# Better than Brahms? I ask you!



## KenOC

Tried to go to sleep but the grey matter just kept sputtering fitfully. It asked:

Although Brahms was a pretty good composer, there were some better. Who were (or are) better composers than Brahms?


----------



## Art Rock

I do not believe in the concept of "objectively better", so this is just my personal preference. Only two: JS Bach and Mahler.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

You need criteria. 
Better than X is not a valid proposition.
You can compare composers by their use of rhythm, melody, form, flow, texture, timbre, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, development of the material, meter, idiomatic writing, extra musical meaning/ symbolism/ relation of the text to music, originality (compared to the composers in the same period) and so on.
It's silly to think that there is a single composer that mastered all elements of music.


----------



## arnerich

I'll tell you this I'd take his 2nd piano concerto over any of Beethoven's... or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## Heliogabo

Better than Brahms may be only an ideal Brahms.


----------



## hpowders

There's only one composer better than Brahms, but there is no shame in it, because he was better than everybody else: J.S. Bach.

Top 5, you ask? It goes like this:

1. Bach

2. Brahms

3. Mozart

4. Haydn

5. Handel

Honorable mention: Vivaldi, without whom, American Classical Public Radio would cease to exist.


----------



## jegreenwood

hpowders said:


> There's only one composer better than Brahms, but there is no shame in it, because he was better than everybody else: J.S. Bach.


I have developed a pretty stable set of my top 5.

Bach
Mozart, Schubert and Brahms tied for second
Beethoven

I suspect if Schubert had lived another 5 years he would claim second for himself.


----------



## EdwardBast

BabyGiraffe said:


> You need criteria.
> Better than X is not a valid proposition.
> You can compare composers by their use of rhythm, melody, form, flow, texture, timbre, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, development of the material, meter, idiomatic writing, extra musical meaning/ symbolism/ relation of the text to music, originality (compared to the composers in the same period) and so on.
> *It's silly to think that there is a single composer that mastered all elements of music.*


One should expect good composers to master all of these elements, at least the ones that actually mean something; I'm a little hazy on what it means to "master" flow, dynamics, meter, extra-musical meaning and symbolism. I'm pretty sure originality is not something to master.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Whose opinion is the best opinion?


----------



## jdec

The greatest composer ever of course, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. But Beethoven was greater than Brahms too in my view.


----------



## Judith

The greatest composer for me was Brahms. I can't think of one better. Love his works and his life fascinates me!


----------



## hpowders

jegreenwood said:


> I have developed a pretty stable set of my top 5.
> 
> Bach
> Mozart, Schubert and Brahms tied for second
> Beethoven
> 
> I suspect if Schubert had lived another 5 years he would claim second for himself.


I don't know. If Schubert lived another five years, he may have gone in a completely different direction: opening the first upscale fashion eyewear store.


----------



## hpowders

Haydn67 said:


> Whose opinion is the best opinion?


Why, mine, of course! :tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic

All those German-speakers! If we concede Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, the Deutschophonophiles will next want Schubert, or Mahler, or Haydn, or Handel. Let's give them Prokofiev instead, after the first Big Four. Concertos, symphonies, operas, ballets, chamber works, oodles of piano music, a cantata or two, film music, music for children, quasi-"folk" and quasi-oriental music, suites, and also a dynamite pianist. A contender.


----------



## eugeneonagain

There's a weird Brahms/Wagner/Mahler obsession on this forum, despite claims to massive lists of other listening material. Hasn't everything one can say about Brahms already been said, probably a thousand times and already before anyone here was born?


----------



## Nereffid

If by "better" you mean "better able to write music that I like", then I'd say there's loads of composers better than Brahms.


----------



## jegreenwood

eugeneonagain said:


> There's a weird Brahms/Wagner/Mahler obsession on this forum, despite claims to massive lists of other listening material. Hasn't everything one can say about Brahms already been said, probably a thousand times and already before anyone here was born?


OK - how about this Bruckner guy?


----------



## SONNET CLV

Better than Brahms?
Hmm ...
Well, there are a lot ... _a lot _of composers who are _different_ from Brahms.
It seems to me that Brahms did the _best_ job composing the music of Brahms!
Does _that_ help?


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahms is the best "Brahms" there is. He's not as Beethoveny as Beethoven, but that's understandable.


----------



## SixFootScowl

A shame Brahms didn't write any operas.


----------



## Klassik

It seems that Brahms wished that he composed The Blue Danube Waltz. Perhaps Brahms thought that his buddy Strauss was better? :lol:

It's impossible to say who is better or worse than Brahms. It's a question that will lead to subjective answers. The funny thing is, as the famous quote from Brahms about Strauss illustrates, the composers themselves might come up with rankings that are quite different than what us in the peanut gallery think anyway.


----------



## EdwardBast

Klassik said:


> It seems that Brahms wished that he composed The Blue Danube Waltz. Perhaps Brahms thought that his buddy Strauss was better? :lol:


Anybody wishing to make money on published music at that time would wish they had composed the Blue Danube Waltz. Are you sure this wasn't said with a ?


----------



## EdwardBast

Florestan said:


> A shame Brahms didn't write any operas.


Not to me it isn't! A composer with Brahms's inclinations and personality was absolutely right to eschew opera. Would have been an enormous waste of time and effort and would have deprived us of a number of great works.


----------



## Klassik

EdwardBast said:


> Anybody wishing to make money on published music at that time would wish they had composed the Blue Danube Waltz. Are you sure this wasn't said with a ?


I'm sure money had a big part in it, but that's the thing. I think some (perhaps many) of these composers judge quality by how much money a particular piece made/makes. It goes against the romantic artistry narrative that some in the classical music peanut gallery want to believe, but it is what it is.


----------



## mathisdermaler

wagner and bruckner


----------



## Lenny

Klassik said:


> It seems that Brahms wished that he composed The Blue Danube Waltz. Perhaps Brahms thought that his buddy Strauss was better? :lol:


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Klassik said:


> It's a question that will lead to subjective answers.


As in a ton of these threads


----------



## Bulldog

eugeneonagain said:


> There's a weird Brahms/Wagner/Mahler obsession on this forum, despite claims to massive lists of other listening material. Hasn't everything one can say about Brahms already been said, probably a thousand times and already before anyone here was born?


Good point. TC needs to ban Brahms.


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> There's a weird Brahms/Wagner/Mahler obsession on this forum, despite claims to massive lists of other listening material. Hasn't everything one can say about Brahms already been said, probably a thousand times and already before anyone here was born?


Brahms was supposedly a sloppy eater and not too fastidious about his appearance. That should never be lost sight of .


----------



## eugeneonagain

jegreenwood said:


> OK - how about this Bruckner guy?


Oh yes I forgot. When Brahms gets a rest, Bruckner is wheeled out to fill in for him.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Brahms was supposedly a sloppy eater and not too fastidious about his appearance. That should never be lost sight of .


I bet his composing room smelled like a "man-cave."

If he had had a girlfriend or wife, she probably wouldn't have tolerated that beard.

This sloppiness and unkempt appearance is, however, indicative that he was probably not gay.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> Brahms was supposedly a sloppy eater and not too fastidious about his appearance. That should never be lost sight of .


Yes, I knew. In a short time I've become a budding authority. What with the thrilling tales of his ménage-a-trois with the Schumanns, In fact his life is probably more fascinating than his music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

A lot of composers were better than Brahms in my opinion. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Stravinsky, Bartok, and more. 

Tchaikovsky, Britten and Milhaud hated his music. 

His music is undoubted well-crafted. Just not transformative.


----------



## Strange Magic

Phil loves classical said:


> A lot of composers were better than Brahms in my opinion. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Stravinsky, Bartok, and more.
> 
> Tchaikovsky, Britten and Milhaud hated his music.
> 
> His music is undoubted well-crafted. Just not transformative.


His music is transformative (fact, not an opinion): it transformed me into a Brahms enthusiast!


----------



## mmsbls

The question of better musically is always difficult because 1) it's difficult to define better and 2) many (most?) TC members don't have the necessary background to properly evaluate composers on such potential definitions. Personally, I find 3 composers more enjoyable or compelling than Brahms - Mozart. Beethoven, and Bach, but Brahms, for me, composed some of the most wonderful music is a wide variety of genres.

The one thing I do find interesting in discussions about Brahms is that some people seem to think his chamber music is _clearly_ superior to his orchestral music. Every musician (performer of both orchestral and chamber music) I've questioned about this places Brahms orchestral output on the same, if not higher, level as his chamber works. Again personally, I find his symphonies, concertos, and other orchestral works to be some of the most sublime music I've ever heard.


----------



## KenOC

Wasn't it Britten who said that he played Brahms at least once a year to remind himself what a bad composer the man was? Tchaikovsky had a similar opinion. He wrote that he had reviewed Brahms's music and found him a "giftless *******."

Can't make everybody happy, I guess!

Added: Oops, that got censored. Rhymes with "dastard."


----------



## jdec

mmsbls said:


> The question of better musically is always difficult because 1) it's difficult to define better and 2) many (most?) TC members don't have the necessary background to properly evaluate composers on such potential definitions. Personally, I find 3 composers more enjoyable or compelling than Brahms - Mozart. Beethoven, and Bach, but Brahms, for me, composed some of the most wonderful music is a wide variety of genres.
> 
> The one thing I do find interesting in discussions about Brahms is that some people seem to think his chamber music is _clearly_ superior to his orchestral music. Every musician (performer of both orchestral and chamber music) I've questioned about this places Brahms orchestral output on the same, if not higher, level as his chamber works. Again personally, I find his symphonies, concertos, and other orchestral works to be some of the most sublime music I've ever heard.


Completely agree with these 2 paragraphs.


----------



## Phil loves classical

KenOC said:


> Wasn't it Britten who said that he played Brahms at least once a year to remind himself what a bad composer the man was? Tchaikovsky had a similar opinion. He wrote that he had reviewed Brahms's music and found him a "giftless *******."
> 
> Can't make everybody happy, I guess!
> 
> Added: Oops, that got censored. Rhymes with "dastard."


Yeah. Brahms seeemed to divide some opinions more than the average composer.


----------



## Klassik

KenOC said:


> Wasn't it Britten who said that he played Brahms at least once a year to remind himself what a bad composer the man was?


He was probably jealous that the children would come to the woods to get the free candy Brahms would hand out.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> His music is undoubted well-crafted. Just not transformative.


 The Three Bs does him an enormous disservice, because it leads people to expect that his music will be as good as Bach's and Beethoven's, and it isn't.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Wasn't it Britten who said that he played Brahms at least once a year to remind himself what a bad composer the man was? Tchaikovsky had a similar opinion. He wrote that he had reviewed Brahms's music and found him a "giftless *******."
> 
> Can't make everybody happy, I guess!
> 
> Added: Oops, that got censored. Rhymes with "dastard."


Yet again, Tchaikovsky wrote that as a teenager before he even considered a career as a composer.


----------



## jdec

Mandryka said:


> The Three Bs does him an enormous disservice, because it leads people to expect that his music will be as good as Bach's and Beethoven's, and it isn't.


I disagree. Brahms was really a great composer fully deserving his not far behind 3rd place in The Three Bs.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> Brahms was supposedly a sloppy eater and *not too fastidious about his appearance*. That should never be lost sight of .


Fits right in with Ludwig.


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> I disagree. Brahms was really a great composer fully deserving his not far behind 3rd place in The Three Bs.


The third "B" was originally Berlioz, so I suppose Brahms was a reasonable substitute.


----------



## Andrew Wassell

Beethoven was. Forum closed.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I'm serious now, I'd put Brahms under John Cage in terms of overall importance...ut:


----------



## Tchaikov6

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm serious now, I'd put Brahms under John Cage in terms of overall importance...ut:


I have to disagree. Cage first of all, was inspired and taught by Schoenberg. Schoenberg in turn was inspired by Brahms, believe it or not. Therefore, without Brahms, there would be no Cage, or there would be a different Cage. Besides, even if that weren't so, Brahms is so much more influential to everybody, so much more musical, how can one say that he is not as important as Cage?


----------



## eugeneonagain

The smiley may have been a clue to the irony?


----------



## Tchaikov6

eugeneonagain said:


> The smiley may have been a clue to the irony?


I would have gotten if it if you hadn't said "I'm serious now." I know some people on TC would agree with that statement, so I can never be sure.


----------



## bz3

Brahms isn't my favorite composer but I wouldn't say that any were better than he was. He did it as well as anyone possibly could, in my opinion. And I'm not one of those inclusive-types who thinks every artist is equal and it's just a matter of taste. I'd put Brahms in a class of maybe 7 or 8 men who ever put pen to paper in the composition of music.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Florestan said:


> A shame Brahms didn't write any operas.


Some folks I know will insist he did. But economically with the _Wiegenlied_.

The folks I refer to are those who fall asleep at the very thought of opera. So, instead of three to five hours of music and singing to bring on the heavy eyelids, Brahms wrote only a small Lullaby to do the trick.

_Wiegenlied_. The Overture:






The main event:


----------



## mtmailey

I think MENDELSSOHN music is better than brahms.one should here felix symphonies,midsummers night dream.


----------



## jdec

mtmailey said:


> View attachment 95091
> I think MENDELSSOHN music is better than brahms.one should here felix symphonies,midsummers night dream.


Yes, Mendelssohn's music is great too, definitely, but I still think Brahms was the greater composer of the two.


----------



## SixFootScowl

mtmailey said:


> View attachment 95091
> I think MENDELSSOHN music is better than brahms.one should here *felix symphonies,midsummers night dream*.


Regardless who was greater, I prefer Mendelssohn. The same works you listed are my favorites. Though I do like Brahms' German Requiem. Mendelssohn has a a few operettas too!


----------



## SixFootScowl

EdwardBast said:


> Not to me it isn't! A composer with Brahms's inclinations and personality was absolutely right to eschew opera. Would have been an enormous waste of time and effort and would have deprived us of a number of great works.


Brahms seriously considered composing an opera, but 


> ...when nothing had come of his various operatic plans, he responded to the question of why he had written no opera, "Beside Wagner it is impossible."


Quote from _The Backgrounds and Traditions of Opera_ by Ruth Berges.


----------



## KenOC

SONNET CLV said:


> The folks I refer to are those who fall asleep at the very thought of opera. So, instead of three to five hours of music and singing to bring on the heavy eyelids, Brahms wrote only a small Lullaby to do the trick.


----------



## Pugg

KenOC said:


>


Finally you've got you real good answer, sleep tight later.


----------



## EdwardBast

Florestan said:


> Brahms seriously considered composing an opera, but
> 
> "...when nothing had come of his various operatic plans, he responded to the question of why he had written no opera, "Beside Wagner it is impossible."
> 
> Quote from _The Backgrounds and Traditions of Opera_ by Ruth Berges.


If he needed Wagner to get him off the idea, then we owe double thanks to Wagner! But, in any case, it was an excellent decision.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Xaltotun

There may have been some who were better composers than him, but somehow it seems wrong to even talk about it. He put so much effort to it, sacrificed everything to it, and became so good that few can be even mentioned in the same sentence.


----------



## Mandryka

I think Brahms inspired some fabulous music making from Furtwangler and possibly Toscanini too, and that probably did his reputation a lot of good with older music lovers who remember all of that. I almost want to say that Furtwangler made the music sound more interesting than it is.


----------



## MarkW

Brahms was the best possible Brahms.


----------



## MarkW

I may have the exact details wrong, but Michael Steinberg quotes, I believe Philip Hale, overhearing two Boston matrons coming out of an afternoon BSO concert, one saying to the other: "Brahms is so dependable."


----------



## Strange Magic

While I am a great admirer of and enthusiast for the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, I have found over the decades that the music of Brahms resonates with the "inner me" more than those others--I lose myself in Brahms' music more completely than in the music of most any other composer. The virtues of Brahms' music have been discussed in many previous threads, and I've added my two cents there. I'm no good as to who is better or worse, but "I know what I like!"


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Strange Magic said:


> While I am a great admirer of and enthusiast for the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, I have found over the decades that the music of Brahms resonates with the "inner me" more than those others--I lose myself in Brahms' music more completely than in the music of most any other composer. The virtues of Brahms' music have been discussed in many previous threads, and I've added my two cents there. I'm no good as to who is better or worse, but "I know what I like!"


Very well expressed, and I fully agree with you.


----------



## Lenny

Xaltotun said:


> There may have been some who were better composers than him, but somehow it seems wrong to even talk about it. He put so much effort to it, sacrificed everything to it, and became so good that few can be even mentioned in the same sentence.


Very well put. For me Brahms is such a figure, that I sometimes find myself "sparing" some bits of his music. For example, I try to listen his symphonies as little as possible from CD/computer, and try to get to live concerts instead. Maybe I try to not wear his music out, or something.

I've found another way to appreciate his huge heritage by listening a lot to his followers, for example at the moment I'm consuming music of Friedrich Gernsheim. Then when I get back to the master himself, it feels so home.


----------



## DaveM

Lenny said:


> Very well put. For me Brahms is such a figure, that I sometimes find myself "sparing" some bits of his music. For example, I try to listen his symphonies as little as possible from CD/computer, and try to get to live concerts instead. Maybe I try to not wear his music out, or something.
> 
> I've found another way to appreciate his huge heritage by listening a lot to his followers, for example at the moment I'm consuming music of Friedrich Gernsheim. Then when I get back to the master himself, it feels so home.


