# My definitive ranking of the major composers



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Due to discussion below I decided to delete this and create a new thread: Talk Classical's Most Recommended Composers


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

*Rankings by Country:*


*Rank**Country**Points*1France18.162.Germany16.473.United Kingdom13.934.Russian Federation12.255.Italy11.216.United States11.027.Austria10.398.Czech Republic5.329.Hungary3.6710.Poland3.6111.Spain2.6712.Belgium2.6013.Finland2.2014.Sweden1.9315.Denmark1.9216.Switzerland1.1617.Norway1.1518.Argentina0.9219.Brazil0.8120.Japan0.7621.Romania0.7622.Estonia0.7323.Greece0.7224.Armenia0.5525.Ukraine0.5126.Korea, Republic of0.4927.Netherlands0.37


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Kurtág, a _high modernist_ is there! I can now die in peace.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

*The best centuries for composer births:*


*Rank**Birth century**Composers**Points*1.1800-18999965.482.1900-20005633.643.1700-1799169.464.1600-1699138.605.1500-1599105.726.1400-149942.377.1300-139910.558.1000-109910.47


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Did you actually look at the Wikipedia page lengths for even half of these composers? I assume you didn't bother to do the other calculation. 

If you did the Wikipedia page lengths, that metric gets 6 of the top 10 correct to within 2 places.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

No offense, but out of all the criteria I've seen used to determine the greatest composers, word count of the Wikipedia page must be one of the most ridiculous.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Did you actually look at the Wikipedia page lengths for even half of these composers? I assume you didn't bother to do the other calculation.
> 
> If you did the Wikipedia page lengths, that metric gets 6 of the top 10 correct to within 2 places.


I bothered, my good sir. All page word counts for every composer were pulled using the MediaWiki API.

The top 10 composers by wordcount are:


*Rank**Composer**Wordcount*1Stockhausen167102Bellini163153Boulez162714Bach157735Britten157146Elgar143147Sullivan142538Wagner134129Verdi1329910Berlioz13076


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> No offense, but out of all the criteria I've seen used to determine the greatest composers, word count of the Wikipedia page must be one of the most ridiculous.


Almost as ridiculous as your username.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The fact that it puts UK composers 4 steps ahead of Austrian tells me that the something is amiss with the methodology.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Becca said:


> The fact that it puts UK composers 4 steps ahead of Austrian tells me that the something is amiss with the methodology.


Possibly a bias in part to using the English-language Wikipedia.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Stockhausen certainly deserves the largest Wikipedia page (Are there any other extraterrestrial composers?), but Bellini at No. 2? Does he have many relatives that are Wikipedia editors, or was his life much more interesting than I thought?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Stockhausen certainly deserves the largest Wikipedia page (Are there any other extraterrestrial composers?), but Bellini at No. 2? Does he have many relatives that are Wikipedia editors, or was his life much more interesting than I thought?


It seems Stockhausen's page is absurdly well-sourced whereas Bellini's life is recounted in excruciating detail.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

> Appearances on The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works. Works were assigned a score of 1/n where n is the tier of the work. The total points for each composer were then summed and ranked.


Could you provide this list please?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Couchie said:


> Possibly a bias in part to using the English-language Wikipedia.


More likely biased by the TC membership and therefore the references to works by English composers.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Could you provide this list please?


I can't provide the full list due to post length restrictions, but here is a sample:



*Tier**Composer**Work**Year​**Points​*1BachDas wohltemperierte Klavier17421.0002BachMass in B minor17490.5002BeethovenSymphony #9 in D minor18240.5002WagnerDer Ring des Nibelungen18740.5003BeethovenSymphony #5 in C minor18080.3333BrahmsPiano Concerto #2 in B-flat18810.3333BrahmsSymphony #4 in E minor18850.3333MahlerSymphony #2 "Resurrection"18940.3333StravinskyLe Sacre du printemps (The Rite of Spring)19130.3333WagnerTristan und Isolde18590.3334BachDie Kunst der Fuge17500.2504BeethovenSymphony #3 in E-flat18030.2504BeethovenSymphony #6 "Pastoral" in F18080.2504BrahmsClarinet Quintet in B minor18910.2504BrahmsViolin Concerto in D18780.2504MozartPiano Concerto #20 in D minor17850.2505BachGoldberg Variations17410.2005BrahmsSymphony #3 in F18830.2005DvořákCello Concerto in B minor18950.2005DvořákSymphony #9 in E minor18930.2005MozartRequiem Mass in D minor17910.2005SchubertPiano Sonata #21 in B-flat18280.2005SchubertString Quintet in C18280.2006BachCello Suites17200.1676BachMatthäus-Passion ("St. Matthew Passion")17460.1676BeethovenPiano Concerto #4 in G18070.1676BeethovenPiano Sonata #32 in C minor18220.1676BrahmsPiano Quintet in F minor18640.1676BrahmsSymphony #1 in C minor18760.1676MahlerSymphony #919090.1676MozartLe nozze di Figaro (The Marriage of Figaro)17860.1676MozartSymphony #41 in C17880.1676MussorgskyPictures at an Exhibition18740.1676SchubertSymphony #8 in B minor18220.1676SibeliusViolin Concerto in D minor19050.1677BachConcerto for 2 Violins in D minor17310.1437BeethovenPiano Sonata #29 in B-flat18180.1437BeethovenSymphony #7 in A18120.1437MahlerDas Lied von der Erde19090.1437MahlerSymphony #4 in G19010.1437MahlerSymphony #519020.1437MahlerSymphony #6 in A minor19040.1437SchubertString Quartet #14 in D minor18240.1437SchubertWinterreise18270.1437TchaikovskySymphony #6 "Pathétique" in B minor18930.1438BachBrandenburg Concertos17210.1258BeethovenString Quartet #13 in B-flat18270.1258BeethovenString Quartet #14 in C-sharp minor18260.1258BerliozSymphonie fantastique18300.1258BrahmsPiano Trio #1 in B18910.1258DebussyPrélude à l'après-midi d'un faune18940.1258FauréRequiem in D minor18900.1258MendelssohnViolin Concerto in E minor18440.1258MozartClarinet Concerto in A17910.1258MozartClarinet Quintet in A17890.1258MozartDon Giovanni17870.1258RachmaninoffPiano Concerto #2 in C minor19010.1259BachMusikalisches Opfer (A Musical Offering)17470.1119BachSonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin17200.1119BartókConcerto for Orchestra19430.1119BeethovenPiano Sonata #21 in C18040.1119BeethovenPiano Sonata #23 in F minor18050.1119BrahmsCello Sonata #1 in E minor18650.1119BrahmsEin deutsches Requiem18680.1119BrahmsPiano Concerto #1 in D minor18580.1119BrahmsString Sextet #1 in B-flat18600.1119BrahmsSymphony #2 in D18770.1119DvořákSymphony #8 in G18890.1119MozartPiano Concerto #21 in C17850.1119MozartPiano Concerto #23 in A17860.1119RachmaninoffPiano Concerto #3 in D minor19090.1119ShostakovichString Quartet #8 in C minor19600.1119SibeliusSymphony #2 in D19020.1119SibeliusSymphony #5 in E-flat19190.1119TchaikovskyViolin Concerto in D18780.1119VivaldiIl cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione17250.11110BeethovenPiano Sonata #30 in E18200.10010DebussyLa Mer19050.10010HaydnString Quartets17970.10010LisztPiano Sonata in B minor18540.10010MahlerSymphony #1 in D "Titan"18960.10010MozartSymphony #40 in G minor17880.10010ProkofievPiano Concerto #3 in C19210.10010Rimsky-KorsakovScheherazade18880.10010SchubertSymphony #9 in C18270.10010TallisSpem in alium15700.10011BachCantata #140 "Wachet auf17310.09111BartókString Quartet #419280.09111BeethovenViolin Concerto in D18060.09111DebussyPréludes for piano19130.09111DvořákString Quartet #12 in F18930.09111MahlerSymphony #318960.09111MendelssohnSymphony #3 in A minor18420.09111MendelssohnSymphony #4 in A18340.09111ProkofievSymphony #5 in B-flat19440.09111RavelDaphnis et Chloé (ballet and orchestral suites)19120.09111RavelGaspard de la nuit19080.09111Saint-SaënsSymphony #3 in C minor18860.09111SchumannPiano Concerto in A minor18450.09111ShostakovichCello Concerto #1 in E-flat19590.09111ShostakovichSymphony #5 in D minor19370.09111ShostakovichSymphony #10 in E minor19530.09112BachCantata #82 "Ich habe genug"17310.08312BeethovenMissa Solemnis in D18230.08312BergViolin Concerto19350.08312Brahms"Double" Concerto for Violin and Cello in A minor18870.08312BruchViolin Concerto #1 in G minor18660.08312DebussyString Quartet in G minor18930.08312DvořákPiano Quintet #2 in A18870.08312GershwinRhapsody in Blue19240.08312GriegPiano Concerto in A minor18680.08312HandelMessiah17410.08312HolstThe Planets19160.08312MozartDie Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute)17910.08312ProkofievRomeo and Juliet19360.08312RavelString Quartet in F19030.08312RavelPavane pour une infante défunte18990.08312SchubertPiano Sonata #20 in A18280.08312SchumannPiano Quintet in E-flat18420.08313BorodinString Quartet #2 in D18810.07713BrahmsClarinet Trio in A minor18910.07713BrahmsString Sextet #2 in G18650.07713BrucknerSymphony #8 in C minor18900.07713DebussySuite Bergamasque19050.07713ElgarCello Concerto in E minor19190.07713HaydnSymphony #104 in D "London"17950.07713MendelssohnOctet for Strings in E-flat18250.07713Mozart"Great" Mass in C minor17820.07713MozartSinfonia concertante in E-flat17790.07713RavelPiano Concerto in G19310.07713ShostakovichPreludes and Fugues (24)19510.07713ShostakovichSymphony #7 in C19410.07713StravinskyPetrushka19460.077


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Becca said:


> More likely biased by the TC membership and therefore the references to works by English composers.


