# The most versatile composers after Mozart?



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

For the 19th century, I think it will be a contest between Tchaikovsky and Dvorak. Let's break it down:

*1) Symphony:* Both are fantastic (Tchaikovsky's 4th-6th vs. Dvorak's 6th-9th)

*2) Concerto:* Both are well-versed in multiple instruments (Tchaikovsky's PCs, VC and Rococo Variations with Cello vs. Dvorak's PC, VC and CCs). I slightly prefer Tchaikovsky here.

*3) Opera:* Tchaikovsky is truly a man of the theater. _Eugene Onegin_, _The Queen of Spades_ and _Iolanta_ are somewhat up there with Mozart's, Verdi's and Wagner's best works. Operas just come natural to him. Dvorak's operas are less well-known overall, but _Rusalka _and _Armida_ can be counted as masterpieces.

*4) Chamber music:* Dvorak is stronger with his trademark string quartets, plus a couple of trios and quintets. However, Tchaikovsky is highly skilled (String Quartet no.1) and original (_Souvenir de Florence_)

*5) Orchestral works:* They are both great. There are just too many impressive tone poems and overtures coming from both.

*6) Choral music:* There's nothing in Tchaikovsky's output could match Dvorak's _Stabat Mater_ or _Requiem_ in term of scale and raw power. But who could expect Tchaikovsky to pull out such an unearthly choral work like _Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom_?

*7) Piano solo:* Not their strength. But Tchaikovsky has _The Seasons_ and Dvorak has _Legends_.

*8) Miscellaneous:* Tchaikovsky has even more tricks up his sleeve, like the three ballets and several songs.

No 19th century German composer was that versatile. The French may nominate Saint-Saens, but I don't think his output is consistently great.

How about the 20th century? Should it be among Prokofiev, Shostakovitch and Britten?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Stravinsky would be a strong 20th century choice. Of course, you are defining the categories on pre-20c terms. A lot of them didn't write symphonies, or at least didn't call them that. 

Oh, and Beethoven.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> Stravinsky would be a strong 20th century choice. Of course, you are defining the categories on pre-20c terms. *A lot of them didn't write symphonies, or at least didn't call them that*.
> 
> Oh, and Beethoven.


I totally agree. If we strip down what so-called symphony, I may add Bartok, Ravel and Messiaen.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Another vote for Stravinsky, the chameleon, although he was not that versatile in the concerti department -- or more likely did not care much for the genre.

I might also list Martinu who wrote many combinations of chamber, orchestral, concerti, opera, you name it, most of the works idiosyncratic yet accessible.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

As far as the 19th century goes, I nominate Brahms. Aside from opera, he seemed a master of almost all forms.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

Shostakovich wrote masterpieces in symphonies, concerti, chamber music, operas, ballets, plus he added film scores and little things to keep Stalin happy...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Clearly, Sergei Prokofiev. Master of All Genres. I will not bother to list them all.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I do think Shostakovitch and Britten, not my favourite though.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

silentio said:


> For the 19th century, I think it will be a contest between Tchaikovsky and Dvorak. Let's break it down:
> 
> *1) Symphony:* Both are fantastic (Tchaikovsky's 4th-6th vs. Dvorak's 6th-9th)
> 
> ...


Massenet!

Probably the most versatile opera composer. One -act verismo, five act historical epics, myth, comedy, fairy tale, literature, miracle plays,.

Add oratorios, ballets, piano music, cantatas, masses, instrumental suites, symphonies, organ music, melodies for salons, &c!

Full list here: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Massenet#.C5.92uvre


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Schubert for the early C19 - almost 1000 pieces across symphony, string quartet, piano trio, quintet, solo piano, masses, choral music, songs etc etc in a sadly shortened life


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Schnittke was very stylistically versatile, I would suspect that he would be applicable?j

He composed pieces in all major forms (symphonies, Concertos, String Quartets, Choral, Opera, Ballet and Film) and was able to jump between styles with ease and sometimes at the same time!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Schoenberg and Stravinsky both wrote masterpieces in all of those genres.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

*Glazunov*: Master of the symphony, symphonic fantasies, chamber music (his quartets are highly ranked), very good piano music (superb sonatas, three etudes, and theme et variations), very good suites for orchestra (From the Middle Ages is excellent), very good concertante works (Violin and Saxophone Concerti highly ranked, and rightly so). His only attempt at opera was the completion of the overture and Act III of Borodin's "Prince Igor", which is very impressive for the fledgling composer at the time. Choral music and songs are fine, though not the best examples of his art.

*Nielsen*: Master of the symphony, great composer for the theatre (operas and incidental music), very good chamber and instrumental works, very good miscellaneous music (including overtures), excellent concerti and songs.

*Bax*: Supreme symphonist, author of excellent tone poems, great composer of chamber and piano music (his Sonatas are among the best in British music), very good film composer, concerti and concertante works range from good (Cello Concerto & Piano Concertino) to superb (Winter Legends, Symphonic Variations). His ballet "The Truth About the Russian Dancers" is mighty impressive. His choral music and songs are quite up there.

