# Best composer of music for piano



## hapiper

I was just reading a story from a music critic in which he says Chopin was one of the best composers of music for piano. I was just wondering what piano music is your favorite and is there one particular composer that seemed to excel with the piano?


----------



## Morimur

hapiper said:


> I was just reading a story from a music critic in which he says Chopin was one of the best composers of music for piano. I was just wondering what piano music is your favorite and is there one particular composer that seemed to excel with the piano?


Beethoven
*********


----------



## arpeggio

I do not have a single favorite composer or work. I ironically I am listening to Heather Reichgott new CD of contemporary piano music:









Ms. Reichott is a member of this forum.

One of the composers on the CD is also a member, Steven O'Brien.

One of the ironies of this CD is that contains very tonal music. The irony is that we have a clique of members who love to bash atonal music and wish composers composed more tonal music. Well here is a CD that contains the type of music that I think they would like.


----------



## Bulldog

In my world, the best composers for keyboard are Froberger, Bach, Beethoven, Schumann and Scriabin.


----------



## chesapeake bay

Morimur said:


> Beethoven
> *********


-----Seconded-----


----------



## Pugg

hapiper said:


> I was just reading a story from a music critic in which he says Chopin was one of the best composers of music for piano. I was just wondering what piano music is your favorite and is there one particular composer that seemed to excel with the piano?


Hayden ( if I have to choose )
******


----------



## dsphipps100

I don't know nearly as much about piano literature as I do about orchestral literature, but the first name that sprang to mind was Beethoven.


----------



## arpeggio

I have no idea who is the best.

The composers with the most piano works in my library (at least 20 or more works):
Liszt
Beethoven
Chopin
Prokofieff
Debussy
Bartók
Brahms
Persichetti
Bax
Ginastera
Martinu


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Robert Schumann comes a good second after Beethoven in my book.


----------



## Chordalrock

Beethoven by far.


----------



## KenOC

Maybe we should differentiate between "best piano music" and "best music for piano." There may be a difference.


----------



## tdc

Just some favorites (not including Baroque music)

Debussy
Prokofiev
Ravel
Albeniz
Rodrigo
Ives
Rzewski


----------



## joen_cph

The 20 major ones for me would be:

- Bach (let´s say piano)
- CPE Bach
- Mozart
- Beethoven
- Chopin
- Schubert
- Schumann
- Brahms (because of the concertos)
- Liszt
- Debussy
- Albeniz
- Ravel
- Rachmaninov
- Prokofiev
- Scriabin
- Janacek
- Medtner
- Feinberg
- Sorabji 
- Ligeti


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Beethoven


and then, in no particular order:

Bach
Haydn
Busoni
Scarlatti
Messaien
Mozart
Schubert
Schumann
Liszt
Prokofiev
Medtner
Rachmaninov
Ravel
Stockhausen
Albeniz
Chopin
Alkan
Brahms
Scriabin
Thalberg
Webern
Janacek


----------



## tdc

There is no doubt Beethoven was one of the greatest composers for piano, especially considering his use of form and development, and the sheer volume of excellent works he produced.

However, if one is primarily interested in harmonic language, effective use of dissonance and tonal color applied through the use of harmony he is fairly average (at best). In those ways I would argue composers like Chopin, Liszt and the later impressionists/neo-classicists far outclass him. (Bach too*).

*Edit -* For clarity I mean Bach outclasses him too - not that Bach was outclassed.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> There is no doubt Beethoven was one of the greatest composers for piano, especially considering his use of form and development, and the sheer volume of excellent works he produced.
> 
> However, if one is primarily interested in harmonic language, effective use of dissonance and tonal color applied through the use of harmony he is fairly average (at best). In those ways I would argue composers like Chopin, Liszt and the later impressionists/neo-classicists far outclass him. (Bach too*).
> 
> *Edit -* For clarity I mean Bach outclasses him too - not that Bach was outclassed.


Reread the way you worded your second paragraph, tdc, it strikes me as odd. You first say that if *one* is interested in "this, this, and that", then "he [Beethoven] is fairly average (at best)". That line of reasoning doesn't add up. It should be something like this: "If one is primarily interested in harmonic language, effective use of dissonance and tonal color applied through the use of harmony, then he [Beethoven] probably wouldn't be among one's favorites". It's like me calling Webern "fairly average at best" because I'm _personally_ looking for more contrapuntal density in my orchestral music and Schoenberg provides that, so clearly Schoenberg outclasses Webern, and also therefore, Webern is fairly average (at best).

The problem, of course, is that you call a composer fairly average at best for something that you yourself are looking for. It's as if I called Mozart's piano concertos fairly average because I don't find certain qualities that I do in Brahms' piano concertos. Or if I called Haydn's orchestral music fairly average because it's not as harmonically diverse/daring, doesn't have the dissonance nor tonal color of Wagner.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Well, DiesIrae, I wouldn't even say that.

If you listen to the Hammerklavier, there's an ungodly level of dissonance that outclasses all of the above. How could Beethoven be merely average in harmony and dissonance in the first place?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Counting only solo piano music, I have Beethoven and Debussy as my number 1 and a _very_ close number 2.

After that, I greatly enjoy Schubert, Schumann, Ligeti, Ravel, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Boulez, Chopin, and some Bach.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

SeptimalTritone said:


> Well, DiesIrae, I wouldn't even say that.
> 
> If you listen to the Hammerklavier, there's an ungodly level of dissonance that outclasses all of the above. How could Beethoven be merely average in harmony and dissonance in the first place?


I was hoping someone with some real technical music would step in eventually, so thank you for that, ST!


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Oh God, I don't have very much technical knowledge outside of some rudimentary classical and 12-tone composition I've done.

I mean, I bet 100% that you can hear the high levels of dissonance in that piece, from the first few chromatic inflections (after the initial exclamatory gestures), the almost psychologically crazy conflict between B flat and B, to the insane crunch in the depths of the fugal finale that probably even exceeds the Grosse Fugue. It's described in that book you have quoted in your signature.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

SeptimalTritone said:


> Oh God, I don't have very much technical knowledge outside of some rudimentary classical and 12-tone composition I've done.
> 
> I mean, I bet 100% that you can hear the high levels of dissonance in that piece, from the first few chromatic inflections (after the initial exclamatory gestures), the almost psychologically crazy conflict between B flat and B, to the insane crunch in the depths of the fugal finale that probably even exceeds the Grosse Fugue. It's described in that book you have quoted in your signature.


Dissonance I can hear, for sure. I hear it in the Hammerklavier and especially the Grosse Fuge, but things likes harmonic language, tonal color, etc. are a bit beyond my layman grasp right now.

For the most part, I just follow my brain and heart.


----------



## Mahlerian

I'm confused as to how Beethoven suddenly became the greatest composer for piano in this thread.

Granted, I love a number of the sonatas and the Diabelli Variations, but even so, piano was not his primary genre (arguably String Quartets became that). Piano was the primary expressive medium for composers like Chopin, Schumann, Debussy, and Bartok, all of whom did more to change the way people looked at the instrument than Beethoven did. If I were judging composers based on their contributions to the repertoire, I would look at them first.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I think, as it usually goes with threads with the word "best" in the title, it becomes about who are our favorites (the OP actually does ask for our favorites).


----------



## GreenMamba

Wait, this topic is in Orchestral Music, so are we just talking about piano with orchestra?


----------



## tdc

DiesIraeCX said:


> Reread the way you worded your second paragraph, tdc, it strikes me as odd. You first say that if *one* is interested in "this, this, and that", then "he [Beethoven] is fairly average (at best)". That line of reasoning doesn't add up. It should be something like this: "If one is primarily interested in harmonic language, effective use of dissonance and tonal color applied through the use of harmony, then he [Beethoven] probably wouldn't be among one's favorites". It's like me calling Webern "fairly average at best" because I'm _personally_ looking for more contrapuntal density in my orchestral music and Schoenberg provides that, so clearly Schoenberg outclasses Webern, and also therefore, Webern is fairly average (at best).
> 
> The problem, of course, is that you call a composer fairly average at best for something that you yourself are looking for. It's as if I called Mozart's piano concertos fairly average because I don't find certain qualities that I do in Brahms' piano concertos. Or if I called Haydn's orchestral music fairly average because it's not as harmonically diverse/daring, doesn't have the dissonance nor tonal color of Wagner.


You have a point. What I was saying was in response to several posts that seemed to suggest Beethoven was the best piano composer 'by far'. I was just pointing out that it depends what one is looking for in the piano music. Beethoven excelled in certain areas, but not in others. If one is mostly interested in form and development and long dramatic pieces - Beethoven is probably your guy. If one is more interested in things like harmony and counterpoint or concise expression, then they may lean towards other composers.


----------



## Bulldog

Mahlerian said:


> I'm confused as to how Beethoven suddenly became the greatest composer for piano in this thread.
> 
> Granted, I love a number of the sonatas and the Diabelli Variations, but even so, piano was not his primary genre (arguably String Quartets became that).


I don't see Beethoven as having any primary genre; he was a well-rounded composer. Also, 32 piano sonatas isn't a shabby number.


----------



## tdc

SeptimalTritone said:


> Well, DiesIrae, I wouldn't even say that.
> 
> If you listen to the Hammerklavier, there's an ungodly level of dissonance that outclasses all of the above. How could Beethoven be merely average in harmony and dissonance in the first place?