I think that's the case. Getting rid of the Wikipedia portion shows the country list doesn't change much.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Couchie said:


> I can't provide the full list due to post length restrictions, but here is a sample:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah but I mean can you provide the composer ranking that's generated from summing up the points using this method.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Yeah but I mean can you provide the composer ranking that's generated from summing up the points in the list.


Here it is (top 200 out of 794):


*Composer​**TC Points Raw​**TC Normalized​*Beethoven4.540.999Bach4.420.997Brahms3.800.996Mozart3.040.995Schubert2.300.994Mahler1.470.992Haydn1.460.991Shostakovich1.330.990Dvořák1.270.989Debussy1.150.987Schumann1.120.986Wagner1.030.985Prokofiev1.020.984Tchaikovsky0.990.982Mendelssohn0.990.981Sibelius0.950.980Ravel0.920.979Stravinsky0.910.977Bartók0.820.976Fauré0.800.975Rachmaninoff0.700.974Chopin0.620.972Strauss0.550.971Vaughan Williams0.540.970Handel0.520.969Messiaen0.510.967Schoenberg0.500.966Liszt0.480.965Barber0.470.963Elgar0.440.962Saint-Saëns0.440.961Ligeti0.430.960Bruckner0.420.958Berlioz0.400.957Martinů0.340.956Vivaldi0.340.955Britten0.330.953Schnittke0.330.952Grieg0.330.951Janáček0.320.950Hindemith0.320.948Rimsky-Korsakov0.310.947Nielsen0.300.946Copland0.270.945Villa-Lobos0.270.943Enescu0.270.942Monteverdi0.270.941Verdi0.270.940Scriabin0.260.938Poulenc0.260.937Mussorgsky0.250.936Franck0.250.935Ives0.240.933Cage0.230.932Berg0.230.931Adams0.230.929Josquin0.220.928Dohnányi0.220.927Bruch0.210.926Carter0.210.924Holst0.210.923Palestrina0.210.922Webern0.210.921Pärt0.200.919Gershwin0.200.918Finzi0.200.917Penderecki0.200.916Glass0.200.914Takemitsu0.200.913Xenakis0.190.912Stockhausen0.190.911Respighi0.180.909Hummel0.180.908Boulez0.180.907Chausson0.170.906Glazunov0.170.904Bloch0.170.903Szymanowski0.170.902Lutosławski0.170.901Purcell0.160.899Gubaidulina0.160.898Rautavaara0.160.897Borodin0.160.895Reger0.160.894Rameau0.160.893Honegger0.160.892Delius0.160.890Saariaho0.150.889Bax0.150.888Nono0.150.887Puccini0.150.885Atterberg0.150.884Kodály0.150.883Smetana0.150.882Feldman0.150.880Berio0.150.879Tallis0.150.878Scarlatti0.150.877Bizet0.140.875Dutilleux0.140.874Reich0.140.873Dufay0.130.872Biber0.130.870Ockeghem0.120.869Raff0.120.868Walton0.120.866Buxtehude0.120.865Bernstein0.120.864Crumb0.120.863Bridge0.110.861Weber0.110.860Lassus0.110.859Zemlinsky0.110.858Charpentier0.110.856Couperin0.110.855Sculthorpe0.110.854Suk0.110.853Medtner0.110.851Arnold0.110.850Scelsi0.110.849Boccherini0.110.848Rodrigo0.110.846Koechlin0.100.845Satie0.100.844Pettersson0.100.843Ginastera0.100.841Gesualdo0.100.840Stenhammar0.100.839Taneyev0.100.838Dowland0.100.836Rihm0.100.835Hahn0.090.834Varèse0.090.832Machaut0.090.831Chin0.090.830Hovhaness0.090.829Górecki0.090.827Cherubini0.090.826Glière0.090.825Alwyn0.090.824Vasks0.090.822Babbitt0.090.821Abrahamsen0.090.820Myaskovsky0.090.819Saygun0.090.817Gluck0.080.816Haas0.080.815Zelenka0.080.814Albéniz0.080.812Aho0.080.811Arensky0.080.810Kurtág0.080.809Vierne0.080.807Lalo0.080.806Rochberg0.080.805Moeran0.080.804Victoria0.070.802Strauss II0.070.801Telemann0.070.800Glinka0.070.798Turina0.070.797Duruflé0.070.796Schmitt0.070.795Busoni0.070.793Balakirev0.070.792Davies0.070.791Magnard0.070.790Spohr0.070.788Farrenc0.070.787Riley0.070.786Khachaturian0.070.785Corelli0.070.783Byrd0.070.782Yoshimatsu0.070.781Bach, C.P.E.0.060.780Howells0.060.778Falla0.060.777Roussel0.060.776Golijov0.060.775Schütz0.060.773Milhaud0.060.772Furrer0.060.771Birtwistle0.060.770Beach0.060.768Granados0.060.767Adès0.060.766Ornstein0.060.764Murail0.060.763Gabrieli0.060.762Willaert0.060.761Lloyd0.060.759Hosokawa0.060.758Henze0.060.757Schuman0.060.756Ferneyhough0.060.754Dukas0.060.753Leifs0.060.752Donizetti0.060.751Rheinberger0.060.749


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Using this standard,"Appearances on The Talk Classical Community’s Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works...," yields a ranking based on references on this forum. It is closer in my opinion to a top 40 ranking of what is popular at the moment. This is the only way Mahler -- whose popularity has increased more than any composer in the last 50 years -- could be ranked with the greatest composers. 

It also calls into question the qualifications of electors as I have never otherwise seen any ranking where Mahler is rated higher than both Beethoven and Mozart -- who typically is No. 1 or 2 on these things but here ranks behind 10 other composers. To me this is something that may fairly represent opinions on this forum but, as a useful tool to rank classical music composers, can't be taken seriously.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

larold said:


> Using this standard,"Appearances on The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works...," yields a ranking based on references on this forum. I have never otherwise seen any ranking where Mahler is rated higher than both Beethoven and Mozart -- who ranks behind 10 other composers. To me this is something that can't be taken seriously.


Actually the TC community ranked Mahler below Beethoven and Mozart - see the post above yours. What is down-ranking Mozart is his shorter Wikipedia article. The problem here is Mozart is broken out into several Wikipedia articles while the ranking is based only on the titular article.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Thanks! And just for fun (since you mentioned it above), could you provide the country rankings generated using only this list?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Thanks! And just for fun (since you mentioned it above), could you provide the country rankings generated using only this list?




*Country**Points​*France18.41Germany16.59United Kingdom13.57Russian Federation12.37United States11.14Italy11.05Austria10.69Czech Republic5.38Hungary3.89Poland3.68Spain2.88Belgium2.71Finland2.35Sweden2.17Denmark2.00Switzerland1.33Norway1.18Argentina1.00Brazil0.84Romania0.84Estonia0.78Japan0.76Greece0.76Korea, Republic of0.55Armenia0.54Ukraine0.53Netherlands0.39


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

All the ranking lists presented on TC in recent weeks, including this current one, appear reasonable in that the most famous composers are at the top.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Due to discussion below I decided to delete this and create a new thread: Talk Classical's Most Recommended Composers


I like lists, and I think you've made an impressive use of data crossings, mr. Couchie. Thanks for posting!


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2019)

It's pretty obvious that the lists are a joke. When I say "it's obvious" I can't say in all honesty that I think this will be obvious to everyone, as there are always likely to be a few gullible folk who'll believe almost anything.

There are two glaring problems that foul up the results. One, of course, is the use of the second component, i.e. the length of the "wiki" articles on composers. This is utterly ridiculous. One may as well measure their height, or longevity, how may wives they had, how many driving offences they had, or how many pints of beer each can knock back and still stand up.

The second most glaring problem is the weighting system involved, whereby the weights decline at an incredibly rapid rate as one goes down the tiers: 100 for the single item in the first tier, 50 for the second, 33, 25, 20 etc. This peculiar weighting device was obviously used to boost the rating of ..... dare I mention his name? No I dare not. I'll leave it to you to work it out. Clue: quite famous in the opera scene, especially of the extra long opera variety, and one who seems to bring out the obsessive in some people. I don't wish to make the identity of the composer I'm referring to too obvious, so I had better say no more.

Right then. So let's try to sort out this mess and make something at least half-decent from it.

- First, I have dropped completely the "wiki" thing altogether. That item is too daft for words.

- Next, I carried out a few quick calculations using the first 15 tiers of the TC tier lists. It was too tedious for me to go any further down the tiers in the time I have available. I pass no specific comment on the tiers themselves or their respective entries, except to note that I think some items are highly suspect. Nevertheless, I have used the tiers and the components, exactly as they stand (see the link in post # 1).

- I then adopted a more shallow decline rate in the weightings. I tried various decline rates and within reasonable limits it didn't make a lot of difference. Those I finally chose started at 100 for tier 1 and then declined (geometrically, as in the set in the OP's system) steadily to about 20% by tier 15.

Based on the above, the results for the top 10 are:

1	-	Bach, J S
2	-	Beethoven
3	-	Mozart
4	-	Brahms
5	-	Schubert
6	-	Mahler
7	-	Wagner
8	-	Mendelssohn
9	-	Dvorak
10	-	Sibelius
.........

I seem to recall in another recent thread that I mentioned that Wagner tended to come out at about No 7 in most TC polls. It's fascinating that he has come out again at this same position based on a completely different method. The other ranks also look more in accordance with the results of other types of TC composer polls based on direct voting for favourite composers. The only oddity is that Mendelssohn seems rather high and Tchaikovsky was at the No 11 spot whereas he normally appears inside the top 10.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Partita said:


> It's pretty obvious that the lists are a joke. When I say "it's obvious" I can't say in all honesty that I think this will be obvious to everyone, as there are always likely to be a few gullible folk who'll believe almost anything.
> 
> There are two glaring problems that foul up the results. One, of course, is the use of the second component, i.e. the length of the "wiki" articles on composers. This is utterly ridiculous. One may as well measure their height, or longevity, how may wives they had, how many driving offences they had, or how many pints of beer each can knock back and still stand up.
> 
> ...


