# Lists that say Bach is NOT God



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I know that the NYTimes top-10 list is stupid. I know that all such lists are stupid. But I was wondering if anyone has ever come across any such articles that make a reasonable attempt at an argument suggesting for once that anyone other than Bach was the greatest composer ever. I know that such a list would _still_ be stupid, but I'm just interested to see if anyone doesn't put Bach at the top by default.

EDIT: I realise now that I meant any articles without Bach, Mozart or Beethoven at the top!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> but I'm just interested to see if anyone doesn't put Bach at the top by default.


http://www.talkclassical.com/members/argus.html


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I've seen plenty that put Mozart or Beethoven top... 

Edit: e.g. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> I've seen plenty that put Mozart or Beethoven top...
> 
> Edit: e.g. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html


Yeah, my sight was too narrow because the NYTimes article was on my mind. What I really mean is a list without either of those endlessly-recurring three in the top spots.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Honestly, I wouldn't take a list seriously that DIDN'T put those 3 at the top.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Well, there's an incredibly silly one on Youtube. It has Bach in third place, but the creator says he would have put him fourth (below Haydn) if he weren't scared of Bach's rabid fans. Brahms isn't on the list at all, if I remember correctly. Mozart comes first.

But then, this guy isn't a professional critic... though his videos have quite a lot of views.

Edit: I'd dig up the link, but I don't think it's really worth the time, unless you _really _ want to see.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't take a list seriously that DIDN'T put those 3 at the top.


Why though? It seems to me that their mythical status is eternally unchanging. It seems that it has practically been decided that these three geniuses will _always_ be at the top, and that is something we should naturally be skeptical about. What would it take for a modern composer to be hailed as equal to or greater than Bach? If the answer is that it can't be done, then there is something wrong with the way people think about these composers.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

In most other genres I would be wary of the most popular, but dang it! I just can't ague with Bach or Beethoven being at the top. Mozart I've never fathomed at the top, but that's because I've always hated those silly appoggiaturas and Alberti basses he relies on all too often. It's just a personal taste thing. 

If not Bach or Beethoven, who then? Brahms? I don't care as much for his solo piano writing although his chamber music is unsurpassed and his symphonies very nearly so. Wagner? If you like operas. I don't consider them entirely music, at least I don't get the same kind of experience from them as in just music without the story and acting and sets. Mahler? Scarcely does a thing for me. Schoenberg? Get real.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Why though? It seems to me that their mythical status is eternally unchanging. It seems that it has practically been decided that these three geniuses will _always_ be at the top, and that is something we should naturally be skeptical about. What would it take for a modern composer to be hailed as equal to or greater than Bach? If the answer is that it can't be done, then there is something wrong with the way people think about these composers.


Why not? Is there anything wrong with Bach or his music? (Or Mozart or Beethoven, for that matter.) It all seems really pointless to me; one person's going to like some composer best, and someone else will disagree. If you don't think one of those three should be on the top, why don't you tell us who you think _should_? Fanaticism, though annoying, doesn't make an opinion any less valid. I personally like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky far better than any modern composer. In my opinion, modern inventions such as serialism and set theory, far from enhancing the creativity of music, detract from it. Is it wrong for me to have that opinion, in your eyes? If so, then I think you need glasses.

[/SOAPBOX]


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Kopachris said:


> Why not? Is there anything wrong with Bach or his music? (Or Mozart or Beethoven, for that matter.) It all seems really pointless to me; one person's going to like some composer best, and someone else will disagree. If you don't think one of those three should be on the top, why don't you tell us who you think _should_? Fanaticism, though annoying, doesn't make an opinion any less valid. I personally like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky far better than any modern composer. In my opinion, modern inventions such as serialism and set theory, far from enhancing the creativity of music, detract from it. Is it wrong for me to have that opinion, in your eyes? If so, then I think you need glasses.
> 
> [/SOAPBOX]


Thanks for not addressing anything I said in the quote you used.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

It seems to me that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven will always be the top 3 (until someone tops them) because they were the most successful at creating music that was both intellectually satisfying in technique and form _and_ beautiful. Almost every other composer near the top created music that was either overly intellectual or overly emotional...


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Thanks for not addressing anything I said in the quote you used.





Ravellian said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't take a list seriously that DIDN'T put those 3 at the top.





Polednice said:


> Why though?





Kopachris said:


> Why not?


My point was that everyone has their own opinion on whose music is better, and that they need no reason in order for their opinion to be valid.

Considering the wording of Ravellian's post, however, I see your point. Not taking a list seriously that disagrees with one's own opinion _is_ rather short-sighted. Still, your own reply to Ravellian's post seems to imply that he needs some sort of reason to hold his opinion.

(I'm getting too deep into this; I can feel the flame war on its way. I can tell because I'm already starting to sound pretentious and hypocritical. I apologize. )


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sorry, perhaps I just haven't explained myself very well.

Although it's hard for people to do, by establishing a list, I'm first of all suggesting that our personal preferences are _slightly_ detached from our decisions. Of course, we're likely to favour the composers we put in any top 10, but, for example, while I adore Brahms more than any other composer, I would consider the notion that Wagner did more for the development of music during the same period, and should perhaps rank higher due to innovation, despite the fact that I'm not really a Wagner fan.

In that sense, I'm saying that a top 10 list ought to aim for objectivity by recognising the downfalls of our favourites, and the genius of composers we otherwise ignore for stylistic reasons.

Now, it appears to me that, while Bach, Beethoven and Mozart do not necessarily appear in everyone's top 10 _favourite_ list, by default, people seem to assume that these three simply have to come at the top if ranking the top 10 _best_ composers technically. That is an assumption I'm skeptical of, because it whiffs of received wisdom. If there is literally _nothing_ that a composer could do in the next few hundred years to knock these three off their divine pedestals, then either they were actually divine, or the way we think about them is illogical.

Does that make any more sense, or am I still being stupid?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Sorry, perhaps I just haven't explained myself very well.
> 
> Although it's hard for people to do, by establishing a list, I'm first of all suggesting that our personal preferences are _slightly_ detached from our decisions. Of course, we're likely to favour the composers we put in any top 10, but, for example, while I adore Brahms more than any other composer, I would consider the notion that Wagner did more for the development of music during the same period, and should perhaps rank higher due to innovation, despite the fact that I'm not really a Wagner fan.
> 
> ...


This makes much more sense, thank you.  As I haven't read enough about any composers, I can't tell for sure who had the most influence. I do, however, know that music is a very progressive art, and evolves slowly and by small steps. Any attempt to make a large change (such as atonality) is usually rejected by everyone except certain niche groups. I don't know what Mozart did to advance music (except perhaps for some of his operas, and maybe some orchestration), but I do know that Bach advanced the art of counterpoint and keyboard technique significantly, and may have even contributed some to the development of proper orchestration. And of course, Beethoven is usually cited as "kicking off" the Romantic movement.

As for doing more to improve music, it really depends on one's point of view. I know that at least some people here--[cough]Argus[/cough]--believe that music always gets better, in which case one should believe that the herald of each new genre should be hailed as the greatest composer. In that case, early Jazz artists could be at the head of your list of the most significant composers, having essentially combined folk music with certain aspects of classical music to eventually evolve into Rock and Roll, and later into modern Pop music. Of course, this changes if you're limiting your list to only classical composers. If that's the case, then I don't think anyone could really do more to influence classical music than Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven, as the era has gone and went. As for modern types of music--all we can do is wait and hope!


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

It seems that people only read my shorter, dumber posts... so I'll quote my other post to draw more attention to it, since it explains my reasoning:



Ravellian said:


> It seems to me that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven will always be the top 3 (until someone tops them) because they were the most successful at creating music that was both intellectually satisfying in technique and form _and_ beautiful. Almost every other composer near the top created music that was either overly intellectual or overly emotional...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I know that the NYTimes top-10 list is stupid. I know that all such lists are stupid. But I was wondering if anyone has ever come across any such articles that make a reasonable attempt at an argument suggesting for once that anyone other than Bach was the greatest composer ever. I know that such a list would still be stupid, but I'm just interested to see if anyone doesn't put Bach at the top by default.

I suppose there are plenty of lists that are defective from the very first. Of course we all know the real reason for this little rant... but no... Brahms is NEVER, NEVER going to rank at the top of any intelligent list of the greatest composers ever.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What would it take for a modern composer to be hailed as equal to or greater than Bach?