Pieces like this were an exception though and don't represent his regular harmonic language. Also I think adding lots of notes and chromaticism is not the same as using dissonance in the sophisticated ways that Bach used dissonance. I think when Beethoven used more complex harmonies, it would tend to have a bit of a muddying effect, rather than the color one might hear in Chopin or Ravel.


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> I'm confused as to how Beethoven suddenly became the greatest composer for piano in this thread.
> 
> Granted, I love a number of the sonatas and the Diabelli Variations, but even so, piano was not his primary genre (arguably String Quartets became that). Piano was the primary expressive medium for composers like Chopin, Schumann, Debussy, and Bartok, all of whom did more to change the way people looked at the instrument than Beethoven did. If I were judging composers based on their contributions to the repertoire, I would look at them first.


Beethoven composed more for the piano than Schumann... Or Debussy, or Bartok, probably more than Chopin too... (And his stuff is better, IMO.)

EDIT: Also, Beethoven as a musician (as opposed to as a composer) was primarily a virtuoso pianist, not a string player and not primarily a conductor although he did that too. Much of his piano music is for his own use. And it's probably the genre where Beethoven is at his most interesting and characterful. I'm sure many people would choose his symphonies or even string quartets over his piano works, but for me it wouldn't even be a contest.


----------



## Bayreuth

Mahlerian said:


> I'm confused as to how Beethoven suddenly became the greatest composer for piano in this thread.
> 
> Granted, I love a number of the sonatas and the Diabelli Variations, but even so, piano was not his primary genre (arguably String Quartets became that). Piano was the primary expressive medium for composers like Chopin, Schumann, Debussy, and Bartok, all of whom did more to change the way people looked at the instrument than Beethoven did. If I were judging composers based on their contributions to the repertoire, I would look at them first.


I don't understand that obsession we have in this forum by which "best" must necesarily mean "contributed the most". Why can't "best" mean, for once, to be the "most liked"?

That being said, although I enjoy Beethoven's sonatas deeply, I would go for Chopin, Scriabin or Debussy (or that beautiful combination of all of them that is Szymanowski)

PS: as already mentioned by GreenMamba, I don't think this post belongs in "Orchestral"


----------



## hpowders

I would say the greatest music for piano was composed by Debussy, although, admitedly, I do not care for most of it.

But I DO acknowledge its unique greatness.

As written literally, I wonder why this thread topic was inserted under "Orchestral Music".


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Beethoven composed more for the piano than Schumann... Or Debussy, or Bartok, probably more than Chopin too... (And his stuff is better, IMO.)
> 
> EDIT: Also, Beethoven as a musician (as opposed to as a composer) was primarily a virtuoso pianist, not a string player and not primarily a conductor although he did that too. Much of his piano music is for his own use. And it's probably the genre where Beethoven is at his most interesting and characterful. I'm sure many people would choose his symphonies or even string quartets over his piano works, but for me it wouldn't even be a contest.


Yes, as a musician, he was a pianist, but especially towards the end of his life the string quartet became the medium for his most idiosyncratic and complex music. You are correct that in terms of sheer volume, piano works outweigh other kinds, but not all works are of equal weight in a composer's oeuvre. You are correct that the sonatas, etc. contain many wonderful works, but as a piano composer I would point to those whose writing for the instrument was revolutionary in its impact.

And I'll have to leave you to your own opinion that Beethoven's piano music is better than Debussy and Chopin. I can't agree.



Bayreuth said:


> I don't understand that obsession we have in this forum by which "best" must necesarily mean "contributed the most". Why can't "best" mean, for once, to be the "most liked"?


Because that's not what best means?


----------



## Petwhac

Beethoven was first really great piano composer. His pieces are not as much '_keyboard_' pieces like those of Bach, Mozart, Haydn but they are truly for the _piano_ with it's percussive and dynamic nature. The sonatas are full of fantastically 'pianistic' idiomatic passages as far back as the 'Pathetique' and as for the late sonatas and variations......!

Chopin, of course. Liszt, Debussy and Ravel.

I don't see how you can really count Bach. Though his music does sound great on the old Joanna!


----------



## Truckload

Headphone Hermit said:


> Beethoven
> 
> and then, in no particular order:
> 
> Bach
> Haydn
> Busoni
> Scarlatti
> Messaien
> Mozart
> Schubert
> Schumann
> Liszt
> Prokofiev
> Medtner
> Rachmaninov
> Ravel
> Stockhausen
> Albeniz
> Chopin
> Alkan
> Brahms
> Scriabin
> Thalberg
> Webern
> Janacek


You have an interestingly broad taste in piano music. What do you think of the Dvorak piano music? I am thinking specifically of his Poetic Tone Pictures Opus 85.


----------



## Bulldog

Petwhac said:


> I don't see how you can really count Bach.


That's easy. All you have to do is substitute keyboard for piano.:tiphat:


----------



## Truckload

I agree that this thread really does not belong in "Orchestral".

Piano music is not my first love, but it seems to me that Beethoven was the first great composer to write for the piano, as it was still a new invention for him as a young man. His piano sonatas certainly seem, as a group, to make an astonishing contribution in terms of form, drama and technical challenge. Had anyone before him written anything for keyboard (with the possible exception of the Bach organ music) as technically challenging as Beethoven?

Of course as far as technical mastery of the instrument he was surpassed by Franz Liszt, and I don't know of anyone who has written more difficult music. Liszt piano music was hugely popular 40 or 50 years ago, but I think that might have decreased a bit over time.

Chopin seems to be the star with people who actually play piano. Everyone who masters that instrument seems to always put his music in their top 2 or 3, and this doesn't seem to have changed over the years.


----------



## Bayreuth

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, as a musician, he was a pianist, but especially towards the end of his life the string quartet became the medium for his most idiosyncratic and complex music. You are correct that in terms of sheer volume, piano works outweigh other kinds, but not all works are of equal weight in a composer's oeuvre. You are correct that the sonatas, etc. contain many wonderful works, but as a piano composer I would point to those whose writing for the instrument was revolutionary in its impact.
> 
> And I'll have to leave you to your own opinion that Beethoven's piano music is better than Debussy and Chopin. I can't agree.
> 
> Because that's not what best means?


"Revolutionary" isn't my exact definition of "best", either


----------



## Mahlerian

Bayreuth said:


> "Revolutionary" isn't my exact definition of "best", either


Nor is it mine. It is only a component of my definition. Not the most important one, either.


----------



## Chronochromie

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, as a musician, he was a pianist, but especially towards the end of his life the string quartet became the medium for his most idiosyncratic and complex music. You are correct that in terms of sheer volume, piano works outweigh other kinds, but not all works are of equal weight in a composer's oeuvre. You are correct that the sonatas, etc. contain many wonderful works, but as a piano composer I would point to those whose writing for the instrument was revolutionary in its impact.


And Beethoven's impact on piano writing wasn't "revolutionary"? I'm genuinely curious. Wasn't he very influential to Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt and the like?


----------



## Mahlerian

Chronochromie said:


> And Beethoven's impact on piano writing wasn't "revolutionary"? I'm genuinely curious. Wasn't he very influential to Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt and the like?


Musically, yes. In terms of piano sonority, I would think less so. One can already hear the Romantic style of piano writing developed by the aforementioned composers in other lesser figures of the time.


----------



## Bayreuth

Mahlerian said:


> Nor is it mine. It is only a component of my definition. Not the most important one, either.


I can see that. I accept that it is necesary to have a profound impact on the instrument in order to be considered as "the best". However, I find that measuring impact is almost impossible because of anachronistic circumstances. Measuring acceptance and admiration is, on the other hand, much more easier. In the end, isn't that what all these "who's best" polls are about?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Truckload said:


> You have an interestingly broad taste in piano music. What do you think of the Dvorak piano music? I am thinking specifically of his Poetic Tone Pictures Opus 85.


Thank you - I have a broad taste in all 'classical' music

Oh yes, Dvorak - yes, he wrote some fantastic piano music too - The Slavonic Dances, Legends (all originally for four-hands), the Poetic Tone Poems, the Moravian Duets etc etc - oh yes, lovely pieces.

There must be other composers whose music I enjoy that I omitted from my list (Sorabji, Field, Clementi and Suk spring to mind, for example)


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Truckload said:


> Of course as far as technical mastery of the instrument he was surpassed by Franz Liszt, and I don't know of anyone who has written more difficult music.


There are a number of virtuoso pianist/composers that may approach (even challenge) Liszt in terms of 'difficult-to-perform' music - Alkan for example seems to be reputed as ferociously difficult, but as I don't play, it might be better for those who have performance skill and experience to comment


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Petwhac said:


> I don't see how you can really count Bach. Though his music does sound great on the old Joanna!


Of course, Bach didn't write *for* the piano, but numerous performers have played his keyboard works very convincingly on the piano. Angela Hewitt in particular is persuasive in her advocacy of the appropriateness of the piano for both books of the Well-tempered Clavier, for example.


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> especially towards the end of his life the string quartet became the medium for his most idiosyncratic and complex music.


Because he no longer wrote for the piano at all?



Mahlerian said:


> You are correct that in terms of sheer volume, piano works outweigh other kinds, but not all works are of equal weight in a composer's oeuvre.


I said his piano works outweighed the size of the piano works by the composers you nominated. I don't care whether Beethoven composed some other type of music more than piano works. What this thread is about is the significance of a composer's piano output, and that is not affected by the size (or nature) of his other ouvre.