That's very interesting. I agreed it's best to drop the Wikipedia component, although a longer Wikipedia length will very roughly translate to as having more impact and influence. The real problem is that more important people have their information broken up into several articles.

I invite you to join my new thread: Talk Classical's Most Recommended Composers where there is some discussion over "decline rates" in the rankings.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

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


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2019)

Consistent with the ordinal ranks given in my previous post, the following gives indexed (cardinal) scores based on J S Bach =100, but extended to the top 12

They show the gaps between the composers, based on the weights I used. As may be seen, there are several quite big gaps in certain places. The last six are heavily bunched together, so the exact ranking of these is especially suspect:

100	-	Bach, J S
83	-	Beethoven
70	-	Mozart
69	-	Brahms
42	-	Schubert
40	-	Mahler
28	-	Wagner
22	-	Mendelsshon
20	-	Dvorak
19	-	Sibelius
19	-	Tchaikovsky
18	-	Stravinsky
17	-	Shostakovich

.......

Below are the weights I used for each tier 1-15:

1	-	100
2	-	80
3	-	67
4	-	57
5	-	50
6	-	44
7	-	40
8	-	36
9	-	33
10	-	31
11	-	29
12	-	27
13	-	25
14	-	24
15	-	22


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Is our friend Couchie so bored with life he has to partake of this tedious exercise. Sorry mate!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Is our friend Couchie so bored with life he has to partake of this tedious exercise. Sorry mate!


I doubt that Couchie considers it tedious.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Is our friend Couchie so bored with life he has to partake of this tedious exercise. Sorry mate!


It actually doesn't seem that tedious of a task if you're good at coding.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Is our friend Couchie so bored with life he has to partake of this tedious exercise. Sorry mate!


It could be worse. I could just be a negative Nancy!


----------



## Mifek (Jul 28, 2018)

Couchie said:


> I agreed it's best to drop the Wikipedia component, although a longer Wikipedia length will very roughly translate to as having more impact and influence. The real problem is that more important people have their information broken up into several articles.


The only Wikipedia-related measure that seems to make any sense in this case is comparing the numbers of wikipedia articles in different languages. Have you tried this?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Mifek said:


> The only Wikipedia-related measure that seems to make any sense in this case is comparing the numbers of wikipedia articles in different languages. Have you tried this?


No I have not unfortunately.


----------



## Mifek (Jul 28, 2018)

Couchie said:


> No I have not unfortunately.


Here is how the top 20 list would look like in such case:

1. Mozart (203)
2. Beethoven (189)
3. Bach (179)
4. Wagner (146)
5. Chopin (142)
6. Tchaikovsky (138)
7. Verdi (132)
8. Vivaldi (131)
9. Brahms (121)
Schubert (121)
Handel (121)
12. Stravinsky (120)
13. Dvořák (117)
14. Haydn (114)
15. Mahler (112)
Puccini (112)
17. Berlioz (100)
18. Mendelssohn (97)
19. Liszt (93)
Schumann (93)


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Mifek said:


> Here is how the top 20 list would look like in such case:
> 
> 1. Mozart (203)
> 2. Beethoven (189)
> ...


This is probably the best metric in the whole thread. The results also confirm numerous other ranking lists.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

AeolianStrains said:


> This is probably the best metric in the whole thread. The results also confirm numerous other ranking lists.


Not bad - some placing seem way out - Schumann down at 20
Chopin at 5 , Vivaldi ahead of Brahms

Wagner stubbornly on 4


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> Did you actually look at the Wikipedia page lengths for even half of these composers? I assume you didn't bother to do the other calculation.
> 
> If you did the Wikipedia page lengths, that metric gets 6 of the top 10 correct to within 2 places.


What's with the dictatorial tone?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> I doubt that Couchie considers it tedious.


Yes, takes all sorts I guess!


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Here is how the top 20 list would look like in such case:

1. Mozart (203)
2. Beethoven (189)
3. Bach (179)
4. Wagner (146)
5. Chopin (142)
6. Tchaikovsky (138)
7. Verdi (132)
8. Vivaldi (131)
9. Brahms (121)
Schubert (121)
Handel (121)
12. Stravinsky (120)
13. Dvořák (117)
14. Haydn (114)
15. Mahler (112)
Puccini (112)
17. Berlioz (100)
18. Mendelssohn (97)
19. Liszt (93)
Schumann (93) _

This is more like it.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_
Based on the above, the results for the top 10 are:

1 - Bach, J S
2 - Beethoven
3 - Mozart
4 - Brahms
5 - Schubert
6 - Mahler
7 - Wagner
8 - Mendelssohn
9 - Dvorak
10 - Sibelius_

This is more like it too.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

PlaySalieri said:


> Not bad - some placing seem way out - Schumann down at 20
> Chopin at 5 , Vivaldi ahead of Brahms
> 
> *Wagner stubbornly on 4*


I agree with your objection - Wagner should be on #1 of course.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Mifek said:


> Here is how the top 20 list would look like in such case:
> 
> 1. Mozart (203)
> 2. Beethoven (189)
> ...


How did you get this data? Can it easily be done for 400 composers?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Christabel said:


> What's with the dictatorial tone?


I thought the second part of my comment would be taken as an obvious joke given the word "correct." I was stunned that Couchie might actually have done all that work. When I realized he had, I told him I was rather impressed.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I thought the second part of my comment would be taken as an obvious joke given the word "correct." I was stunned that Couchie might actually have done all that work. When I realized he had, I told him I was rather impressed.


You can pull wordcounts for articles using links like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=search&srsearch=Ludwig_van_Beethoven

It takes a bit of programming, but you can extract the wordcounts quickly for a big list of composers pretty easily.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Screw it, let's average all the methods!


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2019)

There's another aspect of this matter going on elsewhere currently in the following thread:

https://www.talkclassical.com/62944-talk-classicals-most-recommended-2.html#post1695033


----------



## Mifek (Jul 28, 2018)

Couchie said:


> How did you get this data? Can it easily be done for 400 composers?


I suspect there is no easy way to do this (I mean, other than checking all the relevant composer's pages one by one). About nine years ago, I did such an analysis for about 120 composers whom I expected to have a chance of making the top 50 or top 100 list, so this time I have only checked the top 45 names from my old list.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Portamento said:


> Screw it, let's average all the methods!


Better yet, let's scratch the multitude of methods and just listen/enjoy all the great music.


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> Better yet, let's scratch the multitude of methods and just listen/enjoy all the great music.


Perhaps from your vast experience in organising hundreds of polls on this Forum you could advise on the one most likely to be useful in ranking composers.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Better yet, let's scratch the multitude of methods and just listen/enjoy all the great music.


Of course, but ranking composers and arguing endlessly is _so_ much more fun!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I think the main question is who is number one: Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven. I know who's _my_ number one, but no one seems to know who's the bonafide top dog, the big enchilada, the big Lebowski, the supreme commander, the ruler of the Queens Navy, and consequently, there are a lot of sleepless nights worrying about how these three are getting along on Mount Olympus, especially if they are being competitive with each other and not getting along. God forbid if Beethoven fell in love with one of Bach's daughters or had religious differences. Should Mozart be demoted from the top spot because of the scatological humor? Is Bach better at his best than Mozart is at his best or Beethoven? I hope someone gets to the bottom of this and objectively declares who's wearing the top hat and gets more press. I'm betting on…


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Partita said:


> Perhaps from your vast experience in organising hundreds of polls on this Forum you could advise on the one most likely to be useful in ranking composers.


Polls can be interesting and fun, but useful they aren't.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ The fun part of polls is knowing what other people prefer. The not-so-fun part is having people dispute your taste and give so-called reasons why your fourth-favorite composer couldn't possibly deserve that "ranking."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Yes, I value Brahms highly, too. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, I value Brahms highly, too. :lol:


What's the joke?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I think the main question is who is number one: Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven. I hope someone gets to the bottom of this and objectively declares who's wearing the top hat and gets more press._

I agree they are the top 3 but don't think determining No. 1 is that difficult. Just compare output for quality and quantity.

Symphonies: Beethoven 1, Mozart 2, Bach 3
Other orchestral: Beethoven 1, Mozart 2, Bach 3
Sacred choral: Bach 1, Mozart 2, Beethoven 3
Chamber music: Beethoven 1, Mozart 2, Bach 3
Solo instrumental: Bach 1, Beethoven 2, Mozart 3
Concertos: Beethoven 1, Mozart 2, Bach 3
Opera: Mozart 1, Beethoven 2, Bach 3
Music for stage (includes Bach's secular cantatas): Beethoven 1, Mozart 2, Bach 3

Add in any other category you want then total the numbers and, like if golf, low score wins. If you don't like my scoring do your own.

Score here: Beethoven 12, Mozart 16, Bach 20.

This wasn't what I expected before I did the exercise; I thought Mozart would win. I'm sure had he lived as long as the other two he would have won easily.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

larold said:


> _I think the main question is who is number one: Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven. I hope someone gets to the bottom of this and objectively declares who's wearing the top hat and gets more press._
> 
> I agree they are the top 3 but don't think determining No. 1 is that difficult. Just compare output for quality and quantity.
> 
> ...


I would have to dispute your ranking for concertos

Let's consider Beethoven

5 PC 
1 VC
1 Triple concerto

Mozart

27 PC (Of which say 10 may be considered great - though some would say 15)
Violin - 5 (of which 3 are in the repertoire)
plus horn concertos
Clarinet Concerto - probably rated as the best wind concerto ever composed
Flute x 2
Sinfonia Concertante

I think you ought to agree Mozart is way ahead.

He is also streets ahead in opera though in your system gains little from his superiority.

Other orchestral? That is also debatable. In overtures they are equal.