What would it take for a modern writer to surpass Shakespeare or a modern painter to surpass Michelangelo? The question is rather inane, is it not? Or perhaps it is simply obvious. Bach, Shakespeare, and Michelangelo are central to Western music, literature, and art in a way that their impact continues to resonate. For a modern artist to surpass them (or equal them) he or she would need to produce a body of work that rivals theirs in breadth, depth, and scale... and then this work would need to continue to resonate over generations recognized as central to the art form. Will this ever happen again? Quite certainly. Picasso is quite probably worthy of standing along side of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Rubens and a few others. Wagner does not fall far behind Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart... and some might argue that his Ring is unmatched by anyone else. The canon of the arts, however, is not something selected by critics but a product of all those who have invested the most in the study, understanding, promotion and preservation of art: the academics and critics, the historians, the collectors or patrons, the subsequent generations of the audience and the subsequent generations of artists. No individual, no matter how influential, is capable of knocking someone out of the canon or putting someone there that does not have a more universal and long-lasting support.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Now, it appears to me that, while Bach, Beethoven and Mozart do not necessarily appear in everyone's top 10 favourite list, by default,

A list of my favorite artists is not necessarily the same as a list of the greatest artists. For example, my favorite painters of the 20th century would include Pierre Bonnard, Henri Matisse, and Max Beckmann. I recognize, however, that Picasso is a greater artist than any of them. His innovations, influence, and the breadth and scale of his work in unrivaled by anyone else of the time.

But let us assume even that a good many individuals would not place Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart within their personal list of the "greatest composers"... this would obviously be offset by the great many who would. What it seems to come down to is an average. If we look at the opinions of those knowledgeable of classical music Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are commonly recognized as among the most important figures... to an extent that no other composers can rival.

...people seem to assume that these three simply have to come at the top if ranking the top 10 best composers technically. That is an assumption I'm skeptical of, because it whiffs of received wisdom.

The only assumption here seems to be yours. You are assuming that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are included in so many individuals' lists of greatest composers simply because these individuals (unlike yourself, no doubt) are unable to think for themselves and have simply gone with what everyone else says. Of course the canon of great artist is not a product of the uniformed masses but the result of the collective opinions of those with the most invested in a given art form: the academics, historians, critics, educated listeners, performers, and subsequent artists. It might just be that these persons repeatedly turn to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart for reasons having to do with the music, the scale and breadth of their achievements, the innovations that they wrought, and the continued impact ans influence of their music.

The question has been thrown out: If not Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven... who then? Who can you offer with solid reasoning comparing their achievements and not simply based upon the fact that you personally love Brahms or someone else?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Why though? It seems to me that their mythical status is eternally unchanging. It seems that it has practically been decided that these three geniuses will _always_ be at the top, and that is something we should naturally be skeptical about. What would it take for a modern composer to be hailed as equal to or greater than Bach? If the answer is that it can't be done, then there is something wrong with the way people think about these composers.


Have you at least read books/materials about these three composers' achievements to suggest that folks should be "naturally skeptical about" their "mythical status" at the top? There is nothing mythical about it - go to a musicology department of a music school and discuss with the music professors there, and or read, would be my advice. Objective assessments can be applied to show their merits.

If a contemporary composer who qualifies as even greater than these three, then I'm equally open to that but posterity hasn't yet shown any.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I know that the NYTimes top-10 list is stupid. I know that all such lists are stupid. But I was wondering if anyone has ever come across any such articles that make a reasonable attempt at an argument suggesting for once that anyone other than Bach was the greatest composer ever. I know that such a list would still be stupid, but I'm just interested to see if anyone doesn't put Bach at the top by default.
> 
> I suppose there are plenty of lists that are defective from the very first. Of course we all know the real reason for this little rant... but no... Brahms is NEVER, NEVER going to rank at the top of any intelligent list of the greatest composers ever.


I thought at least one person might humour me! 

With regards to the general comments on this page, I didn't mean to suggest that our view of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart ought to be replaced by other composers. At first, I was interested to hear if anyone had come across any reasonable arguments to that effect, but I know that these three giants deserve the esteem in which we hold them, and I wouldn't declare that Brahms or anyone else should be viewed more highly!

My main reservation about the mythic nature of their reputation is not that it is without foundation, but that it seems it could never be subject to change, hence my question about what a modern composer would have to do in order for them to be looked back on 200 years after their death as equals to B, B, and M.

The question comparing this to Shakespeare and others made me think that perhaps it's an issue of 'firsts', and the establishment of cultural identity. Though there may well have been great predecessors in the respective arts, we hear little (if not nothing) of composers/writers/poets (or more appropriate terms) preceding the advent of notation and manuscript copying etc. So, maybe these figures are so inexorably ingrained as the _best_ because - rightly or wrongly - they represent the beginning of properly recorded creativity. That's an act that can't be followed.

I'm not sure if I've convinced myself on that quite yet, but, if true, then it's certain that they were geniuses, but they aren't irreplaceable - they were just in the right place at the right time for them to be absorbed as central aspects of artistic, cultural, and national identities


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The question comparing this to Shakespeare and others made me think that perhaps it's an issue of 'firsts', and the establishment of cultural identity. 

There is a certain something to this. Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and a few others hold their position in part due to their centrality to the development of an artistic language or vocabulary. Homer is essentially the father of the Epic poem. Dante is the central figure at the start of the Renaissance establishing the notion of the artist at the center of his narrative as well as establishing the "vulgar" language of Italian as opposed to Latin, the language of all "serious" writing, as a legitimate means of expression. Shakespeare, along with the King James Bible, has the largest impact upon the establishment of the "modern" English language. Re raises English to a level where it rivals the literature of Italy and France. He also takes what is essentially a nascent art form, the "modern" Renaissance theater thought of by most as simple entertainment (an equivalent of TV today) and raises it to the most profound art in which he's never been surpassed.

The more recent artistic "giants" are surely those who have been equally central to the development of a new artistic language. James Joyce, Kafka, T.S. Eliot J.L. Borges and a few others may have the greatest chance of attaining a canonical status among modern writers. Who achieved something equally shattering in music? Wagner, certainly. Schoenberg, perhaps... but the merits of his achievements still seem open to serious question. One might even suggest the innovators of jazz recognizing that many once thought of English and Italian and the theater as being no less "vulgar" or unworthy of serious contemplation as the popular musical forms upon which the great America contribution to music was based. But surely time will tell. What we think of as the "age of Shakespeare" was not thought of as such while one Will Shakespeare was alive and writing.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> A list of my favorite artists is not necessarily the same as a list of the greatest artists. For example, my favorite painters of the 20th century would include Pierre Bonnard, Henri Matisse, and Max Beckmann. I recognize, however, that Picasso is a greater artist than any of them. His innovations, influence, and the breadth and scale of his work in unrivaled by anyone else of the time.


as a painter, Michelangelo created only the Sistine chapel (and frankly i prefer other works for example by Andrea Pozzo or Tiepolo) and the tondo doni. Why you think that he could be greater of a lot of other painters? What are his great innovations as a painter? And why could innovation be so important?
i don't think that Bach in the aspect of innovation is considered an essential artist.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I actually haven't got many reservations about putting Wagner and Brahms in roughly the same category as Mozart, Beethoven and Bach.

Edit: But they are the _only_ two post-Renaissance composers I feel that way about.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

Polednice said:


> My main reservation about the mythic nature of their reputation is not that it is without foundation, but that it seems it could never be subject to change, hence my question about what a modern composer would have to do in order for them to be looked back on 200 years after their death as equals to B, B, and M.


That's because those 3 plus Haydn are the ones who are the most influential composers of all time and who laid the foundation for all music compositions. No one after them has contributed as much to the development of music theory, because there isn't as much room for development after them. I personally consider Schubert to be a finer, more consistent and more intelligent composer than either of those 4, but I certainly cannot claim that he's as important as those 4 in the history of music.

Better question is why Haydn offer gets left out of lists of greatest composers of all time, when he's probably more important and influential than B, B and M.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

scytheavatar said:


> That's because those 3 plus Haydn are the ones who are the most influential composers of all time and who laid the foundation for all music compositions. No one after them has contributed as much to the development of music theory, because there isn't as much room for development after them. I personally consider Schubert to be a finer, more consistent and more intelligent composer than either of those 4, but I certainly cannot claim that he's as important as those 4 in the history of music.
> 
> Better question is why Haydn offer gets left out of lists of greatest composers of all time, when he's probably more important and influential than B, B and M.


What did Bach do to lay the foundations of music?

Wagner did more to change music, Schoenberg did more to alter the course of musical development.


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> What did Bach do to lay the foundations of music?
> 
> Wagner did more to change music, Schoenberg did more to alter the course of musical development.


Was it necessarily to the better? And if so, can you prove it?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

as a painter, Michelangelo created only the Sistine chapel (and frankly i prefer other works for example by Andrea Pozzo or Tiepolo) and the tondo doni. Why you think that he could be greater of a lot of other painters? 

How do we measure "greatness"? I would suggest that continued influence is one measure. Just say the names Tiepolo or Andrea Pozzo to most artists and you will likely get a puzzled look. Michelangelo's impact upon subsequent painters and sculptors ranging from Raphael, the Mannerists, Titian, Tintoretto, Caravaggio, Rubens, on through Delacroix, Rodin, Maillol, Max Beckmann, and even Lucian Freud is undeniable.