Going off topic, I love Gernsheim's piano concerto particularly the Adagio which IMO compares favorably with other more well-known concertos of his contemporaries:


----------



## st Omer

Cage is probably the greatest ever. You can play 4'33" at any speed, on any instrument, or any groups of instruments, in any venue, and you can always imagine how good it is. It is best played on the piano because that is the first instrument it wasn't performed on. You don't perform 4'33" you experience it. You can sing it with no ability to sing whatsoever. It can be sung by massive choirs or a sleeping two year old with the same effect. The beauty of it is that anybody can play it on any instrument even it they can't read music. The genius of the piece takes your breath away. The comment of one poster that Brahms inspired Schoenberg who inspired Cage was not a convincing argument that Brahms was greater than Cage. The statement supports the fact that music evolved from the traditional classical style of Brahms into the chaos of Schoenberg and reached its pinnacle in silence which was the natural response to random chance music that naturally evolved from the 12 tone system. Four thirty three can be tonal, atonal, aleatory chance music, or rock and roll. It is all things to all lovers and haters of music of all races, genders, creeds, and the living dead. 

If you think I have no idea what I am talking about you may be correct and then again I just may be the only one on this thread who really understands Cage and recognizes the magnitude of his greatness. Sorry about waxing eloquent on Cage since this is a discussion about Brahms who loved Schumann's wife. The fact that Brahms was looking for love in all the wrong places and never found is just another point in favor of Cage.


----------



## Lenny

DaveM said:


> Going off topic, I love Gernsheim's piano concerto particularly the Adagio which IMO compares favorably with other more well-known concertos of his contemporaries:


Yes, Gernsheim's music is excellent. Just wanted to make it clear. He's got his own voice, obviously, he just followed Brahms style. That cannot be wrong.


----------



## jdec

st Omer said:


> Cage is probably the greatest ever. You can play 4'33" at any speed, on any instrument, or any groups of instruments, in any venue, and you can always imagine how good it is. It is best played on the piano because that is the first instrument it wasn't performed on. You don't perform 4'33" you experience it. You can sing it with no ability to sing whatsoever. It can be sung by massive choirs or a sleeping two year old with the same effect. The beauty of it is that anybody can play it on any instrument even it they can't read music. The genius of the piece takes your breath away. The comment of one poster that Brahms inspired Schoenberg who inspired Cage was not a convincing argument that Brahms was greater than Cage. The statement supports the fact that music evolved from the traditional classical style of Brahms into the chaos of Schoenberg and reached its pinnacle in silence which was the natural response to random chance music that naturally evolved from the 12 tone system. Four thirty three can be tonal, atonal, aleatory chance music, or rock and roll. It is all things to all lovers and haters of music of all races, genders, creeds, and the living dead.
> 
> If you think I have no idea what I am talking about you may be correct and then again I just may be the only one on this thread who really understands Cage and recognizes the magnitude of his greatness. Sorry about waxing eloquent on Cage since this is a discussion about Brahms who loved Schumann's wife. The fact that Brahms was looking for love in all the wrong places and never found is just another point in favor of Cage.


I don't mean to be disrespectful but, are you really being serious here?  (honest question)


----------



## Woodduck

st Omer said:


> The fact that Brahms was looking for love in all the wrong places and never found is just another point in favor of Cage.


_You_ might say that Brahms looked for love in all the wrong places. But someone else might say that Cage looked for music in all the wrong places.

Not that _I'm_ saying that...


----------



## st Omer

jdec said:


> I don't mean to be disrespectful but, are you really being serious here?  (honest question)


A dishonest, honest answer to your question would be that I am seriously considering writing an entire book analyzing 4'33". It will be written on pages with no words, exactly 433 pages. It will be up to the reader to comprehend the analysis. It may require one to enter an elevated zen state or get some peyote from the local medicine man.

There is actually no comparison between Brahms and Cage. Brahms was a great composer and Cage was a world class expert on mushrooms. :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical

st Omer said:


> A dishonest, honest answer to your question would be that I am seriously considering writing an entire book analyzing 4'33". It will be written on pages with no words, exactly 433 pages. It will be up to the reader to comprehend the analysis. It may require one to enter an elevated zen state or get some peyote from the local medicine man.
> 
> There is actually no comparison between Brahms and Cage. Brahms was a great composer and Cage was a world class expert on mushrooms. :lol:


Cage was tone deaf acccording to Schoenberg I recall. His music is more interesting for its shocks, perspectives, and discussion than for actual listening and analysis. That is not putting down Cage, that was probably his intent.


----------



## st Omer

Cage composed at least one good piece for piano. I heard it on YouTube once and it was very pleasant and soothing. He was an interesting guy but in no way was he in a class with Brahms as a composer. There is no shame in that because not many are or were. How many composers have been, are, or will be, in a class with Brahms? Probably a dozen of so at best.


----------



## DaveM

st Omer said:


> A dishonest, honest answer to your question would be that I am seriously considering writing an entire book analyzing 4'33". It will be written on pages with no words, exactly 433 pages. It will be up to the reader to comprehend the analysis. It may require one to enter an elevated zen state or get some peyote from the local medicine man.


That's a fascinating idea. I'm willing to bet that if you present it on a literature/authors forum there will be some who will derive much profound meaning from it. For instance, viewing the empty pages will allow one to imagine great concepts and/plots that might have been written there. One caveat: Copyrighting it might be a problem.


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

Wagner did not like Brahms' music, in fact, according to my readings, he despised it.

This is just a little anecdote and doesn't really contribute much.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Gabriel Ortiz said:


> Wagner did not like Brahms' music, in fact, according to my readings, he despised it.
> 
> This is just a little anecdote and doesn't really contribute much.


But hey, good to know.


----------



## Lenny

Gabriel Ortiz said:


> Wagner did not like Brahms' music, in fact, according to my readings, he despised it.
> 
> This is just a little anecdote and doesn't really contribute much.


If he really "despised" it, well then maybe it proves 4'33'' is valid.


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

Lenny said:


> If he really "despised" it, well then maybe it proves 4'33'' is valid.


4'33 has always been valid! Shame on you! Except on a sports noise-o-meter... Or a birthday party for a pet parrot?


----------



## Haydn man

Gabriel Ortiz said:


> Wagner did not like Brahms' music, in fact, according to my readings, he despised it.
> 
> This is just a little anecdote and doesn't really contribute much.


Professional jealousy?


----------



## DavidA

Gabriel Ortiz said:


> Wagner did not like Brahms' music, in fact, according to my readings, he despised it.
> 
> This is just a little anecdote and doesn't really contribute much.


Wagner despised a lot of thngs. So did Brahms. He fell asleep when Liszt was playing the piano


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

Haydn man said:


> Professional jealousy?


I would say it is closer to professional megalomania.


----------



## Tallisman

I _enjoy_ him more than almost anyone but yeah - there are people above him (although not many)


----------



## Bettina

Brahms is currently in 7th place on my list of favorite composers. Here's my top ten at the moment:

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Debussy
5. Haydn
6. Schubert
7. Brahms
8. Liszt
9. Chopin
10. Ravel


This will probably change soon! Even though the names on my top ten list tend to be pretty stable, their relative positions vary a lot from day to day.


----------



## Woodduck

Gabriel Ortiz said:


> Wagner did not like Brahms' music, in fact, according to my readings, he despised it.
> 
> This is just a little anecdote and doesn't really contribute much.


What readings are those? Wagner wasn't personally enthusiastic about Brahms's music (at one point calling it "tedious"), but he acknowledged its "wealth of ideas" and its technical excellence. Brahms, for his part, was deeply impressed but grumpily ambivalent toward Wagner's work, while being more influenced by it than is often noticed. This is pretty much what we'd expect from these two, given their temperaments and their artistic differences.


----------



## Klassik

Bettina said:


> This will probably change soon! Even though the names on my top ten list tend to be pretty stable, their relative positions vary a lot from day to day.


It sounds like a stock exchange! "Today, Mozart's shares rose 6.54%. Shares of Brahms fell 13% amidst rumors of a merger with Schumann! Sell, sell, sell!"

We all know Beethoven's Rage Over a Lost Penny Stock. Leave it to Ludwig and Kaspar to invest in the career of Antonio Salieri! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Brahms is one of my favorite composers. At his best - often, since he was so careful not to publish inferior work - I think he's just about as good as music gets. But if I have to name composers I find "better," I'll allow that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven exhibit all the excellence of Brahms plus a greater sense of ease and spontaneity; Brahms worked hard for his perfect structures, and sometimes I feel I can detect a bit of artifice or laboriousness in a way I don't with the others (Brahms himself was quick to point out Mozart's enviable fluency). I'll suggest Wagner too, although he, being more than a "composer" in his domain of music drama, makes for a more problematic comparison, which it's probably unproductive to make. But even in absolute musical terms, is anything "better" than the preludes to _Lohengrin,_ _Tristan_ or _Meistersinger?_ And does any score of Brahms equal the imagination, richness and subtlety of _Parsifal?_ Again, Brahms, with admirable objectivity, understood and admired the genius of Wagner's works, and owned and studied their scores.


----------



## Chronochromie

If I were to list composers that I think are better than Brahms, it would be a long list. 
Luckily Schoenberg blended all the best stuff in Brahms (and Wagner) into his own personal style that I find much more appealing than the vast majority of Brahms's output.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> If I were to list composers that I think are better than Brahms, it would be a long list.
> Luckily Schoenberg blended all the best stuff in Brahms (and Wagner) into his own personal style that I find much more appealing than the vast majority of Brahms's output.


I can believe your final statement ("I find much more appealing") but what comes before it has me scratching my head. Is there really a long list of composers better - actually better - than Brahms? And anyone who could succeed in blending "all the best stuff" in Brahms and Wagner would surely be the most astonishing and celebrated genius in the history of music. With all due respect to Schoenberg's several styles, I can hear the influence of both his predecessors, but would suggest that what's most outstanding in the one is somewhat exclusive of what's most outstanding in the other.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Bettina said:


> Brahms is currently in 7th place on my list of favorite composers. Here's my top ten at the moment:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Bach
> 4. Debussy
> 5. Haydn
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Brahms
> 8. Liszt
> 9. Chopin
> 10. Ravel
> 
> This will probably change soon! Even though the names on my top ten list tend to be pretty stable, their relative positions vary a lot from day to day.


No Mendelssohn?


----------



## Klassik

Florestan said:


> No Mendelssohn?


Don't gRavel, Mendelssohn had to get Chopined off the Liszt to make room for Brahms! :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Brahms is one of my favorite composers. At his best - often, since he was so careful not to publish inferior work - I think he's just about as good as music gets. But if I have to name composers I find "better," I'll allow that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven exhibit all the excellence of Brahms plus a greater sense of ease and spontaneity; Brahms worked hard for his perfect structures, and sometimes I feel I can detect a bit of artifice or laboriousness in a way I don't with the others (Brahms himself was quick to point out Mozart's enviable fluency). I'll suggest Wagner too, although he, being more than a "composer" in his domain of music drama, makes for a more problematic comparison, which it's probably unproductive to make. But even in absolute musical terms, is anything "better" than the preludes to _Lohengrin,_ _Tristan_ or _Meistersinger?_ And does any score of Brahms equal the imagination, richness and subtlety of _Parsifal?_ Again, Brahms, with admirable objectivity, understood and admired the genius of Wagner's works, and owned and studied their scores.


You are comparing chalk with cheese with Wagner and Brahms; the former wrote precious little apart from operas. Some, yes, but really very little. Brahms, conversely, was 'fluent' in all musical forms and genres except that he wrote no operas (and for that I think we can be thankful!). He is the infinitely preferred composer, for me, to almost any save Beethoven and Bach. The 3 B's were giants. I feel that if Schubert had lived longer he would have trumped most of them, except arguably Bach. Franzie's music was complex and sophisticated even when written by a late 20-something. So, Bach/Beethoven/Brahms in No. 1 with Franzie, Chopin, Ravel and Handel in No. 2. Mozart doesn't rate a mention with me; I have none of his music except 2 or 3 of the operas (in which he totally excelled beyond belief!) because it bores me rigid. Watched a Berliner Philharmoniker Digital Concert Hall last night with one of Mozart's Piano Concertos and turned it off after 5 minutes; more sugary, anodyne and dull music is difficult to find. OK some of the chamber music (string quartets in particular) work well but the Piano Trios...hell, Beethoven was writing more interesting stuff at 18!!


----------



## dillonp2020

Brahms isn't the composer whose works I've listened to the most, (I say that about every composer but Beethoven). And this is reflected in my preferences. My list of top 10 favorite composers
1. Bach and Beethoven tied
2. Verdi/Puccini tied
3. Chopin
4. Shostakovich
5. Prokofiev
6. Rachmaninoff
7. Mahler
8. Mozart
9. Brahms
10. Tchaikovsky tied with Liszt
You obviously see the 8 composers I prefer to Brahms.


----------



## Woodduck

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> *You are comparing chalk with cheese with Wagner and Brahms; the former wrote precious little apart from operas. * Some, yes, but really very little. Brahms, conversely, was 'fluent' in all musical forms and genres except that he wrote no operas (and for that I think we can be thankful!). He is the infinitely preferred composer, for me, to almost any save Beethoven and Bach. The 3 B's were giants. I feel that if Schubert had lived longer he would have trumped most of them, except arguably Bach. Franzie's music was complex and sophisticated even when written by a late 20-something. So, Bach/Beethoven/Brahms in No. 1 with Franzie, Chopin, Ravel and Handel in No. 2. Mozart doesn't rate a mention with me; I have none of his music except 2 or 3 of the operas (in which he totally excelled beyond belief!) because it bores me rigid. Watched a Berliner Philharmoniker Digital Concert Hall last night with one of Mozart's Piano Concertos and turned it off after 5 minutes; more sugary, anodyne and dull music is difficult to find. OK some of the chamber music (string quartets in particular) work well but the Piano Trios...hell, Beethoven was writing more interesting stuff at 18!!


I was careful to precede my brief remarks on Wagner with "he, being more than a 'composer' in his domain of music drama, makes for a more problematic comparison, which it's probably unproductive to make." I don't quite agree with the "chalk and cheese" analogy, though. Brahms and Wagner were both writing mature Romantic music, after all, and we can look at elements such as harmony, orchestration, and motivic development in both. You yourself compare them on the basis of the diversity of genres in which they worked, but even in that respect they're more comparable than they at first appear. Opera as a genre isn't equivalent to the string quartet or the piano sonata; an opera may employ a great variety of forms, and despite its predominantly continuous musical texture, a Wagner opera is full of identifiable structures, variously strict and free in form, and deploying a vast range of musical resources with a variety of harmonic and orchestral invention which Brahms nowhere approaches despite the diversity of the genres in which he worked.

As for Mozart, he isn't a favorite of mine either, and yet he seems to me one of the greatest of musical geniuses. I can even respect those who feel that he's the greatest of all, though I don't myself feel qualified to make an objective judgment on that. It's possible to recognize excellence in a thing even without loving it (although a hearty dislike is likely to prevent such recognition). Brahms, by the way, said that Mozart achieved easily what he and others had to work hard to approximate - not a quote, but the essence of his observation - and I have no doubt that he thought that Mozart's music was in some significant respect "better" than his own. We don't have to agree with him, of course!


----------



## AfterHours

Bettina said:


> Brahms is currently in 7th place on my list of favorite composers. Here's my top ten at the moment:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Bach
> 4. Debussy
> 5. Haydn
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Brahms
> 8. Liszt
> 9. Chopin
> 10. Ravel
> 
> *This will probably change soon!*


Looking forward to these upcoming changes. Of the following composers...

Mahler
Shostakovich

...which one will you be adding?


----------



## AfterHours

Few composers in history can match Brahms. Maybe the most consistent ever? 

Taking the cue from Bettina, my top 10 composers:

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Shostakovich
6. Schubert
7. Mahler
8. Wagner
9. Haydn
10. Schnittke


----------



## Bettina

Florestan said:


> No Mendelssohn?


He has been in my top ten in the past, but I'm sorry to say that he isn't currently there. He is certainly in my top 20, though!


----------



## jegreenwood

Bettina said:


> Brahms is currently in 7th place on my list of favorite composers. Here's my top ten at the moment:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Bach
> 4. Debussy
> 5. Haydn
> 6. Schubert
> 7. Brahms
> 8. Liszt
> 9. Chopin
> 10. Ravel
> 
> This will probably change soon! Even though the names on my top ten list tend to be pretty stable, their relative positions vary a lot from day to day.


I mentioned my top 5 above (Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms and Beethoven). Debussy, Haydn and Chopin would be in the next 5. The other two slots are competitive. Maybe Mahler; maybe Josquin (partly as a representative of Renaissance music); maybe D. Scarlatti (who simply offers me enormous pleasure).


----------



## Guest

I stick by the chalk and cheese: Brahms






Wagner:






For Wagner big is better. For Brahms classical and smaller (and often intimate) is better. I really enjoy Wagner, BTW. He is a creature of the theatre. Brahms was more inhibited and introverted.