Im not even sure about Chamber. Beethoven composed more quartets - but he is behind in quintets and other pieces - divertimenti (K563 etc)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Solo Instrumental:
Bach - 4
Beethoven - 3
Mozart - 1

Chamber:
Beethoven - 4
Mozart - 2
Bach - 1

Orchestral (includes concertos):
Beethoven - 4
Mozart - 3
Bach - 1

Vocal:
Bach - 4
Mozart - 3
Beethoven - 1

Final:
*Beethoven - 12*
Bach - 10
Mozart - 9


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> Solo Instrumental:
> Bach - 4
> Beethoven - 3
> Mozart - 1
> ...


every one of us will apply this system to our own tastes.

Just because Bach wrote a zillion cantatas that hardly anyone listens to now I wouldnt put him ahead of Mozart.

the weighting for vocal would be

Mozart 6
Bach 4
Beethoven 1


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> Just because Bach wrote a zillion cantatas that hardly anyone listens to now I wouldnt put him ahead of Mozart.


The large number of Bach cantata recordings tells me that plenty of folks listen to them.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> The large number of Bach cantata recordings tells me that plenty of folks listen to them.


I doubt if the cantatas are more listened to more than the Mozart operas


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> I doubt if the cantatas are more listened to more than the Mozart operas


What's with you? First you say hardly anyone listens to the cantatas; now, you're making comparisons with Mozart's operas.

All of this is irrelevant - it's my list. Make your own, and I'm confident you will put Mozart ahead of the other two. That's what you do here.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_The large number of Bach cantata recordings tells me that plenty of folks listen to them. _

A difficulty in comparing composers is the way they composed. Bach wrote cantatas because he needed one every Sunday; it was his job less than his inspiration or result of a commission.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I would have to dispute your ranking for concertos. Let's consider Beethoven: 5 PC, 1 V, 1 Triple concerto. Mozart: 27 PC (Of which say 10 may be considered great - though some would say 15), Violin - 5 (of which 3 are in the repertoire), plus horn concertos, Clarinet Concerto - probably rated as the best wind concerto ever composed, Flute x 2, Sinfonia Concertante._

I don't contest your logic and agree in some ways with your position. I thought going into this Mozart would win this.

However I would say this -- I considered the* ratio of quantity and quality*. All 5 of Beethoven's piano concertos are in the standard repertory (100 percent) and the Emporer is considered the greatest of them all. For Mozart, as you say, there may be 10 (about 40 percent.)

Many players believe Beethoven's violin concerto the most difficult and greatest; I don't think anyone thinks that of any Mozart.

Beethoven's triple concerto is probably the second-greatest to Bach's from Brandenburg No. 5 if you think the Brandenburgs are concertos and not chamber music. There is a growing belief today they were composed as chamber music one player to a part.

Any way you cut it every concerto Beethoven wrote is at or near the top of them all. You can say that for Mozart's clarinet and bassoon concertos and possibly flute No. 1 and stretch it to the piano concerto No. 21 as I do but no more.

If quantity is the issue then Vivaldi, who is said to have written 500 concertos, is probably the greatest. But I don't think anyone believes that.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

larold said:


> _I would have to dispute your ranking for concertos. Let's consider Beethoven: 5 PC, 1 V, 1 Triple concerto. Mozart: 27 PC (Of which say 10 may be considered great - though some would say 15), Violin - 5 (of which 3 are in the repertoire), plus horn concertos, Clarinet Concerto - probably rated as the best wind concerto ever composed, Flute x 2, Sinfonia Concertante._
> 
> I don't contest your logic and agree in some ways with your position. I thought going into this Mozart would win this.
> 
> ...


Vivaldi is known for the 4 seasons and not much else so its a poor example.

I agree that Beethoven's VC is probably the greatest VC ever composed - but then the Clarinet concerto is its equal. So that is evens.

Mozart's piano concertos do beat Beethoven's - if you look at the TC top recommended works - K466 is the first PC of any piano concerto and the other greats Mozart concertos are not far behind. I dont rate Beethoven's first 2 piano concertos - and the third - is inferior to K491. That leaves two really great concertos to Mozart's ten or so.

You cant then say that the triple concerto is equal in value to Mozart's misc concerti - the flute, horn etc.

Going on % of hits to misses does not seem like a good way to rank composers. We judge by the best quality work. If we are talking purely on numbers of hits - Mozart wins. Even on symphonies he is close - if like me - you start counting great Beethoven symphonies from no 3 onwards. You would also have to rate Beethoven a better opera composer as he had 1 opera and 1 hit. Mozart wrote 20 operas or so with 6 hits.

if you are evaluating on the basis that Mozart PC 21 is the only great PC - you are in ludicrous territory and just then arguing utterly from personal taste. Which i am to an extent - but even if I accept your premise that all the Beethoven concerti are great works I still think Mozart has significant advantage.

To back up my point - from a 2011 TC poll on best piano concertos

1. Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 20
2. Brahms - Piano Concerto No. 2
3. Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No. 2
4. Grieg - Piano Concerto
5. Schumann - Piano Concerto
6. Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 5 "Emperor"
7. Prokofiev - Piano Concerto No. 3
8. Ravel - Piano Concerto (in G major)
9. Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 4
10. Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 23
11. Bach - Harpsichord Concerto No. 3 (BWV 1054)
12. Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 21
13. Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No. 3
14. Tchaikovsky - Piano Concerto No. 1
15. Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 27
16. Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 3
17. Prokofiev - Piano Concerto No. 2
18. Ravel - Piano Concerto for the Left Hand
19. Brahms - Piano Concerto No. 1
20. Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 24

So 5 from Mozart in the top 20 and 3 from Beethoven.

Your greatest of them all Emperor concerto is no 7 and K466 is no 1.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> What's with you? First you say hardly anyone listens to the cantatas; now, you're making comparisons with Mozart's operas.
> 
> All of this is irrelevant - it's my list. Make your own, and I'm confident you will put Mozart ahead of the other two. That's what you do here.


Clearly more people listen to Mozart opera, both live and otherwise, than Bach's cantatas - since we are evaluating supremacy in vocal music.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> The large number of Bach cantata recordings tells me that plenty of folks listen to them.


The Bach cantatas posted on YouTube appear almost endless, and did he ever write a lousy note despite the heavy demands of his weekly schedule? People are obviously listening. This showdown between Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is much more epic than I could ever imagine. Three giants, three immortals, three masters… It's breathtaking! Mozart and Beethoven have to be breaking out in a cold sweat with Bach and his cantatas breathing down their necks.  On the other hand, Mozart was composing at 5 and no one could thunder and roar like the B!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> I think the main question is who is number one: Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven. I know who's _my_ number one, but no one seems to know who's the bonafide top dog, the big enchilada, the big Lebowski, the supreme commander, the ruler of the Queens Navy, and consequently, there are a lot of sleepless nights worrying about how these three are getting along on Mount Olympus, especially if they are being competitive with each other and not getting along. God forbid if Beethoven fell in love with one of Bach's daughters or had religious differences. Should Mozart be demoted from the top spot because of the scatological humor? Is Bach better at his best than Mozart is at his best or Beethoven? I hope someone gets to the bottom of this and objectively declares who's wearing the top hat and gets more press. I'm betting on…


At least it's convenient that the three best composers in all human existence lived within 85 years of each other! What are the chances!

Or maybe this implies that the first composer had a massive impact on the next 85 years.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ethereality said:


> At least it's convenient that the three best composers in all human existence lived within 85 years of each other! What are the chances!
> 
> Or maybe this implies that the first composer had a massive impact on the next 85 years.


and what are the chances that the best 3 english playrights for 400 years lived within a few decades of each other, Shakespeare Marlowe and Kyd

there are great eras of art


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

And Mozart died at the age of 35, his life 54% percent of Bach's, 61% of Beethoven's. Maybe if he lived longer he could've settled the question for us??


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

PlaySalieri said:


> Vivaldi is known for the 4 seasons and not much else so its a poor example.


Yeah, but no. Vivaldi's Stabat Mater, La Stravaganza, L'estro armonico, Nisi Dominus, Gloria, Olympiade, etc. are all highly regarded. He was 1,960 recordings in Arkiv, more than Dvorak, Berlioz (by more than double), or Grieg, and more than his contemporaries Purcell, Rameau, and A. Scarlatti combined.

Just because you aren't aware of his works doesn't mean the world has also.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

AeolianStrains said:


> Yeah, but no. Vivaldi's Stabat Mater, La Stravaganza, L'estro armonico, Nisi Dominus, Gloria, Olympiade, etc. are all highly regarded. He was 1,960 recordings in Arkiv, more than Dvorak, Berlioz (by more than double), or Grieg, and more than his contemporaries Purcell, Rameau, and A. Scarlatti combined.
> 
> Just because you aren't aware of his works doesn't mean the world has also.


Im aware of Vivaldi's output - ok - the 4 seasons and a handful of other works.

in todays completest world the number of recording is irrelevant

one day all salieri's output will be available


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ethereality said:


> And Mozart died at the age of 35, his life 54% percent of Bach's, 61% of Beethoven's. Maybe if he lived longer he could've settled the question for us??


for many the question is settled anyway


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

How about an efficiency ranking of famous composers per written note. It might bring Webern into the highest rankings and would establish Beethoven far over Bach, Mozart, Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> Clearly more people listen to Mozart opera, both live and otherwise, than Bach's cantatas -


I don't think that's clear at all. You would be on firm ground if you said that more people listen to Mozart's operas than Salieri's.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

larold said:


> _
> However I would say this -- I considered the* ratio of quantity and quality*. All 5 of Beethoven's piano concertos are in the standard repertory (100 percent) and the Emporer is considered the greatest of them all. For Mozart, as you say, there may be 10 (about 40 percent.)
> 
> Many players believe Beethoven's violin concerto the most difficult and greatest; I don't think anyone thinks that of any Mozart.
> ...


