# Who's the best composer for the piano?.



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

For me, *Ravel*. His pianistic language is so, but so sophisticated. He can bring colors from that thing like nobody else. . His writing not only exhaust the technical possibilities of the instrument, but also, at the same time, he has the capability of evoking so vivid images. Always in a very natural and not forced way. The images really flow from the piano to you.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Prokofiev is one of the best composers for the 20th century piano, imo. His ability to make it into a percussion instrument of epic proportions never ceases to astound me.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I can't nail down a single composer yet. However, I do absolutely love Ravel's solo piano work. And Prokofiev.....I have not heard his yet, but it's high on my wishlist for next year.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Well said, I completely agree. :tiphat: 

My top 5 composers for the piano (solo) may look something like this:

1) Ravel
2) Beethoven
3) Debussy
4) Chopin
5) Schumann / Schubert - a tie

(If we were to consider Baroque composers like Scarlatti and Bach 'piano' composers my list would look different)


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I believe Scriabin to be in another league... the aforementioned were all too sane for real creativity.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> I believe Scriabin to be in another league... the aforementioned were all too sane for real creativity.


He was in another league, he was on his own planet. But Schumann was pretty insane too. And Beethoven...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Chopin. .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm always stumped by these threads. Confused over: (1) Who wrote good music taking the best advantage of the piano's characteristics; and (2) who wrote the best music intended for performance on the piano. Quite different answers I think!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I'm always stumped by these threads. Confused over: (1) Who wrote good music taking the best advantage of the piano's characteristics; and (2) who wrote the best music intended for performance on the piano. Quite different answers I think!


And there is also the factor of how pianistic it is to the pianist('falls under the hand'). Balakirev could write music that sounded like it was made for the piano, and yet a pianist I know claims it is rather unwieldy to play. Medtner on the other hand, while often pianistic sounding too, is more about the harmonic signatures and theme development and sometimes the results are less lushly pianistic and more challenging on first listen, and yet the music "falls under the fingers"(something I personally can vouch for with a limited experience).


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

As a keyboardist comes to mind Bach. 

I like Chopin and List. 

Rachmaninov is outstanding. 

Beethoven piano sonatas are monumental. 

The Piano Concerto in Mozart's hands are of the very best signature, but sadly... I haven't explored Ravel's. 

I will.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

.............. Conlon Nancarrow


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> .............. Conlon Nancarrow


Piano, not _Player piano_.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Piano, not _Player piano_.


Same basic instrument. You don't call it a different instrument just because a different person is at the bench do you?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Schubert is the best composer for piano four hands I've heard.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Timely thread! At the present time I'm adding more piano music to my paltry collection. I picked up box sets of Scriabin and Prokofiev, and now I'm looking for a Ravel set. I was going to go for a bargain re-issue set on EMI or Decca, but I think I'll spend the extra cash and get the Bavouzet set. Roge's piano sound on Decca sounds too dull, and Collard on EMI sounds to bright. I need more Beethoven too.

I suppose Beethoven and Debussy are my favorites, but I haven't heard that much piano music.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Liszt and Beethoven, IMO.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

The ones that give me the most enjoyment, in no particular order, are Schubert, Beethoven, Alkan, and Liszt. Just a slight notch below would be Medtner (although I'm only familiar with his sonatas,) Rachmoninoff, Chopin, and Debussy.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Beethoven Everyone who has a different opinion than me are WRONG!!!


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Satie.....


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

.......................Francois Couperin


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

For solo piano works...probably Chopin. 
For orchestra and piano...probably Mozart.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

................Luigi Dallapiccola


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

Depends on the genre. Chopin, Beethoven and the 1900's Russians for the modern pianoforte. Mozart for the PC. Bach for keyboard.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Liszt,Ravel,Beethoven,Schubert,Rachmaninoff.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Beethoven for solo piano (also Debussy, Schumann, Ravel, and Schubert), Brahms for chamber piano, and Mozart for piano concerti.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Alexander Scriabin. Then Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff. And it's not a coincidence they were all among the very greatest pianists as well.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

..............Charles Ives :3

That is one I'd actually put on my list. The others I've posted I rather do like, and I just thought I'd put up their names because I didn't think anybody else would mention them. I figured it would all be a Chopin/Debussy chant going on (they're also among my favs too XD) and I wanted to mention other more obscure, but still great writers for piano.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

As a lover of jazz (too) - Debussy!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

EricABQ said:


> Medtner (although I'm only familiar with his sonatas,)


Very pleased to see you mention him. The sonatas are more formally ingenious but the skazki are the heart of his compositions. A favorite of mine though is, op. 10 no. 2, Dithyramb.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Very pleased to see you mention him. The sonatas are more formally ingenious but the skazki are the heart of his compositions. A favorite of mine though is, op. 10 no. 2, Dithyramb.