And, having only recently finished Swafford's excellent biography of Brahms it is evident that his idols were Beethoven, Bach and then Haydn and Mozart. He had the bust of Beethoven in his studio in that last apartment opposite Ressel Park, Vienna. Though he turned backward to more classical forms, Brahms was primarily alluding to Beethoven with his "standing on the shoulders of giants" comment.

I absolutely understand that many great conductors (Carlos Kleiber amongst them) really revered Mozart, as do many millions of others. As I said earlier, his operas are absolutely extraordinary but the rest just bores me with its wall to wall prettiness.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

"Nobody has suffered more than Mozart from sentimental misjudgement. The last [i.e.nineteenth] century dealt with the glory of his composure by calling him 'mellifluous', as if he were really just the Fragonard of music. To the nineteenth century - which prized the _evidence_ of effort - he was not wholly serious: charming, of course, but a little lightweight; graceful beyond measure, but lacking in muscle. The truth, of course, is entirely other. Try cutting into Mozart; you will soon find out where the muscle is. It runs right through the tissue of the music, and totally resists the knife." [Peter Shaffer]


----------



## st Omer

Brahms piano miniature op 118 number 2 is about as profound a piece of music as you can find and in 5 minutes tells me as much about Brahms as it took Wagner 16 hours to tell me about himself in the Ring. It always takes an egomaniac a lot longer to say something. It seems Wotan was the windy alter ego of Wagner that Wagner created. I am not sure which one had more women. At least Wotan's didn't belong to somebody else. Brahms on the other hand never had much luck with women. Maybe that's why he was more humble.


----------



## Woodduck

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I stick by the chalk and cheese: Brahms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wagner:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Wagner big is better. For Brahms classical and smaller (and often intimate) is better. I really enjoy Wagner, BTW. He is a creature of the theatre. Brahms was more inhibited and introverted.


Interesting that you choose a set of piano pieces to represent Brahms, and Siegfried's "Funeral March" to represent Wagner. You might have chosen Brahms' symphonies, concertos or requiem, as against the second act of _Tristan_, the forest murmur scene from _Siegfried,_ or the third acts of _Parsifal_ or _Die Meistersinger,_ to show how epic Brahms can be and how intimate Wagner can be. Nietzsche actually called Wagner "the greatest miniaturist in music, who crowds into the smallest space an infinity of sense and sweetness," and for me, having known intimately and played (at the piano) his works for half a century, it isn't their physical size and sonic power that impress but their wealth of musical subtleties and psychologically telling detail.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> it isn't their physical size and sonic power that impress but their wealth of musical subtleties and psychologically telling detail.


Agreed

.........


----------



## Bettina

AfterHours said:


> Looking forward to these upcoming changes. Of the following composers...
> 
> Mahler
> Shostakovich
> 
> ...which one will you be adding?


I'm still struggling to get them into my top 50! Once I achieve that goal, then I can start thinking about the top ten... :lol:


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I only have top 3 forever:
Mozart
Bach
Schubert
...after them is everybody else


----------



## st Omer

My top lucky 13 favorites, in no particular order, would be:

Mahler
Brahms
Wagner
Beethoven
Bach
Tchaikovsky
Dvorak
Schubert 
Haydn 
Mozart
Handel
Chopin
Sibelius


----------



## SixFootScowl

No particular order (and off the top of my head):

Beethoven
Mahler
Mendelssohn
Handel
Rossini
Bellini
Donizetti
Mussorgsky
Wagner
Monteverdi


----------



## Strange Magic

Is this the Top Ten Composers thread now?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> Is this the Top Ten Composers thread now?


Ten I like better than Brahms anyway. Not that there is anything wrong with Brahms. I just have not connected with is music beyond the German Requiem.


----------



## dillonp2020

Florestan said:


> Ten I like better than Brahms anyway. Not that there is anything wrong with Brahms. I just have not connected with is music beyond the German Requiem.


I connect with some of his concertos and symphonies, but the requiem didn't make a great impression on me. I don't think anybody can match the Verdi Requiem.


----------



## Woodduck

dillonp2020 said:


> I don't think anybody can match the Verdi Requiem.


Depends on whether you think a requiem should sound like an opera written by an atheist. 

The Brahms "German requiem" isn't a real requiem anyway - no theology, no prayers, no cosmic drama, no judgment, heaven or hell - so it should be heard without comparing it to Verdi's or anyone else's. It's unique in the choral literature: a meditation on mortality and a comfort to the living.


----------



## dillonp2020

Woodduck said:


> Depends on whether you think a requiem should sound like an opera written by an atheist.
> 
> The Brahms "German requiem" isn't a real requiem anyway - no theology, no prayers, no cosmic drama, no judgment, heaven or hell - so it should be heard without comparing it to Verdi's or anyone else's. It's unique in the choral literature: a meditation on mortality and a comfort to the living.


The fact that it is written like an opera is certainly not a turn off. Who cares about his personal beliefs, I watch Tchaikovsky operas about heterosexual relationships. 
Perhaps I was too quick to compare, but that's my right. If it were set to the same music, I wouldn't care for the "German Requiem" in any form. It doesn't inspire me.


----------



## Woodduck

dillonp2020 said:


> The fact that it is written like an opera is certainly not a turn off. Who cares about his personal beliefs, I watch Tchaikovsky operas about heterosexual relationships.
> Perhaps I was too quick to compare, but that's my right. If it were set to the same music, I wouldn't care for the "German Requiem" in any form. It doesn't inspire me.


I do but jest.

The Verdi's a terrific piece, I can tell you - really terrific, everybody says it is - and atheists - I know a lot of atheists and they know me and like me - they're terrific people, really terrific, great people, the best people, believe me.


----------



## dillonp2020

Woodduck said:


> I do but jest.
> 
> The Verdi's a terrific piece, I can tell you - really terrific, everybody says it is - and atheists - I know a lot of atheists and they know me and like me - they're terrific people, really terrific, great people, the best people, believe me.


I personally prefer Puttini's. His requiem is just the best, its fantastic, its beautiful, everyone loves it. American loves it so much, I can't even begin to explain. He wrote it for the victims of humus in the middle east. Humus sucks, they're a group of big, fat, loooosers! American number 1! DT out!


----------



## KenOC

dillonp2020 said:


> If it were set to the same music, I wouldn't care for the "German Requiem" in any form. It doesn't inspire me.


George Bernard Shaw on the German Requiem: "I do not deny that the Requiem is a solid piece of musical manufacture. You feel at once that it could only have come from the establishment of a first-class undertaker."


----------



## Woodduck

dillonp2020 said:


> DT out!


Yesssssssssssssssssss.


----------



## chromatic owl

The way Brahms treats his thematic material is highly sophisticated and impressive and makes him strong in the larger dramatic forms. Also his melodies are beautiful and very well written. Yet, I think Schumann is the greater contrapuntalist and his use of harmony and voice-leading is more refined and expressive. I agree that Brahms's music appears greater superficially, but I feel that Schumann has much more to say, especially in the short forms which he mastered.
Apart from this particular comparison I think there are about twenty composers which I would consider to be better than Brahms, but that is only my personal opinion, of course.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

...and one to which you're obv.entitled, but can you give examples of works by Schumann which lead you to the (IMO startling) conclusion that he's "the greater contrapuntalist and his use of harmony and voice-leading is more refined and expressive"?


----------



## Strange Magic

chromatic owl said:


> Apart from this particular comparison I think there are about twenty composers which I would consider to be better than Brahms, but that is only my personal opinion, of course.


I would be interested in seeing that list of about twenty .


----------



## Judith

chromatic owl said:


> The way Brahms treats his thematic material is highly sophisticated and impressive and makes him strong in the larger dramatic forms. Also his melodies are beautiful and very well written. Yet, I think Schumann is the greater contrapuntalist and his use of harmony and voice-leading is more refined and expressive. I agree that Brahms's music appears greater superficially, but I feel that Schumann has much more to say, especially in the short forms which he mastered.
> Apart from this particular comparison I think there are about twenty composers which I would consider to be better than Brahms, but that is only my personal opinion, of course.


Love both Brahms and Schumann. In some of the works, I think there are similarities!


----------



## chromatic owl

Animal the Drummer said:


> ...and one to which you're obv.entitled, but can you give examples of works by Schumann which lead you to the (IMO startling) conclusion that he's "the greater contrapuntalist and his use of harmony and voice-leading is more refined and expressive"?


The are way too many good examples but I find these particularly convincing:

Waldszenen, op. 82
Four fugues, op. 72
Gesänge der Frühe, op. 133
Variations in E♭ major, WoO 24

I also had to think of a certain incredibly beautiful dissonance in Dichterliebe, but I happened to forget in which particular song. 

If you think my opinion is startling, why don't you give some examples of Brahms's music that you think are contradictionary? I would certainly appreciate that


----------



## chromatic owl

Strange Magic said:


> I would be interested in seeing that list of about twenty .


In this case I will consider Bach, Bartók, Beethoven, Britten, Chopin, Dvořák, Franck, Gesualdo, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Musorgsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, Reger, Schubert, Schumann, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Strauss, Stravinsky, Tallis and Tchaikovsky to be greater than Brahms. (happened to be slightly more than twenty )


----------



## classicalexburns

Not 'better' but I prefer Mahler!


----------



## Animal the Drummer

chromatic owl said:


> The are way too many good examples but I find these particularly convincing:
> 
> Waldszenen, op. 82
> Four fugues, op. 72
> Gesänge der Frühe, op. 133
> Variations in E♭ major, WoO 24
> 
> I also had to think of a certain incredibly beautiful dissonance in Dichterliebe, but I happened to forget in which particular song.
> 
> If you think my opinion is startling, why don't you give some examples of Brahms's music that you think are contradictionary? I would certainly appreciate that


Fair question. In reply I'd refer you to two main sources: (a) in terms of voice-leading, Brahms' late piano music, the three Intermezzi Op.117 for example, and (b) in terms of counterpoint, Brahms' choral music with orchestra, principally but not only the Requiem. This is not to say that I dislike Schumann (I don't) or that his use of counterpoint and voice-leading is poor (it isn't), but it is to take issue with your statement that his music is "greater" or "more refined and expressive" than that of Brahms in these respects. Saying you enjoy it more is one thing. Making a comparative value judgment is another.


----------



## Strange Magic

chromatic owl said:


> In this case I will consider Bach, Bartók, Beethoven, Britten, Chopin, Dvořák, Franck, Gesualdo, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Musorgsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, Reger, Schubert, Schumann, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Strauss, Stravinsky, Tallis and Tchaikovsky to be greater than Brahms. (happened to be slightly more than twenty )


Thank you! Some might remark: Strange eccentricity of taste, but I? Never!


----------



## dillonp2020

chromatic owl said:


> In this case I will consider Bach, Bartók, Beethoven, Britten, Chopin, Dvořák, Franck, Gesualdo, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Musorgsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, Reger, Schubert, Schumann, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Strauss, Stravinsky, Tallis and Tchaikovsky to be greater than Brahms. (happened to be slightly more than twenty )


No Vaughan Williams! Tallis would be ashamed.


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> I would be interested in seeing that list of about twenty .


I can give you a list of about 50 if you're interested. :tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic

Chronochromie said:


> I can give you a list of about 50 if you're interested. :tiphat:


Please do! Inquiring minds, and all that. Just can't wait to see who's all on that list :lol:.


----------



## poconoron

Not surprising that Brahms didn't dabble in opera. He was overwhelmed by Mozart's Figaro and probably intimidated quite a bit:

_"In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle," composer Johannes Brahms said of Mozart's great opera a century after its creation. "It is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven." _


----------



## chromatic owl

Animal the Drummer said:


> Fair question. In reply I'd refer you to two main sources: (a) in terms of voice-leading, Brahms' late piano music, the three Intermezzi Op.117 for example, and (b) in terms of counterpoint, Brahms' choral music with orchestra, principally but not only the Requiem. This is not to say that I dislike Schumann (I don't) or that his use of counterpoint and voice-leading is poor (it isn't), but it is to take issue with your statement that his music is "greater" or "more refined and expressive" than that of Brahms in these respects. Saying you enjoy it more is one thing. Making a comparative value judgment is another.


Thank you  I am more or less familiar with the Intermezzi, not so the Requiem, I will have to check it out sometime. And yes, I definitely find Schumann's music to be of higher value. However, I cannot claim that my opinion is the highly objective result of thorough analysis.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Thank you! Some might remark: Strange eccentricity of taste, but I? Never!


Then let me.

<Ahem> Franck? _Franck??_ *Franck???*


----------



## chromatic owl

chromatic owl said:


> why don't you give some examples of Brahms's music that you think are *contradictionary*?


And sorry about that strange spelling mistake... I wonder what types of words there are in a contradictionary?


----------



## chromatic owl

Woodduck said:


> Then let me.
> 
> <Ahem> Franck? _Franck??_ *Franck???*


:lol: What's wrong?


----------



## Woodduck

chromatic owl said:


> :lol: What's wrong?


Franckly, Franck. ..........


----------



## Strange Magic

César Franck (i have it on highest authority) would often stand before a mirror, compose himself, and say "Let's be...Brahms!"


----------



## Strange Magic

chromatic owl said:


> And sorry about that strange spelling mistake... I wonder what types of words there are in a contradictionary?


The President keeps a contradictionary on his desk at all times, as do all his spokespeople.


----------



## Pugg

classicalexburns said:


> Not 'better' but I prefer Mahler!


Very subtle and very true.


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> Please do! Inquiring minds, and all that. Just can't wait to see who's all on that list :lol:.


Well you asked for it:

Machaut
Dufay
Josquin
Ockeghem
Lassus
Monteverdi
Biber
Corelli
Vivaldi
F. Couperin
JS Bach
Rameau
D. Scarlatti
CPE Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Berlioz
Mendelssohn
Chopin
Schumann
Liszt
Wagner
Dvorak
Mussorgsky
Verdi
Fauré
R. Strauss
Debussy
Rachmaninov
Mahler
Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Scriabin
Bartók
Stravinsky
Ives
Ravel
Prokofiev
Janacek
Poulenc
Shostakovich
Messiaen
Ligeti
Xenakis
Boulez
Lutoslawski
Nono
Takemitsu
Reich
Andriessen
Gubaidulina
Sciarrino
Grisey
Murail
Saariaho

I think there's more than 50 in there, and I could keep going. Feel free to tear it apart and laugh at the funny sounding names of all of those contemporary composers though, who I'm sure you know and love.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> Well you asked for it:
> 
> Machaut
> Dufay
> Josquin
> Ockeghem
> Lassus
> Monteverdi
> Biber
> Corelli
> Vivaldi
> F. Couperin
> JS Bach
> Rameau
> D. Scarlatti
> CPE Bach
> Haydn
> Mozart
> Beethoven
> Schubert
> Berlioz
> Mendelssohn
> Chopin
> Schumann
> Liszt
> Wagner
> Dvorak
> Mussorgsky
> Verdi
> Fauré
> R. Strauss
> Debussy
> Rachmaninov
> Mahler
> Schoenberg
> Berg
> Webern
> Scriabin
> Bartók
> Stravinsky
> Ives
> Ravel
> Prokofiev
> Janacek
> Poulenc
> Shostakovich
> Messiaen
> Ligeti
> Xenakis
> Boulez
> Lutoslawski
> Nono
> Takemitsu
> Reich
> Andriessen
> Gubaidulina
> Sciarrino
> Grisey
> Murail
> Saariaho
> 
> I think there's more than 50 in there, and I could keep going. Feel free to tear it apart and laugh at the funny sounding names of all of those contemporary composers though, who I'm sure you know and love.


Lists are always such fun to read.

What were we talking about now?


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> Lists are always such fun to read.
> 
> What were we talking about now?


I know, I know, but he did ask! Now after that wall of text we can maybe get a clean slate out of this thread. Now everybody, what are your top 1000 composers better than Brahms?


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> I know, I know, but he did ask! Now after that wall of text we can maybe get a clean slate out of this thread. Now everybody, what are your top 1000 composers better than Brahms?


Look, let's cut this short.

All composers are better than Brahms.


----------



## AfterHours

Chronochromie said:


> Well you asked for it:
> 
> Machaut
> Dufay
> Josquin
> Ockeghem
> Lassus
> Monteverdi
> *Biber*


... ...

Though you misspelled his name, I'm a Belieber too, so I am glad you included him, especially over a third rate hack like Brahms.


----------



## apricissimus

Brahms still has not really clicked with me yet. I'll keep trying. But I'm not going to worry too much about it, there's too much good music out there even if I never connect with Brahms.


----------



## Strange Magic

I hasten to point out the existence of a startling, glaring, inexcusable omission from CC's Big List, and I am thusly shocked, shocked!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Chronochromie said:


> I know, I know, but he did ask! Now after that wall of text we can maybe get a clean slate out of this thread. Now everybody, what are your top 1000 composers better than Brahms?


How about we list our 10 least favorite composers instead? Or list all composers you like less than Brahms. Surely Cage and Glass?


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> I hasten to point out the existence of a startling, glaring, inexcusable omission from CC's Big List, and I am thusly shocked, shocked!


Who's that? Cage?


