# Which Composer Has Works You Love Across The Most Number of Genres?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Beethoven and Mozart are tied for me. 

I love Beethoven's Symphonies, String Quartets, and Piano Sonatas.

Mozart I love his late symphonies, Operas, and Piano Sonatas. I have two cycles of Mozart's piano sonatas, Gould and Krauss. Gould is fun and intriguing even though he said he hated Mozart!!!!


----------



## rw181383 (Aug 4, 2017)

I wouldn't be able to pick one or two, so here are a few of my favorites:

Tchaikovsky - symphonies/orchestral, concerti, chamber music, solo instrumental, opera, ballet, 

Stravinsky/Shostakovich/Prokofiev/Weinberg/Honegger/Arnold - symphonies/orchestral (including vocal), choral, concerti, chamber music, solo instrumental, opera, ballet, film music

Bax - symphonies/orchestral, concerti, chamber music, solo instrumental, film music (Oliver Twist-1948)

Arnold - symphonies/orchestral, concerti, chamber music, solo instrumental, ballet, film music

Schubert - symphonies/orchestral, chamber music, solo instrumental, choral works, lieder

Haydn - symphonies/orchestral, chamber music, solo instrumental, choral, opera

Schumann - symphonies/orchestral, concerti, chamber music, solo instrumental, choral, opera

Brahms - symphonies/orchestral, concerti, chamber music, solo instrumental, choral, lieder

Myaskovsky - symphonies/orchestral, concerti, chamber music, solo instrumental, choral, lieder


So many more!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mozart checks all my boxes - solo, chamber, orchestra, sacred choral, lieder, opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Though he isn't my favorite composer overall, I enjoy Brahms greatly for work in every genre he touched except organ music.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Though he isn't my favorite composer overall, I enjoy Brahms greatly for work in every genre he touched except organ music.


You beat me to it. I was about to mention Brahms in my list. A professional musician once told me Brahms's oeuvre is the perfection since Op.1 That may not be an exaggeration at all since he was very finicky about what to publish. Regarding the organ works, I think his last work _11 Chorale Preludes Op.122_ are quite interesting and up there in term of quality with other late works.

For me, the top of the list has to be Mozart, and that doesn't need too much explanation. But the next spot, surprisingly as I recount my favourite works, is Poulenc.

He wrote beautifully and wittily for chamber music (violin sonata, cello sonata, clarinet sonata, oboe sonata etc), concerto (piano concerti, organ concerto), ballet (_Les Animaux modèles_), opera (_La voix Humaine, Dialogues des Carmélites_), sacred works (_Litanies à la Vierge Noire, Gloria_), solo piano, and plenty of charming _melodies_. What lacking is a large-scale orchestral work as a symphony, but his _Sinfonietta _can make up for that.

And now with Opera out of the way, Brahms, Bach, Schubert, Beethoven (not really a fan of Fidelio) and Faure.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mozart has to be #1 for me. A big reason he's my favorite composer is that I absolutely love works in every single genre he wrote in: symphony, opera, choral, chamber, piano solo, concertos. I dare say he wrote at least one or two works in each of these genres that stands at its pinnacle with the best ever produced. 

After that, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, and Handel would be contenders for #2.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Prokofiev for me.

Symphonies, Ballets, Concertos, Chamber Works for ensembles and soloists, Film scores, Opera (though not a fan).......


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Mozart, his works are outstanding, Beethoven just great , Haydn and almost any opera.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven for me, with a solid 9/10. Symphonies, piano concertos, overtures, string quartets, piano sonatas, cello sonatas, piano trios -- all of the highest quality. He loses a point for operas, choral music, quintets, and violin concertos, because his output was too limited. I'd ding him another point for not writing a cello concerto, but I'm feeling generous. This time.

Next time Ludwig may not be so lucky!


----------



## agoukass (Dec 1, 2008)

I would say Schubert because of his piano music, chamber music, Masses, lieder, and Symphonies 3, 5, 8 and 9. I've never listened to his operas or his secular choral music.