In terms of innovation Michelangelo brought a far greater mastery of anatomy and physiology to the Renaissance than existed prior to him. He also employed the figure in a manner which broke free of usual point of view in which the figure was largely parallel to the picture plane. His figures twist and turn and tumble and somersault... he employs the gestures in a more expre4ssive manner than done before. Michelangelo also brings a new complexity to the use of space suggesting an advancing and receding space and allowing his figures to break out of the constraints of their architectural framing. Both of these elements will be of great influence upon later artists such as Tiepolo and Pozzo. Michelangelo must also be credited for his development of expressive distortions of the figure and his exaggerated use of "shock" colors... employing contrasting colors in the shadows. This only touches upon his innovations as a painter.

We then have the breadth of the work. Michelangelo is not only recognized as a masterful painter, but also as a masterful sculptor and architect... as well as a major Italian poet. His David, Pieta, Medici Tombs, etc... are continually recognized among the greatest sculptural achievements of the West. His Sistine frescoes hold similar if not greater esteem. The dome of St. Peters is one of the most influential works of architecture.

Finally we have scale... this means not merely size but also sheer volume of major achievements and the grandeur or ambition of the same. There are few sculptures by a single artist to rival the Pieta or the David, few paintings as complex and yet well-structured as the Sistine fresoes, etc...

Personally, I find Pozzo rather grossly overwrought, while Tiepolo is often a bit too light for my taste. I would take instead Veronese. Michelangelo is an artist who I don't look at for periods of time... and in whom I discover so much new each time I approach him. As a figurative painter myself I envy his expressive use of gestures and point of view (the back and forth thrust of his figures that brings such dynamic energy to the works and at once engages you and draws you in.).


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

It was in my opinion. And no I cant prove it, nor can you prove that the change from counterpoint to simpler 'classical' harmony was good, nor can you prove that Beethoven incorporating a choir into a symphony in any way improved it, nor can you prove that the invention of musical notation in any way improved music, nor can you prove that the invention of the piano was a good thing, nor can you prove that the transition from church modes to diatonicism was a good thing.

This whole discussion is pointless.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Lipatti said:


> Was it necessarily to the better?


no, but the fact is that there's people who say that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven deserve to be considered the greatest composers because of their influence. I think that for sheer influence Debussy for example is a lot more important than Bach (Bach who was rediscovered in the 19th century)


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> What did Bach do to lay the foundations of music?
> 
> Wagner did more to change music, Schoenberg did more to alter the course of musical development.


I disagree. Atonality may have been an interesting experiment for a while, but if you look at the whole of music history, it's rather insignificant. Atonality had it's heyday, but it wasn't meant to last--very few works today are atonal. The only ideas by these two that really survived into popular music are leitmotives and motivic development, which are both still used extensively by film composers. But they still weren't very influential in the long run.

Bach, on the other hand, is the one usually cited as having turned music into a science. He didn't invent counterpoint, but he refined it immensely, along with keyboard technique.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Uhhh.... Care to name some examples?

Edit: oh I see, you include pop music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> as a painter, Michelangelo created only the Sistine chapel (and frankly i prefer other works for example by Andrea Pozzo or Tiepolo) and the tondo doni. Why you think that he could be greater of a lot of other painters?
> 
> How do we measure "greatness"? I would suggest that continued influence is one measure. Just say the names Tiepolo or Andrea Pozzo to most artists and you will likely get a puzzled look. Michelangelo's impact upon subsequent painters and sculptors ranging from Raphael, the Mannerists, Titian, Tintoretto, Caravaggio, Rubens, on through Delacroix, Rodin, Maillol, Max Beckmann, and even Lucian Freud is undeniable.
> 
> In terms of innovation Michelangelo brought a far greater mastery of anatomy and physiology to the Renaissance than existed prior to him. He also employed the figure in a manner which broke free of usual point of view in which the figure was largely parallel to the picture plane. His figures twist and turn and tumble and somersault... he employs the gestures in a more expre4ssive manner than done before. Michelangelo also brings a new complexity to the use of space suggesting an advancing and receding space and allowing his figures to break out of the constraints of their architectural framing. Both of these elements will be of great influence upon later artists such as Tiepolo and Pozzo. Michelangelo must also be credited for his development of expressive distortions of the figure and his exaggerated use of "shock" colors... employing contrasting colors in the shadows. This only touches upon his innovations as a painter.


ok, you're right, but there are other painter that have had the same influence, jan van eyck, bosch, caravaggio, goya, picasso, matisse, duchamp, kandinsky and others... and often they have a more consistent body of works. 
What i'm saying is that the influence of an artist is a rather inaccurate meter of "greatness". I think that Schoenberg and John Cage are two of the most influential composers of the last century, but they are far from my favorites.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> We then have the breadth of the work. Michelangelo is not only recognized as a masterful painter, but also as a masterful sculptor and architect... as well as a major Italian poet. His David, Pieta, Medici Tombs, etc... are continually recognized among the greatest sculptural achievements of the West. His Sistine frescoes hold similar if not greater esteem. The dome of St. Peters is one of the most influential works of architecture.
> 
> Finally we have scale... this means not merely size but also sheer volume of major achievements and the grandeur or ambition of the same. There are few sculptures by a single artist to rival the Pieta or the David, few paintings as complex and yet well-structured as the Sistine fresoes, etc...


you're absolutely right, but i was talking only about the painter (i much prefer Michelangelo as sculptor)



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I find Pozzo rather grossly overwrought, while Tiepolo is often a bit too light for my taste. I would take instead Veronese.


it's a bit off topic, but can you explain what you mean with too light? I was talking about Gianbattista anyway, that for me is the absolutely contrary of lightness, his painting has a grandeur of a kolossal


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

norman bates said:


> What i'm saying is that the influence of an artist is a rather inaccurate meter of "greatness". I think that Schoenberg and John Cage are two of the most influent composers of the last century, but they are far from my favorites.


But how much is influence just about fashion?


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> It was in my opinion. And no I cant prove it, nor can you prove that the change from counterpoint to simpler 'classical' harmony was good, nor can you prove that Beethoven incorporating a choir into a symphony in any way improved it, nor can you prove that the invention of musical notation in any way improved music, nor can you prove that the invention of the piano was a good thing, nor can you prove that the transition from church modes to diatonicism was a good thing.
> 
> This whole discussion is pointless.


Well, that's exactly my point. Ultimately, I don't think "level of innovation" has anything at all to say when it comes to determining the greatness of a given composer - the innovation only determines/lays the ground for future composers to expose their own musical talents.

The beauty of music lies in the fact that a composer can create more drama with three or four instruments than another does with thousands.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

starry said:


> But how much is influence just about fashion?


i think a lot, in many cases. And we must consider also that influence depends a lot by the the fame, there are artists that were revolutionary, deeply originals, "ahead of their time" in certain aspects but because of their isolation their ideas are not influential (at least until someone rediscovers them)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

ok, you're right, but there are other painter that have had the same influence, jan van eyck, bosch, caravaggio, goya, picasso, matisse, duchamp, kandinsky and others... and often they have a more consistent body of works. 

I don't know how influential Bosch was... and Duchamp's influence in questionable considering the quality of what his work has inspired. I would surely have little problem with placing Van Eyck, Caravaggio, Goya, Picasso, Matisse... as well as Monet, Rubens, Rembrandt, Giotto, Leonardo, Titian, and any number of others near the same pinnacle as Michelangelo. I question Kandinsky. I think his influence pales in comparison to even Paul Klee (a major inspiration on Miro, Ab-Ex and even Op Art and Minimalism. I also think that Kandinsky wasn't that consistent later in his career... yet still undoubtedly a major player.

As for Michelangelo... I don't see how much more consistent one could get. The Doni Tondo and the Sistine Frescoes are all clear masterworks. The Pauline frescoes are not quite of the same level... but neither are they "bad". The sculptural work is phenomenal to the end with the Rondanini Pietà. And then there's the dome of St. Peters designed well into the artist's 70s. I agree that not every work is of the same status as the Sistine... but others ever attain such heights... and even then there are better and worse works by most artists. In some cases (I think especially of Picasso) the greatest of artists can prove the most erratic... producing a great deal of art that is not merely less than masterful, but simply bad... really bad in many instances.

What i'm saying is that the influence of an artist is a rather inaccurate meter of "greatness". I think that Schoenberg and John Cage are two of the most influent composers of the last century, but they are far from my favorites. 

Of course we must measure how good are composers influenced by Cage and Schoenberg... and how long has their influence lasted?

it's a bit off topic, but can you explain what you mean with too light? I was talking about Gianbattista anyway, that for me is the absolutely contrary of lightness,

Giovanni Battista Tiepolo is clearly a precursor to if not part of the Rococo. For better of worse... and in some ways I think this is part of the charm of his (and other Rococo) works... his paintings have a certain feeling of "light" or airiness... almost as if they were huge watercolors as opposed to Michelangelo's figures and forms which appear as if carved out of stone. I've always thought of something akin to an Italian opera... perhaps Handel or Alessandro Scarlatti (if not Rossini) when looking upon these paintings, where Michelangelo suggests something "heavier".... Dante's _Inferno_ or Homer or Aeschylus.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

My view is that Wagner, Schoenberg and Bach were each extremely influential. It bemuses me that so many people are fixated with the idea that Bach didn't really have much of an influence. His influence was enormous. Nearly everything Brahms ever wrote is sprinkled with dozens of little canonic effects - these are straight out of Bach. Chopin's chromaticism and never-ending melody lines, Brahms's choral music and variations, Mendelssohn's religious music, even _Die Meistersinger_ prelude - Bach's influence is clear in all of these.