----------



## Chronochromie

Florestan said:


> How about we list our 10 least favorite composers instead? Or list all composers you like less than Brahms. Surely Cage and Glass?


Nah, I don't dislike Cage or Glass, I do dislike Glass Cages though.


----------



## StraussCalman

KenOC said:


> Tried to go to sleep but the grey matter just kept sputtering fitfully. It asked:
> 
> Although Brahms was a pretty good composer, there were some better. Who were (or are) better composers than Brahms?


Vivaldi
Scriabin
Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Verdi
Chopin
Shubert
Strauss Jr


----------



## Strange Magic

Chronochromie said:


> Who's that? Cage?


Exactly. All of that time Brahms wasted on his piano concertos, sonatas, variations, other piano chamber works, when he should wisely have remained silent at his keyboard (perhaps farting and belching quietly).


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> Exactly. All of that time Brahms wasted on his piano concertos, sonatas, variations, other piano chamber works, when he should wisely have remained silent at his keyboard (perhaps farting and belching quietly).


I'd take Cage's Sonatas and Interludes over Brahms's piano sonatas, certainly. I mean, many Brahms fans know those are not his best work.

But I think I'd give Brahms the edge there, all things considered.


----------



## Woodduck

AfterHours said:


> ... ...
> 
> Though you misspelled his name, I'm a Belieber too, so I am glad you included him, especially over a third rate hack like Brahms.


Biber? Most of his stuff seems pretty thin. Just compare his violin passacaglia with the Bach chaconne: a cat's meow beside the roar of a lion. Maybe that's why the Biber piece I like best is the "Sonata Representativa," where the violin imitates animal noises. The frog is just terrific! Brahms would be Kermit-green with envy.


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> Biber? Most of his stuff seems pretty thin. Just compare his violin passacaglia with the Bach chaconne: a cat's meow beside the roar of a lion. Maybe that's why the Biber piece I like best is the "Sonata Representativa," where the violin imitates animal noises. The frog is just terrific! Brahms would be Kermit-green with envy.


I wouldn't say that's true. But I think his best work is the _Harmonia artificiosa-ariosa_.


----------



## Strange Magic

Indeed, strange eccentricities of taste revealed in this thread (some might say).


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> Indeed, strange eccentricities of taste revealed in this thread (some might say).


I know there are weirdos out there who love Brahms's piano sonatas, but I can't believe it! :lol:


----------



## Bettina

Chronochromie said:


> I know there are weirdos out there who love Brahms's piano sonatas, but I can't believe it! :lol:


How could anyone NOT love Brahms's piano sonatas? If you love Beethoven's piano sonatas, then you're basically guaranteed to love Brahms's! His Piano Sonata No. 1 is basically a reworking of the Hammerklavier.


----------



## Chronochromie

Bettina said:


> How could anyone NOT love Brahms's piano sonatas? If you love Beethoven's piano sonatas, then you're basically guaranteed to love Brahms's! His Piano Sonata No. 1 is basically a reworking of the Hammerklavier.


That's like saying if you love Beethoven's symphonies you'll love those of Ries. Sure, if you like a watered down, poor man's version of the real thing, then I guess they're excellent.


----------



## Chronochromie

Hopefully no one makes a thread about Tchaikovsky, if I was tempted to write in that I'd befuddle and infuriate the half of the forum that doesn't care about Brahms but likes him!


----------



## EdwardBast

MarkW said:


> Brahms was the best possible Brahms.


I've never believed this. The best Brahms was the one with more daring - you know, the one who got Clara in the end and took more risks in his composing.



Bettina said:


> How could anyone NOT love Brahms's piano sonatas? If you love Beethoven's piano sonatas, then you're basically guaranteed to love Brahms's! His Piano Sonata No. 1 is basically a reworking of the Hammerklavier.


Not necessarily. See above.


----------



## Strange Magic

Chronochromie said:


> Hopefully no one makes a thread about Tchaikovsky, if I was tempted to write in that I'd befuddle and infuriate the half of the forum that doesn't care about Brahms but likes him!


Don't allow anyone to impose their aesthetics on you: be bold and self-confident! If you believe that there are at least 50 composers better than Johannes Brahms (or Tchaikovsky), do not be intimidated by the possibility of raised eyebrows, cluck-clucking and head-shaking among some CM lovers who cannot appreciate personal idiosyncrasy as you and I can! :tiphat:


----------



## Lenny

Chronochromie said:


> That's like saying if you love Beethoven's symphonies you'll love those of Ries. Sure, if you like a watered down, poor man's version of the real thing, then I guess they're excellent.


Wrong.............

Nothin wrong with Ries, but he was under direct influence of Beethoven and didn't bring anything new. I think it's dishonest to say the same when it comes to Brahms. I'm sure people with real knowledge won't even bother to discuss about this, but as a layman I can say Brahms did bring some innovative substance on top of Beethoven, much the same way as Beethoven did for Haydn's music.

Both Wagner and Brahms seeked solutions for the musical shock waves set by Beethoven, in their own respective ways.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> I know there are weirdos out there who love Brahms's piano sonatas, but I can't believe it! :lol:


I'm one of those weirdos, and it feels great to out myself for Johannes.

Put _that_ cigar in your beard and smoke it!


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I'm one of those weirdos, and it feels great to out myself for Johannes.
> 
> Put _that_ cigar in your beard and smoke it!


I'm another of those weirdos .


----------



## Chronochromie

I hope you're both just being overzealous and mean "like" instead of "love", because if you love the piano sonatas then I don't know how you would express appreciation for his late piano works!


----------



## Phil loves classical

chromatic owl said:


> In this case I will consider Bach, Bartók, Beethoven, Britten, Chopin, Dvořák, Franck, Gesualdo, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Musorgsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, Reger, Schubert, Schumann, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Strauss, Stravinsky, Tallis and Tchaikovsky to be greater than Brahms. (happened to be slightly more than twenty )


Schnittke, Schumann and Franck better than Brahms? I can agree with the others.


----------



## Chronochromie

Phil loves classical said:


> Schnittke, Schumann and Franck better than Brahms? I can agree with the others.


Schumann for schure. You can agree with Reger, Tallis and Gesualdo but not Schumann?


----------



## Melvin

I think there's a solid argument to be made that Schumann, while in his prime, was even more brilliant than Brahms. But Brahms has much wider catalog of brilliant opuses, and such an arsenal is tough for any composer to compete with.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> I hope you're both just being overzealous and mean "like" instead of "love", because if you love the piano sonatas then I don't know how you would express appreciation for his late piano works!


How about panting, drooling, delirious, worshipful, fawning, self-abasing, stomach-turning adoration?

Trump that.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> How about panting, drooling, delirious, worshipful, fawning, self-abasing, stomach-turning adoration?
> 
> *Trump* that.


'They are h-u-u-u-u-g-e!'

'They are going to be beautiful, I can tell you that'

'I am going to repeal and replace his piano sonatas with his later works.'

"If you don't like them, 'You're fired!'"


----------



## Chronochromie

Melvin said:


> I think there's a solid argument to be made that Schumann, while in his prime, was even more brilliant than Brahms. But Brahms has much wider catalog of brilliant opuses, and such an arsenal is tough for any composer to compete with.


In my point if view his prime was from about 1835 to 1853 

I'm a big fan of his late period and I think that it's often misunderstood.


----------



## Sonata

dillonp2020 said:


> Brahms isn't the composer whose works I've listened to the most, (I say that about every composer but Beethoven). And this is reflected in my preferences. My list of top 10 favorite composers
> 1. Bach and Beethoven tied
> 2. Verdi/Puccini tied
> 3. Chopin
> 4. Shostakovich
> 5. Prokofiev
> 6. Rachmaninoff
> 7. Mahler
> 8. Mozart
> 9. Brahms
> 10. Tchaikovsky tied with Liszt
> You obviously see the 8 composers I prefer to Brahms.


That's about as well a balanced list as one could hope for. If you had to go your whole life listening to only 12, you would cover some excellent musical ground with this list.


----------



## st Omer

Brahms' was a great guy. He is a make believe friend of mine he made music great again. We should lock his piano sonatas up, lock them up, they weren't so great. We should build a big beautiful wall around them and lock them up. The other stuff was great stuff, beautiful stuff. The late piano music I would play in the muzak system on the elevators at my hotels, pipe them into the clubhouses at my golf courses, they are great, great stuff, beautiful stuff. I would play the symphonies in the restrooms at the Trump tower. I sang the cradle song to Clara Schumann in a dream and I don't know if it was the song or my money but she couldn't take her eyes off me. Maybe it was my hair, who knows. Brahms was a great, great composer. He loved Schumann's wife, she was a beautiful woman, she loved me in my dream, women love me. I love women, nobody respects women more than I do.


----------



## Judith

st Omer said:


> Brahms' was a great guy. He is a make believe friend of mine he made music great again. We should lock his piano sonatas up, lock them up, they weren't so great. We should build a big beautiful wall around them and lock them up. The other stuff was great stuff, beautiful stuff. The late piano music I would play in the muzak system on the elevators at my hotels, pipe them into the clubhouses at my golf courses, they are great, great stuff, beautiful stuff. I would play the symphonies in the restrooms at the Trump tower. I sang the cradle song to Clara Schumann in a dream and I don't know if it was the song or my money but she couldn't take her eyes off me. Maybe it was my hair, who knows. Brahms was a great, great composer. He loved Schumann's wife, she was a beautiful woman, she loved me in my dream, women love me. I love women, nobody respects women more than I do.


Brahms had an imaginery composer called Kriesler. Years later there were two composers called Kriesler!

As a matter of interest, his brother was called Fritz. One of the Krieslers was Fritz Kriesler. Spooky!!


----------



## Omicron9

KenOC said:


> Tried to go to sleep but the grey matter just kept sputtering fitfully. It asked:
> 
> Although Brahms was a pretty good composer, there were some better. Who were (or are) better composers than Brahms?


What's a better color than yellow?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Nothing is better than Brahms--if he is your favorite composer. For me, he isn't.


----------



## chalkpie

apricissimus said:


> Brahms still has not really clicked with me yet. I'll keep trying. But I'm not going to worry too much about it, there's too much good music out there even if I never connect with Brahms.


Aside from the Requiem, Brahms has never clicked with me.....until this week. Now I am excited to have an entire universe of his music to explore. I think I had this "Brahms barrier" up for all of these years, telling myself that I didn't care for Brahms. But now that this imaginary barrier has crumbled, my attitude has completely changed, even with the pieces I heard previously. This also happened with (now) two of my absolute favourite composers: Mahler and Sibelius.

IMO, Brahms doesn't have to be in anybody's top 10, or even top 20, but now I am finally realizing that his music worth my ear and my time, regardless of where I rank him.


----------



## Larkenfield

The only Brahms I've never cared for were the Tubby the Tuba, heavy, logy, cumbersome, monolithic performances of his symphonies by certain well-known conductors, and Bruno Walter and George Szell weren't among them and they brought out a more graceful approach and perhaps focused more on the classical underpinnings of such richly structured works. But really, in some of the symphony performances, the conductors are playing the music so thick, muddy and heavy it's like they're trying to move a beached whale. And Brahms' later piano music is gorgeous, as are his marvelously rich piano concertos. His violin concerto is also rich and wonderful, not to mention is gorgeous 3rd Violin Sonata. Later in life he placed much greater value on _melody_ and it made all the difference in the world than in his much early piano sonatas. He was very accomplished and complex in the beginning and then found a new way. His music can be very comforting when one isn't feeling well or there's been a great emotional loss.


----------



## chalkpie

Larkenfield said:


> The only Brahms I've never cared for were the Tubby the Tuba, heavy, logy, cumbersome, monolithic performances of his symphonies by certain well-known conductors, and Bruno Walter and George Szell weren't any of them and they brought out a more graceful approach and perhaps focused more on the classical underpinnings of such richly structured works. But really, in some of the symphony performances, the conductors are playing the music so thick, muddy and heavy it's like they're trying to move a beached whale. And Brahms' later piano music is gorgeous, as are his marvelously rich piano concertos. His violin concerto is also rich and wonderful, not to mention is gorgeous 3rd Violin Sonata. Later in life he placed much great value on _melody_ and it made all the difference in the world than in his much early piano sonatas. He was very accomplished and complex in the beginning and then found a new way. His music can be very comforting when one isn't feeling well or there's been a great emotional loss.


What recordings would you recommend for a "lighter" approach to his symphonies? I assume you would include Von Karajan in the heavy camp because the set I own (Berliner/DG) sure sounds like your description.


----------



## larold

Brahms came in 4th in my poll behind Beethoven, J.S. Bach and Mozart. He was only a few points ahead of the quartet of Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel and Schubert. I think this is fairly accurate; Brahms never wrote an opera that survived while Beethoven and Mozart wrote operas that have been in the standard repertory since their first performances. Bach never wrote an opera but his sacred choral music is ahead of anyone else and he wrote the greatest integral set of concertos -- the Brandenburgs -- in the history of music.


----------



## davidrmoran

*clarification*



MarkW said:


> I may have the exact details wrong, but Michael Steinberg quotes, I believe Philip Hale, overhearing two Boston matrons coming out of an afternoon BSO concert, one saying to the other: "Brahms is so dependable."


It was Virgil Thomson he was quoting, and Thomson was quoting a NY musician's wife.


----------



## KenOC

"That was one of the big problems when I was at Harvard studying music. We had to write choral pieces in the style of Brahms or Mendelssohn, which was distressing because in the end you realized how good Brahms is, and how bad you are." --Elliott Carter


----------



## Botschaft

Melvin said:


> I think there's a solid argument to be made that Schumann, while in his prime, was even more brilliant than Brahms. But Brahms has much wider catalog of brilliant opuses, and such an arsenal is tough for any composer to compete with.


In which of his works is Schumann more brilliant than Brahms? I am genuinely curious.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

BabyGiraffe said:


> You need criteria.
> Better than X is not a valid proposition.
> You can compare composers by their use of rhythm, melody, form, flow, texture, timbre, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, development of the material, meter, idiomatic writing, extra musical meaning/ symbolism/ relation of the text to music, originality (compared to the composers in the same period) and so on.
> It's silly to think that there is a single composer that mastered all elements of music.


Sorry I know this is an old post, but I need to respond. Y'all can ignore this if you want.

I see your point, and depending on what you meant I'm not sure I entirely disagree. However, I must clarify: What's silly is to divide music up into components so that you can quantify how "great" it is. Music is holistic... melody, harmony, counterpoint, texture etc, all work together, and how effective each element is depends on its context in the piece. It's silly to judge, say, a Chopin Waltz by its complexity (or whatever other ******** metric you concoct) of form. Thus, I would say there ARE composers who mastered all of the elements of music insofar as those elements pertained to their compositions and style, and Brahms was certainly one of those composers (as were Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, etc). Besides, even if you compare composers by, say, their use of counterpoint, it's still 100% subjective when you're solely talking about great composers.

As for "better than Brahms", that'd have to be a Brahms who lived longer or who didn't burn any of his compositions. In his greatest works (of which there are plenty), Brahms reached the highest level of music possible... but he wasn't by any means the only one to do so.

I really wish TC would focus less on comparing Brahms to Bach and more on trying to bring attention to obscure composers of the past and the present.

If you couldn't already tell, my username is half sarcastic by the way, but not at all because I dislike Brahms's melodies


----------



## Larkenfield

:cheers: I think the queston is whether Brahms is better than Sinatra, Dean Martin or Sammy Davis Jr.


----------



## Botschaft

Improbus said:


> In which of his works is Schumann more brilliant than Brahms? I am genuinely curious.


Still awaiting an answer.


----------



## DavidA

Improbus said:


> In which of his works is Schumann more brilliant than Brahms? I am genuinely curious.


The Kriesleriana for a start


----------



## eugeneonagain

st Omer said:


> Cage is probably the greatest ever. You can play 4'33" at any speed, on any instrument, or any groups of instruments, in any venue, and you can always imagine how good it is. It is best played on the piano *because that is the first instrument it wasn't performed on*.


:lol: Killed me.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Brahms is heavy! 
Are any composers heavier than Brahms? 
A whole bunch! 
Is heavy good?
Sure, why not!?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Brahms is heavy!
> Are any composers heavier than Brahms?
> A whole bunch!
> Is heavy good?
> Sure, why not!?


With a dietary control plan and shaving off that enormous beard I think he could have knocked off a couple of stones.


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> With a dietary control plan and shaving off that enormous beard I think he could have knocked off a couple of stones.


We're told he dieted by leaving half of his meal on his vest.


----------



## Ethereality

*I'm having a bit of trouble* understanding why Brahms 2nd Piano Concerto is voted so high on this forum when Chopin's 1st (performed prior to the birth of Brahms) to me outclasses it on all levels of novelty and beauty. I mean wow, listen to just Romance Larghetto, its incredible this came after Beethoven:






I love Brahms and see his concerto as certainly advanced in many ways but, as colossal? I think you can compare and rank the two in different ways. Maybe someone wants to make me understand.