----------



## KJ von NNJ (Oct 13, 2017)

All genres? Mozart.
Beethoven is a close second choice. 
Richard Strauss would be #3. I love his chamber music for winds.
Mendelssohn comes in at #4.
Haydn gets the 5th position.
Saint-Saens was wonderful in all genres too. #6.
Tchaikovsky would be 7th.
Dvorak has to be mentioned. #8.
Prokofiev is in at 9. Could be 1 for me depending on my mood.
My 10 would be Magnard. Love his symphonies, chamber music, opera, piano music.

Although Schubert did not write an opera (no concertos either), he did just about everything else. And I admire it all.

Brahms and Schumann. I mention them together out of reverence.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Really 'love' across most genres, not just like... probably Brahms, ahead of Shostakovich and Dvorak. No composer ticks all the boxes for me (which I took as orchestral, concertos, sacred choral, keyboard, chamber, opera).


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KJ von NNJ said:


> All genres? Mozart.
> Beethoven is a close second choice.
> Richard Strauss would be #3. I love his chamber music for winds.
> Mendelssohn comes in at #4.
> ...


he composed an opera - not a bad one either.


----------



## Taplow (Aug 13, 2017)

*Handel* ticks all boxes for me - Opera, orchestral, concerti grossi, solo concertos, sonatas, keyboard works, organ, sacred choral. I've rarely if ever been disappointed. The only Handel works I don't listen to are the oratorios.

Many of the previously mentioned composers did not write opera, unfortunately, or their operatic œvre is not well known or well regarded. So I'm not including them. I'd like to add Richard Strauss, but most of his chamber and solo instrumental work I would consider juvenilia, written before he developed his definitive, mature style. I therefore leave him out. Beethoven is pretty awesome, especially in symphonic and chamber works. Only one opera, which is ok, but some outstanding work for violin and piano. I have not explored his lieder. I really must do that. Dvořák covered most genres. Some excellent pieces but not everything is a hit with me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Taplow said:


> *Handel* ...The only Handel works I don't listen to are the oratorios.


Why? I also adore Handel and I think the oratorio is a genre he mastered like none other; I'd even dare say it's the genre with the biggest bulk of his best work.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

Bach, Mozart, Debussy, Bartok, Prokofiev, Ligeti (songs, piano music, orchestral, chamber, a sensational piano concerto, a great opera, some curious electronic music...).


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

I think Bach and Vivaldi. I wish I could name Handel as well, but I love arias from his operas, but I don't like listening to entire Handel's operas


----------



## Taplow (Aug 13, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Why? I also adore Handel and I think the oratorio is a genre he mastered like none other; I'd even dare say it's the genre with the biggest bulk of his best work.


I am an atheist, a humanist, a scientific skeptic. I vehemently abhor religion and religious thinking. For a very long time I found sacred works extremely difficult to swallow, only later coming around because there is way too much truly great music in the sacred sphere to ignore. But I find it palatable merely because it is for the most part sung in a language other than English. I can therefore largely ignore the dogma and lies and just focus on the music. It allows me to be observer rather than participant. But not so with Handel's oratorios, which have by and large English libretti.

I do have one, La Resurrezione, which has an Italian libretto. But no other. It's not just a matter of changing my mind. I fear you would also have to change my very nature.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Taplow said:


> I am an atheist, a humanist, a scientific skeptic. I vehemently abhor religion and religious thinking. For a very long time I found sacred works extremely difficult to swallow, only later coming around because there is way too much truly great music in the sacred sphere to ignore. But I find it palatable merely because it is for the most part sung in a language other than English. I can therefore largely ignore the dogma and lies and just focus on the music. It allows me to be observer rather than participant. But not so with Handel's oratorios, which have by and large English libretti. I do have one, La Resurrezione, which has an Italian libretto. But no other. It's not just a matter of changing my mind. I fear you would also have to change my very nature.