Mahlerian said:


> I would point to those whose writing for the instrument was revolutionary in its impact.


Emphasis should be on 'was', I think. The fact that something was new or revolutionary 150 years ago, doesn't really concern me at all. If it hadn't been those composers, it would've been someone else. The only newness and only revolution that matter are about how much such works have lasting value. Strikingly new things often have the fleeting value of novelty, but I'm not at all interested in novelty value when evaluating works of art.



Mahlerian said:


> And I'll have to leave you to your own opinion that Beethoven's piano music is better than Debussy and Chopin. I can't agree.


Have you even listened to something like Beethoven's 2nd piano concerto, which was the first that he composed but was published second? You don't seem to find much value in his piano concertos, but that - his very first piano concerto composed as a young man - is already more imaginative and perpetually striking in the first movement than any piano concerto first movement by Mozart until the 20th in D minor - if that.

And the slow movement of the 4th concerto is pure genius (I've played it myself many times, including the orchestra part). You don't even find that sort of imaginativeness combined with broad appeal in anything by any of those composers you listed, and not even Mozart, whom I mention because I remember that you've ranked his piano concertos far above Beethoven's (why on earth would you do that?).


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> I'm confused as to how Beethoven suddenly became the greatest composer for piano in this thread.
> 
> Granted, I love a number of the sonatas and the Diabelli Variations, but even so,* piano was not his primary genre* (arguably String Quartets became that). Piano was the primary expressive medium for composers like Chopin, Schumann, Debussy, and Bartok, all of whom did more to change the way people looked at the instrument than Beethoven did. If I were judging composers based on their contributions to the repertoire, I would look at them first.


There are a couple of senses in which piano was indeed Beethoven's primary medium ("genre" just doesn't make sense in this context). His piano sonatas were where he took the first steps in any significant stylistic advancement. They were certainly ahead, and sometimes way ahead, of his quartets in each of his stylistic periods. In the middle period, for example, the "Tempest" sonata pretty much laid down most of the essential features of his middle period, way ahead of the quartets Opus 59 - not to mention the Waldstein (Op. 53), Appassionata (Op. 57), and Opus 54! There is even less competition in the early period, Op. 7, Op. 13 far in advance of the Quartets Op 18. Indeed, some individual movements, like the_ Largo e mesto_ of Op. 10 no. 3, are as advanced in their thoroughly unique conception as some of his late period music. Things are less clear - except as far as chronology! - in the late period. The late sonatas are masterpieces and I would be hard-pressed to rate them less favorably than the quartets. And, of course, we have not mentioned concertos, variations, bagatelles and so on. Another sense in which piano was Beethoven's primary medium was that it was his instrument and the vehicle for his renowned improvisations.

This takes nothing away from Chopin, Schumann, and Debussy, of course, and I am not rendering an opinion on the OP's query beyond saying that Beethoven is a perfectly plausible choice.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Have you even listened to something like Beethoven's 2nd piano concerto, which was the first that he composed but was published second?


Of course I have. Many times.



Chordalrock said:


> You don't seem to find much value in his piano concertos, but that - his very first piano concerto composed as a young man - is already more imaginative and perpetually striking in the first movement than any piano concerto first movement by Mozart until the 20th in D minor - if that.


I think Mozart's first original concerto, the D major K175, is already far more inventive in terms of melody, form, and harmony than Beethoven's B-flat, to say nothing of the E-flat K271, one of Mozart's earliest fully assured masterpieces.



Chordalrock said:


> And the slow movement of the 4th concerto is pure genius (I've played it myself many times, including the orchestra part). You don't even find that sort of imaginativeness combined with broad appeal in anything by any of those composers you listed, and not even Mozart, whom I mention because I remember that you've ranked his piano concertos far above Beethoven's (why on earth would you do that?).


I agree that Beethoven's Fourth Concerto is a brilliant and wonderful work, and I consider it the best of his concertos (for any instrument or combination thereof), but I would still hesitate to call it better than the best of Mozart's essays in the genre, fascinating and unique though it undoubtedly is.


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> I think Mozart's first original concerto, the D major K175, is already far more inventive in terms of melody, form, and harmony than Beethoven's B-flat, to say nothing of the E-flat K271, one of Mozart's earliest fully assured masterpieces.


You're breaking down music too awkwardly if you are analysing it in terms of melody, harmony, and form. Beethoven is the master of creating unique things out of simple elements, in such a way that you can't point to those aspects you mentioned and say that they are what makes it brilliant, you have to consider the effect and shape of the music as a whole in its context. And I challenge you to find anything this brilliant in those two Mozart concertos:






I mean the minute-long passage starting at 8:26. Anybody can hear Mozart doesn't compare.


----------



## Petwhac

Bulldog said:


> That's easy. All you have to do is substitute keyboard for piano.:tiphat:


Harpsichord, organ and clavichord are all very different from each other and especially from the piano. One has to write quite differently for them. The clavichord is the closest to the piano as far as touch sensitive dynamics and it is said it was Bach favourite keyboard instrument which probably means he would have loved the piano.


----------



## Petwhac

Headphone Hermit said:


> Of course, Bach didn't write *for* the piano, but numerous performers have played his keyboard works very convincingly on the piano. Angela Hewitt in particular is persuasive in her advocacy of the appropriateness of the piano for both books of the Well-tempered Clavier, for example.


I like Bach on the piano. In fact I prefer it to hearing him on the harpsichord or organ. However the organ's capability of long held pedal tones can only be replicated on the piano by having 3 hands!!

I just think you can't really call him a great composer of piano music.


----------



## Guest

hapiper said:


> I was just reading a story from a music critic in which he says Chopin was one of the best composers of music for piano. I was just wondering what piano music is your favorite and is there one particular composer that seemed to excel with the piano?


Chopin, Debussy, Liszt, Scriabin and Sorabji.


----------



## Bulldog

Petwhac said:


> I like Bach on the piano. In fact I prefer it to hearing him on the harpsichord or organ. However the organ's capability of long held pedal tones can only be replicated on the piano by having 3 hands!!
> 
> I just think you can't really call him a great composer of piano music.


And I'm not doing that. I am calling Bach a great composer of keyboard music. Do you disagree?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Not forgetting Ravel, Fauré (often under-rated), Poulenc and Satie. Also Busoni, who although uneven, occasionally wrote really sparkling and inventive music for solo piano.


----------



## Petwhac

Bulldog said:


> And I'm not doing that. I am calling Bach a great composer of keyboard music. Do you disagree?


Bach was a great composer. Of course I don't disagree. But this thread is about great composers for piano and I'm making a distinction between that and other keyboard instruments.

When it comes to keyboard writing I also think D.Scarlatti needs a big mention. Some of his textures are quite extraordinary but like Bach, he didn't write for the piano.


----------



## Triplets

I love Beethoven and Chopin both, very different Composers who seem to have equally pushed the boundaries of the instrument. Schumann was no slouch but Debussy "instrument without hammers" also expanded the possibilities of the instrument.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> You're breaking down music too awkwardly if you are analysing it in terms of melody, harmony, and form. Beethoven is the master of creating unique things out of simple elements, in such a way that you can't point to those aspects you mentioned and say that they are what makes it brilliant, you have to consider the effect and shape of the music as a whole in its context. And I challenge you to find anything this brilliant in those two Mozart concertos:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean the minute-long passage starting at 8:26. Anybody can hear Mozart doesn't compare.


I don't even think that's close to the best passage in that movement, let alone something that comes close to the brilliance throughout the opening movement of the Jeunehomme Concerto.


----------



## DeepR

First Alexander Scriabin, then a whole bunch of others.


----------



## Bulldog

Petwhac said:


> Bach was a great composer. Of course I don't disagree. But this thread is about great composers for piano and I'm making a distinction between that and other keyboard instruments.


If the op had stated "modern piano", I would also have made the distinction.


----------



## tdc

What makes Mozart's Piano Concertos generally seem more compelling to me than Beethoven's I think has a lot to do with Mozart's flowing, sensitive and uncanny modulations. The orchestral color and balance somehow seems more effective as well.

On another note when I was listing composers up thread I was thinking solo piano - not concertos. Otherwise I certainly would've included Mozart and Bartok. (Not that I don't like their solo piano work as well, I do).


----------



## chesapeake bay

Was this thread moved at some point? It's in the "solo and chamber" section not sure where the discussion of concerto's comes in to play so much unless you are considering them to be chamber works?


----------



## tdc

DeepR said:


> First Alexander Scriabin, then a whole bunch of others.


I'm starting to warm up to his piano music, what do you consider some of his better works? Are there certain performers you recommend?


----------



## Lisztian

Chordalrock said:


> Anybody can hear Mozart doesn't compare.


Apparently 'anybody' can't...


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> I don't even think that's close to the best passage in that movement, let alone something that comes close to the brilliance throughout the opening movement of the Jeunehomme Concerto.


So I think we've established that we look for pretty different things in music. I don't personally care whether some passage is "inventive in terms melody, harmony, or form" - which is probably why I rate Gesualdo low and you rate Gesualdo high. For me, the uniqueness or power of a passage has nothing to do with whether it is daringly chromatic or just a modal passage like so much Dufay and Gombert that is nevertheless light-years ahead of Gesualdo in greatness.