The mistake is to think that when composers like Chopin and Schumann heard Bach, they were listening to Glenn Gould records and John Eliot Gardiner. On the contrary, the Bach they knew was more Romantic than the Bach we know today. His music was played with more pedal and more dynamic liberty. More to the point, Chopin and Schumann's music sounds far _less_ Romantic when played on the original instruments. Bearing this is mind can help one see a smaller gap between Bach and the Romantics.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Another thing to remember is that in the 1800s, Bach's organ music was particularly influential. This is often overlooked, because so few people nowadays are genuinely familiar with that part of Bach's output. But Brahms, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt and Saint-Saëns all knew how to play the organ, and in addition Schumann owned a pedal piano.

Needless to say, much of Bach's most bombastic and symphonic music was written for the organ, simply because of the character of the instrument. So whereas it might be hard to imagine a _French Suite_ making much of an impression on a great Romantic composer, it's not so hard to hear why Schumann, for example, was so deeply affected by the _Passacaglia and Fugue_ and the _Leipzig Chorales_. Works such as these are a lot louder and they sound a lot more like Romanticism.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> and Duchamp's influence in questionable considering the quality of what his work has inspired.


generally i don't like his work, but for me there is little doubt that his his sake for the provocation and the conceptual has been greatly influential in modern art, even in music through john cage.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Giovanni Battista Tiepolo is clearly a precursor to if not part of the Rococo. For better of worse... and in some ways I think this is part of the charm of his (and other Rococo) works... his paintings have a certain feeling of "light" or airiness... almost as if they were huge watercolors as opposed to Michelangelo's figures and forms which appear as if carved out of stone. I've always thought of something akin to an Italian opera... perhaps Handel or Alessandro Scarlatti (if not Rossini) when looking upon these paintings, where Michelangelo suggests something "heavier".... Dante's _Inferno_ or Homer or Aeschylus.


interesting parallels, i see what you mean


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I'm proud to say that I'm going to be the first person to directly answer the original question! sort of...

In Jan Swafford's 'Vintage Guide to Classical Music' he states: 'In the 1980s a group of musicologists, tabulating some obscure index of excellences, declared [Guillaume] Machaut to be the Greatest Composer of All Time. (Beethoven came in second, by the way).'

But I don't know who the musicologists were, or what the full list is. Perhaps I'll try asking Mr. Swafford.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Just a side note, and to Michaelangelo's eternal credit, he's also feted as one of Italy's greatest poets:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REN/MICHEL1.HTM

The man's a giant by any measure: painting, sculpting, architecture, design and poetry. He maybe the greatest of all Europeans, in all the arts...


----------



## Comistra (Feb 27, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Now, it appears to me that, while Bach, Beethoven and Mozart do not necessarily appear in everyone's top 10 favourite list, by default, people seem to assume that these three simply have to come at the top if ranking the top 10 best composers technically. That is an assumption I'm skeptical of, because it whiffs of received wisdom. If there is literally nothing that a composer could do in the next few hundred years to knock these three off their divine pedestals, then either they were actually divine, or the way we think about them is illogical.


I too tend to be skeptical.

It seems to me that if the top 3 _must_ be Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, then the criteria are, necessarily, objective. If the criteria are objective, it should be easy enough to state them. Is it simply influence? OK, then figure out how to measure a composer's influence and rank accordingly. Otherwise, what are the criteria?

If strict criteria cannot be introduced, the rankings must be, at least to some degree, subjective. If so, no definitive list can be made. If you can't tell me, objectively, why Bach (Beethoven/Mozart) is the greatest composer, then I won't bother believing it. So often arguments tend to be along the lines of "if you can't see the absolute genius of Bach, there's no point in explaining it to you". How is that useful? To me it sounds like a subjective measure stated as fact, and as such, is extremely off-putting.

On the other hand, if you can persuasively argue a subjective point (which means no personal attacks, no statement of opinion as fact, etc.), I'm always more than willing to listen and, sometimes, change my mind.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I thought at least one person might humour me!
> 
> With regards to the general comments on this page, I didn't mean to suggest that our view of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart ought to be replaced by other composers. At first, I was interested to hear if anyone had come across any reasonable arguments to that effect, but I know that these three giants deserve the esteem in which we hold them, and I wouldn't declare that Brahms or anyone else should be viewed more highly!
> 
> ...


I agree, I think people can just follow what their (to them) 'betters' tell them. I would put Beethoven, JS Bach and Mozart possibly in my top three but that doesn't mean that I think everyone has to. One of the reasons I would put them at the top is because their music is so readily available and I have pretty much heard everything they wrote. So it ends up being about the quantity of good music they wrote. Is that the best way to assess a composer? Well that is a matter of opinion I suppose. Ultimately rankings don't matter that much. Most would agree that those three wrote good music and that is all that matters really.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I know that the NYTimes top-10 list is stupid. I know that all such lists are stupid. But I was wondering if anyone has ever come across any such articles that make a reasonable attempt at an argument suggesting for once that anyone other than Bach was the greatest composer ever. I know that such a list would _still_ be stupid, but I'm just interested to see if anyone doesn't put Bach at the top by default.
> 
> EDIT: I realise now that I meant any articles without Bach, Mozart or Beethoven at the top!


I'm coming to this very late, but anyway.

Australia's national classical music station, ABC Classic FM, does these regular polls of it's listeners. Bach is not always No. 1. In the piano one, he came second after Beethoven, and Debussy was third. This list has 100 piano works -

http://www.abc.net.au/classic/classic100/piano.htm

In the Classic 100 chamber list, Bach came in 96th position for _The Musical Offering _(probably my favourite work by him, although other Bach fans think it's too dry). Schubert took the top three positions.

http://www.abc.net.au/classic/classic100/chamber/100list.htm

Of course, these lists are based on listener voting, so popularity here, not necessarily just notions of greatness, but also other things.

I think people have muddled view of what is _the canon_. There are three main types of canons - musicological, pedagogical (teaching), and performance (repertoire). Then various other branches going off those canons. Of course the likes of Schoenberg and Cage are in a canon of one type or another. They're in the canon of modern music for a start.

I have put lengthy entries on this elsewhere on this forum. Can't find them now. My advice is to get a good text on musicology and go form there, if you or anyone else wants more unbiased opinion on what is/are _the canons_.

This thread I set up a while back, in white hot anger, also goes into my take on this a bit -

http://www.talkclassical.com/15439-canon-your-canon.html


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I thought at least one person might humour me!
> 
> With regards to the general comments on this page, I didn't mean to suggest that our view of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart ought to be replaced by other composers. At first, I was interested to hear if anyone had come across any reasonable arguments to that effect, but I know that these three giants deserve the esteem in which we hold them, and I wouldn't declare that Brahms or anyone else should be viewed more highly!
> 
> My main reservation about the mythic nature of their reputation is not that it is without foundation, but that it seems it could never be subject to change, hence my question about what a modern composer would have to do in order for them to be looked back on 200 years after their death as equals to B, B, and M.


There is a certain sound we have in mind when we think of the music of the time when Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were around and most consider those three guys as the ones who have provided us with a lot of the best music that we relate to their time. Despite many significant differences, there were also lots of things each of them had in common with their contemporaries. It's just that those three were 'the best' in what everyone else in their time was also doing. Modern composers are unlikely to join them on any 'best ever' lists because music now has gone in many different directions and it's hard to point to one leading voice. Someone who's considered a genius by followers of a particular style isn't even making music in the opinion of others. Since stylistically music is all over the place these days it's impossible to come to a consensus about 'the best' composers of our time, let alone about how they match up against composers from the past.