_

You're the only person I've seen who talks about the Beethoven Triple Concerto that highly.

http://themusicalvoice.net/?p=356
"The technical problem with composing a concerto for three instruments so unlike each other is the composer has to strike a balance between the three and they must be perfectly integrated as a whole within the musical context of the work, which Beethoven sometimes succeeds in doing, and other times, not so much. What the work essentially sounds like is a cello concerto, since the cello almost always takes the lead, with obbligato piano and violin. So, there sometimes feels like a lack of homogeneity in the work, in which there is an imbalance between the three instruments, which I do not hear in perhaps the two other most famous concertos for more than one instrument - Mozart's "Sinfonia Concertante," in E-flat major for violin and viola, K. 364, and Bach's "Double Violin Concerto in D minor," BWV 1043. Of course, with these two concerti, the instruments are more easily integrated since in Bach's concerto, he is writing for two violins, and in the Mozart "Sinfonia Concertante," he is writing for violin and viola, which are more like each other than the violin and the cello."

I don't find slow movements in Beethoven piano concertos other than 4th and 5th really all that memorable. Whereas in Mozart, I can name several in the range #9~19. Your argument on "quality" with analogy to Vivaldi's 500 concertos is just absurd.

















_


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

PlaySalieri said:


> Im aware of Vivaldi's output - ok - the 4 seasons and a handful of other works.
> 
> in todays completest world the number of recording is irrelevant
> 
> one day all salieri's output will be available


You have no basis otherwise, then.

Vivaldi listed above Stravinsky: https://www.udiscovermusic.com/classical-features/best-classical-composers-top-20/
Vivaldi at #19: https://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html
Phil G. Goulding's Classical top 50 puts him at 37, but a crowd-sourced Ranker list puts him at 6: https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/my-favorite-classical-composers-of-all-time

C'mon, man, don't be a hater.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

AeolianStrains said:


> You have no basis otherwise, then.
> 
> Vivaldi listed above Stravinsky: https://www.udiscovermusic.com/classical-features/best-classical-composers-top-20/
> Vivaldi at #19: https://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html
> ...


Im not a hater - how could one not like Vivalidi? All the works are very amiable.

the crowd ranker puts Vivaldi ahead of Schubert and Brahms - which is absurd.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> Im not a hater - how could one not like Vivalidi? All the works are very amiable.
> 
> the crowd ranker puts Vivaldi ahead of Schubert and Brahms - which is absurd.


It's not absurd. Although I'm not a fan of Vivaldi's music, he is a famous composer also.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> I would have to dispute your ranking for concertos
> 
> Let's consider Beethoven
> 
> ...


I would agree with you and add his Flute and Harp concerto to your list, but I wouldn't say "way". I would take Beethoven's five piano concertos to a desert island over Mozart's 23, but the others put Wolfgang on top.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Pyotr said:


> I would agree with you and add his Flute and Harp concerto to your list, but I wouldn't say "way". I would take Beethoven's five piano concertos to a desert island over Mozart's 23, but the others put Wolfgang on top.


Very few Russians favour Mozart over Beethoven


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Pyotr said:


> I would agree with you and add his Flute and Harp concerto to your list, but I wouldn't say "way". I would take Beethoven's five piano concertos to a desert island over Mozart's 23, but the others put Wolfgang on top.


With me it's just the opposite, and it's not because it's 23 to 5.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> Very few Russians favour Mozart over Beethoven


Vidimo moy drug ty nikogda ne videl etu operu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_Salieri_(opera)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Pyotr said:


> Vidimo moy drug ty nikogda ne videl etu operu
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_Salieri_(opera)


I have seen the soviet tv production with the actor who played hamlet as salieri


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Solo Instrumental:
> Bach - 4
> Beethoven - 3
> Mozart - 1
> ...


This is a nice exercise I think. Let me try (the list is based on nothing more than my personal subjective criteria):

Solo Instrumental:
Bach - 4
Beethoven - 3
Mozart - 2

Chamber:
Beethoven - 4
Mozart - 2
Bach - 2

Orchestral (includes concertos):
Beethoven - 4
Mozart - 3
Bach - 1

Vocal:
Bach - 4
Mozart - 3
Beethoven - 2

-----
Final:
Beethoven - 13
Bach - 11
Mozart - 10


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Solo Instrumental:
Bach - 4
Beethoven - 2
Mozart - 1

Chamber:
Beethoven - 3
Mozart - 3
Bach - 2

Orchestral (includes concertos):
Beethoven - 3
Mozart - 3
Bach - 2

Vocal:
Bach - 4
Mozart - 2
Beethoven - 0

-----
Final:
Bach - 12
Mozart - 9
Beethoven - 8

This corresponds rather well with my overall composer ranking, where Bach is #1, Mozart around #10 and Beethoven around #20.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Simply being part of the main, popular repertoire doesn't make a work great. 
On the contrary, if there is disproportionately extreme love for certain works in the general community, you can make an argument about them being overrated. 
As a casual piano player I feel that Beethoven, Chopin are revered like gods of piano by many piano students today (while Mozart is criticized for not having met their standard) mainly because Beethoven and Chopin's style of piano writing greatly benefited from the advancement of the piano technology starting around 1800, which suits the general piano fans' taste better. (Elements like reliance on "banging" in both Beethoven and Chopin and "sentimentality with the pedal" in Chopin, I think)
Also Schubert's piano sonatas just base around the technique of writing good "songs". I think they're considered greatest of their kind just cause of "good melodies", Schubert's forte. Just look how D960 is rated on this forum. Is it really fair?
Likewise, I feel that some of Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas and much of Chopin's output consisting of miniatures are not up to the quality, but are revered just because they're core of the curriculum and the fandom keeps using expressions like "New Testament of Piano Music" to describe them and don't take time themselves to look carefully if the works are truly that great.
Also it is documented that Beethoven himself and 19th century composers studied Mozart Fantasies K608, K594. In terms of historical significance, there are no grounds to call Beethoven and Chopin "Bibles of music" whereas Mozart's solo keyboard works are considered trivial stuff like they are today by many. As I explained in https://www.talkclassical.com/63010-mozart-chopin-piano-works-2.html#post1697500
I hate to say this again but, I find the second movement of Beethoven's Op.111, for example, a little weak and disappointing (in terms of sense of direction) for something I would expect from Beethoven, (I already explained, it's not something you would expect from the same composer of Apassionata and Tempest Sonatas) https://www.talkclassical.com/62178-your-favorite-best-greatest-4.html#post1667948
As I said there are lots of people who criticize Mozart sonatas for not being as good as Beethoven, but won't see that both composers simply had their own individuality:
By their logic, one can also make an argument about Beethoven's Fantasie Op.77 not being as good as Mozart's K475, K511, K394, K397


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The best objective ranking system must follow the exact law that led mankind to realize that Classical music is superior.

(A) Must be a poll where each individual can only vote for their_ favorite_ musician, overall. This is so that the objective convergence of how we arrived at Classical being superior, can be measured. If you have other tiers being measured, like ratings, they don't measure Classical being superior as they don't lead to objective convergence (see Rateyourmusic's top albums for that example. A bad approach.) This is because with ratings or tiers, 10 people thinking something is acceptable is considered equal to 5 people loving and 5 people disliking something. But the truth of how Classical is determined as superior is that when 5/10 people love something, there is much more objective convergence (alike-thinking). Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are by a large _minority _of people considered the best, instead of the wrong alternative, where an artist is considered by tons of people as "good." Not many people think Classical is "good." So we can only mathematically poll whom people think is the best, we can't poll a top tier because that still implies inequality between composers that is unspecified.

(B) A trickier criterion to follow, but important to try to implement: Every individual gets to participate, there is no "critic only," as there is no objective measure of what a critic is. The difference is, each individual's answer to the question of 'who the best is' gets a different weighting on how much it impacts the final answer, based on how much music they've listened to. Diversity doesn't matter because there's no objective way to measure diversity, so we would just stick to how much music. Thus criterion B can *only* be technically implemented if done what Rateyourmusic does--weighs every user based on how many musical things they've rated. This is why criterion B is difficult to implement and shouldn't be given as much weight as A.

Rateyourmusic fails because it neglects criterion A and only follows B. Follow _both_ these criterion for all musicians and individuals, and what you will arrive at is (A) musicians that a large minority of people all think are the best (Classical), and (B) musicians that more experienced listeners like (oftentimes Classical.) These multiplied together in an equation give the exact true mathematical ranking for each composer. If done with enough people, the Bach vs Beethoven vs Mozart question gets settled, at least for this era.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> As a casual piano player I feel that Beethoven, Chopin are revered like gods of piano by many piano students today (while Mozart is criticized for not having met their standard) mainly because Beethoven and Chopin's style of piano writing greatly benefited from the advancement of the piano technology starting around 1800, which suits the general piano fans' taste better.


I don't think that this is the case, as J.S. Bach's could also be seem as a god of the keyboard and his music is even older than Mozart's. I've seem a good deal of people favouring Haydn's piano music over Mozart's aswell.



hammeredklavier said:


> Likewise, I feel that some of Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas and much of Chopin's output consisting of miniatures are not up to the quality, but are revered just because they're core of the curriculum and the fandom keeps using expressions like "New Testament of Piano Music" to describe them and don't take time themselves to look carefully if the works are truly that great.


Their works in this medium are much more drammatic and intense than those of Mozart in my opinion. I listen to Wolfgang's sonatas almost everyday, and think that they are light and fun, but would never think of them as being the core of Mozart's repertoire alone. I favour Beethoven's _Pathetique_ and _Moonlight_ sonatas over any solo keyboard work I know by Mozart, as in my opinion they're more emotionally profound and at least as good in form, and these are far from being my favorite Beethoven sonatas.



hammeredklavier said:


> I hate to say this again but, I find the second movement of Beethoven's Op.111, for example, a little weak and disappointing (in terms of sense of direction) for something I would expect from Beethoven, (I already explained, it's not something you would expect from the same composer of Apassionata and Tempest sonatas


I think of Beethoven's last three piano sonatas as the epitome of his work in that genre, and Op. 111's second movement sounds as the work of a visionary dreamer for me. It's so lyric, profound, complex, daring. I would take it anyday against any Mozart piano composition, including here the piano concertos such as K466.



hammeredklavier said:


> As I said there are lots of people who criticize Mozart sonatas for not being as good as Beethoven, but won't see that both composers simply had their own individuality:
> By their logic, one can also make an argument about Beethoven's Fantasie Op.77 not being as good as Mozart's K475, K511, K394, K397


One could also argue that K475, K511, K394 and K397 look conservative and almost unoriginal when compared to Beethoven's Choral Fantasia, Op. 80. It could be argued also that the true master of the Classical fantasy of the eighteenth century was C.P.E. Bach, not Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I don't think that this is the case, as J.S. Bach's could also be seem as a god of the keyboard and his music is even older than Mozart's. I've seem a good deal of people favouring Haydn's piano music over Mozart's aswell.