*Myaskovsky*: Supreme symphonist, great composer of songs, master of chamber music (string quartets and cello sonatas highly regarded), very good piano music (his Fourth Sonata a masterpiece).

*Composers worth thinking about*: Camille Saint-Saens, Zemlinsky, Hans Gal, Poulenc, Roussel, Rachmaninoff (his operas are not minor works), Weinberg.

*P.S.* I think I would've added Dvorak's Third and Fifth Symphonies and Tchaikovsky's Manfred as fantastic symphonies to Silentio's otherwise thought-provoking thread above.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Clearly, Sergei Prokofiev. Master of All Genres. I will not bother to list them all.


Was gonna say. Prokofiev is maybe the only one after Mozart who nailed those same genres several times or more. With Dvorak and Tchaikovsky, you come fairly close but in certain genres there are only one or two standout masterpieces.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Seems like Opera is the make-or-break factor here. If we exclude opera, the following composers can join the party:

Beethoven
Schubert
Mendelssohn
Schumann
Brahms
Elgar 
Vaughan William


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It was easier to be versatile in the Baroque and Classical eras, when musical ideas and whole works were often expected to be adaptable to different instrumental and vocal forces. In the Romantic era composers conceived music right from the beginning more in terms of specific sounds and expressive intent, and musical material suited to one medium could less easily be transferred to another. It's often impossible to tell whether a given melody of Bach is vocal or instrumental in origin. !8th-century chamber works can be orchestrated, or orchestral works reduced to chamber dimensions, without loss of character. Arrangements of Mozart's operatic music for various instrumental ensembles can sound perfectly idiomatic; similar arrangements of Verdi or Wagner alter the character of the music considerably and may not work at all. Even transcriptions of 19th- and 20th-century string quartets for string orchestra sound like different works. Being versatile in more recent times requires mastery of a wider range of skills.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The OP called for the most versatile composer after Mozart. Unexpressed was a requirement that everyone would surely also acknowledge, that this composer should have penned very-well-known, top-echelon works in a vast plethora of genres, such that they are in the forefront of the minds of huge numbers of classical music aficionados. I think a moment's reflection will assure Sergei Prokofiev's pre-eminent position as the most fit companion to WAM. Do I really need to go further? I think not.


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

I've been listening to Schoenberg a lot lately, and as I've gone through his works, I have been constantly amazed by the versatility of his writing for a very large variety of instrumental forces. So I'll nominate him, as well as Stravinsky, Bartók and Prokofiev.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> Was gonna say. Prokofiev is maybe the only one after Mozart who nailed those same genres several times or more. With Dvorak and Tchaikovsky, you come fairly close but in certain genres there are only one or two standout masterpieces.


Not the only. Shostakovich definitely did it too.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DSCH certainly nailed symphonies, string quartets, and concertos. His remaining chamber music oeuvre is small but of exceedingly high quality. He wrote excellent ballets and film scores. Plus an astonishing set of preludes and fugues in all keys. And what other Russkie composer can hope to match his "March of the Soviet Police"? :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> DSCH certainly nailed symphonies, string quartets, and concertos. His remaining chamber music oeuvre is small but of exceedingly high quality. He wrote excellent ballets and film scores. Plus an astonishing set of preludes and fugues in all keys. And what other Russkie composer can hope to match his "March of the Soviet Police"? :lol:


KenOC, a noble effort, a heroic effort, in support of DSCH. But let's look further into PRKV's output: 7 symphonies, 9 piano sonatas, 6 other sonatas, 2 string quartets, 6 operas, 8 ballets (several for Diaghilev), 7 film scores (several for Eisenstein), 5 piano concertos, 2 violin concertos, a 'cello concerto, plus dozens of suites, divertissements, and songs, cantatas, and solo piano music by the carload. Plus _Peter and the Wolf, The Ugly Duckling_, and _Hail to Stalin_. Just the names: Love for Three Oranges, Scythian Suite, Kije, Alexander Nevsky, Romeo and Juliet, Classical Symphony, Prodigal Son, Fiery Angel, Pas d'Acier, Chout, War and Peace, Cinderella, Ivan the Terrible; the list goes on and on of works well known to most classical music aficionados, that DSCH, worthy though he may be, just cannot match in breadth or quantity, though many individual works are exceptional. So there!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> DSCH certainly nailed symphonies, string quartets, and concertos. His remaining chamber music oeuvre is small but of exceedingly high quality. He wrote excellent ballets and film scores. Plus an astonishing set of preludes and fugues in all keys. And what other Russkie composer can hope to match his "March of the Soviet Police"? :lol:


Operas too...................


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I vote for Stravinsky.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I vote for Stravinsky.