So I'm probably right to call Beethoven the best piano composer from my perspective, and you're probably right to call some other composer the best piano composer from your perspective.

P.S. I just have to add I find it funny that you value the climax of a development section by Beethoven far less highly than any average passage you find in a Mozart piece. I have to say that strikes me as an idiosyncratic taste.


----------



## Bayreuth

tdc said:


> I'm starting to warm up to his piano music, what do you consider some of his better works? Are there certain performers you recommend?


Piano Sonatas 2 and 6-10, the Etudes Op. 2 and Vers la flamme are the very best of Scriabin for me. Richter is my no. 1 Scriabin player, but his recordings are really hard to find (and to afford). I would recommend a cheap EMI double CD with John Ogdon playing some of his most representative works for piano (I think that almost every work I recommended you is in there) which is really good. Also, try the typical Ashkenazy recordings. Very good, too, although a little... I don't know.. (soul-less??). If not, you'll always have Naxos recordings.


----------



## joen_cph

The Ashkenazy 2CD of Scriabin´s sonatas is a good place to start. In spite of having many recordings of them, I still return to Ashkenazy from time to time, and find it valuable. It does not really lack commitment, IMO.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> So I think we've established that we look for pretty different things in music. I don't personally care whether some passage is "inventive in terms melody, harmony, or form" - which is probably why I rate Gesualdo low and you rate Gesualdo high. For me, the uniqueness or power of a passage has nothing to do with whether it is daringly chromatic or just a modal passage like so much Dufay and Gombert that is nevertheless light-years ahead of Gesualdo in greatness.
> 
> So I'm probably right to call Beethoven the best piano composer from my perspective, and you're probably right to call some other composer the best piano composer from your perspective.
> 
> P.S. I just have to add I find it funny that you value the climax of a development section by Beethoven far less highly than any average passage you find in a Mozart piece. I have to say that strikes me as an idiosyncratic taste.


You've chosen to compare a rather uninteresting passage from a mediocre early work by Beethoven, one that the composer later disowned and recognized as not representative of his talents, with a masterpiece by Mozart. If it's idiosyncratic to prefer the latter, so be it.

When I said "melody, harmony, or form," this was simply meant as "every single musical element." Really, there is absolutely no way in which Beethoven's Piano Concerto in B-flat can compare to Mozart's E-flat K271.


----------



## violadude

Honestly, I do think it's a little bit strange to choose Beethoven for the answer to this thread...or anyone before Chopin really. Not that anyone before the early Romantic Era was a bad piano composer but that the technique for true "pianistic" composition had not yet been developed.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Mahlerian said:


> Musically, yes. In terms of piano sonority, I would think less so. One can already hear the Romantic style of piano writing developed by the aforementioned composers in other lesser figures of the time.


Bringing this back to your initial confusion that Beethoven was considered the greatest composer for piano by many in this thread; for the record, attempting to leave my personal tastes to the side, I could see a solid case being made for either Debussy, Chopin, or Beethoven. I'm not surprised when either of these composers are mentioned for the best, even though the majority of posts in this thread have been lists, and therefore seems to be indicative of people's favorites, with few attempts to elucidate why X is "greater" than Y.

You wrote, "musically, yes", Beethoven was influential to Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and the like, but less so in terms of pianistic sonorities, and ushering in the Romantic style of piano writing. Would you not say, though, that "musically" and everything that comes with the term, "musically" is more important than things like piano sonorities? I would think that attributes like characterful, interesting, idiosyncratic, unique, etc. are highly valued, as well. For instance, regardless of the fact that the 'Hammerklavier' sonata is in classical in form and structure, its level of expression, its character, its mood, its highly individual sound count for a whole lot more than the fact that Hummel, and other "lesser contemporaries", as you and Charles Rosen put it, were writing in the romantic style of piano writing. This is to ignore that Beethoven, according to Charles Rosen, did indeed write romantic music for piano, seen in Op. 90 (1814) and Op. 101 (1816), as well as writing in a "proto-romantic" style in his earliest piano sonatas. This is coming from Rosen, who doesn't even classify Beethoven as a Romantic (nor does classify Schubert a Romantic, either). The piano sonatas were where Beethoven was at his most advanced, I've read this in every Beethoven bio I've read, and it's audibly evident when listening, take the Pathétique sonata which was written in 1798 (!), miles ahead in expression, invention, character, etc. than his other contemporary works, same for the "largo e mesto" of Op. 10, No. 3. For the most part, it took his other genres years to catch up.

All of this is to say I do think there's enough "weight" here to consider him a pretty solid candidate, right there with Chopin and Debussy. I value your opinion greatly on anything music, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Best Regards


----------



## DiesIraeCX

violadude said:


> Honestly, I do think it's a little bit strange to choose Beethoven for the answer to this thread...or anyone before Chopin really. Not that anyone before the early Romantic Era was a bad piano composer but that the technique for true "pianistic" composition had not yet been developed.


I find this questionable, because it sounds suspiciously like when people say "everyone before composer X was leading merely leading up to composer X", a sentiment which you and many others like myself disagree with.

Is "technique" everything when considering who the greatest composer for piano? I'm honestly a bit puzzled by all of this. Can Mozart no longer be considered greatest opera composer because Wagner revolutionized opera in almost every way possible? I think yes, he can be considered.

Why did other qualities get thrown out the window? Since when did technique hold the most weight?


----------



## violadude

DiesIraeCX said:


> I find this questionable, because it sounds suspiciously like when people say "everyone before composer X was leading merely leading up to composer X", a sentiment which you and many others like myself disagree with.
> 
> Is "technique" everything when considering who the greatest composer for piano? I'm honestly a bit puzzled by all of this. Can Mozart no longer be considered greatest opera composer because Wagner revolutionized opera in almost every way possible? I think yes, he can be considered.
> 
> Why did other qualities get thrown out the window? Since when did technique hold the most weight?


I think something is getting lost in translation when it comes to what question we are answering here. I'm answering the question "Who wrote the best for piano", not "whose music that just happens to be for piano, is the best". If the question is the latter, then this would pretty much be not much different than asking who your favorite composer is, in which case I have nothing to argue. But if it's the former, it's hard to imagine Beethoven being the composer that wrote the best "for the piano" if piano writing itself hadn't reached its idiosyncratic potential until after Beethoven. Do you see what I'm saying?


----------



## Mahlerian

Yes, but the problem is that we are judging Beethoven's piano music not solely in terms of its musical quality, on which level I said in my first post it is often of the first rank, but in terms of its being music _for piano_. In that sense, no, it did not change the direction of piano music or have anything approaching the impact the other composers that have been mentioned have had. You are correct that some of his works have proto-Romantic qualities and that he innovated on the piano before transferring his innovations to other genres and instruments. But these were not works that influenced the course of piano writing.

If we are talking about sheer quality, then Bach should also be mentioned. His keyboard works have also influenced the pedagogy of numerous composers, including Beethoven, Chopin, and others, in spite of not being written for piano specifically.

But since the discussion is not about the greatest composer who wrote piano music, but rather the best composer of music for the piano, surely there are other important factors at play, and it is here where Beethoven isn't nearly in competition. I haven't mentioned Schoenberg, for example, who wrote a few masterpieces for piano and, like Beethoven, used the medium to try out new ideas about form and harmony, but is neither a particularly pianistic composer nor made piano his primary genre.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

violadude said:


> I think something is getting lost in translation when it comes to what question we are answering here. I'm answering the question "Who wrote the best for piano", not "whose music that just happens to be for piano, is the best". If the question is the latter, then this would pretty much be not much different than asking who your favorite composer is, in which case I have nothing to argue. But if it's the former, it's hard to imagine Beethoven being the composer that wrote the best "for the piano" if piano writing itself hadn't reached its idiosyncratic potential until after Beethoven. Do you see what I'm saying?


Here's the OP:



hapiper said:


> I was just reading a story from a music critic in which he says Chopin was one of the best composers of music for piano. I was just wondering what piano music is your favorite and is there one particular composer that seemed to excel with the piano?


He or she explicitly asks for our favorites, as well as asking for a particular composer that seemed to excel with the piano. I think it's strange have to argue that Beethoven excelled with the piano (not speaking of him as a musician, but as a composer).

Furthermore, in either of the posited hypothetical questions, I don't find Beethoven to be an "out there" choice.

It does seem clear that some of us are driving at different purposes, with a few semantic miscommunications. I appreciate your clarification as well as Mahlerian's response.


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> You've chosen to compare a rather uninteresting passage


According to you, that is.

Objectively speaking, it at least contains moods other than the two that early Mozart was capable of. In that respect Beethoven is already far more modern and interesting than the Mozart.

You are of course free to disagree, but keep in mind that I don't consider you an authority on anything. My ears work just fine and I know what I like; I'm not interested in your take on my right to have an opinion on the topic of this thread.



Mahlerian said:


> from a mediocre early work by Beethoven,


Then why do you even listen to it? You said you've listened to it many times. Does it take you that many listens to start ignoring a "mediocre early work" in a world apparently full of music supposedly greater than that? You're not making much sense, I'm afraid.



Mahlerian said:


> one that the composer later disowned and recognized as not representative of his talents,


You must mean his comment about his first two concertos when he was trying to get a publisher look at his third. I would say you are taking Beethoven a little too literally there. The guy was just trying to get attention for his third concerto.