I was all set to download a set of the skazki from iTunes (the Hamish Milne set) but for some reason it is no longer available. It looks like I can still get it on CD from Amazon, so I still intend to get it.

What I'm listening to now is Hamelin's set of the sonatas and forgotten melodies.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

EricABQ said:


> I was all set to download a set of the skazki from iTunes (the Hamish Milne set) but for some reason it is no longer available. It looks like I can still get it on CD from Amazon, so I still intend to get it.
> 
> What I'm listening to now is Hamelin's set of the sonatas and forgotten melodies.


Boris Berezovsky is my favorite artist who was recorded more than 10 pieces of Medtner. I first really got into this video 




The complete skazki set of Milne(released in the last decade) is surpassed by the complete works set he released in the '80s, the playing is much crisper.


----------



## jdk (Sep 5, 2012)

Absolutely love Chopin. I can't describe the impact it has on me.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think Chopin brought piano techniques up to the present, is that so? I've read some articles by pianist Stephen Hough where he describes the great innovations of Chopin. I love his piano music, but I think the single most forensic examination of the instrument is in Beethoven's sonatas.

And Mozart's piano concertos would be the benchmark in that field...


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Ravel for me, i think  i change my mind all the time though


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

1. Schumann
2. Beethoven
3. Chopin
4. Bach
5. Faure
6. Medtner
7. Janacek
8. Ives
9. Hindemith
10. Barber


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Haydn's piano sonatas are very underrated.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Schumann
Chopin
Brahms
Beethoven
Schubert


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Burroughs said:


> Schumann
> Chopin
> Brahms
> Beethoven
> Schubert


And where does Liszt come in your idea of things ?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

moody said:


> And where does Liszt come in your idea of things ?


Hmmm... Lets see

Schumann
Chopin
Brahms
Beethoven
Schubert
Mozart
Rachmaninoff
Mendelssohn
Liszt... There he is!!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I'll bang my head for Mr Busoni! But his compositions might to pianistic for general acclaim?

/ptr


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

moody said:


> And where does Liszt come in your idea of things ?


... checking... ------------- (loud and bizarre machinery noises) ----------------: zero matches found.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

aleazk said:


> ... checking... ------------- (loud and bizarre machinery noises) ----------------: zero matches found.


I'm sure that post must be very clever,but he ought easily to be first.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Burroughs said:


> Hmmm... Lets see
> 
> Schumann
> Chopin
> ...


See my post above.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Timely thread! At the present time I'm adding more piano music to my paltry collection. I picked up box sets of Scriabin and Prokofiev, and now I'm looking for a Ravel set. I was going to go for a bargain re-issue set on EMI or Decca, but I think I'll spend the extra cash and get the Bavouzet set. Roge's piano sound on Decca sounds too dull, and Collard on EMI sounds to bright. I need more Beethoven too.
> 
> I suppose Beethoven and Debussy are my favorites, but I haven't heard that much piano music.


Samson François for Ravel - EMI, the complete solo piano works, both Concerti on another disc, all budget -- an "archival" recording as a foundation for any others you may purchase which you would be remiss to be without.

Debussy Etudes, Uchida, a.o.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Piano, not _Player piano_.


Take your "I play the piano" bias out of it, and, yeah, Conlon Nancarrow


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> For me, *Ravel*. His pianistic language is so, but so sophisticated. He can bring colors from that thing like nobody else. . His writing not only exhaust the technical possibilities of the instrument, but also, at the same time, he has the capability of evoking so vivid images. Always in a very natural and not forced way. The images really flow from the piano to you.


Every quality you've said Ravel's piano music has, Debussy's has hundreds of times over. I can only think one could name Ravel over Debussy because they are not very familiar with the body of Debussy's piano music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Messiaen needs mention, an absence of his name in this thread would be near criminal.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> I'm sure that post must be very clever,but he ought easily to be first.


I think it's a matter of emphasis. Chopin for *piano* music, Liszt for piano _*music.*_.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Schubert is the best composer for piano four hands I've heard.


I wholeheartedly agree, Clavichorder! His four hand works are fairly obscure [most of them, anyway], but what a tremendous wealth of outstanding musical ideas, so typically Schubert!

Schumann's four hand piano music is... less distinguished, I think.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Every quality you've said Ravel's piano music has, Debussy's has hundreds of times over. I can only think one could name Ravel over Debussy because they are not very familiar with the body of Debussy's piano music.


