when what is prioritized in their expression is mostly completely different.

On the topic of correctly rated works.....IMO, the lark ascending.


----------