----------



## Larkenfield

“Brahms is a pretty good composer.”
—
I find him much better than pretty good; I consider him top-notch and believe he’s just as respected and enjoyed now as he’s always been. I would only rate Beethoven and Mahler above him in the writing of symphonies. His Violin Concerto is top notch. His chamber work is top-notch, such as his Third Violin Piano Sonata. Absolutely superb. His Op. 116–118 is wise, tender and gorgeous with its autumnal feeling of the passing years that I’ve never heard from anyone else. At his best, he is superb but some have turned him into a dull creature when he’s played with too much seriousness and heaviness... but typically he’s absolutely first-rate, sincere, warm, inspired, enduring and comforting. I found him greatly emotionally comforting in times of personal crisis, perhaps more than anyone, and I’m glad he’s there as someone to turn to. He offers full value for the time spent hearing him and was never cheap. Finding effective performances can make a significant difference in how well he’s enjoyed. For me, few are better than Brahms, only different.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Tried to go to sleep but the grey matter just kept sputtering fitfully. It asked:
> 
> Although Brahms was a pretty good composer, there were some better. Who were (or are) better composers than Brahms?


Kanye West - apparently:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50178788


----------



## Room2201974

I've spent over 50 years laboring at this composition thing and in my way of thinking, all the greats put their own stamp on the organization of music. And it is also my belief that when you get to the Brahms distillation period of his latter works (around opus 100 and above), when it seems that his musical mind is totally taken up with developing variation, you get a kind of compositional cognac! It's like he shifts into another compositional gear. Impressed the heck out of Schoenberg it did!!!!!

For those who Brahms is not their thing, I understand. You didn't love the original vintage years, the terroir never suited your palate, and the varietals never were mixed to please you. But I hope you didn't miss the cognac distillation process in latter Brahms....it's a compositional tour de force!


----------



## Rogerx

*Johannes Brahms German:y 7 May 1833 - 3 April 1897*


----------



## Couchie

Recently I had a tooth ache. Horrific, low-grade, omnipresent pain. Painkillers were of no avail. Went to the dentist. Had to get a root canal. Due to potential interactions with my medications, they couldn't use anesthetic. The root canal was performed, it took two weeks and three procedures. But they successfully cleared my tooth of the infection. It was one of the most painful experiences of my life that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

But...._ it was better than Brahms._


----------



## ORigel

Better symphonies: Beethoven, Mahler, possibly Bruckner

Better concertos: Mozart, possibly Beethoven

Better Piano Music: Beethoven, Chopin

Better chamber output: Beethoven, possibly Schubert, Haydn, and Mozart

Better sacred music: Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart

Better lieder: Schubert, Mahler

Also, his orchestration is not original; Sibelius and Mahler are really skillful at it.


----------



## flamencosketches

Who wrote better piano concertos than Brahms? Only one, and it's a maybe—Mozart. 

As for chamber music, speaking generally, as a function of his broad talents in the genre, I think no one was better than Brahms.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

Couchie said:


> Recently I had a tooth ache. Horrific, low-grade, omnipresent pain. Painkillers were of no avail. Went to the dentist. Had to get a root canal. Due to potential interactions with my medications, they couldn't use anesthetic. The root canal was performed, it took two weeks and three procedures. But they successfully cleared my tooth of the infection. It was one of the most painful experiences of my life that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
> 
> But...._ it was better than Brahms._


----------



## DavidA

I can never see the point of these 'better than' as so much of it is subjective. Often it depends on me too and the mood I am in.


----------



## annaw

flamencosketches said:


> Who wrote better piano concertos than Brahms? Only one, and it's a maybe-Mozart.
> 
> *As for chamber music, speaking generally, as a function of his broad talents in the genre, I think no one was better than Brahms.*


What about Beethoven's piano concerti and, even more importantly, what about his chamber music? His string quartets, piano trios, cello sonatas, violin sonatas (especially "Kreutzer" ), string quintets...


----------



## Fabulin

Big3, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Tchaikovsky...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Of course, speaking only from personal preference: absolutely no one surpasses him in chamber music, while he is tied for the greatest symphonist (with Mahler and Sibelius), my second favorite writer of piano miniatures after Chopin, and in my top 3 composers for concerti, lieder, and choral works. Overall he amounts to my second favorite composer.


----------



## ORigel

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Of course, speaking only from personal preference: absolutely no one surpasses him in chamber music, while he is tied for the greatest symphonist (with Mahler and Sibelius), my second favorite writer of piano miniatures after Chopin, and in my top 3 composers for concerti, lieder, and choral works. Overall he amounts to my second favorite composer.


Other composers have better string quartet cycles, including Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, and Mozart (the realistic contenders along with Brahms for #1 chamber spot). I am fond of Brahms String Quartet 1, but it pales next to other string quartets.

I think Beethoven is top chamber composer based on his string quartets alone.


----------



## ORigel

I think Brahms ties Beethoven on piano concertos. Beethoven is supreme in string quartets of course.


----------



## Bigbang

flamencosketches said:


> Who wrote better piano concertos than Brahms? Only one, and it's a maybe-Mozart.
> 
> As for chamber music, speaking generally, as a function of his broad talents in the genre, I think no one was better than Brahms.


Lets see, Mozart wrote 23 piano concertos. Beethoven wrote 5 (There is an early work not listed as opus).

Generally speaking, as a function of broad talents, both Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven wrote quite a bit and so compared to Brahms output, puts them in a special category. Compared to Beethoven ST QTs, piano trios, violin sonatas, well, I favor Beethoven as his music speaks to me. And as I am not an expert on musical composition I do not use phrases such as Beethoven wrote the "greatest" this or that, just what I prefer. As a note, when I got on this list I was surprised no mention of Beethoven Choral fantasy or Triple Concerto. I think this is due mainly to posters are not familiar with these works as might be with his more popular works so naturally the neglect BUT it would not be due to preferences per se if one does not know a work.

As for Brahms, well, it appears he focused on doing each piece as well as he good and thus, not churning out more quantity. That said, Mozart and Beethoven (given the times they lived in) did not hold back and still managed to keep them coming. I am not a mathematician but something tells me this is a numbers thing...so many posters focus on so few and so the fairly decent ones of the lesser output get a little attention.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

ORigel said:


> Other composers have better string quartet cycles, including Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, and Mozart (the realistic contenders along with Brahms for #1 chamber spot). I am fond of Brahms String Quartet 1, but it pales next to other string quartets.
> 
> I think Beethoven is top chamber composer based on his string quartets alone.


There's nothing wrong with Brahms's quartets, but they are my least favorite of his chamber works. Op. 51/2 is a gem but No. 1 is pretty austere and No. 3 is just too lightweight. My favorite chamber composers after Brahms are Faure, Schubert, Mozart, Shostakovich. Beethoven's quartet cycle is the greatest IMO but the only other chamber works of his that stand up to them for me are the Archduke trio and the first couple cello sonatas. But yes, still one of the greatest in the overarching genre by any count.


----------



## ORigel

I find Beethoven's late quartets more sublime than any other chamber works save maybe Schubert's String Quintet and G Major String Quartet.


----------



## flamencosketches

My personal opinion is that Brahms's two piano concerti dwarf those of Beethoven, all five of them. I like Beethoven's piano concertos, but for me, the two Brahms are better. I'm not sure if there are any Mozart concertos that I prefer to either of Brahms's, but he wrote so consistently with such high quality that he may win out. Ultimately, for me, it's quality over quantity. 

It's certainly more than fair to call Beethoven the king of the string quartet, strictly speaking. But I stand by Brahms as the overall master of chamber music, for his unmatched ability to play different soloist voices against one another in a way that magnifies one another, in a way that is unique to each arrangement. What I mean by that is that the Clarinet Trio, for example, brings out the best in the clarinet, the cello & the piano, & makes them work together in a totally unique way. He does this with every piece of chamber music. I'll take any of Brahms's piano trios over any of Beethoven's, ditto for the violin sonatas, and then Brahms wrote in several genres that didn't exist in Beethoven's time. I love Beethoven; don't get me wrong, overall, I rate Beethoven quite a few notches higher than Brahms. But I must repeat, as a function of his broad talents in the genre—& despite that he is not the greatest-ever writer of string quartets—Brahms is the king of chamber music, generally speaking. For me. 

Once again: all my opinion.

Edit: I forgot to mention Schubert—while he did write my single favorite piece of chamber music of all time, the C major String Quintet, I can not put his overall efforts in the genre of chamber music on a level with Brahms and Beethoven. I just don't see the same consistency of skill and quality on an overview level. Sorry, Franz; I still love you.


----------



## Fabulin

What does the interjection that a statement is "one's opinion" change? 

Does it mean that the statements are subject to change through discussion, or the exact opposite, that to argue would be pointless?


----------



## flamencosketches

Fabulin said:


> What does the interjection that a statement is "one's opinion" change?


I'm surprised you have to ask that.


----------



## Bigbang

flamencosketches said:


> My personal opinion is that Brahms's two piano concerti dwarf those of Beethoven, all five of them. I like Beethoven's piano concertos, but for me, the two Brahms are better. I'm not sure if there are any Mozart concertos that I prefer to either of Brahms's, but he wrote so consistently with such high quality that he may win out. Ultimately, for me, it's quality over quantity.
> 
> It's certainly more than fair to call Beethoven the king of the string quartet, strictly speaking. But I stand by Brahms as the overall master of chamber music, for his unmatched ability to play different soloist voices against one another in a way that magnifies one another, in a way that is unique to each arrangement. What I mean by that is that the Clarinet Trio, for example, brings out the best in the clarinet, the cello & the piano, & makes them work together in a totally unique way. He does this with every piece of chamber music. I'll take any of Brahms's piano trios over any of Beethoven's, ditto for the violin sonatas, and then Brahms wrote in several genres that didn't exist in Beethoven's time. I love Beethoven; don't get me wrong, overall, I rate Beethoven quite a few notches higher than Brahms. But I must repeat, as a function of his broad talents in the genre-& despite that he is not the greatest-ever writer of string quartets-Brahms is the king of chamber music, generally speaking. For me.
> 
> Once again: all my opinion.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to mention Schubert-while he did write my single favorite piece of chamber music of all time, the C major String Quintet, I can not put his overall efforts in the genre of chamber music on a level with Brahms and Beethoven. I just don't see the same consistency of skill and quality on an overview level. Sorry, Franz; I still love you.


I get that you like Brahms piano concerto over Beethoven and as you say it is your opinion. What I am hearing though is you are making an argument that because Brahms concertos are inherently better this is why you prefer them? Is this correct? I think people like all types of music and performances due to many factors: upbringing, emotional makeup, mood, etc., so each person will attract the music they feel best moves them in whatever way they like and this changes over time as new music will come into play. There are so many moments in Mozart piano concertos that I just sit still and allow it to move me anew. I like Brahms 1st over 2nd but others love it 2 over 1. Maybe next year I like 2 over 1. Highly doubtful Brahms will become my new favorite.


----------



## science

I put this in the greatness calculator and it turned out that Brahms is the fourth best composer, following only the Big Three (Janáček, Kodály, and Zelenka of course).


----------



## flamencosketches

Bigbang said:


> I get that you like Brahms piano concerto over Beethoven and as you say it is your opinion. What I am hearing though is you are making an argument that because Brahms concertos are inherently better this is why you prefer them? Is this correct? I think people like all types of music and performances due to many factors: upbringing, emotional makeup, mood, etc., so each person will attract the music they feel best moves them in whatever way they like and this changes over time as new music will come into play. There are so many moments in Mozart piano concertos that I just sit still and allow it to move me anew. I like Brahms 1st over 2nd but others love it 2 over 1. Maybe next year I like 2 over 1. Highly doubtful Brahms will become my new favorite.


Mm, as an amateur pianist who couldn't learn the solo part to any of these concerti in under a year, I don't feel it's my place to comment on what is inherently better with any authority. But to my ears, the impression I get is that the two Brahms are more complete, confident works than the five Beethoven. As you seem to have implied, preference for one over the other is interchangeable-currently I prefer 1, next year I could prefer 2. But I suspect it will stand up that I prefer both of them to the 5 of Beethoven, great though these earlier concertos are. As for Mozart, I agree with you that there are moments that just bowl me over. I want to take back what I said, that Mozart's superiority over Brahms in the genre of piano concerti is a "maybe"; it's a definite thing. But I still prefer Brahms.

@Fabulin, since you edited your post after I responded...:



Fabulin said:


> Does it mean that the statements are subject to change through discussion, or the exact opposite, that to argue would be pointless?


Neither. It just means that it's my opinion. That being said, speaking personally, my opinions on certain pieces of music aren't likely to change through any kind of discussion, but rather through repeated listening to the music in question.


----------



## Enthusiast

As Dr Johnson observed, you don't have to be a carpenter to recognise a good table. We might all agree on which of the three tables is the best one. But value in art is supposed to be merely a matter of taste.


----------



## ORigel

Bigbang said:


> I get that you like Brahms piano concerto over Beethoven and as you say it is your opinion. What I am hearing though is you are making an argument that because Brahms concertos are inherently better this is why you prefer them? Is this correct? I think people like all types of music and performances due to many factors: upbringing, emotional makeup, mood, etc., so each person will attract the music they feel best moves them in whatever way they like and this changes over time as new music will come into play. There are so many moments in Mozart piano concertos that I just sit still and allow it to move me anew. I like Brahms 1st over 2nd but others love it 2 over 1. Maybe next year I like 2 over 1. Highly doubtful Brahms will become my new favorite.


Brahms piano concertos will never equal Mozart's, even if Mozart only wrote No. 24.


----------



## Fabulin

science said:


> I put this in the greatness calculator and it turned out that Brahms is the fourth best composer, following only the Big Three (Janáček, Kodály, and Zelenka of course).


And Raff! Don't forget Raff!


----------



## flamencosketches

science said:


> I put this in the greatness calculator and it turned out that Brahms is the fourth best composer, following only the Big Three (Janáček, Kodály, and Zelenka of course).


Wow, what a witty, provocative comment!


----------



## starthrower

I do Brahms symphonies once a year. But after listening to them a couple times through I have to put them away. On the other hand, I can go on and on with Mahler symphonies. I get much more mileage out of them. Same for Sibelius, Nielsen, Honegger, even Beethoven's warhorses.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> As Dr Johnson observed, you don't have to be a carpenter to recognise a good table. We might all agree on which of the three tables is the best one. But value in art is supposed to be merely a matter of taste.


Between Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms, do you think we might all agree which wrote the best piano concertos? Or would you say it's a matter of taste?


----------



## billeames

Woodduck said:


> Depends on whether you think a requiem should sound like an opera written by an atheist.
> 
> The Brahms "German requiem" isn't a real requiem anyway - no theology, no prayers, no cosmic drama, no judgment, heaven or hell - so it should be heard without comparing it to Verdi's or anyone else's. It's unique in the choral literature: a meditation on mortality and a comfort to the living.


I do think Brahms Requiem has scripture and truth in it. Yes a comfort to the living. Masur conducted it after 9/11. NYPO.


----------



## Strange Magic

Yet another thread revealing both strange eccentricities of taste, and the necessary correlative that all esthetics in music are purely subjective and personal (as they clearly are, should be, and cannot be otherwise).


----------



## Bigbang

Perhaps, we should look inward for what pleases up and not bother so much for opinions outside of ourselves. Of course we need to gauge what might be important to collect but if we do not "own" our feelings/opinions then what is the point?


----------



## Xisten267

KenOC said:


> Tried to go to sleep but the grey matter just kept sputtering fitfully. It asked:
> 
> Although Brahms was a pretty good composer, there were some better. Who were (or are) better composers than Brahms?


Well, according to my personal "tastometer" (that shouldn't be taken too seriously), and if the weighting system is of 1:1:1:...:1, then: *Beethoven*, *J.S. Bach*, *Wagner* and *Mozart*. It would be interesting for me to see other members trying a similar approach:


----------



## Fabulin

Allerius said:


> Well, according to my personal "tastometer" (that shouldn't be taken too seriously), and if the weighting system is of 1:1:1:...:1, then: *Beethoven*, *J.S. Bach*, *Wagner* and *Mozart*. It would be interesting for me to see other members trying a similar approach:
> 
> View attachment 135808


Lovely chart. Making such used to be my favourite hobby a couple years ago. And you even give officer ranks to numbers! A true professional.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> View attachment 135808


ROFL. I think this just shows yet again how biased you are toward Beethoven. 10/10 for variety in Beethoven and Beethoven only? 
The way Beethoven ends Et incarnatus est in his missa solemnis strongly reminds me of the way he enters the D major section in the slow movement of A minor string quartet Op.132. Would it be blasphemous to say it's possible to piece together those two sections? Not to mention the way Beethoven opens piano sonatas Op.13, 57, 111. The way he does variations in Op.26, 57, 111. The way he builds "melody" in the final movements of Op.31 No.2, Op.57. And- I know, everytime he's does that 4-note thing, he's not being formulaic, but always thinking in terms of grand dramatic structure, riiight. Where do we find in Beethoven "exemplary works" of the different styles, "Gluckian", "Handelian"? 
Even though you often talk like his Choral Fantasy is actually an important work, it doesn't constitute an example of "recycled material", riiight. Eroica symphony 4th movement, Eroica variations for piano Op.35, Creatures of Prometheus, Contradence No.7 from WoO14, are somehow not examples of "recycled material", riiight.
I agree your "tastometer" (it sounds funny, like "testosteronemeter") shouldn't be taken seriously. Hahahahahaha.




