If Beethoven had disowned it, it wouldn't mean much coming from a composer who changed and evolved so much throughout his artistic life. He also seems to have "disowned" the C Minor Variations - which demonstrates how little his "disownings" mean.



Mahlerian said:


> When I said "melody, harmony, or form," this was simply meant as "every single musical element."


In that case, I don't understand your dismissive attitude toward the Beethoven passage after all, nor your excessively high opinion of Mozart's early piano concertos.



Mahlerian said:


> Really, there is absolutely no way in which Beethoven's Piano Concerto in B-flat can compare to Mozart's E-flat K271.


Variety of mood, economy of means, sounding like he hasn't composed the same concerto twenty times. Also, touch of Midas, which Beethoven had and Mozart didn't have.


----------



## Mahlerian

Moods that early Mozart wasn't capable of (not that the Jeunehomme is really that early)? If you can state that Mozart lacked "variety of mood" and "economy of means," you either have little knowledge of Mozart or are just completely unaware of the emotional content of his music.






Beethoven would likely have agreed that his early efforts pale in comparison to the far more mature early concertos of Mozart.

I'm not asking you to take me as an authority. If you don't care about my opinion, you can just not listen.


----------



## violadude

DiesIraeCX said:


> Here's the OP:
> 
> He or she explicitly asks for our favorites, as well as asking for a particular composer that seemed to excel with the piano. I think it's strange have to argue that Beethoven excelled with the piano (not speaking of him as a musician, but as a composer).
> 
> Furthermore, in either of the posited hypothetical questions, I don't find Beethoven to be an "out there" choice.
> 
> It does seem clear that some of us are driving at different purposes, with a few semantic miscommunications. I appreciate your clarification as well as Mahlerian's response.


Ya, I think we simply had different interpretations of the OP from the get go.


----------



## Petwhac

violadude said:


> Honestly, I do think it's a little bit strange to choose Beethoven for the answer to this thread...or anyone before Chopin really. Not that anyone before the early Romantic Era was a bad piano composer but that the technique for true "pianistic" composition had not yet been developed.


I really think that Beethoven used the piano so idiomatically and exploited its technical capabilities so comprehensively that I can't understand the view that he isn't one of the first if not the first great composer of piano music. The often percussive nature of his writing, the ethereal tinkling and thunderous low end that can be found in works from the middle period onward, point to someone who thought pianistically. And those trills........


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> I really think that Beethoven used the piano so idiomatically and exploited its technical capabilities so comprehensively that I can't understand the view that he isn't one of the first if not the first great composer of piano music. The often percussive nature of his writing, the ethereal tinkling and thunderous low end that can be found in works from the middle period onward, point to someone who thought pianistically. And those trills........


He took piano writing as far as he could possibly take it from his point of view in history. Like I said before, right after Beethoven's era piano writing itself was taken to a whole new level, from a purely piano writing point of view. Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine Beethoven as the best composer _for piano_, in the grand scheme of things, due to him missing out on some of the most important innovations in piano writing history. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## KenOC

The way I see it (and would say it), Beethoven wrote the best music for the piano but not necessarily the best piano music.


----------



## Bulldog

To me, all this talk about piano innovations and influence doesn't count for much. I'm just a regular guy who listens to hours of solo keyboard music every day; I'm in it for my own enlightenment, pleasure and a sense of a wide range of emotional signals.


----------



## Petwhac

violadude said:


> He took piano writing as far as he could possibly take it from his point of view in history. Like I said before, right after Beethoven's era piano writing itself was taken to a whole new level, from a purely piano writing point of view. Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine Beethoven as the best composer _for piano_, in the grand scheme of things, due to him missing out on some of the most important innovations in piano writing history. That's all I'm saying.


But for the life of me I can't fathom what those innovations are. At least, I can't divorce them from the later romantic and French impressionist style of music in general. And this is someone who loves Chopin!

I suppose one of the greatest innovators of piano writing was Cage. He of the 'prepared piano' which was a great idea. I have however, been thus far a bit disappointed with what has been written for it.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

violadude said:


> He took piano writing as far as he could possibly take it from his point of view in history. Like I said before, right after Beethoven's era piano writing itself was taken to a whole new level, from a purely piano writing point of view. Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine Beethoven as the best composer _for piano_, in the grand scheme of things, due to him missing out on some of the most important innovations in piano writing history. That's all I'm saying.


I still respectfully disagree with this point of view. I just cannot bring myself to say that advancements and innovations in music make it better than what came before. I can't say that Schumann, as excellent and innovative of piano composer as he was (in my top 3 or 4, in fact), was a better composer of piano music than Beethoven. New techniques and innovations were discovered all the time, inevitably, of course. Bach and Handel lived in the time they did, they couldn't have known of the innovations that were to come in the following decades. The same goes for any composer, right? You say that Beethoven took piano writing as far as he could possibly take it from his point of view in history. That could be said for any composer, Wagner took orchestral music as far as he could possibly take it in his point of view in history, yet Schoenberg would come and build upon his predecessor and take it even "further", with more innovations. I'm still struggling to grasp why innovations that were to come after Beethoven eliminates him from being brought up as a legitimate contender in this thread. I resubmit my analogy with Wagner's operas and Mozart's operas, just because Wagner revolutionized opera in almost every way possible doesn't automatically eliminate Mozart from being hailed as the greatest opera composer by many on this forum.


----------



## tdc

I agree with Mahlerian about Mozart's PCs and feel that Chopin and Debussy are certainly worthy of being classified in the same tier of composer for piano works as Beethoven. But I never expected to see some of the arguments made here, that Beethoven was not even that important of a piano composer. It is interesting, but I kind of have to side with DiesIraeCX on this one. I wouldn't hesitate to classify Beethoven as (easily) _one of the_ greatest composers for the piano.


----------



## Pastoral

I am not a regular poster here, but just curious. What pianistic quality is lacking in Beethoven and so abundant in Chopin or Debussy? 

Do you interpret the best composer for piano in terms of playing the music, or in terms of listening to it? As for me, whether a piece is pianistic or not is hardly important. So the best composer for piano is easily Beethoven because I get so much pleasure from listening to his compositions than to anyone else. This is from a Beethoven fanatic, so no objectivity here. I just didn't want to pass an opportunity where I can praise his music. I also want to add that I feel Beethoven expressed everything possible within the framework of the musical language and went beyond the capacity of piano.


----------



## hpowders

Best composer of music for piano?

That's easy. Vincent Persichetti. A Haydn-like sparkling finesse. Twelve great sonatas, mostly neo-classical gems.


----------



## chesapeake bay

Some interesting arguments so far and one I would have to dispute would be the idea that Beethoven was "limited" by his instruments and their capabilities. Most here probably know that he wrote the Hammerklavier before he actually had the piano that could play it, straight out proof that he wrote beyond what he had in front of him to use. If you go to his last sonata and listen to the "boogie woogie" section it is a style of music that you wouldn't hear again for another 80 years.


----------



## KenOC

chesapeake bay said:


> Some interesting arguments so far and one I would have to dispute would be the idea that Beethoven was "limited" by his instruments and their capabilities...


In fact, Beethoven is on record as saying that he would write no more for the piano after his Op. 111 Sonata, as it was "too limited" to express his musical ideas. Of course he then wrote the Diabelli Variations and a couple of nice sets of bagatelles, so he could have been kidding!


----------



## Petwhac

chesapeake bay said:


> Some interesting arguments so far and one I would have to dispute would be the idea that Beethoven was "limited" by his instruments and their capabilities. Most here probably know that he wrote the Hammerklavier before he actually had the piano that could play it, straight out proof that he wrote beyond what he had in front of him to use. If you go to his last sonata and listen to the "boogie woogie" section it is a style of music that you wouldn't hear again for another 80 years.


It's fun to point out that section, though its really only a few bars long, and say 'boogie'. But the truth is, it no more forshadows real boogie piano than does that 'walking bass' line from the end of the Egmomt overture forshadow Jazz. They are just amusing coincidences.
Having said that, Beethoven was the first really Funky composer!! Well, since Machaut and Perotin anyways.


----------



## violadude

Now I'm interested to know, since you all are arguing for it, is there any area specific to piano writing that Beethoven had enormous influence in? I'm curious to know what you say. The way I see it, most of what he added to piano writing involved significantly thickening the texture of the writing. But his style of piano composition was mostly derived from his predecessors at its core.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> Now I'm interested to know, since you all are arguing for it, is there any area specific to piano writing that Beethoven had enormous influence in?


Loudness?  ......................................


----------



## chesapeake bay

I guess in pointing out a few of Beethovens amazing piano works I was hoping more for the "sure Beethoven wrote that but [Chopin, Debussy etc.] wrote this" rather than asking why it is a good piece or how it was influential. So bring on some comparisons and we can all have some more great music to listen to. Another excellent work by Beethoven is sonata no 28 the first of his late period.


----------



## violadude

chesapeake bay said:


> I guess in pointing out a few of Beethovens amazing piano works I was hoping more for the "sure Beethoven wrote that but [Chopin, Debussy etc.] wrote this" rather than asking why it is a good piece or how it was influential. So bring on some comparisons and we can all have some more great music to listen to. Another excellent work by Beethoven is sonata no 28 the first of his late period.