----------



## thehoople (Apr 3, 2012)

Honestly, I can assure you that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are almost always top 3 because they have all done things that nobody else surpassed. Bach has written the most complicated music ever, and most of his pieces still have an unbelievable amount of emotion/beauty/sadness/anger in them. Mozart was born into the galante style of music and ultimately brought the classical ideal to it's pinnacle. Without a doubt the most versatile and gifted composer ever in terms of sheer intellect and an ability to write masterpieces in pretty much every genre of music. Beethoven brought about a new era of music, and wrote masterpieces in a new style, expanding upon the styles of Mozart and Haydn. There were many prolific composers after Beethoven. There were many great baroque/classical composers but none really came close to the genius of Bach and Mozart. Romanticism is a bit interesting because composers expanded outwardly moreso than Beethoven, and many wrote sublime pieces, however ultimately if you look at the outputs of any romantic composer they just don't compare to the big three. It's too hard to explain the criteria but trust me


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

thehoople said:


> Honestly, I can assure you that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are almost always top 3 because they have all done things that nobody else surpassed. Bach has written the most complicated music ever, and most of his pieces still have an unbelievable amount of emotion/beauty/sadness/anger in them. Mozart was born into the galante style of music and ultimately brought the classical ideal to it's pinnacle. Without a doubt the most versatile and gifted composer ever in terms of sheer intellect and an ability to write masterpieces in pretty much every genre of music. Beethoven brought about a new era of music, and wrote masterpieces in a new style, expanding upon the styles of Mozart and Haydn. There were many prolific composers after Beethoven. There were many great baroque/classical composers but none really came close to the genius of Bach and Mozart. Romanticism is a bit interesting because composers expanded outwardly moreso than Beethoven, and many wrote sublime pieces, however ultimately if you look at the outputs of any romantic composer they just don't compare to the big three. It's too hard to explain the criteria but trust me


I have a slight problem with taking the assurances of strangers at face value and am not convinced.



jhar26 said:


> There is a certain sound we have in mind when we think of the music of the time when Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were around and most consider those three guys as the ones who have provided us with a lot of the best music that we relate to their time. Despite many significant differences, there were also lots of things each of them had in common with their contemporaries. It's just that those three were 'the best' in what everyone else in their time was also doing. Modern composers are unlikely to join them on any 'best ever' lists because music now has gone in many different directions and it's hard to point to one leading voice. Someone who's considered a genius by followers of a particular style isn't even making music in the opinion of others. Since stylistically music is all over the place these days it's impossible to come to a consensus about 'the best' composers of our time, let alone about how they match up against composers from the past.


Looking at this revived thread, I was thinking something similar to this. I think it will always be the case that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are disproportionately revered, and while some people will do so out of a false notion that they have not and cannot be surpassed in creative skill, I think it is also largely a historical accident. We are in much more complicated musical times, with much more competition and stylistic divergence. In such circumstances, it is obviously possible for geniuses as large and vibrant to be born - that's just biology; it doesn't change in a few centuries - but they may not be fuelled as much by the audience to shine as brightly because the audience is much more fragmented now.

This seems reasonable enough to me, I would just therefore urge people to not mistake Bach, Beethoven and Mozart's enduring popularity for any kind of supreme, unmatchable ability as many listeners are prone to assuming - it is instead because they hailed from very different cultures, and it would be good for us to remind ourselves that these were just ordinary men making a living at something they loved.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I have a slight problem with taking the assurances of strangers at face value and am not convinced.
> 
> Looking at this revived thread, I was thinking something similar to this. I think it will always be the case that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are disproportionately revered, and while some people will do so out of a false notion that they have not and cannot be surpassed in creative skill, I think it is also largely a historical accident. We are in much more complicated musical times, with much more competition and stylistic divergence. In such circumstances, it is obviously possible for geniuses as large and vibrant to be born - that's just biology; it doesn't change in a few centuries - but they may not be fuelled as much by the audience to shine as brightly because the audience is much more fragmented now.
> 
> This seems reasonable enough to me, I would just therefore urge people to not mistake Bach, Beethoven and Mozart's enduring popularity for any kind of supreme, unmatchable ability as many listeners are prone to assuming - it is instead because they hailed from very different cultures, and it would be good for us to remind ourselves that these were just ordinary men making a living at something they loved.


I would also say there is a historical explanation, though it may well be true that in some objective sense Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were more innovative or influential or whatever.

But the thing is, there was a time in history when ordinary people (as opposed to famous composers) had to revere each of those guys to be taken seriously in elite society. That hasn't true yet of, say, Rameau or Machaut, no matter how great/innovative/influential they were. I think we might be living in a period when it is true of Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, the Beatles, Miles Davis, and John Coltrane. Maybe Robert Johnson as well. We'll see, but I'd bet that the future will be kind to them.


----------



## Operadowney (Apr 4, 2012)

In my opinion, Bach created the ideals of music as we know it today. Tonality spanned from his work and those ideas of tonality perpetuated classical music and now pop music for ever and ever. Not saying that Bach was instrumental in developing tonality, he was after all just a man (and realistically somebody else could have just as easily come up with it) but the fact remains that it is attributed to him. So he needs to be at the top, for inventing the conventions that everyone after him used.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

*Bach is not God?!! *


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

but, Bach is god? no?


----------



## thehoople (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm not saying that those 3 composers are the best, and if anyone didn't have any of them on there top 3 I wouldn't care at all. I'm just saying it's pretty obvious why those three are at the top all of the time. And yes I agree there are many other composers that excelled in different areas that those three couldn't. I was under the impression this thread was about "why are those three composers always at the top". Let's be realistic here those three have done outstanding things in music and I think that if they are placed in the top 3, it is justifiable.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

They are the most complete composers. Bach being the best of the 3 by a slight margin. Stravinsky, Bartok, and Shostakovich are probably the best for more modern classical. And maybe those 3 are underrated somewhat. But most prefer earlier classical music as it is more accessible. Thus why the list goes for earlier composers and the most complete of those earlier composers.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I would put Wagner ahead of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. The latter 3 wrote nice pieces, there's no doubt about that. But none of them were able to realize the full emotional potential of music the way Wagner did. Their harmony was too rudimentary to permit it.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

top ten best female hygiene products 2010.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polednice said:


> Why though? It seems to me that their mythical status is eternally unchanging. It seems that it has practically been decided that these three geniuses will _always_ be at the top, and that is something we should naturally be skeptical about. What would it take for a modern composer to be hailed as equal to or greater than Bach? If the answer is that it can't be done, then there is something wrong with the way people think about these composers.


Stravinsky is often referred to in textbooks and music encyclopediae as 'the Bach of the Twentieth Century,' though there again, the ole Thuringian's ugly head is again raised within that comparison.

There are many a musicologist and other expert musicians who place Mozart at the absolute top, using measures of an extensive list of criteria which apply to 'all others.' Perhaps another generation has to die off before Bach is no longer sitting on the highest pedestal.

I'm one of more than a few who at least recognize Bach's greatness while also grinding my teeth more than a little... precisely because Bach seems to be so extravagantly, lavishly and slavishly over-revered.

That "three B's" stuff comes from Hanslick, the less than great yet hugely influential critic, by way of his also making a pun on a calligraphic reference to those named composers as well as the 'heroic' key of Eb major: toss into the ethos of his era a more than heavy dollop of an inclination to nationalism. The 'eternal' you refer to is far less old than Rome, but dates back to Hanslick and the late 1800's --none of it, in the big time frame of history, that very old... or that 'permanent.'

Our British ancestors, while being something apart, are also to a good degree markedly somewhat 'Germanic' of sensibility, (viz the regard and elevation of Elgar!), so those earlier and present day music authorities, authors of tomes, etc. have run along with the "Hanslick school," if you will allow the term, for a number of generations. At least in France, Rameau is held in esteem equal to the regard on Bach, an evaluation with which I am wholly in agreement. Debussy, imo, is at the very least as critically 'important' and great a composer as are Schoenberg or Webern.

One can find a remarkable near equivalent to Beethoven within the same era in Verdi: I have no idea who would be the parallel universe of Brahms, retro conservative in his own time.

I think the German 'three B's' are all overly touted, and Germanic composers, in general, have been elevated in much too high regard since the German near choke-hold cartel on music, in publishing, conductors in posts throughout Europe, and their most influential critics from the mid-romantic era,and the global after-effect of same through at least to the middle of the 20th century. (Part of a personal 'agenda' of Schenkerian analysis was twofold: it was intended to prove the 'organic rightness' of tonal vs. modernist - atonal music, and to display the superiority of German music over all other music! -- ahem.)

My list of over-revered excludes Mozart, whom for many of those who do write the books IS music, to a point where I know of numbers of 'savants' and musicians who say, "If you don't get Mozart, you don't get music" (...with which I quite strongly agree) My list of those on too high a pedestal includes Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner. (It is interesting to me that the #8 response in this thread - Weston's - seems to reflexively seek alternate candidates only from within the matrix of German / Austrian composers....)

Those greats you mention will likely never be 'notched down,' let alone toppled from their pedestals - because really, they are in place for multiple good reasons: one could hope that with a more 'international' outlook that music criticism and later reassessments will place a number of other composers on pedestals equally as high, and without the partiality of a very human parochial weakness for best understanding only the arts from the culture of your own nation.

Part of the 'reverence' for Bach is involved with the composer's apparent 'reverence' for the Deity: there's nothing quite like at least outwardly appearing to be so devout you credit the Deity with your gifts (and all your hard labor) and dedicate all your works to the deity. That extra-musical (non-relevant) aspect seriously impresses a lot of people and colors their perception of the music, down to the tiniest and most boring scrap of it. It is just as likely that someone like Bach, recognizing his own worth, deliberately chose to dedicate all his works to God as a clever ruse in order to avoid - and perhaps spite - all the lesser souls by whom he was most often employed: dedicate a work to the Deity, and that Cardinal or Archbishop cannot really complain you did not dedicate the work to him, the agent-commissioner of said work. Bach Was a Very Clever Fellow 

I agree with you the elevation, at least, is ridiculously disproportionate, a near canonization: it is to a point where people think Bach was the sole inventor of counterpoint, or indeed the most superb practitioner of same. Turns out (wish I could remember the name) there was a contemporary Czech [?] composer whose very few remaining works are in a wholly similar vein, and estimated on a par, as great as Bach. That composer was nearly as prolific; the majority of his works were lost in a library fire, with only a very few surviving. That occurrence shows the era's style of counterpoint was 'in the air' and a logical development coming from the several hundred years of modal contrapuntal masters who preceded Bach.)