/









Beethoven getting 10/10 for "inventivity" (while Brahms and Tchaikovsky get meager 6/10) seems also ridiculous as well. 




Le Portrait musical de la Nature ou Grande Symphonie (1784)
1. Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto
2. Tempo medemo (Allegretto)
3. Allegro molto
4. Tempo medemo (Allegro molto)
5. L'Inno con variazioni. Andantino - Coro: Allegro con brio Andantino

-----

ps. I'm curious how many points you would give Beethoven for "vocal/choral writing", LOL.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> Although Brahms was a pretty good composer, there were some better. Who were (or are) better composers than Brahms?


I tend to think even in piano works, Brahms isn't shabby. 




A masterpiece in "reharmonization" (harmonizing a melody differently each time it returns).
It's just not as tiresome in my view as this sonata movement written by some other composer in the same era:


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Others have shifted position from 2 to 20 on my list of favorites, but my affection for Brahms as number one has never dimmed from the time I first discovered his music at age 16. Sixty-one years later I sometimes reflect on it all with a sense of wonder.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> View attachment 135808





Allerius said:


> Rhythms in Bach have a regular quality, similar to a clockwork. Sometimes it becomes more complex due to polyphony, but even then if you look at the individual voices it's still regular. Beethoven, in the other hand, uses a variety of rhythmic figures that drives the music forward and produces irregularities in rhythm that are much more sophisticated than your average rock band (that was a lame comparison, unless you're talking of prog) with it's constant but punctuated beats in a 4/4 signature. Not only that, but Beethoven also tends to change his tempi in the same piece to further increase the complexity of his music, like in the fourth movement of Op. 125 where there are no less than twenty-five (!) changes of tempo scored.


I'm not sure if Bach is really that monotonous with rhythm and dynamics as Allerius repeatedly claims.
Look at the tempo and meter changes in this:
*[ 5:48 ]*





Whenever I listen to those 'homorhythms' of Grosse Fuge, I'm reminded of how masterful Bach is in controlling rhythm contrapuntally in different voices, (while introducing new material of different rhythm):


----------



## Gray Bean

My favorite composer is always the one I’m currently listening to. This month it has been Tchaikovsky: Manfred, Elgar: Falstaff, Beethoven: Eroica, Bruckner: Ninth, Vaughan Williams: Second, Shostakovich: Eighth and Tenth, Brahms: Third.
Various recordings. Love them all. Better than Brahms? Impossible for me to answer.


----------



## Xisten267

Fabulin said:


> Lovely chart. Making such used to be my favourite hobby a couple years ago. And you even give officer ranks to numbers! A true professional.


Thank you for your kind comment.  There are lots of subjective decisions going on in making such lists, and even if I tried to be impartial, I'm sure that I have my own biases that make this list be far from being anywhere near of definitive.


----------



## Ethereality

Allerius said:


> Well, according to my personal "tastometer" (that shouldn't be taken too seriously), and if the weighting system is of 1:1:1:...:1, then: *Beethoven*, *J.S. Bach*, *Wagner* and *Mozart*. It would be interesting for me to see other members trying a similar approach:
> 
> View attachment 135808


Overall good effort. If I did something like this I would probably be meticulous to find meters that are very orthogonal, inductive, approaching the very best inclusion and balance to objectively equate to the best representation. That's a pretty hard feat. I would certainly get rid of popularity, influence, inventivity, and consistency, because they're indirect, essentially trivial measures of quality. I'd figure out qualitative meters to replace them with instead, big abstract concepts of music like "Development," or overall "Flow" and "Timing." That's Beethoven's master arena, things people don't normally word or speak about. I'd leave out anything that is trivial, like "Resourcefulness" ie. "saying more with less." "Inventivity" doesn't really say anything to me, because whatever charm one's music has should be manifest in the meters as a whole. "Variety" is a decent meter, because it certainly measures one's skills to craftily link ideas within a piece. For this particular chart I agree with you on a lot of things, like Mozart having the edge over Beethoven on melody. Part of Beethoven's expressivity however is how he particularly _uses _harmony. It's not as complex or sophisticated as Mozart, but _what _he intends by it is equally enlightening. For that reason I don't know if I would go with an 8. This is possibly represented in a different meter too. Food for thought as to what meters to implement to obtain the most inclusive representation. This can also be said for the harmonies of Tchaikovsky. They can be very profound, but it's because of the expressive intention with them. I don't know if I'd put his Orchestration that high, but certainly other things like this. One might also confuse meters because of their cumulative effects, for example, putting the Orchestration of Bach or Beethoven high. It's actually everything else they do so spot-on that makes their Orchestration seem max, but in actuality, due to Bach and Beethoven focusing so much on other elements, their Orchestration becomes difficult to measure. It becomes 'conditionally' trivial, ie. not applicable, because it loses its focus and necessity. Hence one could see how they'd reassign the meaning of meters slightly to make them more orthogonal.


----------



## Room2201974

Allerius said:


> Well, according to my personal "tastometer" (that shouldn't be taken too seriously), and if the weighting system is of 1:1:1:...:1, then: *Beethoven*, *J.S. Bach*, *Wagner* and *Mozart*. It would be interesting for me to see other members trying a similar approach:
> 
> View attachment 135808


Worthy of Dr. J Evans Pritchard Ph.D. indeed!


----------



## Beebert

Allerius said:


> Well, according to my personal "tastometer" (that shouldn't be taken too seriously), and if the weighting system is of 1:1:1:...:1, then: *Beethoven*, *J.S. Bach*, *Wagner* and *Mozart*. It would be interesting for me to see other members trying a similar approach:
> 
> View attachment 135808


It was fun to read. Though of course everything is subjective, and it is completely beyond my understanding how Tchaikovsky and Mahler can rate higher overall than Schubert. Tchaikovsky is not even in the same playing field, and I have never understood how people can find him to be a more gifted melodist than Schubert. Actually, it is beyond my personal understanding how Wagner can rate so high too, and I find him far inferior to Schubert. As Andras Schiff said: There is more in the 4 minute song Der Doppelgänger than in Wagner's entire output... I would NOT rate Brahms higher than Schubert either for that matter. Among the composers listed there, my rating would be as follows:

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Mahler
7. Haydn
8. Chopin
9. Wagner (Yes that is right)
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Vivaldi
12. Berlioz


----------



## Fabulin

Beebert said:


> It was fun to read. Though of course everything is subjective, and it is completely beyond my understanding how Tchaikovsky and Mahler can rate higher overall than Schubert. Tchaikovsky is not even in the same playing field, and I have never understood how people can find him to be a more gifted melodist than Schubert. Actually, it is beyond my personal understanding how Wagner can rate so high too, and I find him far inferior to Schubert. As Andras Schiff said: There is more in the 4 minute song Der Doppelgänger than in Wagner's entire output... I would NOT rate Brahms higher than Schubert either for that matter. Among the composers listed there, my rating would be as follows:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Schubert
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Mahler
> 7. Haydn
> 8. Chopin
> 9. Wagner (Yes that is right)
> 10. Tchaikovsky
> 11. Vivaldi
> 12. Berlioz


Schubert a better melodist than Tchaikovsky? Define human sense of melody, please.


----------



## Xisten267

Ethereality said:


> Overall good effort. If I did something like this I would probably be meticulous to find meters that are very orthogonal, inductive, approaching the very best inclusion and balance to objectively equate to the best representation. That's a pretty hard feat. I would certainly get rid of popularity, influence, inventivity, and consistency, because they're indirect, essentially trivial measures of quality. I'd figure out qualitative meters to replace them with instead, big abstract concepts of music like "Development," or overall "Flow" and "Timing." That's Beethoven's master arena, things people don't normally word or speak about. I'd leave out anything that is trivial, like "Resourcefulness" ie. "saying more with less." "Inventivity" doesn't really say anything to me, because whatever charm one's music has should be manifest in the meters as a whole. "Variety" is a decent meter, because it certainly measures one's skills to craftily link ideas within a piece. For this particular chart I agree with you on a lot of things, like Mozart having the edge over Beethoven on melody. Part of Beethoven's expressivity however is how he particularly _uses _harmony. It's not as complex or sophisticated as Mozart, but _what _he intends by it is equally enlightening. For that reason I don't know if I would go with an 8. This is possibly represented in a different meter too. Food for thought as to what meters to implement to obtain the most inclusive representation. This can also be said for the harmonies of Tchaikovsky. They can be very profound, but it's because of the expressive intention with them. I don't know if I'd put his Orchestration that high, but certainly other things like this. One might also confuse meters because of their cumulative effects, for example, putting the Orchestration of Bach or Beethoven high. It's actually everything else they do so spot-on that makes their Orchestration seem max, but in actuality, due to Bach and Beethoven focusing so much on other elements, their Orchestration becomes difficult to measure. It becomes 'conditionally' trivial, ie. not applicable, because it loses its focus and necessity. Hence one could see how they'd reassign the meaning of meters slightly to make them more orthogonal.


Thank you for the fair, clever and constructive criticism. You're probably right about the abstract concepts and perhaps I should have included some, but I understand that some qualities such as "Development", "Flow" and "Timing" (that, I agree, are amongst the most accomplished areas for Beethoven) are all being considered already (in "Form"), and that "Popularity", "Influence", "Inventivity" and "Consistency" have their value. "Inventivity" for example considers the ability of the composer to innovate, to invent new forms or concepts in music, and I admire a composer that gets out of the comfort zone and tries new things. Haydn and Berlioz for example were astonishing innovators, and I think that in this exercise of mine I had to take this into accout. "Consistency" for me is about the frequency of appearance of great music in the oeuvre of a composer, and it considers the size of his total output; Mozart has many great compositions late in his career, but also a good deal of juvenilia; Beethoven composed many masterpieces, but also many minor compositions that weren't even published; but J.S. Bach has great music almost everywhere in his oeuvre (it's not uncommon to see someone saying that loves "everything" in his output), and I think that this should be considered. "Popularity" I agree that is a minor measure, but I still think that it matters because it shows the reception of most people, including casual listeners, to music. If an artist is popular, then there's something about him or his music that has appeal, and this should be taken into account I think.

I agree though that some measures can be more important than others, that the ones that I selected are, unfortunately, interlinked (thus not orthogonal), and that a weighting system of 1:1:1:...:1 is not the ideal, but this chart was was more like a small exercise that I did for me for fun (and somehow decided to show here) than a serious, technical ranking that should be taken very seriously. Is "Popularity" as important as, say, "Expressivity"? Is "Dynamics" truly as important as "Harmony"? There should be some mathematical factors taking these into consideration, but this in my view is one of the most important flaws of the whole exercise: there seems to be no consensus about the weighting system to be used in such a list, and a grouping of multiplying constants applied to the list could be perfect to me, but not to you; or great to you, but not to another person. This is one of the main indicatives of the relativity of musical value, although I don't believe in _total_ relativity in music; if this was the case, then if I played three notes in a keyboard and called that my musical piece, it would be as valid as, say, the _Mass in B minor_, and to me this is obviously not the case.

About Beethoven and Tchaikovsky: one thing about the former's harmony that I find particularly remarkable is how he often makes sudden, unexpected modulations and still achieves cohesion and great musicality in his works, and that's one of the reasons for me to think that he is a grandmaster ("8") of harmony, but it should be considered also that Beethoven's music overall doesn't make use of chromaticism as that of, say, Weber or Mozart and, in this sense, I think that the latter deserved to be ranked a bit better. Also, I understand that Tchaikovsky was a great orchestrator, and I was reading some days ago as how he could for example achieve heavy, "saturated" sounds that made his orchestra look much bigger than it actually was, and scores such as that of _The Nutcracker_ show his genius in the area in my opinion. So I think that it's fair to say that he was legendary ("9") in the field.


----------



## Xisten267

Beebert said:


> It was fun to read. Though of course everything is subjective, and it is completely beyond my understanding how Tchaikovsky and Mahler can rate higher overall than Schubert. Tchaikovsky is not even in the same playing field, and I have never understood how people can find him to be a more gifted melodist than Schubert. Actually, it is beyond my personal understanding how Wagner can rate so high too, and I find him far inferior to Schubert. As Andras Schiff said: There is more in the 4 minute song Der Doppelgänger than in Wagner's entire output... I would NOT rate Brahms higher than Schubert either for that matter. Among the composers listed there, my rating would be as follows:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> 3. Mozart
> 4. Schubert
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Mahler
> 7. Haydn
> 8. Chopin
> 9. Wagner (Yes that is right)
> 10. Tchaikovsky
> 11. Vivaldi
> 12. Berlioz


Perhaps I should have placed Mozart and Schubert as hors concours melodists together with Tchaikovsky, but I really think that there's something about his long, asymmetrical melodic phrases that makes him has the edge in this IMO. There was a poll about melodists here in TC sometime ago and if I recall correctly Tchaikosky got most votes, closely followed by a tie between Schubert and Mozart.

I tried to be fair about all given values, and I don't know what about Wagner should be changed; I really believe that he is _that_ great, although I understand that due to extramusical reasons he can't be popular anymore, not even among music enthusiasts.

Many of these rankings involve very subjective considerations, so please don't take this chart too seriously.

P.S.: The mentioned poll about melodists is *here*. Perhaps you or other members who see this message may want to participate.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> big abstract concepts of music like "Development," or overall "Flow" and "Timing." That's Beethoven's master arena, things people don't normally word or speak about.


Debatable. To me, Beethoven's developments often give me impression that he "_stalls for time_", for lack of a better term (ex. the "beeps" and the oboe solo of the 5th symphony 1st movement. The long pauses of piano sonata Op.31 No.2 "Tempest" 1st movement). 
It's understandable though, since as much as Bach felt he was obliged to finish the work of Buxtehude, Froberger, Pachelbel, which is the great tradition of the fugue, - Beethoven also felt he had to finish the work of CPE Bach, Haydn, Mozart, which is the great tradition of the sonata form. But Beethoven seems to _"struggle"_ a little (due to his loss of hearing, or personal anxieties, perhaps). I agree how much that works as "expressivity" depends on subjective opinion.



hammeredklavier said:


> It depends what work we're talking about, (sonata for four hands K497 has a development section {not including 'secondary development' or 'false recapitulation'} as extensive as typical Beethoven), and it depends on how you look at it (perception). I once talked about the series of dragged-out "beeping sounds" in Beethoven's 5th symphony 1st movement and Tempest piano sonata, and the "quasi-minimalist" figures of his 6th symphony 1st movement. There are also piano sonatas like the 19th, 20th, 25th, or 26th that contain developments that definitely aren't the best stuff Beethoven ever wrote. The development of Op.111 1st movement, with its trills in the bass and motivic working on the 3-note fragment, strikes me as an attempt by Beethoven to write something similar to Mozart K546.
> I think the working of the dotted-rhythmic motif in the voice-leading structure of Confitibor tibi domine of Mozart Vesperae de dominica K321 or the chromaticism in the development of string quartet K421 1st movement or Fantasie K608 (where the initial fugue turns into an epic double fugue in the ending, creating a strong sense of 'operatic drama'), for example, have just as much 'substance', if not more, in terms of development, as the Beethoven works I cited above. There is an elaborate coda in string quintet K515 1st movement as well.


-----

Btw, last night, I thought about the slow movement of Beethoven's Op.59 No.1 string quartet and the 1st movement of his Emperor piano concerto, and the "myth" that he did not reuse his material.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure if Bach is really that monotonous with rhythm and dynamics as Allerius repeatedly claims.
> Look at the tempo and meter changes in this:


Good point, another example I've noticed is the rhythmic phrasing in many of the lute suite movements. For example this sarabande from bwv 996:






Here Bach uses more space and silence between rhythmic gestures, the music is really given room to 'breathe'. These kinds of pieces provide a nice contrast to the steady rhythmic flow we hear in much of his other work. There is a 'zen' almost impressionistic quality I find in a number of the movements in these suites.


----------



## tdc

Often composers who are focused on harmonic innovation don't have as much rhythmic innovation in their music and vice versa.

Brahms had very tasteful use of harmony but wasn't particularly innovative in this regard relative to his rhythmic innovations, Wagner on the other hand had more harmonic innovation but his music is generally quite simple rhythmically (albeit often slowed down, he used pacing effectively). Schoenberg also generally had a very straight forward approach to rhythm.

These were some good points brought up by Bruce Adolphe in a Brahms lecture I recently watched, it was posted here the other day by member Room2201974.


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> Good point, another example I've noticed is the rhythmic phrasing in many of the lute suite movements. For example this sarabande from bwv 996:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Bach uses more space and silence between rhythmic gestures, the music is really given room to 'breathe'. These kinds of pieces provide a nice contrast to the steady rhythmic flow we hear in much of his other work. There is a 'zen' almost impressionistic quality I find in a number of the movements in these suites.


A very beautiful piece indeed. I greatly admire J.S. Bach, and I don't keep "repeatedly claiming" that his music is "really monotonous with rhythm and dynamics" as the member you quote says, this is just false. We had a discussion one or two years ago and if I remember correctly I claimed that in my opinion Beethoven had the upper hand between the two in these fields, but I also acknowledged that in terms of harmony and counterpoint Bach was, again in my opinion, a more accomplished composer than Beethoven. This was in a thread titled "Bach vs Beethoven" or something like that. Later, in another thread, I believe I compared Bach with Vivaldi in these fields (_The Four Seasons_ has a considerable amount of dynamic markings for it's time). And that's it.