Debussy vomits images in every note, Ravel graciously brings them.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

I pretty much agree w/everyone listed so far. However, 3 that haven't been, have some remarkable piano music.
Grieg, Hummel and Clementi.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Debussy vomits images in every note, Ravel graciously brings them.


Ravel was an immaculate and conservative craftsman who very often "takes us to a magical forest." Trouble is, every time he takes us to that magical forest, it is the same damned forest, the same spot in that forest, even.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm staying within the limit of those composers who wrote music which astounded all in this way, "You can get that out of a piano?"

First would have to be Mozart, which sounds to us not so exciting or creditable, that the instrument of his time was so thin-sounding it was not workable as an instrument for a recital other than in a small room is the reason we have so little solo piano music from him. The concerti, however, investigate 'what can be got out of a piano' to the maximum -- ergo I put him on this map.

Beethoven ~~ with a much more powerful instrument and a larger range to play within, is next as to "I didn't know you could do that, get that, out of a piano."

Schumann, then, by default more interested in the piano as a sort of tool, treated it, imo, for the first time as an instrument which could on its own deliver "symphonic" type music. This is certainly a major milestone.

Chopin, again, radically changed 'what can come from a piano' and the technique needed to produce that.

Liszt, in that Schumann vein, was the first to really treat the instrument like a self-contained symphony orchestra.

Scriabin is a mere blip on the radar between late romanticism, impressionism and 'modern,' having given new harmony to the instrument, but no pianistic innovations.

Debussy, again changing what we thought could come out of a piano.

It may be Bartok who should get honorable mention and a footnote for the most aggressive use of piano as a percussion, heavily percussive, instrument.

That, really, is pretty much it; any other composers building upon that vs. radical innovation as to what a piano / pianist can do. The late romantics built upon already innovative techniques as introduced by their forebears.

You could add the extended techniques 'crowd' -- Pioneer Henry Cowell, the subsequent John Cage, or, I suppose George Crumb, who was very big on extended technique for most instruments for which he composed. Later electronic interfaces may get some footnote, though I've heard some silly use of them, the new toy vs. music of real interest (a grant, tens of thousands of dollars of equipment, and delay, feedback and processing, the end result sounding like slightly sophisticated new-age is not my idea of innovative


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I'm staying within the limit of those composers who wrote music which astounded all in this way, "You can get that out of a piano?"
> 
> First would have to be Mozart, which sounds to us not so exciting or creditable, that the instrument of his time was so thin-sounding it was not workable as an instrument for a recital other than in a small room is the reason we have so little solo piano music from him. The concerti, however, investigate 'what can be got out of a piano' to the maximum -- ergo I put him on this map.
> 
> ...


I would add Ligeti to that list. Not only because I'm a fan of his music. As Aimard says, he really expanded the notions of virtuosity and rhythmic complexity.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> You could add the extended techniques 'crowd' -- Pioneer Henry Cowell, the subsequent John Cage, or, I suppose George Crumb...


Before them, George Antheil, whose 1925 Ballet Mechanique was intended to use sixteen player pianos controlled from a central console (WAY before computers). He had to scale this back for practical reasons, but his ideas inspired the original mechanisms for spread-spectrum radio, which he developed jointly with Hedy Lamarr in WW II for jam proof torpedoes.

Certainly one of the odder connections in music...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

JS Bach (keyboard), D. Scarlatti (keyboard), Haydn. WAM, Clementi, LvB, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Debussy, Bartok, Enescu, Janacek, Ligeti, Myaskovsky, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Ravel, Schnittke, Shostakovich.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Ravel was an immaculate and conservative craftsman who very often "takes us to a magical forest." Trouble is, every time he takes us to that magical forest, it is the same damned forest, the same spot in that forest, even.


Whereas Debussy takes us to a shopping mall and makes us watch him ride the escalators up and down.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

I think Darius Milhaud needs a mention just for the sake of it.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

Sorry, I need to add Gershwin to the list. Remarkable composer. Influenced by Ravel.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

Chopin
Beethoven
Debussy
Liszt
Ravel

Roughly in that order, for me.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I would add Ligeti to that list. Not only because I'm a fan of his music. As Aimard says, he really expanded the notions of virtuosity and rhythmic complexity.


As compared to Boulez, Barraque, Messiaen, and a handful of others? No. I'm being severely clinical, but, no.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Whereas Debussy takes us to a shopping mall and makes us watch him ride the escalators up and down.


Harumph & So there! ?