I doubt the current panoply of near-deified composers will be altered within our lifetimes, whether you are 'young' or 'old.' It could take another century or so, but eventually changed and revised I am sure it will be -- the Hanslick effect is less than two hundred years old; music history, in a general sort of way, is really a little over one hundred years old, and these shifts often move at a near glacial tempo.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Looking at this revived thread, I was thinking something similar to this. I think it will always be the case that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are disproportionately revered, and while some people will do so out of a false notion that they have not and cannot be surpassed in creative skill, I think it is also largely a historical accident. We are in much more complicated musical times, with much more competition and stylistic divergence. In such circumstances, it is obviously possible for geniuses as large and vibrant to be born - that's just biology; it doesn't change in a few centuries - but they may not be fuelled as much by the audience to shine as brightly because the audience is much more fragmented now.
> 
> This seems reasonable enough to me, I would just therefore urge people to not mistake Bach, Beethoven and Mozart's enduring popularity for any kind of supreme, unmatchable ability as many listeners are prone to assuming - it is instead because they hailed from very different cultures, and it would be good for us to remind ourselves that these were just ordinary men making a living at something they loved.


I agree that there are historical circumstances that make it more likely that earlier composers would be considered "greater". For example in Goulding's book, we have to get to number 15 (Stravinsky) to find a composer born within the last 170 years. I have always assumed that there should be greater composers living today than at any other time in history since there are both more people alive today and more people have had access to good musical training.

I still think the notion that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the top 3 simply comes from more people finding their music wonderful compared to other composers. The bottom line is that their works seem to have a greater positive effect on listeners than work of other composers does. While only 2 people listed them as their top 3 composers in one of the composer ranking threads, they were the top 3 overall rated composers on TC. I think we all view them as people, but we (collectively) view them as the best of the best.

Oh, and Mozart's music is perfect so it's hard to beat.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Part of the 'reverence' for Bach is involved with the composer's apparent 'reverence' for the Deity: there's nothing quite like at least outwardly appearing to be so devout you credit the Deity with your gifts (and all your hard labor) and dedicate all your works to the deity. That extra-musical (non-relevant) aspect seriously impresses a lot of people and colors their perception of the music, down to the tiniest and most boring scrap of it.


Really? That must explain why Bach's reputation was near oblivion immediately after his death and his popularity gained momentum slowly during the last 200 years, which, you won't believe this!, coincided with the unprecedented expansion of agnosticism and atheism, and his popularity continued to grow in the 20th century, when people were less devout than ever before!

Yes, the pious biographical element must be the force that lifted the Cello Suites from obscurity to the most esteemed set of music set for the instrument beginning with Casal's championing in the 1930s. The cello suites are full of references to God.

That's why Liszt's sacred music is considered some of the greatest pieces of music of all time, and Palestrina is consistently ranked as one of the greatest composers ever.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Couchie said:


> I would put Wagner ahead of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. The latter 3 wrote nice pieces, there's no doubt about that. But none of them were able to realize the full emotional potential of music the way Wagner did. Their harmony was too rudimentary to permit it.


Speaking as someone who really loves Wagner's music, I think he in no way comes close to the 3.
For me, Beethoven tops the list and the problem with those who come after him is that they had him to light the way. Brahms, Wagner, Schoenberg, even Stravinsky wrote that he would play the late sonatas of Beethoven to kind of get his creative juices flowing, or words to that effect.

Wagner did not have the range of any of the 3. I daresay he could have written many great piano quintets, string quartets, sonatas, symphonies, concertos, oratorios, etc. but he didn't.
The thing about Beethoven is that if you list the all time top pieces in most of the big categories -piano sonata, concerto, symphony, string quartet you will find him dominating them all.

Bach, well has anyone ever surpassed his mastery of counterpoint and harmony. At least without having him as a guide?

Mozart is a little trickier for me and I would put him 3rd. However, if you compare what he did with what was around at the time, he stands out a mile and the fact that it just poured out of him seemingly from nowhere makes him all the more remarkable. Of course it is really in the field of Opera that his contribution was particularly innovative. And like Shakespeare he could get inside the head of his characters with such poignant insight. Wagner had Mozart (and Weber) to help him on his way.

As far as influential- a case could be made for Schoenberg and possibly more so, Debussy, who showed the world new uses of harmony and form that no one had imagined.

I've not been able to come up with a name that could oust one of those 3. Schubert comes close that's for sure and Brahms, but they just get pipped at the post.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Anyone have anything to say about two lists I posted earlier in this thread HERE? These lists (polls) don't have Bach as No. 1.

Similarly, in the ABC Classic FM top 100 concertos poll, J.S. Bach did not make the top 5 -

http://www.abc.net.au/classic/classic100/results.htm

Whaddya guys say bout dat?...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Anyone have anything to say about two lists I posted earlier in this thread HERE? These lists (polls) don't have Bach as No. 1.
> 
> Similarly, in the ABC Classic FM top 100 concertos poll, J.S. Bach did not make the top 5 -
> 
> ...


mmmm.... bit suspect. If you did a similar list in the UK with authors you might get JK Rowling coming above George Elliot.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^That's your assumption. Australians who listen to classical music know many types of it, not only the ones that got into the top 5. Look at Aussie members of this forum - myself included - many of us listen to many types of music. It doesn't mean - which is what I take you saying - that if you have read either of those authors you have not read the other. So suggesting people are ignorant? I'm not putting words into your mouth, just challenging what I see as the assumptions and biases behind your thinking. Let's flesh it out, let's get it out into the open.

Basically, you wouldn't say that if your idol Bach or other idols would have won these Australian polls. You would be congratulating Aussie listeners on their good taste or something.

But we are lowbrow plebs, because we did not vote THE way we have to vote. Which is, if Bach isn't No. 1, we are automatically _suspect, _we are straight away morons.

The OP asked for lists without Bach at No. 1 and I've provided three. Best way to shoot that down is to apply the old highbrow cliches. I'm just anwering the question the way I can. Not doing waffle. My bad probably, I'm the odd one out.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ^^That's your assumption. Australians who listen to classical music know many types of it, not only the ones that got into the top 5. Look at Aussie members of this forum - myself included - many of us listen to many types of music. It doesn't mean - which is what I take you saying - that if you have read either of those authors you have not read the other. So suggesting people are ignorant? I'm not putting words into your mouth, just challenging what I see as the assumptions and biases behind your thinking. Let's flesh it out, let's get it out into the open.
> 
> Basically, you wouldn't say that if your idol Bach or other idols would have won these Australian polls. You would be congratulating Aussie listeners on their good taste or something.
> 
> But we are lowbrow plebs, because we did not vote THE way we have to vote. Which is, if Bach isn't No. 1, we are automatically _suspect, _we are straight away morons.


Blimey, steady on. Why so defensive? I was merely making the point that these sort of stations, like the UK's own Classic FM radio throw up 'greatest hits' type polls based on mere popularity among casual listeners and puts people like Ludovico Einaudi right 'up there' with proper composers. 
Plus, I didn't see a poll of top composers but only for top concerto or piano works.

Take a chill pill dude.

And by the way, if anyone thinks Einaudi is a great composer then they are indeed lowbrow and ignorant. I don't buy into the falsehood that all opinions are equally right.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Really? That must explain why Bach's reputation was near oblivion immediately after his death and his popularity gained momentum slowly during the last 200 years, which, you won't believe this!, coincided with the unprecedented expansion of agnosticism and atheism, and his popularity continued to grow in the 20th century, when people were less devout than ever before!
> 
> Yes, the pious biographical element must be the force that lifted the Cello Suites from obscurity to the most esteemed set of music set for the instrument beginning with Casal's championing in the 1930s. The cello suites are full of references to God.
> 
> That's why Liszt's sacred music is considered some of the greatest pieces of music of all time, and Palestrina is consistently ranked as one of the greatest composers ever.


You have to have been Bach _and_ apparently reverent. The textual content of Mahler's "resurrection" symphony seems to have it on people's lists of his greatest works, where it is not on the lists by 'the cognoscenti.' One can be agnostic or atheist, and yet 'nostalgic' for the import of a somewhat charming medieval attitude of putting your mason's mark on the back side of the statue in the cathedral.

"Christianity" aside, many do seem to find some 'cosmic and spiritual significance' to the old Thuringian's music... or perhaps they are worshiping one of the newer gods, Math


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

The only thing I really care about is that Bach IS god for me. Now other people can like other composers better and there might be great arguments for that but in my list he is number one. And that's my only quite poor contribution to this thread. Bye.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ravellian said:


> ...Almost every other composer near the top created music that was either overly intellectual or overly emotional...:


And whose call, exactly, is it that those others are 'overly intellectual or overly emotional? We are in a realm here of the town meeting, where everyone gets their say: fair enough.