Many, if not most, of Beethoven's piano sonatas are great pieces of music. In fact, a bunch of them are masterpieces. But, what I'm after is are they the greatest *as piano music*? In other words, I'm not after which composer's work for piano is better in general, but which composer's work captures the full essence of pianistic qualities. My hesitance with including Beethoven in this category is because his piano writing is basically inherited from Haydn and Mozart, and their piano writing is very underdeveloped all things considering (mostly because the piano was a new instrument at that point). Do you understand the distinction? or am I just blabbing nonsense?


----------



## tdc

violadude said:


> Many, if not most, of Beethoven's piano sonatas are great pieces of music. In fact, a bunch of them are masterpieces. But, what I'm after is are they the greatest *as piano music*? In other words, I'm not after which composer's work for piano is better in general, but which composer's work captures the full essence of pianistic qualities. My hesitance with including Beethoven in this category is because his piano writing is basically inherited from Haydn and Mozart, and their piano writing is very underdeveloped all things considering (mostly because the piano was a new instrument at that point). Do you understand the distinction? or am I just blabbing nonsense?


I recognize the distinction, but I think you have to balance it with the other (masterpiece) factor. Perhaps other composers captured the essence of pianistic qualities in a more full sense, but is that in itself more important than writing great music to be performed on a piano? I would say no. Both are important. Beethoven wasn't the greatest at everything, but I think all factors considered he was certainly great enough in the piano department to be mentioned as one of the greatest.


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> I recognize the distinction, but I think you have to balance it with the other (masterpiece) factor. Perhaps other composers captured the essence of pianistic qualities in a more full sense, but is that in itself more important than writing great music to be performed on a piano? I would say no. Both are important. Beethoven wasn't the greatest at everything, but I think all factors considered he was certainly great enough in the piano department to be mentioned as one of the greatest.


Sure. But I thought that's what the OP was asking in the first place...


----------



## tdc

violadude said:


> Sure. But I thought that's what the OP was asking in the first place...


I don't think you can separate the factors so cleanly though. Composition is about multiple different things at once. The OP seems to be asking about composers that excelled in music for piano. I think "music for piano" constitutes all the different attributes we have been discussing.


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> I don't think you can separate the factors so cleanly though. Composition is about multiple different things at once. The OP seems to be asking about composers that excelled in music for piano. I think "music for piano" constitutes all the different attributes we have been discussing.


That's not how I interpreted the OP. But anyway, I really have nothing to argue if this is the only contention.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

violadude said:


> Now I'm interested to know, since you all are arguing for it, is there any area specific to piano writing that Beethoven had enormous influence in? I'm curious to know what you say. The way I see it, most of what he added to piano writing involved significantly thickening the texture of the writing. But his style of piano composition was mostly derived from his predecessors at its core*.


I still am not sold on why innovation/influence/piano sonorities are the most important qualities at hand here. I still strongly feel that it's "musically speaking" and _not_ "influentially or sonority speaking" as to why Beethoven is certainly one of the three or four candidates for "greatest" composer for piano. That said, we can certainly discuss pianistic sonorities and influence/innovation. As to your concluding sentence, I would hold that all the greats derived their music from their predecessors at their core, Schoenberg certainly did. I see that very sentiment argued daily here on TC, and I'm inclined to agree. Beethoven did, as well, but his sonorities were completely unique, and his influence was enormous** (Romanticism derived from classicizing proto-Romantics like Beethoven and Schubert in their early periods).

Jan Swafford, composer and Beethoven biographer, writes, "The op. 33 Bagatelles had been popularistic pieces, each a delightful individual. As is noted about that set, here as much as anywhere begins the tradition of Romantic character pieces for piano. These pieces also played their part in the allied Romantic passion for fragments: small thoughts that are part of an implied larger picture. Examples in the next generation include Chopin's preludes. In a historical perspective, with the op. 119 Bagatelles it becomes far more imaginable that in another seven years the young Robert Schumann would publish _Papillons_, his wild, autobiographical collection of parti-colored miniatures evoking a masked ball" (pg. 864, Swafford)

He also writes, "Beethoven's sonatas had always been distinct individuals, starting with their distinctive sonorities. With this one [op. 101] and after, that quality intensified: each sonata became in itself a legendary individual." (pg. 692, Swafford)

Speaking of the Hammerklavier, he writes, "To a degree, in this sonata Beethoven obliterated the old dichotomy between melody and harmony: melody traditionally based mainly on scales, harmony on larger intervals that form chords. Here melody and harmony merge." (pg. 713, Swafford)

More regarding highly individual piano sonorities, Charles Rosen writes, "it should be obvious that even in a purely formal description, the central idea of the opening movement of the _Hammerklavier_ is not merely a series of descending thirds, but the relation of the large tonal structure (with its powerfully dissonant long-range clash of B flat major and B major) to the rhythmic and harmonic energy of the sequences formed by the falling thirds. From this relation between far-flung dissonance and the impetuous force of the details comes not only the sonority peculiar to the work but also the combination of stern brilliance and transitory pathos." (pg. 422, Rosen, _The Classical Style_)

**Virtually every nineteenth-century treatment of the instrumental cycle appears in Beethoven's works: (1) the cyclic idea, with recapitulation of themes from preceding movements; (2) contraction of the cycle to as few as two movements or expansion to as many as six real movements; (3) the performance of the cycle without pauses between movements; (4) drastic contraction or great expansion of individual movements, especially those in sonata form; (5) programs, whether expressly stated or internally implied, for the cycle; and (6) expansion of the overture to the level of a self-sustaining instrumental composition, emancipating it from its operatic or dramatic origins: a direct in the evolution of the symphonic poem. Precedents for almost all these devices can be found in the music of our "proto-Romantic" , C.P.E. Bach, but it was Beethoven who decisively imposed them on the nineteenth century. (pg. 45, Rey M. Longyear, _Nineteenth-Century Romanticism in Music_)

Best Regards,

PS. I'm glad I got to do my Beethoven research/homework today, since tomorrow is Beethoven's Ninth at Jones Hall with the Houston Symphony Orchestra and Andres-Orozco Estrada leading. It's proper preparation! I'm super excited.


----------



## chesapeake bay

violadude said:


> Many, if not most, of Beethoven's piano sonatas are great pieces of music. In fact, a bunch of them are masterpieces. But, what I'm after is are they the greatest *as piano music*? In other words, I'm not after which composer's work for piano is better in general, but which composer's work captures the full essence of pianistic qualities. My hesitance with including Beethoven in this category is because his piano writing is basically inherited from Haydn and Mozart, and their piano writing is very underdeveloped all things considering (mostly because the piano was a new instrument at that point). Do you understand the distinction? or am I just blabbing nonsense?


I'm so glad you wrote it out that way because my brain actually hadn't processed it correctly this whole thread. When looked at from that perspective I have to admit I wouldn't even be qualified to make that assessment as I am not a piano player. Cool, now I can go back and re-read everything


----------



## violadude

DiesIraeCX said:


> I still am not sold on why innovation/influence/piano sonorities are the most important qualities at hand here. I still strongly feel that it's "musically speaking" and _not_ "influentially or sonority speaking" as to why Beethoven is certainly one of the three or four candidates for "greatest" composer for piano. That said, we can certainly discuss pianistic sonorities and influence/innovation. As to your concluding sentence, I would hold that all the greats derived their music from their predecessors at their core, Schoenberg certainly did. I see that very sentiment argued daily here on TC, and I'm inclined to agree. Beethoven did, as well, but his sonorities were completely unique, and his influence was enormous** (Romanticism derived from classicizing proto-Romantics like Beethoven and Schubert in their early periods).
> 
> Jan Swafford, composer and Beethoven biographer, writes, "The op. 33 Bagatelles had been popularistic pieces, each a delightful individual. As is noted about that set, here as much as anywhere begins the tradition of Romantic character pieces for piano. These pieces also played their part in the allied Romantic passion for fragments: small thoughts that are part of an implied larger picture. Examples in the next generation include Chopin's preludes. In a historical perspective, with the op. 119 Bagatelles it becomes far more imaginable that in another seven years the young Robert Schumann would publish _Papillons_, his wild, autobiographical collection of parti-colored miniatures evoking a masked ball" (pg. 864, Swafford)
> 
> He also writes, "Beethoven's sonatas had always been distinct individuals, starting with their distinctive sonorities. With this one [op. 101] and after, that quality intensified: each sonata became in itself a legendary individual." (pg. 692, Swafford)
> 
> Speaking of the Hammerklavier, he writes, "To a degree, in this sonata Beethoven obliterated the old dichotomy between melody and harmony: melody traditionally based mainly on scales, harmony on larger intervals that form chords. Here melody and harmony merge." (pg. 713, Swafford)
> 
> More regarding highly individual piano sonorities, Charles Rosen writes, "it should be obvious that even in a purely formal description, the central idea of the opening movement of the _Hammerklavier_ is not merely a series of descending thirds, but the relation of the large tonal structure (with its powerfully dissonant long-range clash of B flat major and B major) to the rhythmic and harmonic energy of the sequences formed by the falling thirds. From this relation between far-flung dissonance and the impetuous force of the details comes not only the sonority peculiar to the work but also the combination of stern brilliance and transitory pathos." (pg. 422, Rosen, _The Classical Style_)
> 
> **Virtually every nineteenth-century treatment of the instrumental cycle appears in Beethoven's works: (1) the cyclic idea, with recapitulation of themes from preceding movements; (2) contraction of the cycle to as few as two movements or expansion to as many as six real movements; (3) the performance of the cycle without pauses between movements; (4) drastic contraction or great expansion of individual movements, especially those in sonata form; (5) programs, whether expressly stated or internally implied, for the cycle; and (6) expansion of the overture to the level of a self-sustaining instrumental composition, emancipating it from its operatic or dramatic origins: a direct in the evolution of the symphonic poem. Precedents for almost all these devices can be found in the music of our "proto-Romantic" , C.P.E. Bach, but it was Beethoven who decisively imposed them on the nineteenth century. (pg. 45, Rey M. Longyear, _Nineteenth-Century Romanticism in Music_)
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> PS. I'm glad I got to do my Beethoven research/homework today, since tomorrow is Beethoven's Ninth at Jones Hall with the Houston Symphony Orchestra and Andres-Orozco Estrada leading. It's proper preparation! I'm super excited.


