# 5 "Most Complete" composers in history



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

I would be interested in learning opinions on the following question: "Who were the 5 most complete composers in musical history..............that is, those who could do it in all genres - from choral music to chamber music to solo instrumental music to concertos to operas to symphonic music? Also who were well versed in counterpoint, harmony and melody. 

And all of the above resulting in compositions produced at the very highest level.

My list would look something like this:

Mozart
Bach
Beethoven
Handel
Haydn

Certain "great" composers like Chopin, Wagner, Verdi, Schumann were too genre-specific to be considered, IMHO.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Bach wrote operas?

Prokofiev
Hindemith
Stravinsky
Ligeti
Penderecki
Shostakovich
Schoenberg


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Bartok, although he has just the one opera (just like LvB).


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

For complete, I think Mozart stands head-and-shoulders above all the rest. Now, that isn't to say that I think he is the best, or that there aren't others who dwarf him in particular categories, but in terms of making significant contributions in the most genres, including composing some monumental works in many different genres, he stands out prominently.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

No composer was more complete than Mozart. He had his finger in practically every type of musical form.

Bach. No. He composed no opera or symphonies.

Beethoven. Yes. Very well-rounded in most musical forms.

Haydn. Yes. Also very well-rounded in most musical forms.

Handel. No. No symphonies.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> No composer was more complete than Mozart. He had his finger in practically every type of musical form.
> 
> Bach. No. He composed no opera or symphonies.
> 
> ...


Beethoven was well-rounded, but his opera output is pretty paltry, even if Fidelio is a fine opera.

Haydn is the same - yes, he wrote operas, but I don't think any of them rank highly on most peoples' list of favorites. Still, he comes in second, for me, in terms of completeness.

Of course, the problem also arises with comparing different eras. Symphonies were not really a thing in the Baroque era. So it isn't quite fair to compare Bach and Handel to Mozart and Beethoven. Better, still, to compare them based on how complete they were for their particular era - and in that case, I think Handel trumps Bach, primarily because of the operatic output.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Bach. No. He composed no opera or symphonies.


Yes, but he did produce fine oratorios - a sort of opera-equivalent.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

I apologize for my ignorance, but did Mozart write music for solo instruments other than piano?


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Very few composers hit every possible genre, but many hit most and some with pretty consistent results. If believe this is the spirit of the OP. In my limited experience, I'll select..

Mozart
Beethoven
Stravinsky
Haydn
Mendelssohn


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Bach - symphonies didn't exist so you can't hold that against him and his oratorios are just operas in disguise.

Mozart - goes without saying

Vaughan Williams - some don't rate his operas but I think they have a lot to offer

Ligeti touched most bases even if not prolifically

Maxwell-Davis


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> I apologize for my ignorance, but did Mozart write music for solo instruments other than piano?


Not many people do. Keyboard instruments seem to be the most amenable to writing purely solo music due to the fact that you can have both a melody and a continuo with the same instrument. Some have managed to mimic that on other instruments - think of Bach's Cello Suites and Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin - but it is a much more difficult thing. That is how it was explained to me, for what it's worth. I am not an expert, so others might chime in.

Right off the top of my head, I don't know of any other solo instrument works by Mozart. Did he write any solo organ works - although, again, that is just another keyboard instrument, even though composing for it is significantly different than for piano/harpsichord/clavichord/fortepiano. But someone else might chime in.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Not many people do. Keyboard instruments seem to be the most amenable to writing purely solo music due to the fact that you can have both a melody and a continuo with the same instrument. Some have managed to mimic that on other instruments - think of Bach's Cello Suites and Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin - but it is a much more difficult thing. That is how it was explained to me, for what it's worth. I am not an expert, so others might chime in.
> 
> Right off the top of my head, I don't know of any other solo instrument works by Mozart. Did he write any solo organ works - although, again, that is just another keyboard instrument, even though composing for it is significantly different than for piano/harpsichord/clavichord/fortepiano. But someone else might chime in.


This was very well explained.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

I don't think an opera and an oratorio are analogous beyond a certain point - both contain some kind of orchestral music (usually) and include singing. But an opera is as much a visual as an audial experience. You can witness an oratorio performance with your eyes closed, and it won't alter your experience significantly. The same is not true for an opera. Yes, you can still appreciate the music, but that isn't the whole of an opera. And Bach certainly lived in a period where operas were commonplace. He just didn't write one. Handel managed to write both operas and oratorios - and masterful ones, at that.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> Very few composers hit every possible genre, but many hit most and some with pretty consistent results. If believe this is the spirit of the OP. In my limited experience, I'll select..
> 
> Mozart
> Beethoven
> ...