that sounds more like an irrational phobia or like some reactionary neurosis to strict religious upringing than a rational attitude. I am bothered by neither religion nor atheism. Both are just beliefs, or ways how to organize one's sense of reality. I admire Bach's spirituality, although I do not necessarily share it. Words like dogma, lies and delusions are too strong. I bet you have your own set of dogmas, lies and delusions, only manifested in different areas of life. Everybody does.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Across genres? It has to be Mozart - great operas, symphonies, piano sonatas, quartets and a couple of great masses! And quite a bit more.
Then, there is Beethoven - only one opera but what an opera.
And let's not forget Stravinsky.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Taplow said:


> I am an atheist, a humanist, a scientific skeptic. I vehemently abhor religion and religious thinking. For a very long time I found sacred works extremely difficult to swallow, only later coming around because there is way too much truly great music in the sacred sphere to ignore. But I find it palatable merely because it is for the most part sung in a language other than English. I can therefore largely ignore the dogma and lies and just focus on the music. It allows me to be observer rather than participant. But not so with Handel's oratorios, which have by and large English libretti.
> 
> I do have one, La Resurrezione, which has an Italian libretto. But no other. It's not just a matter of changing my mind. I fear you would also have to change my very nature.


I'm a happy atheist. I have always loved religious music because it I like to think it gives me a sense of what religious people feel about their god.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

While I hugely enjoy works by all of the composers thus far named, I wonder though if the OP's wording of "across the most number of genres" has not been lost sight of. One might just as easily enlist the names of Verdi or Hugo Wolf as some of those already noted (I perhaps exaggerate to strengthen the point). This is not a "composer I like best" choice, and I did not take it as such, though Prokofiev is very high on that list, to be sure!


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

Bach, Mozart, Handel, and Haydn, in that order. I can't say Beethoven because he didn't compose a enough choral music, like those four, and he mostly stayed away from opera, unlike Mozart, Handel, & Haydn. Granted, Bach never composed an opera either, but his St. Matthew Passion, St. John Passion, Christmas Oratorio, and over 200 Cantatas more than adequately suffice for not having written any operas, in my view.

Another composer that worked impressively within all the musical genres of his time was William Byrd. Had Byrd lived in a later century, I suspect he'd be in the conversation. 

The more difficult question, perhaps, is which composer of the 20th century best checks off all the boxes? For me, it's probably Prokofiev, with Shostakovich a close second, then Stravinsky, & Martinu. (Yet Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, and Sibelius are my favorite composers that lived into the 20th century.) 

Which post WW2 composer? Not counting any of the above, I'd have to say Vagn Holmboe; although I wouldn't say that I love all of Holmboe's music across the many genres he worked in. But not all of his compositions have been recorded yet, either.

P.S. Darius Milhaud might deserve to be in the "20th century" conversation, as well. Anyone agree?


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Well, that question made me think!

Across many genres, it has to be a close-run thing between Arnold and Poulenc. P wrote for full orchestra, a salmagundi of chamber combos, concerti various, solo piano, chorales, songs ... all of it quality work.


----------



## KJ von NNJ (Oct 13, 2017)

stomanek said:


> he composed an opera - not a bad one either.


Yes, Schubert has several singspiels in his repertoire, and as many as eight operas which were incomplete or left unfinished. The Rosamunde Overture was used for Die Zauberharfe, a Zauberspiel. Much of his stage music was either unfinished or sections were lost over time.
I would think that many were works in progress, not fully completed. Lots of fragments.
Sakuntala is an unfinished opera in 3 acts. It was recorded in 2008, completed by Karl Aage Rasmussen. A 2 act realization.
I for one did not know that Schubert had done so much in this genre. His output was staggering.
Perhaps you may be referring to a different work, I'm not sure.
Thanks for prompting me to only begin to investigate. Much more to learn!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Easy: Tchaikovsky.

Opera: Queen of Spades
Concerto: for violin
Symphony: no. 6
Chamber: Trio
Solo instrumental: The Seasons for piano
Incidental Music: The Snowmaiden
And then there are some songs, the suites...so much to explore, and some still not recorded!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Easy: Tchaikovsky.
> 
> Opera: Queen of Spades
> Concerto: for violin
> ...