J.S. Bach is one of my very favorite composers, and I don't think that I have ever been disrespectful to him, and I don't plan to ever be.


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> Often composers who are focused on harmonic innovation don't have as much rhythmic innovation in their music and vice versa.


Certainly not a compositional rule however, but a great guideline for balanced listening. Oftentimes our focus goes to one or the other, and melody plays as an important mediator between the two, especially with rhythm, restoring a sense of vertical grounds/positioning and harmonic reference point. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Mozart has many great compositions *late in his career*, but also a *good deal* of *juvenilia*; Beethoven composed many masterpieces, but also *many minor compositions* that *weren't even published*;





Ras said:


> Mozart wrote a lot of light music too - even Beethoven wrote some light music.


Mr. Allerius, it's not like I don't want to respect your views. =) It's just that I find the _"Beethovenian arrogance"_ in the things you post a little disturbing. If you're judging composers by strict yardsticks like that with "dynamics" as a category (and giving Bach 5/10 and Beethoven 10/10), when you're fully aware that NOBODY in Bach's time used dynamics like Beethoven, then you're just criticizing Bach for the sake of criticism, a deliberate attempt to unjustly glorify Beethoven. I don't know what to make of this, really. (I've encountered many people who judge Mozart and Haydn harshly while at the same time talking like- "Choral Fantasie" with all its tinklings in the piano and use of harmony still counts as "music of great expression", not "light music", and because Beethoven has some "pictorial obsessions", the early-19th-century Landler-like music in the "Pastoral Symphony" doesn't count as "Landler music".)
I think you're just using all kinds of cunning excuses when you can just plainly say "I like Beethoven Better". I'm not sure if you know exactly what you mean by the term _"consistency"_ either. I'm always baffled whenever anyone talks as if Mozart wrote more "flops" than Beethoven.

Ruins of Athens Op.113
King Stephen Op.117
Der glorreiche Augenblick Op. 136
Christ on the Mount of Olives Op.85
Fantasie in G minor Op.77
...

Are you just pretending stuff like these don't exist?
You don't think Beethoven also has a good deal of published "juvenilia"? I can cite several sections of memorable chromaticism in Mozart _Divertimento K334_, I'm embarrassed to admit I can't do the same with Beethoven's _Septet Op.20_. =) Your decision to place Beethoven on the same level with Mozart for the category of counterpoint (9/10) seems a little weird to me as well. 
I doubt if I can find the same level of mastery like the double, triple fugues of Mozart _Missa longa K262_ (1775), for example, in Beethoven. Yes, I do spend a lot of time listening to Mozart's "juvenilia, flops, and light music". I wonder how much time you honestly spend listening to Beethoven's published "juvenilia and flops" yourself, and I wonder how much of "published Beethoven" (just the Opuses, and not the WoOs) you honestly consider "great". I think you should spend more time talking about pieces of music you appreciate (including Beethoven's, such as the Agnus dei of _Mass Op.86_, which you described as a masterpiece, although I can't remember its _melodies_ no matter how many times I listen) , and explaining why you appreciate them, -RATHER than using "charts with weird sets of criteria" and "long series of excuses" to justify your assertion that "Beethoven is the Best" -_"Other composers wrote more flops than Beethoven", "Other composers suck in use of dynamics and rhythm compared to Beethoven", "Other composers lack variety and ingenuity", or "Beethoven doesn't really have so much a weakness, remember that. "_ - which strike as a bit "egotistical" to me. =)
I don't know how long the Beethoven fandom has to continue with this sort of propaganda til they're satisfied.










Do I need to copy and paste the Brahms quote (1896) again:
"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant! I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! *You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works.*"
PA134
PA135


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> Often composers who are focused on harmonic innovation don't have as much rhythmic innovation in their music and vice versa.
> 
> Brahms had very tasteful use of harmony but wasn't particularly innovative in this regard relative to his rhythmic innovations, Wagner on the other hand had more harmonic innovation but his music is generally quite simple rhythmically (albeit often slowed down, he used pacing effectively). Schoenberg also generally had a very straight forward approach to rhythm.
> 
> These were some good points brought up by Bruce Adolphe in a Brahms lecture I recently watched, it was posted here the other day by member Room2201974.


Very interesting and informative lecture. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Ethereality

Allerius said:


> About Beethoven and Tchaikovsky: one thing about the former's harmony that I find particularly remarkable is how he often makes sudden, unexpected modulations and still achieves cohesion and great musicality in his works, and that's one of the reasons for me to think that he is a grandmaster ("8") of harmony, but it should be considered also that Beethoven's music overall doesn't make use of chromaticism as that of, say, Weber or Mozart and, in this sense, I think that the latter deserved to be ranked a bit better. Also, I understand that Tchaikovsky was a great orchestrator, and I was reading some days ago as how he could for example achieve heavy, "saturated" sounds that made his orchestra look much bigger than it actually was, and scores such as that of _The Nutcracker_ show his genius in the area in my opinion. So I think that it's fair to say that he was legendary ("9") in the field.


Personally I think if one is simply ranking complexity or sophistication of harmony, chromaticism or more importantly functionality, we can see there is a natural spectrum which gravitates to many later tonal composers who have a knack for interesting and beautiful harmonies. Mozart by this reasoning alone wouldn't be one of the overall innovators at a 9 because there are many other compositional meters in play for understanding the true greatness of his harmonies, like rhythm and placement. Instead, my argument is exactly that and not the isolative argument, Beethoven and Mozart are both at a 9 by their different wisdoms with harmony they imagined would achieve their extraordinary aims, what elements they each _compared_ harmony with during their process to give it meaning. It takes adjusting one's ear a bit to see their interpretive difference: Mozart's harmonic interpretation he paired more with theme, rhythm and texture, Beethoven paired harmony more with development and expression, and it helps to zoom into the overall moods he's trying to express in order to understand this. This is true of Tchaikovsky's harmony score as well. Mozart's and Beethoven's individual interpretations of why harmony should be so, agree extremely well with the visions each of these composers had, where one I can't honestly say is better. Just different. But that is my opinion.

Some say go for Bach over the rest because his music is all about harmonic potential. While true, it undermines the full picture when interpreted more broadly into the purposes of each. The 'why.' Why Beethoven chose particular part movements. He seems at glance brilliantly more simple, but definitely not more simplistic. I guess I may try in this post to address a few other of your interesting comments... I definitely agree with some.


----------



## Xisten267

Ethereality said:


> Personally I think if one is simply ranking complexity or sophistication of harmony, chromaticism or more importantly functionality, we can see there is a natural spectrum which gravitates to many later tonal composers who have a knack for interesting and beautiful harmonies. Mozart by this reasoning alone wouldn't be one of the overall innovators at a 9 because there are many other compositional meters in play for understanding the true greatness of his harmonies, like rhythm and placement. Instead, my argument is exactly that and not the isolative argument, Beethoven and Mozart are both at a 9 by their different wisdoms with harmony they imagined would achieve their extraordinary aims, what elements they each _compared_ harmony with during their process to give it meaning. It takes adjusting one's ear a bit to see their interpretive difference: Mozart's harmonic interpretation he paired more with theme, rhythm and texture, Beethoven paired harmony more with development and expression, and it helps to zoom into the overall moods he's trying to express in order to understand this. This is true of Tchaikovsky's harmony score as well. Mozart's and Beethoven's individual interpretations of why harmony should be so, agree extremely well with the visions each of these composers had, where one I can't honestly say is better. Just different. But that is my opinion.
> 
> Some say go for Bach over the rest because his music is all about harmonic potential. While true, it undermines the full picture when interpreted more broadly into the purposes of each. The 'why.' Why Beethoven chose particular part movements. He seems at glance brilliantly more simple, but definitely not more simplistic. I guess I may try in this post to address a few other of your interesting comments... I definitely agree with some.


Point taken. I'm always impressed with Mozart's use of chromaticism when reading about it, for example in the small text about K. 550 that I've extracted below, and this made me think that he perhaps could be thought of as having a certain advantage over Beethoven in this field, but I admit that I'm not an expert in music and think that your point is valid.

"Of the three 1788 symphonies, the Symphony in G minor, K. 550 (popularly referred to as No. 40, but probably No. 53), is the most original and has had the greatest influence on future composers. Few works from then 18th century are as intense, chromatic, and unconventional. The choice of key is, in itself, a measure of the work's profundity. Mozart wrote only three substantial mature works in G minor, a key commonly associated (according to 18th century aesthetic principles) with "lamentation" and "suffering." There are no traditional opening chords at the beginning of the first movement, only a quiet accompaniment figure in the violas waiting for a melody to appear. What does appear is a simple repetition of notes a half-step apart followed by descending passages that stop just short of outlining what would be a comforting octave. The contrasting second theme, divided between the strings and woodwinds, is almost purely chromatic. The intense development section begins in the unexpected key of F-sharp. As the symphony plays itself out, there are surprises at every turn. What should be a calming slow movement is agitating. The traditional sunny minuet is again in a heavily chromatic G minor. Only the trio offers respite. The finale carries the intense chromaticism of the first movement to new heights. The famous passage at the beginning of the development section briefly destroys both the rhythm and the tonality. Few classical works more clearly point the way toward 19th century romanticism."

...considering that my chart is made by the impressions of an enthusiast that reads a lot, and not by an expert, then probably it's imbalanced. I'm really curious to know what other members more knowledgeable than me, such as you seen to be, would priorize to change in such chart (or how they would make one). So, please tell me, considering that somehow you accepted the said meters, and if you could change a few of the numbers (say, up to five or six of them), what would you change? And, more importantly for me: why?


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> The way Beethoven ends Et incarnatus est in his missa solemnis strongly reminds me of the way he enters the D major section in the slow movement of A minor string quartet Op.132. Would it be blasphemous to say it's possible to piece together those two sections?


I think that it would be odd, because Beethoven tended to think in the whole structure of his works when composing them (as the man himself said, and I can quote a source if it's needed) and these two movements would not be linked by any dramatic or structural purpose. Both are religious, both were composed in his late years and both are transcendental pieces of music in my opinion, but other than that I don't see a particular connection between them.



hammeredklavier said:


> Not to mention the way Beethoven opens piano sonatas Op.13, 57, 111.


Starting with poweful chords is a very original and remarkable way of starting a movement in a pathétique style in my view, and as far as I'm aware Beethoven is the first composer to use this style abundantly in his oeuvre.



hammeredklavier said:


> The way he does variations in Op.26, 57, 111.


It's masterful, isn't it? I wish I had the ability to create legendary variations such as these.



hammeredklavier said:


> The way he builds "melody" in the final movements of Op.31 No.2, Op.57.


The finales of the _Tempest_ and _Appassionata_ are very intense, in a way that I don't recall having ever heard before in a sonata. Many people seen to really enjoy these pieces, and I'm one of them.



hammeredklavier said:


> And- I know, everytime he's does that 4-note thing, he's not being formulaic, but always thinking in terms of grand dramatic structure, riiight.


Exactly, glad that we agree. That four-note motif became a kind of musical signature of Beethoven, used in a reasonable amount of his works.



hammeredklavier said:


> Where do we find in Beethoven "exemplary works" of the different styles, "Gluckian", "Handelian"?


No, I don't think that he was interested in pastiche. Beethoven was a very original composer and was always trying new ideas. The stylistic variety in his symphonies - each seem to have it's own colour for me -, string quartets, piano sonatas and other major works such as the Choral fantasy is unprecedented in my opinion.



hammeredklavier said:


> Even though you often talk like his Choral Fantasy is actually an important work, it doesn't constitute an example of "recycled material", riiight.


The first time in history that a purely instrumental genre - the fantasia - is blended with vocal writing, and in a very inspired and convincing way. The music is so beautiful that sometimes I almost forget it's improvisative nature - Beethoven composed it in a fast pace and is believed to have improvised the introductory solo piano part of this great work.



hammeredklavier said:


> Eroica symphony 4th movement, Eroica variations for piano Op.35, Creatures of Prometheus, Contradence No.7 from WoO14, are somehow not examples of "recycled material", riiight.


The theme is the same in these pieces, and I think that it must have had some significance for Beethoven for him to reuse it. The _Eroica_ is surely a masterful symphony.



hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven getting 10/10 for "inventivity" (while Brahms and Tchaikovsky get meager 6/10) seems also ridiculous as well.


Oh, but "ridiculous" is too strong a word, isn't it? Let's please spread some love here. Beethoven was innovative (invented the vocal symphony, expanded forms, created the lieder cycle, developed a new way of variating themes etc.) in ways that in my opinion Brahms and Tchaikovsky weren't. Note though that "6" is more than professional level, what is fair in my opinion.



hammeredklavier said:


> ps. I'm curious how many points you would give Beethoven for "vocal/choral writing", LOL.


The joke that someone told you must have been really good.

Let's see... the Choral symphony is currently ranked at #1 in the TC list for symphonies, and it seems to be as successful with audiences as some other major vocal works from other great composers (Wagner was very impressed with it and with Mozart/Sussmayr's requiem and even conducted both pieces together in concerts if I'm not mistaken), so I think that a "9" ("legendary") would do.



hammeredklavier said:


> I tend to think even in piano works, Brahms isn't shabby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A masterpiece in "reharmonization" (harmonizing a melody differently each time it returns).
> It's just not as tiresome in my view as this sonata movement written by some other composer in the same era:


Chopin is a master of the piano, and I must say that I truly love his melodically and harmonically sophisticated music. I don't care that you attack him day and night: for me he is still great.



hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure if Bach is really that monotonous with rhythm and dynamics as Allerius repeatedly claims.


False, I compared Beethoven favorably to Bach in these areas in a "Bach vs Beethoven" thread years ago but didn't use the word "monotonous". Also, I was respectful with both.



hammeredklavier said:


> Look at the tempo and meter changes in this:
> *[ 5:48 ]*


Look at the absence of tempo and meter changes in the Brandemburg concertos. There's a kind of linear pulse in much of Bach's music.



hammeredklavier said:


> Whenever I listen to those 'homorhythms' of Grosse Fuge,


"The Great Fugue ... now seems to me the most perfect miracle in music. It is also the most absolutely contemporary piece of music I know, and contemporary forever ... Hardly birthmarked by its age, *the Great Fugue is, in rhythm alone, more subtle than any music of my own century* ... I love it beyond everything." - Igor Stravinsky.



hammeredklavier said:


> It's just that I find the _"Beethovenian arrogance"_ in the things you post a little disturbing.


I'm not arrogant, and I don't even know what you mean by "Beethovenian arrogance". I try to defend major composers when you attack them (what you do all the time - luck for you that the mods don't seem to care) and I think that I'm very fair.



hammeredklavier said:


> If you're judging composers by strict yardsticks like that with "dynamics" as a category (and giving Bach 5/10 and Beethoven 10/10)


...because Bach barely notated dynamic markings in his music while Beethoven used a lot of dynamic contrast elsewhere in the range from _ppp_ to _fff_ that became the custom...



hammeredklavier said:


> , when you're fully aware that NOBODY in Bach's time used dynamics like Beethoven,


...Rameau came close to that in _Zaïs_, that was completed before the _Mass in B minor_...



hammeredklavier said:


> then you're just criticizing Bach for the sake of criticism, a deliberate attempt to unjustly glorify Beethoven.


No, I'm trying to be fair in an exercise that I said from the start that shouldn't be taken too seriously.



hammeredklavier said:


> *I don't know what to make of this, really*. (I've encountered many people who judge Mozart and Haydn harshly while at the same time talking like- "Choral Fantasie" with all its tinklings in the piano and use of harmony still counts as "music of great expression", not "light music", and because Beethoven has some "pictorial obsessions", the early-19th-century Landler-like music in the "Pastoral Symphony" doesn't count as "Landler music".)


I suggest that you stop attacking me, Beethoven, Chopin, Sibelius, Bruckner, Schubert, Berlioz, Scriabin, McCartney, pop music, rock music, new age music, modern classical music, contemporary classical music etc. and do something else.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think you're just using all kinds of cunning excuses when you can just plainly say "I like Beethoven Better".


I'm not, but anyway: "I like Beethoven better!"

Now I ask you to do the same about Mozart.



hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure if you know exactly what you mean by the term _"consistency"_ either.


The density of great music in a composer's oevre, but taking into account it's size. I think that Mahler and Bach composed mostly major pieces, so they deserve a better value in this indicator than Mozart with his juvenilia and Beethoven with his minor works.



hammeredklavier said:


> I'm always baffled whenever anyone talks as if Mozart wrote more "flops" than Beethoven.


He has about two hundreds of juvenilia pieces. In my opinion, things only start to get really good in Mozart from around K. 300 onwards. There are exceptions of course.



hammeredklavier said:


> Ruins of Athens Op.113
> King Stephen Op.117
> Der glorreiche Augenblick Op. 136
> Christ on the Mount of Olives Op.85
> Fantasie in G minor Op.77


These are not "flops" in my opinion.



hammeredklavier said:


> Are you just pretending stuff like these don't exist?
> You don't think Beethoven also has a good deal of published "juvenilia"?