That goes along with a very P.C. sensibility. Art, all of it, has never been wholly a matter of public popularity polls insofar as determining, less subjectively (objectivity, entire, is impossible) what is or isn't 'great art.' Shift that line, take the say away from the cognoscenti, those who have spent a professional lifetime with and in music, and you can easily qualify it as shifting a few more notches, "if enough people think movie scores are classical music, then...."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> I disagree. Atonality may have been an interesting experiment for a while, but if you look at the whole of music history, it's rather insignificant. Atonality had it's heyday, but it wasn't meant to last--very few works today are atonal. The only ideas by these two that really survived into popular music are leitmotives and motivic development, which are both still used extensively by film composers. But they still weren't very influential in the long run.
> 
> Bach, on the other hand, is the one usually cited as having turned music into a science. He didn't invent counterpoint, but he refined it immensely, along with keyboard technique.


Turning an art into a science is Not considered a 'high point' in the development of an art :-/


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Operadowney said:


> In my opinion, Bach created the ideals of music as we know it today. Tonality spanned from his work and those ideas of tonality perpetuated classical music and now pop music for ever and ever. Not saying that Bach was instrumental in developing tonality, he was after all just a man (and realistically somebody else could have just as easily come up with it) but the fact remains that it is attributed to him. So he needs to be at the top, for inventing the conventions that everyone after him used.


I'm afraid credit for 'changing the river's course to tonality' has to go to Monteverdi, as credited in most music history books.


----------



## Ellyll (Apr 7, 2012)

> Lists that say Bach is NOT God


List of People who are God or Lists:

1. God
2. Liszt (as list, not God)
 3. Allah
4. Chuck Norris (all of the above)
5. Jesus (as God)
6. Zeus (as *a* god)
7. Craig (as list)
8. Joe Pesci (Trust me on this one.)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

kv466 said:


> *Bach is not God?!! *


Yeah. Something to do with not having false idols before the Deity...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Speaking as someone who really loves Wagner's music, I think he in no way comes close to the 3.
> For me, Beethoven tops the list and the problem with those who come after him is that they had him to light the way. Brahms, Wagner, Schoenberg, even Stravinsky wrote that he would play the late sonatas of Beethoven to kind of get his creative juices flowing, or words to that effect.
> 
> Wagner did not have the range of any of the 3. I daresay he could have written many great piano quintets, string quartets, sonatas, symphonies, concertos, oratorios, etc. but he didn't.
> ...


Gesamtkunstwerk > symphonies, sonatas, concertos, all the other tiddles of composers with lesser vision.

Beethoven: The late sonatas, string quartets, and Symphony 9 are divine. The rest is _chord, chord, arpeggio, arpeggio, scale, scale, I be Beethoven_.

Bach: Misspent most of his life crapping out cantatas.

Mozart: A handful of good operas by pre-Wagner standards.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

PetrB said:


> You have to have been Bach _and_ apparently reverent. The textual content of Mahler's "resurrection" symphony seems to have it on people's lists of his greatest works, where it is not on the lists by 'the cognoscenti.' One can be agnostic or athiest, and yet 'nostalgic' for the import of a somewhat charming medieval attitude of putting your mason's mark on the back side of the statue in the cathedral.
> 
> "Christianity" aside, many do seem to find some 'cosmic and spiritual significance' to the old Thuringian's music... or perhaps they are worshiping one of the newer gods, Math


And Mahler's 8th is considered a catastrophe by most, a work that deals with love on the highest plane, adopted from the Symposium and Faust.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Turning an art into a science is Not considered a 'high point' in the development of an art :-/


And that's where we must agree to disagree. :tiphat:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Blimey, steady on. Why so defensive? I was merely making the point that these sort of stations, like the UK's own Classic FM radio throw up 'greatest hits' type polls based on mere popularity among casual listeners and puts people like Ludovico Einaudi right 'up there' with proper composers.
> Plus, I didn't see a poll of top composers but only for top concerto or piano works.


Of course, there's only ONE way of listening to classical music. YOUR way.



> Take a chill pill dude.


Don't give me advice, don't joke, I was only answering the bloody question. Not sprouting pseudo intellectual waffle.



> ...
> And by the way, if anyone thinks Einaudi is a great composer then they are indeed lowbrow and ignorant. I don't buy into the falsehood that all opinions are equally right.


FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT!!!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I hear you can have the absolutely most impeccable taste in music ever, but the second you assign a high rating to Einaudi you suddenly transform into a lowbrow ignoramus. The rest of your music taste is no longer taken into consideration.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Yep, & to paraphrase Henry Ford, "You can have any composer at No. 1, as long as it's J.S. Bach." None of the lists I put links to had Einaudi (I don't even know his music). They had the likes of Beethoven, Elgar, Schubert, DEbussy in top places (as I said before, Bach came in at No. 2 in the piano list) - now those are really lowbrow aren't they. They're utter rubbish.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Anyone have anything to say about two lists I posted earlier in this thread HERE? These lists (polls) don't have Bach as No. 1.
> 
> Similarly, in the ABC Classic FM top 100 concertos poll, J.S. Bach did not make the top 5 -
> 
> ...


His concertos aren't that great inasmuch as they're short. The works enumerated are longer, more complex, and, as singular pieces, popular for good, if not what I find agreeable, reason.

Mahler's symphonies are considered better than Mozart's in many circles, most definitely here, but no one would suggest that relative to Mahler Mozart is poorer because of it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^On that list, Bach's _Concerto for 2 Violins in D minor BWV1043_ came in at No. 8, which is still a respectable result out of 100. Other concertos by him where further down.

As I suggested in more angry terms before, just because Bach did not reach No. 1 on these Australian polls certainly does not mean people here do not know, like or value his music. Indeed, amongst people I've met here over the years who are into classical music, most (if not all) like Bach's music to more or less degree. I was the odd one out until the last year or so, I had my _road to Damascus moment_ with his music, & now really connect with his instrumental music. It's a result of my own journey in music, not of any poll or list saying he's No. 1 or No. 100. Doesn't make much difference to me, I had to connect and build upon it myself, had to get off my backside, stop intellectualizing, just open up to the music, basically.

That's why proselytizers online of any _great_ composer, be it Bach or anyone else, they can't convert me, I have to convert myself. I as a listener have to be interested in the first place and want to enjoy a composer's music.

In any case, I have little use for lists myself, but I was just answering the OP. I was not pushing any agenda.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Don't worry Sid I'll get you eventually.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Don't worry Sid I'll get you eventually.


Ok, here's the deal. I accept Wagner as a prophet but not as a God. That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> I hear you can have the absolutely most impeccable taste in music ever, but the second you assign a high rating to Einaudi you suddenly transform into a lowbrow ignoramus. The rest of your music taste is no longer taken into consideration.


A pound of gold ~a pound of feathers....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> And Mahler's 8th is considered a catastrophe by most, a work that deals with love on the highest plane, adopted from the Symposium and Faust.


Love, the Symposium, and the Faust legend, last I heard, have never been official 'religion.' Nor has Mahler's eighth ever been on any list of his greatest works that I know of, for good reason.

And truly, I can wait, like until after my death, for your next attempt at a feeble comeback couched as supposedly withering sarcasm.

Really, if you can not 'take' another thinking less of your musical titans in such a context of invited comments and opinions (I don't recall personally 'assaulting' any post of yours), and respond at least with a bit more collegial jollity, maybe you should stand back a bit from such venues.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tgtr0660 said:


> The only thing I really care about is that Bach IS god for me. Now other people can like other composers better and there might be great arguments for that but in my list he is number one. And that's my only quite poor contribution to this thread. Bye.


I'm all for freedom of religion


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> And that's where we must agree to disagree. :tiphat:


I'll agree to that, but have to impishly say that Borodin was a better chemist than a composer


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Gesamtkunstwerk > symphonies, sonatas, concertos, all the other tiddles of composers with lesser vision.
> 
> Beethoven: The late sonatas, string quartets, and Symphony 9 are divine. The rest is _chord, chord, arpeggio, arpeggio, scale, scale, I be Beethoven_.
> 
> ...


Wagner: sequence sequence sequence......

Act 1 scene 1 of Meistersingers- sounds like Bach to me, hey Ricky baby come up with your own church music. Oh I forgot you only do music drama.
Also, Beethoven can say more with two chords (and he often does) than Waggy can passing through every key in the known universe.

Less is more.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> I hear you can have the absolutely most impeccable taste in music ever, but the second you assign a high rating to Einaudi you suddenly transform into a lowbrow ignoramus. The rest of your music taste is no longer taken into consideration.


Couln't agree more!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Also, Beethoven can say more with two chords (and he often does) than Waggy can passing through every key in the known universe.
> 
> Less is more.


Eventually you will get bored of Beethoven's V-I thrusts, and when you do, Wagner will be there to pick up the pieces.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Eventually you will get bored of Beethoven's V-I thrusts, and when you do, Wagner will be there to pick up the pieces.