I'll be honest and say that I am fairly ignorant of most of Stravinsky's work. I know him most obviously for his ballets, I know he wrote a violin concerto, and am somewhat familiar with his Symphony of Psalms. He is kind of a fringe element for me - I like the Rites of Spring, but it kind of goes downhill for me from there, so I haven't had as much desire to explore further.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

DrMike said:


> I'll be honest and say that I am fairly ignorant of most of Stravinsky's work. I know him most obviously for his ballets, I know he wrote a violin concerto, and am somewhat familiar with his Symphony of Psalms. He is kind of a fringe element for me - I like the Rites of Spring, but it kind of goes downhill for me from there, so I haven't had as much desire to explore further.


He's one of the few 20th century composers I've had large exposure to. My father liked Stravinsky so I was exposed to quite a bit in my youth. I also always liked his "Rock Star Persona" which led me to explore his works in greater depth. I'm still debating on whether to purchase his complete works from Amazon. I'm more afraid of freezing my Mac again than spending the money.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

DrMike said:


> Not many people do. Keyboard instruments seem to be the most amenable to writing purely solo music due to the fact that you can have both a melody and a continuo with the same instrument. Some have managed to mimic that on other instruments - think of Bach's Cello Suites and Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin - but it is a much more difficult thing. That is how it was explained to me, for what it's worth. I am not an expert, so others might chime in.
> 
> Right off the top of my head, I don't know of any other solo instrument works by Mozart. Did he write any solo organ works - although, again, that is just another keyboard instrument, even though composing for it is significantly different than for piano/harpsichord/clavichord/fortepiano. But someone else might chime in.


I see.
However, this technically makes Prokofiev (who wrote music for violins only) more complete than Mozart, no?

(unless you count a harp concerto or a horn concerto as a genre on his own rather than "concertos other than piano or violin").


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Did Mozart write suites?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> No composer was more complete than Mozart. He had his finger in practically every type of musical form.
> 
> Bach. No. He composed no opera or symphonies.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ - Mozart isn't well known for writing great oratorios, for example.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

*Tchaikovsky* (excelled in ballets, symphonies, concerti, symphonic poems, overtures, chamber works; very fine in operas and songs as well as suites; quite decent in piano and liturgical works). Also a great melodist and a very good orchestrator.

*Glazunov* (excelled in chamber works and ballets; very fine in symphonies, concerti, suites, and symphonic fantasies and poem (Stenka Razin) as well as piano works; decent in choral and incidental works as well as in his only operatic attempt (in his participation in completing Prince Igor); not bad in songs and works for organ). Also a very good melodist, a great orchestrator (if dense at times), and a great contrapuntist.

*Rachmaninoff* (excelled in liturgical works, piano works, songs, symphonies (arguably), concerti (arguably); very fine in chamber works, symphonic poems, misc. orchestral works, and operas). Also a great melodist and a very good orchestrator.

*Nielsen* (excelled in symphonies, concerti, and songs; very good in chamber works, works for the stage (operas and incidental music), and choral music; decent in keyboard works, although his Commotio for organ is excellent). Also a very decent melodist and orchestrator, and a great musical communicator a la humanist.

Worth thinking about: Berlioz, Liszt, Goldmark, Myaskovsky, Bax, Reger, Draeseke, Delius, Elgar, Stanford, Dvorak, Weinberg, Gal, perhaps Poulenc.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I have the most intense desire suddenly to rate this thread 1 star. As if that will prove anything!

To me, composers being complete is unimportant and uninteresting. Even if a composer composed one piece which I can consistently enjoy, he did something worthwhile!!

Pachelbel comes to mind.


----------



## binkley (Feb 2, 2013)

Stavrogin said:


> Did Mozart write suites?


Is there a practical difference between a serenade and a suite? Or a divertimento and a suite?


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Bach. No. He composed no opera or symphonies.
> 
> Handel. No. No symphonies.


No operas is a valid point. No symphonies in the baroque era? That'd be more like nailing Beethoven for no tone poems.

Anyway, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, maybe Handel....obvious choices. I'm also a tad bit confused about the guy that said no to Schumann. The guy wrote an opera and multiple oratorios and liturgical works in addition to the symphonies, piano works, chamber works, songs and concerti that everyone knows. Tchaikovsky sounds like a good pick too, although his piano catalogue is a bit wanting (I guess in the same sense that Schumann's operatic/choral catalogue is wanting...not TOO much).

I would nominate Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Hindemith, and Martinu for the 20th century. Martinu's catalogue reads like a modern day Mozart's...


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

binkley said:


> Is there a practical difference between a serenade and a suite? Or a divertimento and a suite?