I'm speaking from my experience discussing with countless other classical piano students and fans. And it is objective fact Beethoven's piano sonatas are far better known overall than Mozart's obscure pieces. I know lots of people don't even know Mozart wrote pieces like K394, K608, K511. Ashish Xiangyi Kumar gets millions of views with his score videos of Beethoven sonatas uploaded on youtube, - praising each section with all kinds of over-inflated, exaggerated hyperboles he fantasizes in his wet dreams. And then there are always people like you and Eva who talk like everything Mozart for the solo keyboard wrote are lighthearted piano sonatas. How can I not think Beethoven and Chopin are overhyped, when people like you keep going on time and time again with "that attitude" to confirm my belief that Beethoven and Chopin are.
Your continual habit of conveniently countering my argument by bringing other composers such as CPE Bach just doesn't get anywhere in my view. Cause first off, one must remember: Mozart (in keyboard works) is simply not getting the kind of recognition Beethoven and Chopin get, to start with. You can't blame something that's already underrated.
As for JS Bach, his best stuff like Well Tempered Clavier, Goldberg variations, Art of the Fugue etc are as well-known as Beethoven sonatas in the general classical music fandom. It's Mozart's obscure pieces (except sonatas and concertos) that are not well-known to the general classical fandom, (especially in classical piano communities).
If I asked you pick between CPE Bach and Chopin, would you pick "CPE Bach"? Why keep bringing CPE Bach when you don't even admire him that much? Are you just using him to conveniently counter my argument?
If you ask me, if I had to pick between "J Haydn and Beethoven", I could say "Haydn".
If I had to pick between "Hummel and Chopin", I could say "Hummel".



Allerius said:


> Their works in this medium are much more drammatic and intense than those of Mozart in my opinion. I listen to Wolfgang's sonatas almost everyday, and think that they are light and fun, but would never think of them as being the core of Mozart's repertoire alone. I favour Beethoven's _Pathetique_ and _Moonlight_ sonatas over any solo keyboard work I know by Mozart, as in my opinion they're more emotionally profound and at least as good in form, and these are far from being my favorite Beethoven sonatas.


You can think however way you want, just like all other Beethoven-loving extremists these days. I think that Brahms, by saying that Beethoven didn't write great works from commission compared to Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and that Beethoven could only write "variations and the like", Brahms was referring to works such as second movement of Beethoven's Op.111. Those overlong tremolos and trills.. I think moments like these prove Beethoven's "incapability with melody" more than 7th symphony 2nd movement where Beethoven still manages to achieve some catchiness despite the melodic weakness.
I'll copy and paste the Brahms quote in full again cause Beethoven-loving extremists frequently "misinterpret" what he said.

[ _ " I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto {the Third Piano Concerto} much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance.

Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works. " _

https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135 ]



Allerius said:


> I think of Beethoven's last three piano sonatas as the epitome of his work in that genre, and Op. 111's second movement sounds as the work of a visionary dreamer for me. It's so lyric, profound, complex, daring. I would take it anyday against any Mozart piano composition, including here the piano concertos such as K466.


Sure, they're great works, but also somewhat overrated in certain respect. For example, what Beethoven wanted to achieve with Hammerklavier, I think Liszt did it better with his Sonata in B minor. You must admit, Beethoven's writing in that sonata is kind of convoluted and messy. I'm inclined to think the sole reason why it's better known than Mozart contrapuntal Fantasies K394, K608 is again, because it's a "piano sonata" written by the "great Beethoven". And speaking of JS Bach, I think Beethoven sonatas don't have the consistency of quality like Well-Tempered Clavier either. You know the famous saying: "Beethoven piano sonatas are the old testament of music, equalling the old testament, WTC in greatness" just sounds like a bad joke to me.


Allerius said:


> One could also argue that K475, K511, K394 and K397 look conservative and almost unoriginal when compared to Beethoven's Choral Fantasia, Op. 80. It could be argued also that the true master of the Classical fantasy of the eighteenth century was C.P.E. Bach, not Mozart.







But Mozart's Fantasies were original enough to inspire Beethoven. Again, only Beethoven extremists today refuse to admit these things. In case you don't know, Choral Fantasia derives from Die Zauberflote. You should stop living in this dream: "Mozart invented nothing, Beethoven invented everything." And it's not even a solo instrumental work. Why compare a non-solo piece to solo pieces? 
To follow your logic comparing a non-solo piece to a solo piece, I will say the First movement of Op.111 sounds like a weaker version of the dissonant Adagio and Fuge for strings K546. (Mozart originally wrote the fugue as a two-piano piece, K426) It actually is the culmination of Beethoven's study of the Mozart piece, which Beethoven copied out as a study, Hess 37. (Again, only Beethoven fanatics would refuse to admit). Like less than 0.01% of the people who know the Beethoven work know that it's actually influenced by Mozart. Just listen to the intro and the motivic treatment of the fugal subjects in both.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> You can think however way you want, just like all other Beethoven-loving extremists these days.


Given that you're a Mozart-loving extremist, it all balances out.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Solo Instrumental:
Bach - 4
Beethoven - 4
Mozart - 1

Chamber:
Beethoven - 4
Mozart - 3
Bach - 1

Orchestral (including concertos):
Beethoven - 4
Mozart - 4
Bach - 2

Vocal:
Bach - 4
Mozart - 3
Beethoven - 1

Final:
Beethoven - 13
Bach - 11
Mozart - 11

Almost the same totals as Allerius. However, personally I rank Bach and Beethoven tied for #1 and Mozart at #3 (maybe tied with Brahms).


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

*Greatest Composer is*

New data I've found, particularly on this forum, would suggest that the answer of the greatest composer is objectively settled for this forum, but I need some feedback to know if I'm right on this. Usually Bach and Beethoven are tied for greatest on our standard polls. However, I've noticed a trend on this forum that Bach-lovers are more critical of Beethoven, while Beethoven lovers are more accepting of Bach. That's basically _the inverse question_ superimposed on the first, which would add up to the total poll, add the two polls together and Bach wins the overall vote (having the most positive response and least negative response). However, my question is has anyone seen this trend, or am I the only one noticing these individuals?

See these threads in particular:
Why do so many people think J. S. Bach is the best composer?
Why do I like Bach, but not Mozart or Beethoven?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> However, I've noticed a trend on this forum that Bach-lovers are more critical of Beethoven, while Beethoven lovers are more accepting of Bach.


I haven't noticed this trend. What I have noticed is that there are certain members who can't see straight when it comes to their favorite composer, and I might be one of them.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Given that you're a Mozart-loving extremist, it all balances out.


It brings to mind the old proverb about seeing the mote in your neighbor's eye but not the beam in your own.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Your continual habit of conveniently countering my argument by bringing other composers such as CPE Bach just don't get anywhere in my view. Cause first off, one must remember: Mozart (in keyboard works) is simply not getting the kind of recognition Beethoven and Chopin get, to start with. As for JS Bach, his best stuff like Well Tempered Clavier, Goldberg variations, Art of the Fugue etc are as well-known as Beethoven sonatas in the general classical music fandom. It's Mozart's obscure pieces (except sonatas and concertos) that are not known to the general classical fandom, especially in classical piano communities.


One could ask why are these alleged solo piano masterpieces by Mozart so obscure, considering that he is one of the most popular classical composers of all (he has been the most popular classical composer in the world in the last 12 months according to _Google Trends_'s statistics, above Beethoven and Bach). Perhaps most people just don't think that they are _that_ good, eh?



hammeredklavier said:


> If I asked you pick between CPE Bach and Chopin, would you pick "CPE Bach"? Why keep bringing CPE Bach when you don't even admire him that much? Are you just using him to conveniently counter my argument?
> If you ask me, if I had to pick between "J Haydn and Beethoven", I could say "Haydn".
> If I had to pick between "Hummel and Chopin", I could say "Hummel".


Then there's no problem either if you ask me to pick between "CPE Bach" and "Mozart" in terms of keyboard fantasies and I say "CPE Bach".



hammeredklavier said:


> You can think however way you want, just like all other Beethoven-loving extremists these days.


Extremists? If you haven't noticed yet, it's _you_ who keep bashing composers such as Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin and others all the time. I clearly have a preference for Beethoven over Mozart, but I don't keep entering all threads here to force my perspective over others'.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think that Brahms, by saying that Beethoven didn't write great works from commission compared to Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and that Beethoven could only write "variations and the like", Brahms was referring to works such as second movement of Beethoven's Op.111. Those overlong tremolos and trills.. I think moments like these prove Beethoven's "incapability with melody" more than 7th symphony 2nd movement where Beethoven still manages to achieve some catchiness despite the melodic weakness.
> I'll copy and paste the Brahms quote in full again cause Beethoven-loving extremists frequently "misinterpret" what he said.
> 
> [ _ " I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto {the Third Piano Concerto} much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
> ...


Yet, the same Brahms said things like:

"To follow in Beethoven's footsteps transcends one's strength."

"Composers in the old days used to keep strictly to the base of the theme, as their real subject. Beethoven varies the melody, harmony and rhythms so beautifully."

"In my study I can lay my hand on the Bible in the pitch dark. All truly inspired ideas come from God. The powers from which all truly great composers like Mozart, Schubert, Bach and Beethoven drew their inspirations is the same power that enabled Jesus to do his miracles."