Ya, I actually agree with everything you say. Really. I just think we understood the question differently, honestly. I thought the OP was asking specifically "Which composer wrote best for the piano", not necessarily "which composer wrote the best music on the piano (regardless of how suited or ill-suited they are to piano writing).


----------



## hpowders

Spend some quality time with Ives' Concord Piano Sonata and tell me the greatest composer for piano wasn't Charles Ives (if you can find me).


----------



## DiesIraeCX

violadude said:


> Ya, I actually agree with everything you say. Really. I just think we understood the question differently, honestly. I thought the OP was asking specifically "Which composer wrote best for the piano", not necessarily "which composer wrote the best music on the piano (regardless of how suited or ill-suited they are to piano writing).


I'm still mad you didn't include Beethoven in that YouTube video you made for top composers for piano. 
You still keeping up with TJ, Ben, Stevie, Paul, and the gang?


----------



## Woodduck

Best composer who wrote piano music: Beethoven. Composers of music best illustrating the unique qualities of the piano and the range of its capabilities: Chopin, Liszt, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Debussy.

Another consideration: Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt and Rachmaninoff had rather different instruments to work with. Had Beethoven had Rachmaninoff's piano, I wonder how it might have changed his musical thinking, and whether he would still have declared it an unsatisfactory instrument.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Woodduck said:


> Best composer who wrote piano music: Beethoven. *Composers of music best illustrating the unique qualities of the piano and the range of its capabilities*: Chopin, Liszt, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Debussy.
> 
> Another consideration: Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt and Rachmaninoff had rather different instruments to work with. Had Beethoven had Rachmaninoff's piano, I wonder how it might have changed his musical thinking, and whether he would still have declared it an unsatisfactory instrument.


That was a great elucidation of some of the semantic differences in this thread. When you put it like that, I would certainly agree that Beethoven's piano music, as a product of the era in which he lived, literally could not fully exploit the range of its capabilities. He fully exploited the piano that existed in _his_ time. To me, that's what matters when it comes to discussing "best composer of music for piano", because to argue that because Scriabin lived in a time when pianos were far more advanced and superior than the instrument was in Beethoven's day is neither here nor there when discussing "best". Had the OP been titled, "Composers of music best illustrating the unique qualities of the piano and range of its capabilities", I'd have no qualms.

:tiphat:


----------



## violadude

DiesIraeCX said:


> I'm still mad you didn't include Beethoven in that YouTube video you made for top composers for piano.
> You still keeping up with *TJ, Ben, Stevie, Paul, and the gang*?


Who?

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


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> Moods that early Mozart wasn't capable of (not that the Jeunehomme is really that early)? If you can state that Mozart lacked "variety of mood" and "economy of means," you either have little knowledge of Mozart or are just completely unaware of the emotional content of his music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven would likely have agreed that his early efforts pale in comparison to the far more mature early concertos of Mozart.
> 
> I'm not asking you to take me as an authority. If you don't care about my opinion, you can just not listen.


I didn't say Mozart lacked those things, just that he didn't measure up to the Beethoven. You claimed that Mozart surpassed Beethoven in everything, remember? I was simply pointing out that that wasn't true, howsoever slightly Beethoven may have surpassed Mozart in those things.

At the end of the day, I guess I've just never understood the attraction of 90% of Mozart's works, especially the early works - they sound just like his top 10% works, just not as good, so why listen to them? I suppose if I were attracted to Mozart's sound-world, I'd love listening to pretty much any of his dozens of hack jobs (I call music a hack job if it sounds like a hundred other pieces by the same composer). As it is though, I end up wanting his works to sound more different from each other, something which Beethoven managed to do already in many of his early works, including the concerto in question.

The whole thing boils down to the fact that Beethoven's concertos sound each like its own world, while Mozart keeps composing the same sounding stuff over and over again. There's nothing you can say that changes this fact. Beethoven's concerto may be poor compared with Mozart's, but at least it is unique, and as such still more valuable than the Mozart.


----------



## Chordalrock

Woodduck said:


> Best composer who wrote piano music: Beethoven. Composers of music best illustrating the unique qualities of the piano and the range of its capabilities: Chopin, Liszt, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Debussy.
> 
> Another consideration: Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt and Rachmaninoff had rather different instruments to work with. Had Beethoven had Rachmaninoff's piano, I wonder how it might have changed his musical thinking, and whether he would still have declared it an unsatisfactory instrument.


You have a point, but it's good to remember that Chopin's and Liszt's pianos had more in common with Beethoven's than they do with modern concert pianos: they had the Viennese action and were straight-strung and had registers that sounded different. Such a piano was harder to play and produced clearer polyphony. Liszt preferred his Erard until the end of his days, and considered the modern type of piano a hobbyist's toy.


----------



## Lucashio

Chopin is excellent, Debussy is excellent in a very interesting way, Bach too, Beethoven is too firm and industrious for my taste, I am sure there are more but those are my favorites for time being


----------



## Stavrogin

violadude said:


> He took piano writing as far as he could possibly take it from his point of view in history. Like I said before, right after Beethoven's era piano writing itself was taken to a whole new level, from a purely piano writing point of view. Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine Beethoven as the best composer _for piano_, in the grand scheme of things, due to him missing out on some of the most important innovations in piano writing history. That's all I'm saying.


So if we are looking for composers whose piano music changed piano music, how about composers whose piano music changed music _tout court_?

Is there anyone that can be rewarded with this title?
I have one in mind but I'd like to hear the experts' opinions first.


----------



## Morimur

After going through a large portion of this thread, I now hate piano music. Thank you.


----------



## Stavrogin

Morimur said:


> After going through a large portion of this thread, I now hate piano music. Thank you.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## chesapeake bay

Chordalrock said:


> You have a point, but it's good to remember that Chopin's and Liszt's pianos had more in common with Beethoven's than they do with modern concert pianos: they had the Viennese action and were straight-strung and had registers that sounded different. Such a piano was harder to play and produced clearer polyphony. Liszt preferred his Erard until the end of his days, and considered the modern type of piano a hobbyist's toy.


Indeed, and Chopin preferred a Pleyel which was relatively delicate and had a very light key action i.e. it wasn't designed for banging on.


----------



## Morimur

chesapeake bay said:


> Indeed, and Chopin preferred a Pleyel which was relatively delicate and had a very light key action i.e. it wasn't designed for banging on.


What's the use of having a piano if one can't bang the bloody keys? Just ask Galina Ustvolskaya.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Morimur said:


> What's the use of having a piano if one can't bang the bloody keys? Just ask Galina Ustvolskaya.


After post #107, you could put a large vase of flowers on it, I guess :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> The whole thing boils down to the fact that Beethoven's concertos sound each like its own world, while Mozart keeps composing the same sounding stuff over and over again. There's nothing you can say that changes this fact. Beethoven's concerto may be poor compared with Mozart's, but at least it is unique, and as such still more valuable than the Mozart.


But there is so much that is unique about the E-flat concerto. For one thing, it anticipates Beethoven's Fourth in bringing in the soloist right away. Its lyrical middle movement has a dark, shadowy character with lots of contrasts of mood. Its finale has a central minuet section in the middle of a fast rondo.

Not only does the work not sound like hundreds of other Mozart works, it doesn't sound quite like any other Mozart work.


----------



## chesapeake bay

Morimur said:


> What's the use of having a piano if one can't bang the bloody keys? Just ask Galina Ustvolskaya.


it is clear to me now that I do not have the ability to answer this question


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> But there is so much that is unique about the E-flat concerto. For one thing, it anticipates Beethoven's Fourth in bringing in the soloist right away. Its lyrical middle movement has a dark, shadowy character with lots of contrasts of mood. Its finale has a central minuet section in the middle of a fast rondo.


Are you even serious?

1) Bringing in the soloist right away has nothing to do with anything.
2) The middle movement is no different from the middle movement of no. 22, except the latter is better.
3) Finales often have contrasting central sections, and "form" isn't enough to make something sound unique anyway.



Mahlerian said:


> Not only does the work not sound like hundreds of other Mozart works, it doesn't sound quite like any other Mozart work.


Passage by passage, it sounds like typical Mozart and you could mistake it for a dozen of his other compositions if you didn't know them intimately. At any rate, you haven't given any substantial evidence to the contrary, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Passage by passage, it sounds like typical Mozart and you could mistake it for a dozen of his other compositions if you didn't know them intimately. At any rate, you haven't given any substantial evidence to the contrary, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


I have given evidence. You've just shown a penchant for moving the goalposts every time evidence is presented; you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your prejudices as "substantial."