We going to vote on that one.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Vaughan Williams - 9 symphonies, many choral and vocal works, chamber music, incidental orchestral music and even music for films.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

You could look at this in a different way: at versatility in it's more absolute sense. And I mean, with styles, forms, and whatever kind of approach was conceived that made a work or set of works, different(with enough quality in the different areas to support the variety). 

Berlioz for example, produced a number of high quality works that often don't have the characteristics to cleanly pin them to any genre like symphony, tone poem, etc. Works of genius that can safely or debatably occupy their own category.

Chopin is perhaps often mistaken as limited. Within the 'genres' Chopin uses like Mazurkas, Ballades, Preludes, etc, it is rarely hard to detect the individuality of a given piece. There were a lot of these little genres that he had his hands in.

So it's a really difficult question to answer, at least for me. And this line of thinking should not be used to demean the apparently more tonally/otherwise limited means of the 18th, 17th, 16th, and probably 15th> centuries. With some sets of musical possibilities not yet opened, the best of these composers(the names that readily come to mind and many more) had a very fine sense of discrimination and were often quite adventurous. That is mostly missed by sensibilities which are grounded in comparatively more recent music. But like most things, it must be felt to be truly believed.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just to note in passing: A composer may be quite versatile, grinding away in all genres, and still seldom rise above the insipid and tedious.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> KenOC, a noble effort, a heroic effort, in support of DSCH. But let's look further into PRKV's output: ...


Two string quartets? TWO? It's obvious that my point is proven! :lol:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Just to note in passing: A composer may be quite versatile, grinding away in all genres, and still seldom rise above the insipid and tedious.


Yes, but many of them who manage to do this and put in their hours, improve far more as composers or musicians, than they would have. Incessant grind without taking a deeper measure of what's going on can stunt that, but some improvement will still happen.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Not the only. Shostakovich definitely did it too.


Shostakovich went in an amazing number of directions as well. But in the piano sonata department, Prokofiev looms large over him. To be fair, Shostakovich may be heavier duty in his symphonies and certainly in string quartets.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Handel is up there. Masterpieces in opera, oratorio, sacred music, concerto grosso, organ concertos, solo keyboard. Can't hold the lack of "chamber music" against him because Haydn hadn't invented it yet.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Though I guess you could say his trio sonatas are a relative weak spot on his CV.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Weston said:


> Another vote for Stravinsky, the chameleon, although he was not that versatile in the concerti department -- or more likely did not care much for the genre.
> 
> I might also list Martinu who wrote many combinations of chamber, orchestral, concerti, opera, you name it, most of the works idiosyncratic yet accessible.


Stravinsky and concertos?
Concerto for Piano and Wind Instruments
Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra
Dumbarton Oaks (a 20th-century concerto grosso)
Violin Concerto in D
Movements for Piano and Orchestra


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

A few post-Mozart composers who strike me a particularly versatile:

Debussy
Martinů
Milhaud
Prokofiev
Ravel
Saint-Saëns (he even wrote the first tailor-made film score)
Shostakovich
Walton


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Handel is up there.


 quite possibly, but he's disqualified from being an appropriate answer to the OP on account of not being *'after'* Mozart


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Headphone Hermit said:


> quite possibly, but he's disqualified from being an appropriate answer to the OP on account of not being *'after'* Mozart


We'll give him some leeway, though, since he died _after Mozart_.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

poconoron said:


> We'll give him some leeway, though, since he died _after Mozart_.


Umm.. no. He might have died after Mozart was BORN (1759 and 1756 respectively), but Wolfie outlived Georgie by 32 years.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> Umm.. no. He might have died after Mozart was BORN (1759 and 1756 respectively), but Wolfie outlived Georgie by 32 years.


Oops, I read that as Haydn, for some reason.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> Stravinsky and concertos?
> Concerto for Piano and Wind Instruments
> Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra
> Dumbarton Oaks (a 20th-century concerto grosso)
> ...


And let's not forget my favourite Stravinsky concerto: the ebony concerto for clarinet and jazz band.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> quite possibly, but he's disqualified from being an appropriate answer to the OP on account of not being *'after'* Mozart


I've been wondering whether 'after' refers to chronology or just 'next best.'


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Headphone Hermit said:


> quite possibly, but he's disqualified from being an appropriate answer to the OP on account of not being *'after'* Mozart


I understood "after" in the sense of quality, not time e.g. "Walruses are my favorite mammal, after sloths."

But now I notice nobody else did, so maybe this proves I spend too much time reading old books and not enough time talking to real people.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Art Rock said:


> And let's not forget my favourite Stravinsky concerto: the ebony concerto for clarinet and jazz band.


Thanks, Art Rock. How could have forgotten that little masterpiece? Shame on me!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Handel is up there. Masterpieces in opera, oratorio, sacred music, concerto grosso, organ concertos, solo keyboard. Can't hold the lack of "chamber music" against him because Haydn hadn't invented it yet.


Agree entirely.


----------