Want more fuel? Ravel is one of those truly great, yet, second tier composers!
(as in like, Prokofiev, etc. i.e. they are not Schoenberg or Stravinsky -- neither of who wrote much for piano, though Stravinsky more than Schoenberg.)

P.s. I hope our friendship endures this


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> As compared to Boulez, Barraque, Messiaen, and a handful of others? No. I'm being severely clinical, but, no.


Boulez?, pft... Ligeti defecates Boulez and his boringly repetitive pieces... Barraque who?, that guy who only wrote a piano sonata a la maniere de Boulez...


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I think Mozart is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Boulez?, pft... Ligeti defecates Boulez and his boringly repetitive pieces... Barraque who?, that guy who only wrote a piano sonata a la maniere de Boulez...


Point is, none of them are STARTLINGLY new things to come out of a piano, things with little or no precedent. 
Notes, maybe, sonority, technique, all precedented by earlier. Ligeti's Continuum - Harpsichord, a fiendish exercise in multiple tuplets, different tuplets per finger in one hand, is a bit 'something else, but even that technique, fundamentally, is "nothing new." Ligeti did take it to a new level of difficulty, though.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Whereas Debussy takes us to a shopping mall and makes us watch him ride the escalators up and down.


...and I thought that was more about the piano music of Philip Glass....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Speaking of dullard music, interesting Sorabji has yet to come up.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Point is, none of them are STARTLINGLY new things to come out of a piano, things with little or no precedent.
> Notes, maybe, sonority, technique, all precedented by earlier. Ligeti's Continuum - Harpsichord, a fiendish exercise in multiple tuplets, different tuplets per finger in one hand, is a bit 'something else, but even that technique, fundamentally, is "nothing new." Ligeti did take it to a new level of difficulty, though.


Nice fallacy. 
Of course, Ligeti was influenced by previous composers. In fact, Chopin's and Schumann's use of the hemiola were precedents of his technique, as Ligeti himself notes.
And we can go even further, the idea of superimpose different rhythms is as old as african music in that case...
But Ligeti takes this idea to the absolute extreme, redefining what a human player can do at a piano.






If you can find examples of something sounding remotely similar to that in the list you made I will be all ears. That first etude Desordre has one of the most clever uses of the octaves I have seen. Compare that with the cliched Liszt.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Defecates?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vaneyes said:


> Defecates?


Well, truly awesome feces I must admit... 
(I was not being totally serious there, Boulez is one of my favorites)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Nice fallacy.
> Of course, Ligeti was influenced by previous composers. In fact, Chopin's and Schumann's use of the hemiola were precedents of his technique, as Ligeti himself notes.
> And we can go even further, the idea of superimpose different rhythms is as old as african music in that case...
> But Ligeti takes this idea to the absolute extreme, redefining what a human player can do at a piano.
> ...


Still has roots. Take off your blinders of admiration for Ligeti, with which I have no problem, and recognize taking what was before to a new limit is a bit different from radically innovating / inventing the thing which Ligeti was working with. Not a lesser achievement, perhaps, but not the stand out came from nowhere kind of thing which is the subject of the OP.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Well, truly awesome feces I must admit...
> (I was not being totally serious there, Boulez is one of my favorites)


and the fertilizer which helped Ligeti, and the tradition which he took further, grow. Very different from the "sports of nature" which is the subject.

Anyway, I hear most of Ligeti past his earlier works as working very much within and from the body of European musical tradition, whether reactive or commenting upon, to me he seemed highly conscious of it -- sometimes to a fault, imho.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Debussy vomits images in every note, Ravel graciously brings them.


Stop listening to those overly precious and far too safe and Librium calm performances of Angela Hewitt and you may just change your mind about both composers.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Stop listening to those overly precious and far too safe and Librium calm performances of Angela Hewitt and you may just change your mind about both composers.


Hewitt's Ravel is no good, Samson François is far better, unfortunately even he can't remove the boredom from Debussy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Hewitt's Ravel is no good, Samson François is far better, unfortunately even he can't remove the boredom from Debussy.


If you're thinking of those early well-made but pabulum pretty pieces like "Girl with the flaxen hair," yeah. Try the etudes, and get back to me on this one.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

PetrB, to your point about Schumann [particularly] creating fully symphonic sounds from the piano, it is this capacity of his that first really drew me to his piano music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Stop listening to those overly precious and far too safe and Librium calm performances of Angela Hewitt and you may just change your mind about both composers.