You didn't mention the ballets.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> While I hugely enjoy works by all of the composers thus far named, I wonder though if the OP's wording of "across the most number of genres" has not been lost sight of. One might just as easily enlist the names of Verdi or Hugo Wolf as some of those already noted (I perhaps exaggerate to strengthen the point). This is not a "composer I like best" choice, and I did not take it as such, though Prokofiev is very high on that list, to be sure!


Very good point! I don't have favorites anymore, just music I like. I thought it would be interesting to see which composer, in our individual eyes, crosses the most genres. It doesn't really mean favorite, but it can!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> You didn't mention the ballets.


Jeez - and Sleeping Beauty has been one of my favorite scores of all for many, many years. Thanks for kicking my old brain. Tchaikovsky - the composer critics and musicologists love to hate.


----------



## JRI (Jan 5, 2013)

Haydn,Mozart,and Bach in that order for me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Taplow said:


> I am an atheist, a humanist, a scientific skeptic. I vehemently abhor religion and religious thinking. For a very long time I found sacred works extremely difficult to swallow, only later coming around because there is way too much truly great music in the sacred sphere to ignore. But I find it palatable merely because it is for the most part sung in a language other than English. I can therefore largely ignore the dogma and lies and just focus on the music. It allows me to be observer rather than participant. But not so with Handel's oratorios, which have by and large English libretti.
> 
> I do have one, La Resurrezione, which has an Italian libretto. But no other. It's not just a matter of changing my mind. I fear you would also have to change my very nature.


I'm also an atheist, rationalist, humanist, and scientific skeptic. I certainly went through a period where I abhorred religion and religious thinking, but my view has softened over time due to numerous factors; perhaps the biggest was encountering the work of William Blake and Wallace Stevens who had rather unique ideas about religion and its primary role as "philosophy as art" (though that's an extreme simplification). Wagner was also important as his Parsifal actually isn't a religious allegory (as many see it), but rather an allegory about the power of artistic symbols (Wagner stated this explicitly).

Another factor was my studying rationality, which helped me realize how deeply, innately irrational humans were, and that rejecting religion and embracing science wasn't an instant cure for that; and while atheists may be less irrational in their thinking about religion they are just as prone to being irrational about everything else; it's too hardwired into our thinking in too many subtle ways, and it would require constant vigilance to avoid any kind of irrational thinking about anything (not to mention being impractical as rationality requires far more cognitive computational power than the quick-and-dirty biases of instinct and intuition).

If you take a rather metaphorical/allegorical view of God/religion ala Blake or Stevens it makes any works about God more palatable. You just think of "God" as being a metaphor for nature/the universe (the kind of "God" Einstein and Hawking speak about), and you just think of religious stories as being allegories about how certain people thought of their relationship with nature/the universe.

Finally, and this is back to Handel, not all of his oratorios were religious in nature, and even many of those taken from the Bible focused far more on secular events than anything God-related. Of those that aren't religious at all: Alexander's Feast; L'Allegro, il Penseroso ed il Moderato (based on a pair of great poems by John Milton); The Choice of Hercules, Hercules, The Occasional Oratorio, Semele, The Triumph of Time and Truth (and its variants). Many others were based on plays written on Biblical subjects and/or focus far more on the dramatic aspects, those include: Athalia, Debora, Esther, Samson, and Saul. Really, that's about half of his oratorio output.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Josquin13 said:


> The more difficult question, perhaps, is which composer of the 20th century best checks off all the boxes? For me, it's probably Prokofiev, with Shostakovich a close second, then Stravinsky, & Martinu. (Yet Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, and Sibelius are my favorite composers that lived into the 20th century.)


I'd give Bartok the edge there: love at least something he did in the genres of stage works, orchestral works, concertos, string quartets, other chamber works, and solo piano.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

20th C: Prokofieff here, too. At least three great symphonies (1, 5, 6), great concertos for violin and piano, terrific solo piano music, chamber music which hardly anyone knows, sensational ballets like Romeo and Juliet, wonderful film scores like Lt Kije, and then there are the operas which very few people have ever heard: The Fiery Angel is one of my favorites. He's weaker on songs and choral music, but this wasn't a strong point for most composers of his generation.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> 20th C: Prokofieff here, too. At least three great symphonies (1, 5, 6), great concertos for violin and piano, terrific solo piano music, chamber music which hardly anyone knows, sensational ballets like Romeo and Juliet, wonderful film scores like Lt Kije, and then there are the operas which very few people have ever heard: The Fiery Angel is one of my favorites. He's weaker on songs and choral music, but this wasn't a strong point for most composers of his generation.