No. His Op. 1 was composed when he was in his late 20's, so the term doesn't apply at all.



hammeredklavier said:


> I can cite several sections of memorable chromaticism in Mozart _Divertimento K334_, I'm embarrassed to admit I can't do the same with Beethoven's _Septet Op.20_.


Good for you.



hammeredklavier said:


> Your decision to place Beethoven on the same level with Mozart for the category of counterpoint (9/10) seems a little weird to me as well.
> I doubt if I can find the same level of mastery like the double, triple fugues of Mozart _Missa longa K262_ (1775), for example, in Beethoven.


But the major Beethoven fugues are much more famous and, in my view, interesting and original than those of obscure Mozart works like this.



hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, I do spend a lot of time listening to Mozart's "juvenilia, flops, and light music".


Again: good for you.



hammeredklavier said:


> I wonder how much time you honestly spend listening to Beethoven's published "juvenilia and flops" yourself, and I wonder how much of "published Beethoven" (just the Opuses, and not the WoOs) you honestly consider "great". I think you should spend more time talking about pieces of music you appreciate (including Beethoven's, such as the Agnus dei of _Mass Op.86_, which you described as a masterpiece, although I can't remember its _melodies_ no matter how many times I listen)


Your blind spot, not mine.



hammeredklavier said:


> , and explaining why you appreciate them, -RATHER than using "charts with weird sets of criteria" and "long series of excuses" to justify your assertion that "Beethoven is the Best" -_"Other composers wrote more flops than Beethoven", "Other composers suck in use of dynamics and rhythm compared to Beethoven", "Other composers lack variety and ingenuity", or "Beethoven doesn't really have so much a weakness, remember that. "_


Thanks for the advice. Now stop inventing phrases that I didn't say please.



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know how long the Beethoven fandom has to continue with this sort of propaganda til they're satisfied.


Perhaps the thing is just that many people love Beethoven and you don't?



hammeredklavier said:


> Do I need to copy and paste the Brahms quote (1896) again:
> "I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant! I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! *You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works.*"
> PA134
> PA135


Brahms had his opinion, and perhaps he wasn't in a good day when he said this, but the fact is that (as people have told you many times already) Beethoven could make great use of dissonance (for example in the _Eroica_ and _Choral_ symphonies, in op. 101, in the Grosse Fuge etc.) and could compose great music on commission (example: Razumovsky quartets).


----------



## Xisten267

I think that member _hammeredklavier_ has been particularly disrespectful towards me with his bellicose, mocking tone in this thread and I'm not interested in continuing to have this debate with him. Note that he's also attributing quotes to me that I didn't say. *I ask the mods to please intervene.*



hammeredklavier said:


> ROFL. I think this just shows yet again how biased you are toward Beethoven. 10/10 for variety in Beethoven and Beethoven only?





hammeredklavier said:


> I agree your "tastometer" (it sounds funny, like "testosteronemeter") shouldn't be taken seriously. Hahahahahaha.





hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven getting 10/10 for "inventivity" (while Brahms and Tchaikovsky get meager 6/10) seems also ridiculous as well.





hammeredklavier said:


> I'm curious how many points you would give Beethoven for "vocal/choral writing", LOL.





hammeredklavier said:


> Mr. Allerius, it's not like I don't want to respect your views. =) It's just that I find the _"Beethovenian arrogance"_ in the things you post a little disturbing.





hammeredklavier said:


> RATHER than using "charts with weird sets of criteria" and "long series of excuses" to justify your assertion that "Beethoven is the Best" -_"Other composers wrote more flops than Beethoven", "Other composers suck in use of dynamics and rhythm compared to Beethoven", "Other composers lack variety and ingenuity", or "Beethoven doesn't really have so much a weakness, remember that. "_ - which strike as a bit "egotistical" to me. =)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> From now on I'll add you to my ignore list and I suggest that you do the same with me.


Mr. Allerius =), I thought you really did add me to your ignore list as you said you would. It seems that you didn't.



Allerius said:


> I think that it would be odd, because Beethoven tended to think in the whole structure of his works when composing them (as the man himself said, and I can quote a source if it's needed) and these two movements would not be linked by any dramatic or structural purpose. Both are religious, both were composed in his late years and both are transcendental pieces of music in my opinion, but other than that I don't see a particular connection between them.


Ok. But to me, they're reminiscent of each other. =)



Allerius said:


> Starting with poweful chords is a very original and remarkable way of starting a movement in a pathétique style in my view, and as far as I'm aware Beethoven is the first composer to use this style abundantly in his oeuvre. It's masterful, isn't it? I wish I had the ability to create legendary variations such as these.


I didn't say they're weak. It's just that they have certain similarity in gesture. Do you find the idea that _"Beethoven wrote some similar things"_ really that sacrilegious? I think you're the one who needs to wake up from fantasies and daydreams about Beethoven. =)



Allerius said:


> The finales of the _Tempest_ and _Appassionata_ are very intense, in a way that I don't recall having ever heard before in a sonata. Many people seen to really enjoy these pieces, and I'm one of them.


I also enjoy these pieces, and I do like the catchiness of the melodies. It's just that the way he builds them seems similar to me in certain ways, stylistically. To be honest, I think Beethoven is a bit exaggerated in the classical music community about how much _"variety"_ he has in his oeuvre, (compared to the other greats). =)



Allerius said:


> Exactly, glad that we agree. That four-note motif became a kind of musical signature of Beethoven, used in a reasonable amount of his works.


Yes. I think you're the one who needs to stop having this attitude: _"Beethoven, (unlike his predecessors), is not being formulaic when he uses the four-note motif."_ =)



Allerius said:


> No, I don't think that he was interested in pastiche. Beethoven was a very original composer and was always trying new ideas. The stylistic variety in his symphonies - each seem to have it's own colour for me -, string quartets, piano sonatas and other major works such as the Choral fantasy is unprecedented in my opinion.


Ok. You're entitled to your own opinion. Depending on how you look at Beethoven, it's always the same early 19th century orchestral style (with plenty of uninspired parts). The same bambambam. I can give examples of Mozart having "different colors", but you'll never listen. You'll just fingerpoint again and again with that Beethoven-centric attitude _"other composers lack variety!"_ =)



Allerius said:


> The first time in history that a purely instrumental genre - the fantasia - is blended with vocal writing, and in a very inspired and convincing way. The music is so beautiful that sometimes I almost forget it's improvisative nature - Beethoven composed it in a fast pace and is believed to have improvised the introductory solo piano part of this great work.


Ok. You can use all kinds of cringey hyperboles to praise the work all you like. Just don't pretend like - "when Beethoven writes something like that, he's writing "music of profound expression", and when other composers write something like that, they're writing "light music"".
And nothing changes the fact the Choral Fantasy is the prototype for the Ninth symphony. _"Recycled material"_, in other words. =) 
The Choral Fantasy also has piano parts that remind us of the beginning of the Emperor piano concerto.



Allerius said:


> The theme is the same in these pieces, and I think that it must have had some significance for Beethoven for him to reuse it. The _Eroica_ is surely a masterful symphony.


Ok. I did not say that the Eroica symphony is not masterfully-written. I was talking about the reuse of material. When Beethoven reuses his material he's being "inventive", and not "formulaic"? (unlike when other composers reuse theirs?) It just doesn't make sense to me.



Allerius said:


> Oh, but "ridiculous" is too strong a word, isn't it? Let's please spread some love here. Beethoven was innovative (invented the vocal symphony, expanded forms, created the lieder cycle, developed a new way of variating themes etc.) in ways that in my opinion Brahms and Tchaikovsky weren't. Note though that "6" is more than professional level, what is fair in my opinion.


I can make arguments about other composers also being "inventive". Hummel, for example, wrote more _original_ piano concertos (Nos. 2,3,5) that later became models for the Romantics. And unlike Beethoven, Hummel explored Romantic piano genres like 24 Etudes, 24 Preludes, and his Fantasie in E flat Op.18 (1805) contain parts that foreshadow Chopin's Ballade in F minor Op.52 (1842). In fact, it was Beethoven who said in his late years that Spohr is too chromatic and dissonant, Weber's Euryanthe is an accumulation of diminished seventh chords.



Allerius said:


> Chopin is a master of the piano, and I must say that I truly love his melodically and harmonically sophisticated music. I don't care that you attack him day and night: for me he is still great.


I don't attack him day and night. I do consider him a genius, but just not that significant a composer as Wagner, for example, in the practice and tradition. I tend to argue with people who make exaggerated claims about him (like how Larkenfield would often).



Allerius said:


> Look at the absence of tempo and meter changes in the Brandemburg concertos. There's a kind of linear pulse in much of Bach's music.


That was the "standard of the time". Whatabout Handel's concertos? Did he use rhythms very differently from Bach? You can't really compare these practices with those of a composer almost a century into the future like Beethoven. Does Beethoven have the poly-rhythms of Scriabin?



Allerius said:


> "The Great Fugue ... now seems to me the most perfect miracle in music. It is also the most absolutely contemporary piece of music I know, and contemporary forever ... Hardly birthmarked by its age, *the Great Fugue is, in rhythm alone, more subtle than any music of my own century* ... I love it beyond everything." - Igor Stravinsky.


You seem to love quoting Stravinsky's comment on the Grosse Fuge, yet you always ignore his comment on the Ninth Symphony finale. That's fine. =)

"Stravinsky was *never moved* by the choral finale to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which he thought a hopelessly banal tune affixed to Schiller's mighty ode of liberation and brotherhood"
(Stravinsky: The Music Box and the Nightingale, By Daniel Albright, Page 3)



Allerius said:


> ...because Bach barely notated dynamic markings in his music while Beethoven used a lot of dynamic contrast elsewhere in the range from _ppp_ to _fff_ that became the custom...
> ...Rameau came close to that in _Zaïs_, that was completed before the _Mass in B minor_...


Big deal. So how much is that dynamic style part of Rameau's music? Is that the reason you give these unfair grades like 5/10 to Bach, unfairly pitting him against Beethoven in categories like "dynamics"? 
You know what? I find the quasi-minimalist figures in the variations of Op.111 (not the boogie-woogie) to be too lengthy and "chatty" (as tdc put it). I feel it would have been much better if Beethoven varied the rhythm a little. =)
What I find far more amazing is - even after the "demonstration" by Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart - the way Beethoven went about writing for voices. Alright, I'll give him 5/10 for that department. Wouldn't he be still "professional" by your grading system?

You think Bach added nothing significant to music in terms of "newness". Great. Later composers who admired him were merely loving his "old-fashionedness". I admire the _subtlety_ of the way you put down other composers to suit your Beethoven-centric views, really. =)



Allerius said:


> I'm not arrogant, and I don't even know what you mean by "Beethovenian arrogance". I try to defend major composers when you attack them (what you do all the time - luck for you that the mods don't seem to care) and I think that I'm very fair.





Allerius said:


> I suggest that you stop attacking me, Beethoven, Chopin, Sibelius, Bruckner, Schubert, Berlioz, Scriabin, McCartney, pop music, rock music, new age music, modern classical music, contemporary classical music etc. and do something else.


I wasn't really "attacking" you. =) So you have every right to give all these unfair grades to composers, but I don't have my "freedom of speech"? =) About half of the things you listed, -I've criticized like only once or twice. I still remember several instances of you verbally "attacking" (as you term it) another composer because another member had views that didn't fit your Beethoven-centric views.



Allerius said:


> I'm not, but anyway: "I like Beethoven better!"
> Now I ask you to do the same about Mozart.


Why would I? I don't even consider Mozart to be the greatest or my absolute favorite. I would not give 10/10 to one composer and 5/10 to others (in categories of vague concepts such as "inventiveness") as if they added nothing new to music. I'm just not that close-minded or biased. It seems you're the one who really love "ranking" works of art. =)



Allerius said:


> The density of great music in a composer's oevre, but taking into account it's size. I think that Mahler and Bach composed mostly major pieces, so they deserve a better value in this indicator than Mozart with his juvenilia and Beethoven with his minor works.


It depends on how you define "juvenilia", right? I think the skills of melody/harmony/counterpoint displayed in Missa trinitatis K167 (1773), or Missa longa K262 (1775) are too advanced (by Beethoven's standards) to be considered mere "juvenilia" by Mozart. So when Mozart writes these pieces, they're merely "juvenilia". But when Beethoven writes something like Mass Op.86, it's an "underappreciated, underrated" piece? I think something's wrong here.
I don't know about you, but I consider "intrinsic essence, quality" more important than "what appears on the surface".



Allerius said:


> He has about two hundreds of juvenilia pieces. In my opinion, things only start to get really good in Mozart from around K. 300 onwards. There are exceptions of course.


Mozart wrote this 2 weeks before his 13th birtday:





I think Beethoven, on the other hand, should have studied Haydn's late masses (which he regarded as "inimitable masterpieces") more carefully before attempting his own. Tell you what I honestly think - The reason why we don't call these pieces Op.77, Op.80, Op.85, Op.86 "juvenilia" is because he was too old (age 38) when he was writing them. To be honest, I think a fair chunk of published Beethoven is just _forgettable_. Like half of his piano sonatas, for example. Frankly it's the reason why I always stop at some point through the cycle everytime I listen. I don't find the alleged "individuality" in many of them. (which the Beethoven fandom hypes about all the time). 
I don't think they're the _"New Testament of Music"_ as certain very enthusiastic Beethoven fans claim.



Allerius said:


> These are not "flops" in my opinion.


Ok. To each his own. You're entitled to your own opinion about Beethoven. Just don't fingerpoint at other composers; _"they wrote too much juvenilia, too many flops, too much tafelmusik! They lack variety! They lack inventiveness!"_ I often find this sort of attitude in Beethoven-centric thinkers. =)



Allerius said:


> No. His Op. 1 was composed when he was in his late 20's, so the term doesn't apply at all.


Exactly. It's a little amazing what kind of works he was writing, even in his "maturity". Even Hummel laughed.



Allerius said:


> But the major Beethoven fugues are much more famous and, in my view, interesting and original than those of obscure Mozart works like this.


Pignus futurae gloriae (8th movement) from Litaniae de venerabili altaris sacramento K243 (1776), which I posted in the earlier comment, is miles different from Bach fugues. Give me an example of a Bach fugue that sounds like it. Even with all its expressive qualities Grosse Fuge is not a real fugue, unlike Mozart's _dissonant_ fugue for strings K546, which Beethoven learned from to write a certain late work in the same key, C minor. (a fact which most people don't even care to know about). But somehow the Mozart work is never "underrated", according to you. Because it wasn't written by Beethoven. =)
And I still think Beethoven did not write a liturgical work containing as much variety and contrast as K243.



Allerius said:


> False, I compared Beethoven favorably to Bach in these areas in a "Bach vs Beethoven" thread years ago but didn't use the word "monotonous". Also, I was respectful with both.





Allerius said:


> Thanks for the advice. Now stop inventing phrases that I didn't say please.


But you're _implying_ these things in a cunning manner, using "numbers". Again, what if I gave Beethoven "5/10" for _melody_. Would you not have taken it to mean _"Beethoven sucks at melody"_? =)



Allerius said:


> Perhaps the thing is just that many people love Beethoven and you don't?





Allerius said:


> Let's see... the Choral symphony is currently ranked at #1 in the TC list for symphonies, and it seems to be as successful with audiences as some other major vocal works from other great composers (Wagner was very impressed with it and with Mozart/Sussmayr's requiem and even conducted both pieces together in concerts if I'm not mistaken), so I think that a "9" ("legendary") would do.


Yes, I too "love" a lot of Beethoven's music, but I don't think he deserves a _"special treatment"_:
[-If people love Beethoven, (like in those TC popularity polls or rankings you always rely on for reference) it proves he's a great composer. 
-But if people hate Beethoven, (especially the late works, described as "the pinnacle of humanity"), it means they're just not "understanding" his music.
-If people love [another composer], he's merely a "popular" composer.
-But if people hate [another composer], it just proves he's a "poor" composer.]

I constantly encounter people thinking in this sort of logic, across communities. Why does Beethoven need this sort of _"special treatment"_. I don't get it. =)



Allerius said:


> Brahms had his opinion, and perhaps he wasn't in a good day when he said this, but the fact is that (as people have told you many times already) Beethoven could make great use of dissonance (for example in the _Eroica_ and _Choral_ symphonies, in op. 101, in the Grosse Fuge etc.) and could compose great music on commission (example: Razumovsky quartets).


I wasn't talking about dissonances when I cited it this time. See the part of the quote highlighted in bold.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^HK, genuinely curious - who are your top 10 favorite composers? I’ve only seen you praise a choice handful of composers throughout music history (and you say above that Mozart is not your favorite which surprises me) so I’m interested to find out who you consider the greatest.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^HK, genuinely curious - who are your top 10 favorite composers? I've only seen you praise a choice handful of composers throughout music history (and you say above that Mozart is not your favorite which surprises me) so I'm interested to find out who you consider the greatest.


Perhaps a sweepstake would be useful here. It's not Mozart, and I think it can't be Beethoven or Haydn, given other posts. I think that leaves JS Bach or a left-field contender. I might be wrong, though. Perhaps it's Beethoven after all. I think I'll go left-field and put my money on Webern.


----------