I have the complete piano oeuvre of the two composers in a mix of interpreters. Some pieces played by different interpreters also. I love both composers, that comment you quote was made in a joking way, as well as the comment about Boulez. Anybody which knows me or at least has read some of my posts here knows that Ravel, Debussy, Boulez, as well as Ligeti are some of my favorite composers. I assumed your comment about Ravel being a second hand composer was also in a joking way. If that's not the case, then I violently disagree with that statement.
The "preference" for Ravel in the OP was made eons ago, maybe I was listening to some Ravel at that moment or something.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Compare that with the cliched Liszt.


*Dies*

*Left a message for someone else to reach the post minimum*

Seriously, though. Let's just forget they were from completely different eras and had completely different ideas and ideals...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Cliched Liszt ? 
I suggest you try listening to his music as you obviously have not, He opened up the world of piano music in a way that nobody else ever has.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Schumann, then, by default more interested in the piano as a sort of tool, treated it, imo, for the first time as an instrument which could on its own deliver "symphonic" type music. This is certainly a major milestone.


I say Liszt was the first. His transcription of the Symphonie Fantastique is contemporaneous (1834, I think slightly earlier?) with the Schumann works you could say that about.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lisztian said:


> I say Liszt was the first. His transcription of the Symphonie Fantastique is contemporaneous (1834, I think slightly earlier?) with the Schumann works you could say that about.


Liszt is given due credit. I call the above hairsplitting. Milton Babbitt wrote and published the first all elements serialized serial piece a year prior Messiaen's _Mode de valeurs et d'intensités_ -- that factoid yet another like small academic footnote.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Did you just call Scriabin a mere blip on the piano radar?  When looking at his popularity or historic importance, then perhaps, but still more than just a blip.... and when talking about the quality and originality of his music, then most certainly not.


----------



## chrisco97 (May 22, 2013)

*Beethoven* - It is hard to beat the piano sonatas.

*Debussy* - Only have been listening for a couple of days, but I have loved everything I have listened to of his. It is like every piece is like Beethoven's sixth symphony. You know, how it paints a picture? I love that about Debussy's music. On top of that, it is so beautiful and so relaxing.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Fortepiano- Mozart
Modern piano- Chopin, Schubert,Schumann


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Ravel was an immaculate and conservative craftsman who very often "takes us to a magical forest." Trouble is, every time he takes us to that magical forest, it is the same damned forest, the same spot in that forest, even.


_Jeax Deau, Pavane Pour Une Infante Defunte, Alborada De Gracioso from Miroirs, Gaspard De La Nuit _etc.

Same spot in the magical forest? I would very much disagree. Admittedly there is a certain magical spot Ravel was fond of in many of his pieces (just like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Schubert etc, had their favorite "spots")

But honestly completely different universes in the above pieces I mentioned. The two Piano Concertos - very different musical statements.

I remember a post a long while back where you stated that you thought Ravel wrote the best music. I would agree Ravel composed some of the best music. I don't see how one could think that, and then turn around and say he is second-tier. Innovation, and a prolific output are admirable traits in a composer, but at the end of the day I am more interested in the over-all qualities of the final product. Certain composers are more of craftsmen and perfectionists than innovators. If you put them up against composers whose strengths are in other areas and judge them by those other standards then yes, they will come up short. Ravel was better than Debussy in certain areas, Debussy was better than Ravel in others. Personally I don't think either composer was second tier.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

^^in order to win the war, some are capable of sacrificing their own people.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> ^^in order to win the war, some are capable of sacrificing their own people.


Not sure what the comment is in reply to, but yes, that's generally required to win a war.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Not sure what the comment is in reply to, but yes, that's generally required to win a war.


I meant in the sense of sacrificing the nation...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

trazom said:


> Fortepiano- Mozart
> Modern piano- Chopin, Schubert,Schumann


Post 1777 all Mozart's keyboard music was conceived for the piano.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

aleazk said:


> ^^in order to win the war, some are capable of sacrificing their own people.


They are not being sacrificed for goodness sake-they are fighting for people like you.
If they hadn't you wouldn't be able to go on the way you do here.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> _I remember a post a long while back where you stated that you thought Ravel wrote the best music_


_

I seriously doubt I said just that, but point me to it. If I did, I would feel only right retracting it, thinking I had mis-stated something._


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I seriously doubt I said just that, but point me to it. If I did, I would feel only right retracting it, thinking I had mis-stated something.


Its right here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/13322-greatest-vs-most-beautiful-2.html



PetrB said:


> *Maurice Ravel wrote the greatest music of all time*.... Catherine Deneuve is the greatest women of all time....
> 
> There, in a nutshell, is the answer to your somewhat green semantic question.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh, I see that PetrB and KenOC are friends now... how enlightening.


----------