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> I have given evidence. You've just shown a penchant for moving the goalposts every time evidence is presented; you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your prejudices as "substantial."


Since you mention the word prejudice in connection to me, let me also suggest that perhaps you're not the One True Objective And Unbiased Observer In All Things Music.

We all have biases, some of us are more aware of our own, is all.

Personally, I consider myself to be relatively well aware of mine, so your evaluation doesn't strike me as insightful. I'd say that rather than someone being "prejudiced" for seeing Beethoven as a more unique composer than Mozart at each respective stage of their lives, it is the person who sees Mozart as more or equally unique who is being biased.

Indeed, I believe that your position not only demands bias but pedantry, and I'm not saying this only to appear contrary, it is my honest appraisal and you were begging for it with that message. You need to listen to the Beethoven concerto from the perspective that it's not trying to be Mozart. Then perhaps you'll see that it is the greater composition.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Since you mention the word prejudice in connection to me, let me also suggest that perhaps you're not the One True Objective And Unbiased Observer In All Things Music.
> 
> We all have biases, some of us are more aware of our own, is all.
> 
> Personally, I consider myself to be relatively well aware of mine, so your evaluation doesn't strike me as insightful. I'd say that rather than someone being "prejudiced" for seeing Beethoven as a more unique composer than Mozart at each respective stage of their lives, it is the person who sees Mozart as more or equally unique who is being biased.
> 
> Indeed, I believe that your position not only demands bias but pedantry, and I'm not saying this only to appear contrary, it is my honest appraisal and you were begging for it with that message. You need to listen to the Beethoven concerto from the perspective that it's not trying to be Mozart. Then perhaps you'll see that it is the greater composition.


I am stunned into your insight into my personal psychology, not least because you seem to have been looking in a different direction entirely when building your picture.

I have not claimed objectivity for myself, but I can assure you that I have no animus against Beethoven whatsoever. Indeed, he fully deserves his received status as one of the greats. Naturally, this will not be enough if you believe, as you say, that one must consider Beethoven the more unique composer at every stage of his life compared to Mozart in order not to be biased and pedantic(?).

But you have not set any standards for what kind of evidence you wish to have; you have consistently claimed that I am obviously wrong, and then when evidence to the contrary is presented, you change the subject at hand so as to preserve your claims without any modification.

As a matter of fact, I knew the Beethoven concerto before I came to know the Mozart, so I didn't listen to it as though it were trying to be Mozart.

Turning the burden of proof around to you for the first time, how is the middle movement of Mozart's 22nd concerto "no different" from that of the 9th? What's your evidence for that claim?


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> Are you even serious?
> 
> 1) Bringing in the soloist right away has nothing to do with anything.


This comment of yours stuck out to me as particularly very wrong. The soloist entrance has nothing to do with anything? The entire dramatic substance of the concerto form itself is built around how the soloist interacts with the orchestra, therefore, the point at which the soloist first enters is one of the most relevant things to the concerto form in terms of the dramatic pacing (also, WHAT the soloist enters on is incredibly important to).

That's like saying the first entrance of Batman in a Batman movie doesn't matter at all. He could make a dramatic entrance halfway through the first act or he could have a little insignificant cameo at the very beginning of the movie and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> This comment of yours stuck out to me as particularly very wrong. The soloist entrance has nothing to do with anything? The entire dramatic substance of the concerto form itself is built around how the soloist interacts with the orchestra, therefore, the point at which the soloist first enters is one of the most relevant things to the concerto form in terms of the dramatic pacing (also, WHAT the soloist enters on is incredibly important to).
> 
> That's like saying the first entrance of Batman in a Batman movie doesn't matter at all. He could make a dramatic entrance halfway through the first act or he could have a little insignificant cameo at the very beginning of the movie and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.


It doesn't affect the style, character, or nature of the passages that Mozart composes. Changing your high-level form a little doesn't magically transform the sound-world or thematic material of the work.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> It doesn't affect the style, character, or nature of the passages that Mozart composes. Changing your high-level form a little doesn't magically transform the sound-world or thematic material of the work.


It changes the nature of the relationship between the soloist and the orchestra. You really don't think it makes a difference when the soloist enters or what they enter with? The soloist entrance is like the main "reveal" of the piece in terms of dramatic action. It matters a great deal not only when and how the soloist enters but also what musical devices are exposed by the orchestra and which are saved for the "soloist exposition".

Besides, in the particular piece you are talking about (Mozart #9), the sudden brief soloist cameo isn't there for no reason. It brilliantly highlights the subtle rhythmic play between the cut time and common time pulses that oscillate throughout the movement.


----------



## Chordalrock

By the way, regarding Mahlerian's claim that Beethoven "disowned" the second piano concerto - why would Beethoven have composed a long and complex three-minute cadenza for it much later if that had been true? He obviously wouldn't have. It seems that Beethoven thought that the concerto was a work with lasting value, and that it was worthwhile for him to add a masterful cadenza to it that exploited the wider range of the newer pianos that had become available.


----------



## KenOC

I've never read that Beethoven "disowned" his 2nd piano concerto (which actually seems to have been written mostly before his 1st). But Mr. Memory, an increasing unreliable advisor, tells me that he offered it to the publisher at some discount, saying it was not among his best works of the type. Posterity seems to agree but buys the CD anyway.


----------



## Bulldog

Mahlerian said:


> But there is so much that is unique about the E-flat concerto. For one thing, it anticipates Beethoven's Fourth in bringing in the soloist right away. Its lyrical middle movement has a dark, shadowy character with lots of contrasts of mood. Its finale has a central minuet section in the middle of a fast rondo.
> 
> Not only does the work not sound like hundreds of other Mozart works, it doesn't sound quite like any other Mozart work.


I totally agree. That 3rd movement minuet always amazes me. As for Chordalrock's views on this work, it's clear by now that he's not a fan of Mozart's music and will minimize what's best about Mozart's compositions. As for me, I consider both Mozart and Beethoven to be fantastic composers; there are certainly genres where I feel that Beethoven has the edge over Mozart, but that's not the case with their respective piano concertos.


----------



## silentio

Mahlerian said:


> You've chosen to compare a rather uninteresting passage from a mediocre early work by Beethoven, one that the composer later disowned and recognized as not representative of his talents, with a masterpiece by Mozart. If it's idiosyncratic to prefer the latter, so be it.
> 
> *When I said "melody, harmony, or form," this was simply meant as "every single musical element." Really, there is absolutely no way in which Beethoven's Piano Concerto in B-flat can compare to Mozart's E-flat K271*.


Absolutely. Or even compare to the wonderful, but less well-known, Early Vienna concerti, K.413,414,415


----------



## HeadingSouth

I personally enjoy Bach's work the most.


----------



## KenOC

HeadingSouth said:


> I personally enjoy Bach's work the most.


This may have been mentioned, but I believe Bach only wrote one work for the piano.


----------



## Chordalrock

Bulldog said:


> I totally agree. That 3rd movement minuet always amazes me. As for Chordalrock's views on this work, it's clear by now that he's not a fan of Mozart's music and will minimize what's best about Mozart's compositions. As for me, I consider both Mozart and Beethoven to be fantastic composers; there are certainly genres where I feel that Beethoven has the edge over Mozart, but that's not the case with their respective piano concertos.


Either that, or you exaggerate Mozart's achievements in his lesser works because you just happen to love his style and sound-world.

Objectively speaking, you'd think it's not that hard to understand that uniqueness isn't exactly the supreme value for a composer who had to compose fast and all the time - and who had to pander to the taste of the Viennese elite - in order to pay his rent.

Even if Mozart had been the greater creative mind, his circumstances meant that he was rarely able to achieve his full potential.

And I'm a fan of Mozart, just not the second-rate Mozart. Trust me, I'm as discriminating with Beethoven, but to value them equally would be an injustice to the composer who was greater (i.e. Beethoven).


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Either that, or you exaggerate Mozart's achievements in his lesser works because you just happen to love his style and sound-world.
> 
> Objectively speaking, you'd think it's not that hard to understand that uniqueness isn't exactly the supreme value for a composer who had to compose fast and all the time - and who had to pander to the taste of the Viennese elite - in order to pay his rent.
> 
> Even if Mozart had been the greater creative mind, his circumstances meant that he was rarely able to achieve his full potential.
> 
> And I'm a fan of Mozart, just not the second-rate Mozart. Trust me, I'm as discriminating with Beethoven, but to value them equally would be an injustice to the composer who was greater (i.e. Beethoven).


The Jeunehomme concerto is not one of Mozart's lesser works. I wouldn't exaggerate the depth of, say, La finta giardiniera simply because I love Mozart's later operas. Regardless of the circumstances and speed of Mozart's works, the quality of the greater ones, like the E-flat concerto, speaks for itself.

And Mozart's works frequently transgressed the conservative tastes of the Viennese elite, who often preferred the lighter, less substantial music of the Italians.


----------



## silentio

Mahlerian said:


> The Jeunehomme concerto is not one of Mozart's lesser works. _*I wouldn't exaggerate the depth of, say, La finta giardiniera simply because I love Mozart's later operas*_.


_La finta giardiniera_ is actually a very fine and delightful pre-Idomeneo opera, despite its complex and somewhat silly plot (but 90% of opera buffa have silly plots anyways). Vocal and ensemble writings are much richer compared to _Mitridate_ or says, _La finta semplice_.

My favorite aria:


----------