Eventually you will get bored of Wagner's chromatic slipping and sliding around and as for rhythm, Beethoven is the funkiest without a doubt.
Oh and by the way, I suppose the 15 mins of an Eb chord that is the prelude to Rheingold could be considered a I-I thrust.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Love, the Symposium, and the Faust legend, last I heard, have never been official 'religion.' Nor has Mahler's eighth ever been on any list of his greatest works that I know of, for good reason.
> 
> And truly, I can wait, like until after my death, for your next attempt at a feeble comeback couched as supposedly withering sarcasm.
> 
> Really, if you can not 'take' another thinking less of your musical titans in such a context of invited comments and opinions (I don't recall personally 'assaulting' any post of yours), and respond at least with a bit more collegial jollity, maybe you should stand back a bit from such venues.


PetrB, I've been civil and yet you continue with your snark. What I object to is the patently false ascription of a composer's valuation to irrelevant extra-musical elements and the sneering at those who appreciate his music. Wagner was a Pagan and a man of detestable character, and yet his music is still loved, and people who love his music and Bach's overlap greatly. Your armchair sociology is blatantly contradictory.

The reputation of Bach and Wagner rests on the people in each generation who have superlative taste and carry the torch to the next generation by being vocal advocates, not because they are befuddled by some vague "religious feeling" or the flashy stories and costumes of the stage. Those things rarely last more than a generation.

*A man who doesn't appreciate those composers has inferior taste, and that is that.* Other people aren't fooled, Couchie and I aren't fooled, you're fooling yourself; a fad doesn't last 200 years and become more powerful over time, as Bach's reputation has risen with time and so has Wagner's. Bach rose from obscurity to universal acclaim and Wagner, well, he is hated still but his presence is undeniable, he is everywhere.

Your crass comments insinuate that their reputation rests on not their music but extra-musical fluff, and that error needs to be corrected, lest someone believes that fatal lie and perhaps may lose out on a great musical experience.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Couln't agree more!


Now, now, Petwhac. I agree with you a lot of the times, and do agree that opinions are not equal, but that seems a little bit like an extreme point of view. Having said that, I've never heard Einaud's music. Perhaps it is as bad, or not worth of praise, as you say. So I can't necessarily judge it 100%, but the concept seems like it may not stand up to close scrutiny. I don't know the details exactly of the way you evaluate music, so I cannot say for sure.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> Now, now, Petwhac. I agree with you a lot of the times, and do agree that opinions are not equal, but that seems a little bit like an extreme point of view. Having said that, I've never heard Einaud's music. Perhaps it is as bad, or not worth of praise, as you say. So I can't necessarily judge it 100%, but the concept seems like it may not stand up to close scrutiny. I don't know the details exactly of the way you evaluate music, so I cannot say for sure.


I assure you it is not good. But you can make up your own mind. If you do a search in youtube you'll come across quite a lot.
Thing is, he has many adoring fans and good luck to him but nothing will ever convince me the music has any merit whatsoever. It is rudimentary, bland and unimaginative but clearly there is a market for it.
My point is, popularity in polls of consumers or listeners of radio stations is not a good starting point for comparing the merits of composers - if that is what one wants to do. Stations such as Classic FM in the UK on the whole feed the listener a diet of isolated movements and 'favourites' or 'greatest hits' mixed in with film music and pap like Mr Einaudi so I wouldn't give much weight to the results of their polls or 'charts'.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I've seen his name around quite a bit. I actually checked my last.fm and it seems I have listened to a single song of his. I don't remember it very well and I never listened to anymore... so that doesn't sound like an encouraging sign that I found it of any worth. I agree with everything you said in your post after "my point is". Overall, I find lists and what not interesting to look at, but I do not feel they mean much of anything. I started the list for Modern classical on here but I really don't believe it has any significant merit as far as judgement value. I've never once listened to Classical FM, but I do see a lot of complaints. It honestly wouldn't interest me whatsoever.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I'm all for freedom of religion


Actually, I just googled it and all of you people are right. God turned out to be someone different than Bach.

But he sure as hell used him as his emissary at least...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bach is not merely God.

He is _God's _God.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Bach is the highest hierarchical entity of music.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bach... _is. _ Bach is all that is.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Bach is not merely God.
> 
> He is _God's _God.


What does that make Wagner then, eh?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What does that make Wagner then, eh?


What is Wagner, precious?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> What is Wagner, precious?


No...............


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

@Petrb I take your quote: "I agree with you the elevation, at least, is ridiculously disproportionate, a near canonization: it is to a point where people think Bach was the sole inventor of counterpoint, or indeed the most superb practitioner of same. Turns out (wish I could remember the name) there was a contemporary Czech [?] composer whose very few remaining works are in a wholly similar vein, and estimated on a par, as great as Bach. That composer was nearly as prolific; the majority of his works were lost in a library fire, with only a very few surviving. That occurrence shows the era's style of counterpoint was 'in the air' and a logical development coming from the several hundred years of modal contrapuntal masters who preceded Bach"

Jan Zelenka. Very good composer, though I wouldn't put him on a par with Bach. Most works are still there, the library fire never took place.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Zelenka's choral stuff is unique and very impressive, a match for some of Bach's cantatas. But I've been less impressed by his instrumental music, and he didn't seem to have the range of styles that Bach had. I mean, Bach wrote the most complicated fugues of his time _and_ the hardest virtuoso show-off organ and harpsichord pieces, galante works _and_ "ancient style" works, Germanic works and Italian-style works, etc. Going on what I've heard, Zelenka's range seems more limited.


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

As far as I know, Zelenka's instrumental output is limited anyway. The trio sonatas are good works though. But almost everything he wrote are choral works. His harmonies and chromaticism are remarkable daring.


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

To come back on topic again: there seems indeed to be a sort of "obligation" for classical music lovers to put Bach first, almost a sort of etiquette. Bach is indeed one of the very best, but how one can compare great composers with each other when they are so different? How to compare Monteverdi with Schoenberg? Even when they are closer in time, how do we compare Bach and Mozart when they are stylistic so different? The handling of for example rhythm, harmony and structure in Mozart is completely different from Bach. Comparison is just too difficult (not even mentioning that Bach had 30 years more). I think it's better to state that they were both great in their own right.

Neither I think it should be impossible to be a little critical of Bach now and then, though it seems forbidden. Many movements in the Matthäus passion or Mass in B minor just go on and on, till you have no idea where you are anymore. And his writing for the voice is not always as great, take the Erbarme dich from Matthäus passion: incredible opening on the violin, but then Bach seems to have forgotten that the voice is not an oboe or something.

The attitude towards Bach seems to be best expressed by Tomassini of the New York Times, who made his top 10 list, made Bach number one, and added: "Bach is the consensus choice among thinking musicians" (of course Mr Tomassini himself is one too, we must assume). I've sent him a long list with composers for whom Mozart was the number 1, and asked him if they were perhaps no thinking musicians. For one thing is sure and still intrigues me: among great composers and conductors, one can find more of them who place Mozart first than those who put Bach first. So somehow not all "thinking musicians" have the same opinion. So it still confuses me why it seems almost a fait accompli to so many that Bach was The Greatest. I remember a site on which people responded to Mr Tomassini's list and added their own top 10. I kid you not, the first 50 or so people ALL put Bach first, and I don't believe they were from the Bach fanclub. It is typical of the attitude to Bach nowadays.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I honestly don't think I'd put in Bach in my top 20 -- maybe larger -- of those I enjoy to listen to most... that is independent of an actual evaluation of him, however.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

martijn said:


> Many movements in the Matthäus passion or Mass in B minor just go on and on, till you have no idea where you are anymore.


Can't agree with this but...



> his writing for the voice is not always as great, take the Erbarme dich from Matthäus passion: incredible opening on the violin, but then Bach seems to have forgotten that the voice is not an oboe or something.


:lol:


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

No less an authority as Charles Rosen agrees with me about Bach writing for the voice as if it is an instrument (he called me yesterday to say this).


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

He _called_ you?!


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

Sorry, it gets late, humour gets worse.


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

Bad humour shouldn't be rewarded, Cnote11.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I reward your silliness, martjintn. I applaud your attempt, especially since it almost seemed serious. :lol:


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

Now you do it again ;-) This way I will never learn.

By the way, who is Martjintn? Americans and foreign languages seems no happy combination, I get the impression here...


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

:lol: Intentionally so, martijn! I find it humorous how people do not care to get your name correct.


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

Ah, well, I was even believing it, I think it shows how often I have seen my name here being misspelled in the most funny ways.


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

Fortunately, you apparently know how to spell my name, Dnote12.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

If people can get Dodecaplex's name right then surely they can write yours.

Also, do not worry martiigjn. I will not reward you for your bad humor this time!


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

I am sure though, they wouldn't be able to pronounce it. The "ij" sounds like one vowel, but is in fact a combination of "e" (pronounced as "a" in English) and "i" (prounced as "e" in English). I have never heard a foreigner pronouncing it exactly right.


----------