Note that he places Beethoven side by side with Mozart and Bach (and Schubert) in the third quote, and that he acknowledges the greatness of Beethoven's middle and late period pieces in the quote you provided ("Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony..."). Also, note that the fact that he compares two aspects of Beethoven's music unfavourably to Mozart's and Bach's does not imply that he thinks that _every_ aspect of LvB's music is inferior, as at least in terms of variations he seems to prefer Beethoven over them (as you can read in the second statement I provided you). When Brahms says that "I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective." I think that his position is not to diminish Beethoven, but to relativize the idea that he is the one and only one composer who could be viewed as "greatest", what IMO is quite fair.



hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, they're great works, but also somewhat overrated in certain respect. For example, what Beethoven wanted to achieve with Hammerklavier, I think Liszt did it better with his Sonata in B minor. You must admit, Beethoven's writing in that sonata is kind of convoluted and messy. I'm inclined to think the sole reason why it's more well-known than Mozart contrapuntal Fantasies K394, K608 is again, because it's a "piano sonata" written by the "great Beethoven". And please stop bringing JS Bach or CPE Bach into the argument. I think Beethoven sonatas don't have the consistency of quality like Well-Tempered Clavier either.


You see? You don't stop attacking Beethoven, and therefore you can't blame others if Mozart is the one being trashed. "Convoluted" and "messy", eh?



hammeredklavier said:


> *Why compare a non-solo piece to solo pieces?* To follow your logic comparing a non-solo piece to a solo piece, I will say the First movement of Op.111 sounds like a weaker version of the dissonant Adagio and Fuge for strings K546. (Mozart originally wrote the fugue as a two-piano piece, K426) It actually is the culmination of Beethoven's study of the Mozart piece, which Beethoven copied out as a study, Hess 37. (Again, only Beethoven fanatics would refuse to admit). Like less than 0.01% of the people who know the Beethoven work know that it's actually influenced by Mozart. Just listen to the intro and the motivic treatment of the fugal subjects in both.


In this case: Because, feelings apart, the point of Beethoven's Op. 80, at least for me, is that the composer uses a form primarily known to be played by a solo instrument in a much greater scope, adding a new dimension to the _fantasia_ genre by introducing first an orchestra and then a chorus to be played together with the piano in a composition that is both lengthier and more rhythmically complex than any previous fantasy by Mozart. As far as I can tell, the idea of blending together solo instrument, orchestra and choir into purely instrumental forms is absolutely novel for the time, and it was emulated by many other composers such as Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Mahler, Stravinsky, Schnittke, Górecki, Penderecki etc.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Given that you're a Mozart-loving extremist, it all balances out.


At least I try to be reasonable and fair: I don't make claims such as "Mozart is greater than Beethoven ". In the Chopin thread, I first tried to be as reasonable as possible: Mozart or Chopin: Piano Works But there are always those people making ridiculous claims. Look at the discussion on "texture" there. And in this thread, Allerius talks like everything Mozart wrote for the solo keyboard are trivial, light-hearted stuff with piano sonatas. 
He brings CPE Bach into the discussion in attempt to nullify Mozart's superiority over Beethoven in Fantasia-writing. But why not think this way: _Beethoven's Op.77 still sucks compared to CPE Bach._ When I listen to that piece or read the wikipedia page on Beethoven's Mass Op.86, the story of him being humiliated by Hummel and Prince Esterhazy, Beethoven just seems like a very good amateur composer. 
Op.80 and Op.125 would have been better works if Beethoven didn't use voices, which he had no idea how to write for.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> At least I try to be reasonable and fair: I don't make claims such as "Mozart is greater than Beethoven ". In the Chopin thread, I first tried to be as reasonable as possible: Mozart or Chopin: Piano Works But there are always those people making ridiculous claims. Look at the discussion on "texture" there. And in this thread, Allerius talks like everything Mozart wrote for the solo keyboard are trivial, light-hearted stuff with piano sonatas.
> He brings CPE Bach into the discussion in attempt to nullify Mozart's superiority over Beethoven in Fantasia-writing. But why not think this way: _Beethoven's Op.77 still sucks compared to CPE Bach._ When I listen to that piece or read the wikipedia page on Beethoven's Mass Op.86, the story of him being humiliated by Hummel and Prince Esterhazy, Beethoven just seems like a very good amateur composer.
> Op.80 and Op.125 would have been better works if Beethoven didn't use voices, which he had no idea how to write for.


Yet Beethoven has vocal works, including Op. 125, that have ever been very sucessful with audiences and experts alike. Haydn for example decided to accept Beethoven as his pupil after hearing one of his early cantatas and becoming very impressed with it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> One could ask why are these alleged solo piano masterpieces by Mozart so obscure, considering that he is one of the most popular classical composers of all (he has been the most popular classical composer in the world in the last 12 months according to _Google Trends_'s statistics, above Beethoven and Bach). Perhaps most people just don't think that they are _that_ good, eh?


Some of Beethoven 32 piano sonatas are kind of overrated to be honest. There's a fair amount of trivial stuff in the set, but it is enormously popular to piano students (I know this because I was one) and they have to learn it just because it is part of the core curriculum and considered some sort of "Holy Book" altogether. If Beethoven diverged his creative powers and wrote significant pieces in genres such as Fantasies for piano or obscure pieces for organ and stuff like that, they wouldn't have enjoyed popularity like his so-called 'Holy Book' does. Beethoven organized his pieces more homogeneously under the unified title "piano sonatas" (which helps people search for his pieces conveniently) and it does immensely contribute to his status and prestige as a keyboard composer. 
And how many times do I have to mention how much influence Mozart's K475, K511, K394, K397, K540 had on Beethoven and later composers. It's documented that Beethoven actually copied out K608, K594 by hand. 
And I told you before several times, Brahms said his criticism on Beethoven in the final year of his life. So, after a lifetime of study on Beethoven's work, Brahms found flaws in Beethoven's work that are not normally found in Bach, Mozart, Haydn's.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Some of Beethoven 32 piano sonatas are kind of overrated to be honest. There's a fair amount of trivial stuff in the set, but it is enormously popular to piano students (I know this because I was one) and they have to learn it just because it is part of the core curriculum and considered some sort of "Holy Book" altogether. If Beethoven diverged his creative powers and wrote significant pieces in genres such as Fantasies for piano or obscure pieces for organ and stuff like that, they wouldn't have enjoyed popularity like his so-called 'Holy Book' does. Beethoven organized his pieces more homogeneously under the unified title "piano sonatas" (which helps people search for his pieces conveniently) and it does immensely contribute to his status and prestige as a keyboard composer.
> And how many times do I have to mention how much influence Mozart's K475, K511, K394, K397, K540 had on Beethoven and later composers. It's documented that Beethoven actually copied out K608, K594 by hand.
> And I told you before several times, Brahms said his criticism on Beethoven in the final year of his life. So, after a lifetime of study on Beethoven's work, Brahms found flaws in Beethoven's work that are not normally found in Bach, Mozart, Haydn's.


Personally, I'd actually say many of Beethoven's 32 sonatas are quite underrated. I think it's because some of the bigger names often steal the spotlight from many others which are great works in their own right. These include Op. 10 no. 3, Op. 22, Op. 31 no. 3, Op. 78, and even Opp. 101, 109, & 110. I think if a different composer had written, say, op. 101 (of course, it could only have been Beethoven, but let's just say), it would get a lot more appreciation. Of course, popularity is not greatness, but still, you get my point.

I'd actually say the same thing about the 8th symphony. I don't know if it would get more appreciation if someone else had composed it, but I do think it gets underappreciated in part because it stands in the shadow of some of Beethoven's other, larger symphonies.

And, just so we're clear, I feel the exact same way about many of Mozart's works, especially the piano concertos.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> ...However, I've noticed a trend on this forum that Bach-lovers are more critical of Beethoven, while Beethoven lovers are more accepting of Bach.


I suspect that's because Beethoven was very vocal in his praise of Bach. On the other hand, I can't remember that Bach ever said anything good about Beethoven! :lol:


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> And I told you before several times, Brahms said his criticism on Beethoven in the final year of his life. So, after a lifetime of study on Beethoven's work, Brahms found flaws in Beethoven's work that are not normally found in Bach, Mozart, Haydn's.


...what does not mean that Brahms reconsidered his earlier positions about Beethoven though. It's impossible to know exactly what were his thoughs about the music of the great composers - he's dead. It can be infered that at some moment he revered Beethoven though, considering that he even had a marble bust of the composer at home.



hammeredklavier said:


> Some of Beethoven 32 piano sonatas are kind of overrated to be honest. There's a fair amount of trivial stuff in the set, but it is enormously popular to piano students (I know this because I was one) and they have to learn it just because it is part of the core curriculum and considered some sort of "Holy Book" altogether. If Beethoven diverged his creative powers and wrote significant pieces in genres such as Fantasies for piano or obscure pieces for organ and stuff like that, they wouldn't have enjoyed popularity like his so-called 'Holy Book' does. Beethoven organized his pieces more homogeneously under the unified title "piano sonatas" (which helps people search for his pieces conveniently) and it does immensely contribute to his status and prestige as a keyboard composer.


Perhaps the Beethoven sonatas are part of the core of the curriculum and considered a "holy book" (as you said) precisely because they are popular also amongst professionals, and this because they do have substance.



hammeredklavier said:


> And how many times do I have to mention how much influence Mozart's K475, K511, K394, K397, K540 had on Beethoven and later composers. It's documented that Beethoven actually copied out K608, K594 by hand.


Sure, and that's because Beethoven was such an ardent admirer of Mozart's music. I do not deny this influence.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

To _hammeredklavier_:

I love Mozart. I revised my post #99 because I felt bad for having criticised him and his music. He _is_ one of my most favorite composers, and I enjoy your enthusiasm for his wonderful music. I think that it would be great to know your ideas about his great musical accomplishments, if only you would stop your crusade against Beethoven and the romantic composers.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Nice conversation, with an interesting comparison between B, B and M. For me, no one can compare with Beethoven, despite the fact, that Beethoven and every other great composer are existing because of Bach. Bach is the oxygen and the water without them no western music exists. Beethoven is the eternal Gardner, who uses the oxygen and the water to make a paradise musical garden, suitable for both gods and humans. In this creation I see no place for a third composer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> At least I try to be reasonable and fair.