I'll second Prokofiev, then Martinů, Bartok, Tchaikovsky. But Prokofiev's best symphony is unquestionably No. 2


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

*Tchaikovsky:* Symphony, overture, symphonic poem, concerto, chamber music, opera, ballet, songs.
*Glazunov: *Symphony, Symphonic Fantasies (and poems), chamber, ballet, instrumental, incidental, concerto.
*Rachmaninoff:* Symphony, symphonic poem, solo piano, sacred, concerto, chamber, songs, opera.
*Nielsen:* Symphonies, overture, concerto, opera, chamber, songs, piano.
*Bax:* Symphony, symphonic poem, overture, concerto, chamber music, solo instrumental, film music.
*Myaskovsky:* Symphony, chamber music, solo instrumental, choral.
*Melartin:* Symphony, instrumental, orchestral, concerto.
*Shostakovich:* Symphony, concerto, chamber music, solo instrumental, opera.
*Prokofiev: *Symphony, concerto, chamber music, solo instrumental, opera, ballet, film music.
*Sibelius:* Symphony, symphonic poem, incidental music, misc. orchestral.
*Dvorak:* Symphony, symphonic poems, overture, chamber, opera, misc. orchestral music, sacred.
*Barber:* Symphony, orchestral music and overtures, opera, chamber.
*Ravel:* Ballet, solo piano, chamber, concerti, misc. orchestral music.
*Debussy:* Solo piano music, misc. orchestral music, opera.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm also an atheist, rationalist, humanist, and scientific skeptic. I certainly went through a period where I abhorred religion and religious thinking, but my view has softened over time due to numerous factors; perhaps the biggest was encountering the work of William Blake and Wallace Stevens who had rather unique ideas about religion and its primary role as "philosophy as art" (though that's an extreme simplification). Wagner was also important as his Parsifal actually isn't a religious allegory (as many see it), but rather an allegory about the power of artistic symbols (Wagner stated this explicitly).
> 
> Another factor was my studying rationality, which helped me realize how deeply, innately irrational humans were, and that rejecting religion and embracing science wasn't an instant cure for that; and while atheists may be less irrational in their thinking about religion they are just as prone to being irrational about everything else; it's too hardwired into our thinking in too many subtle ways, and it would require constant vigilance to avoid any kind of irrational thinking about anything (not to mention being impractical as rationality requires far more cognitive computational power than the quick-and-dirty biases of instinct and intuition).
> 
> If you take a rather metaphorical/allegorical view of God/religion ala Blake or Stevens it makes any works about God more palatable. *You just think of "God" as being a metaphor for nature/the universe (the kind of "God" Einstein and Hawking speak about),* and you just think of religious stories as being allegories about how certain people thought of their relationship with nature/the universe.


I always thought it was futile and potentially misleading to use the word god poetically - indicating a certain awe that scientist atheists such as Hawking and Einstein had for the existence - and for those theists who have not troubled to understand - misquotations by fellow theists are used to confirm their beliefs by erroneous appeals to authority - ie Did you know that Stephen Hawking and Einstein believed in god. Wow really - no I never knew that - well praise be!

I am an atheist too - I see no problem finding great beauty in religeous works, masses, requiems etc any more than I find the music of Also Sprach Zarathustra great - while rejecting the philosophy behind it (I dont - but if I did - I would find it no less exceptional)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Taplow said:


> ...I can therefore largely ignore the dogma and *lies* and just focus on the music.


Pretty tendentious Taplow - is this necessary?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Taplow said:


> I am an atheist, a humanist, a scientific skeptic. I vehemently abhor religion and religious thinking. For a very long time I found sacred works extremely difficult to swallow, only later coming around because there is way too much truly great music in the sacred sphere to ignore. But I find it palatable merely because it is for the most part sung in a language other than English. I can therefore largely ignore the dogma and *lies* and just focus on the music. It allows me to be observer rather than participant. But not so with Handel's oratorios, which have by and large English libretti.
> 
> I do have one, La Resurrezione, which has an Italian libretto. But no other. It's not just a matter of changing my mind. I fear you would also have to change my very nature.