> What Beethoven wanted to achieve with Hammerklavier, I think Liszt did it better with his Sonata in B minor.


Try harder. ..............


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I think that it would be great to know your ideas about his great musical accomplishments, if only you would stop your crusade against Beethoven and the romantic composers.


But other people are also guilty of doing the opposite, People like BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist almost 'ridicule' (for lack of a better term) Mozart by giving him '1' in solo instrumental. I object by giving reasons why I think Mozart is more underrated than Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert in solo keyboard genres. The only difference between my behavior and theirs is that I write more stuff. 
I've been always interested finding out why people think a composer is great (or not great) so happened to come across a lot of old threads on this topic and I have noticed there's a lot of ridiculous stuff written all over this forum. And I often come across a lot of ridiculous stuff on other places outside of TC as well.

Even if you're just stating your own personal opinions. There are always people who actually buy into your opinions: let's say, if you say things like "Mozart is fluff, Beethoven is emotive" based on your own opinions, you're essentially driving people away from Mozart who would be potentionally interested to delve deeper into Mozart. It's much like politics where there's constant conflict between conservatism vs. liberalism and each side doing their own propaganda against one another.
And from my experience (of visiting various sites over the net), I feel there's far more "attempt" to describe Mozart negatively than Beethoven. And like 60~70% of them are worshippers of Beethoven, Chopin, etc. I'm so sick and tired of those Romanticism-enthusiasts who nitpick Mozart about "not having written much minor-key music", and many other things.
You see me as a radical, but my experiences have convinced me being a radical is the best way to go about the situation.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Personally, I'd actually say many of Beethoven's 32 sonatas are quite underrated. I think it's because some of the bigger names often steal the spotlight from many others which are great works in their own right. These include Op. 10 no. 3, Op. 22, Op. 31 no. 3, Op. 78, and even Opp. 101, 109, & 110. I think if a different composer had written, say, op. 101 (of course, it could only have been Beethoven, but let's just say), it would get a lot more appreciation. Of course, popularity is not greatness, but still, you get my point.


AT LEAST Beethoven works are organized into a book or a set, it is more likely everyone will give each work in his set a listen at least once. (and there are more 'complete sheet music books' and 'complete recordings' of his set), whereas unless you're an diehard Mozart enthusiast decided to go through all his output to find good works, you'll just go through concertos and sonatas and conclude that his solo works are not as good as his concertos, "unlike Beethoven".
I see this trend of behavior in many people on TC and other places.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

@hammeredklavier, I'm sorry but I'm not going to respond, at least in this thread. I will say, though, I don't think I ever "ridiculed" or discredited Mozart, and I actually do like his solo piano music is and have enjoyed playing a few of his sonatas myself. If you want to send me a private message with a *specific* question or argument regarding Mozart vs Beethoven, I'd be more inclined to respond and share my thoughts. No offense bro, but you're being a bit annoying rn.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> But other people are also guilty of doing the opposite, People like BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist almost 'ridicule' (for lack of a better term) Mozart by giving him '1' in solo instrumental.


You're barking up the wrong tree. Mozart's solo keyboard works are among my top ten in this category, yet I also gave him 1 point. Keep in mind that his competition in this little exercise is quite strong.

So once again, your extreme bias leads you to ridiculous conclusions.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> @hammeredklavier, I'm sorry but I'm not going to respond, at least in this thread. I will say, though, I don't think I ever "ridiculed" or discredited Mozart, and I actually do like his solo piano music is and have enjoyed playing a few of his sonatas myself. If you want to send me a private message with a *specific* question or argument regarding Mozart vs Beethoven, I'd be more inclined to respond and share my thoughts. No offense bro, but you're being a bit annoying rn.


No. I'm curious why you would put Beethoven at 4 with Bach, but Mozart at 1. At least Bulldog didn't do that. To me that's a strong way of saying "Mozart just doesn't deserve a place beside the two" in that department. If that counts as "expression of personal opinions" and "freedom of speech", so do all my utterances regarding Mozart vs Beethoven.
I don't feel the need to message you privately. This is not something to be done privately between just two of us.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

FWIW, if Mozart's solo piano works were competing against Liszt's and Rachmaninov's, I'd give Mozart the 4 points.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> So once again, your extreme bias leads you to ridiculous conclusions.


I don't think I'm displaying more 'bias' than other people here. As I did in the Chopin thread, the message I want to get across is quite simple. Based on these simple criteria below, I don't think there's really a 'weakness' in Mozart's keyboard writing. It's the same reason why I consider Bach great, for example.
1. writing for structure: sonatas, fantasies, rondos, variations, fugues
2. writing for texture: melody, harmony, counterpoint

K475: the sheer sense in introducing A -> B -> C -> D.. with flow and making them coherently connect with transition is masterful. At Tempo Primo (9:15) and the final resolution, I'm like "wow.. what a structure.."






K394: the dynamism of the fantasie constrasts with the fugue's restraint and Mozartian expression of the Bachian feel of "expanding universe". The modulations at 9:05 are euphoric like climatic moments of Mozart's instrumental works






K511: exploration of chromaticism in each of the sections (3:00, 5:55, 8:00) is otherworldly.






K608: a masterpiece in motivic development: fugue of the initial allegro eventually turns into a stormy double fugue (8:48) for a dramatic ending, starkly contrasting with the more lyrical, contrapuntal variation (3:07) of the andante middle section.






K594: the polar opposite of K608, the initial adagio and the final adagio (5:33) express desolate feelings, contrasting with the more lively, ceremonial-feeling sonata-form middle section (1:52).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Harmony and Counterpoint constrain each other," so it becomes self-evident that Beethoven would travel into more adventurous territory than Mozart. Mozart, although a harmonic thinker like Beethoven, was still under the influence of the old-style counterpoint. This becomes a disadvantage to Beethoven, as he is forced to use more arbitrary methods of keeping interest in texture, which were mechanically-devised rather than a result of real counterpoint. This can also bee seen as a problem of the instrument itself, initially optimized for counterpoint, but later much more capable of harmonic coloration. Imagine Debussy on a clavichord.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> "Harmony and Counterpoint constrain each other," so it becomes self-evident that Beethoven would travel into more adventurous territory than Mozart. Mozart, although a harmonic thinker like Beethoven, was still under the influence of the old-style counterpoint. This becomes a disadvantage to Beethoven, as he is forced to use more arbitrary methods of keeping interest in texture, which were mechanically-devised rather than a result of real counterpoint. This can also bee seen as a problem of the instrument itself, initially optimized for counterpoint, but later much more capable of harmonic coloration. Imagine Debussy on a clavichord.


I once heard someone saying that the aesthetics of Beethoven's contrapuntal writing in Hammerklavier is that it's essentially a 'mental breakdown'. The artistry lies not in the contrapuntal writing itself, but the way it 'breaks down'.
I sort of understood to a point, I guess you could call that unique and interesting, but in a different way I find Mozart's clever use of dissonance intriguing as well.


















And Mozart has an unique sense of combining counterpoint with classical forms in keyboard works.
I consider it great for the same reason I consider his symphonies great, for example.
I can say I'm more consistent with my view than other people who for some reason think that they are two different, separate things (his contrapuntal/harmonic thinking in keyboard works VS symphonies)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

There are absolutely no grounds to claim Mozart was less influential in history of keyboard music than say, Chopin, for example.

Fantasie K475 inspired not only Beethoven, but also













and others:
http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf#page=9
http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> There are absolutely no grounds to claim Mozart was less influential in history of keyboard music than say, Chopin...


Both were geniuses but Chopin had a distinct advantage by writing almost exclusively for the piano and wrote in a way that was distinctly idiomatic in its fingering and natural to the instrument that Mozart never did because they represented different eras. Nevertheless, Mozart's piano sonatas and concertos are great music though not necessary advancing the technical development of the instrument. I think of Mozart's operas and symphonies first rather than his great works for the piano. With Chopin, his works are specifically tailored to take full advantage of the entire range of the keyboard technically, harmonically, and in the piano's textures and sonorities. He did things that could NOT done in a symphony orchestra. This is why most pianists particularly value his creative works as being at the summit of piano literature. By for gawd's sake, must they always be pitted against each other like race horses at the Kentucky Derby?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Both were geniuses but Chopin had a distinct advantage by writing almost exclusively for the piano and wrote in a way that was distinctly idiomatic in its fingering and natural to the instrument that Mozart never did because they represented different eras. Nevertheless, Mozart's piano sonatas and concertos are great music though not necessary advancing the technical development of the instrument. I think of Mozart's operas and symphonies first rather than his great works for the piano. With Chopin, his works are specifically tailored to take full advantage of the entire range of the keyboard technically, harmonically, and in the piano's textures and sonorities. He did things that could NOT done in a symphony orchestra. This is why most pianists particularly value his creative works as being at the summit of piano literature. By for gawd's sake, must they always be pitted against each other like race horses at the Kentucky Derby?


Yes I know how Chopin advanced the use of the pedal and technique and stuff. I often see many Romantic piano fans and students hyping about how hard it is to play for example Liszt's Transcendental Etudes, for example. But, I sense some 'hedonism' in that stuff. It is no wonder why the genre "Etude" with all its elements of 'showmanship' flourished so much in the 19th century and after. I know that #4, 12 in the Liszt set are easier to play as piano duets. Then I ask what's the point of 'showmanship' other than the fact it gives you chance to brag "look! I can play this alone! Isn't that impressive!" (I know there's a lot of Chopin/Liszt that isn't like that. It's just a way of saying I'm not impressed by the Romanticism idea of "virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity" ) I'll still give them credit and acknowledge they did for the piano like how Paganini did for the violin.


----------