Would you remove 'lies' please?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

stomanek said:


> I always thought it was futile and potentially misleading to use the word god poetically - indicating a certain awe that scientist atheists such as Hawking and Einstein had for the existence - and for those theists who have not troubled to understand - misquotations by fellow theists are used to confirm their beliefs by erroneous appeals to authority - ie Did you know that Stephen Hawking and Einstein believed in god. Wow really - no I never knew that - well praise be!
> 
> I am an atheist too - I see no problem finding great beauty in religeous works, masses, requiems etc any more than I find the music of Also Sprach Zarathustra great - while rejecting the philosophy behind it (I dont - but if I did - I would find it no less exceptional)


You basically share Dawkins's view on the matter. I humbly disagree while respecting the reasoning. The way I see it, poets were really the ones that invented God, and they have every right to use it in whatever poetic way they deem fit for their purposes, and if believers want to take them literally rather than poetically, then that's their problematic misunderstanding. Also, Einstein was more of a pantheist (ala Spinoza) or agnostic rather than an atheist; and pantheism is the belief that the divine and nature are the same thing. So one can argue that Einstein wasn't even technically using God as a metaphor as opposed to his own definition of God, which is different than that of a theist (they don't have a monopoly on the term, afterall).

I might also mention that, despite being an atheist, the highly religious poetry of Herbert, Donne, and Milton moves me a great deal. I've always thought this one of the most beautiful sonnets in our language: 


> Prayer (I)
> BY GEORGE HERBERT
> 
> Prayer the church's banquet, angel's age,
> ...


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I might also mention that, despite being an atheist, the highly religious poetry of Herbert, Donne, and Milton moves me a great deal. I've always thought this one of the most beautiful sonnets in our language:


it is not bad. The greatest and most beautiful religious poetry ever written in any language is probably The Masnavi I Manavi of Rumi. It is a massive work in 6 books. Here is just a small selection of the complete work.
http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/masnavi-rumi.pdf
Just the Prologue alone is incredibly profound, but only people with balanced functioning of both hemispheres can get it. Those who lack metaphorical thinking needed to understand allegories and symbols have not a change. And God cannot be described directly, only indirectly.



> When the rose has faded and the garden is withered,
> The song of the nightingale is no longer to be heard.
> The BELOVED is all in all, the lover only veils Him;
> The BELOVED is all that lives, the lover a dead thing.
> ...


as the second best book of religious poetry comes probably Tao Te Ting


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> 20th C: Prokofieff here, too. At least three great symphonies (1, 5, 6), great concertos for violin and piano, terrific solo piano music, chamber music which hardly anyone knows, sensational ballets like Romeo and Juliet, wonderful film scores like Lt Kije, and then there are the operas which very few people have ever heard: The Fiery Angel is one of my favorites. He's weaker on songs and choral music, but this wasn't a strong point for most composers of his generation.


If you like The Fiery Angel you really should give the third symphony another go. It's one of his greatest works, probably the single greatest symphony for me.

I really love this quote from Sviatoslav Richter:



> The performance of his Third Symphony in 1939 left a tremendous impression on me. The composer himself conducted. Never before had I felt anything like it when listening to music. The impression was staggering; it was like the end of the world. Prokofiev uses extraordinarily intense expressive devices in this work. In the third movement - a Scherzo - the strings play a flickeringly jerky motif from which plumes of asphyxiating smoke seem to issue, as though the air itself were on fire. The final movement opens with a sort of sombre march - a grandiose orchestral tumult, a veritable apocalypse followed by a brief lull before starting up again with redoubled force in a swirl of tocsin-like bells. I sat there as though turned to stone. I wanted to hide. I glanced at my neighbour, who was crimson and sweating profusely. Even during the interval, shivers still ran up and down my spine.


----------