I don't know.
I'd say they are smaller scale compositions (both in terms of ensemble and duration) than a suite.
Or maybe they are just subsets of a bigger set called "suites"? In which case, I guess that yes, he did write suites.
But I really don't know if/how those "labels" differ. Someone more expert might chime in.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> I don't know.
> I'd say they are smaller scale compositions (both in terms of instruments and duration) than a suite.
> Or maybe they are just subsets of a bigger set called "suites"? In which case, I guess that yes, he did write suites.
> But I really don't know if/how those "labels" differs. Someone more expert might chime in.


Mozart's serenades were certainly not of smaller scale than the average suite. Most of his famous ones (Gran Partita, Haffner, Posthorn) are longer than his average symphony!


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I beg to differ - Mozart isn't well known for writing great oratorios, for example.


Really? That's your objection against Mozart? He wrote plenty of well-acclaimed, large-scale religious works (at least 18 masses and the Requiem) even if none of them are specifically categorized as "oratorios." I'm not really sure how one would even construct a case against Mozart; aside from solo instrumental, sonatas for instruments other than the violin, and some types of concertos (cello or trumpet for example), he has lasting works in practically every genre of his day and even of the present, for the most part.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Mozart's serenades were certainly not of smaller scale than the average suite. Most of his famous ones (Gran Partita, Haffner, Posthorn) are longer than his average symphony!


True.
However, both serenades and divertimenti have a specific mood, which is not necessarily featured in a suite.
But again, they could be just defined "light-hearted suites"? Possibly.

Back on topic, I do think that both Mozart and Prokofiev stand out in terms of completeness


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DrMike said:


> I'll be honest and say that I am fairly ignorant of most of Stravinsky's work. I know him most obviously for his ballets, I know he wrote a violin concerto, and am somewhat familiar with his Symphony of Psalms. He is kind of a fringe element for me - I like the Rites of Spring, but it kind of goes downhill for me from there, so I haven't had as much desire to explore further.


Stravinsky's whole oeuvre is worth getting to know well. In regards to genres, his solo piano music is probably the least successful or important part of his work, and he didn't write very much chamber music (though some of it is quite fine, like the Duo Concertant), but there's so much to explore in his operas, choral works, concertos, orchestral pieces, and the less familiar ballets (Apollo, Orpheus, Agon), as well as those harder to classify gems like the Ebony Concerto or Persephone.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I think by complete is meant "well-rounded"? As in master of many forms.

Using that criterion Mozart has no equal.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

shangoyal said:


> I have the most intense desire suddenly to rate this thread 1 star. As if that will prove anything!
> 
> To me, composers being complete is unimportant and uninteresting. Even if a composer composed one piece which I can consistently enjoy, he did something worthwhile!!
> 
> Pachelbel comes to mind.


Unimportant that a composer could excel in every considerable genre of music? Surely you jest!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Beethoven was well-rounded, but his opera output is pretty paltry, even if Fidelio is a fine opera.
> 
> Haydn is the same - yes, he wrote operas, but I don't think any of them rank highly on most peoples' list of favorites. Still, he comes in second, for me, in terms of completeness.
> 
> Of course, the problem also arises with comparing different eras. Symphonies were not really a thing in the Baroque era. So it isn't quite fair to compare Bach and Handel to Mozart and Beethoven. Better, still, to compare them based on how complete they were for their particular era - and in that case, I think Handel trumps Bach, primarily because of the operatic output.


Yes. However when considering "well-rounded", so many good to great composers hadn't even written ONE opera.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Stavrogin said:


> Did Mozart write suites?


No but he wrote some sweet piano concertos.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I beg to differ - Mozart isn't well known for writing great oratorios, for example.


Yeah, but nobody has written so much quality in quantity across so many different forms. Nobody!


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Yes. However when considering "well-rounded", so many good to great composers hadn't even written ONE opera.


True. Brahms does not have one, neither does Schubert, or Chopin. Most importantly, Bach has none to his name.

For me, this issue is not critical at all, other than as a curiosity. Do I lament the fact that Beethoven didn't write more operas? Not in the least. I am quite happy with what he did write. I don't enjoy Mozart because he wrote in so many different genres - I enjoy Mozart because I like much of what he composed.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DrMike said:


> True. Brahms does not have one, neither does Schubert, or Chopin. Most importantly, Bach has none to his name.
> 
> For me, this issue is not critical at all, other than as a curiosity. Do I lament the fact that Beethoven didn't write more operas? Not in the least. I am quite happy with what he did write. I don't enjoy Mozart because he wrote in so many different genres - I enjoy Mozart because I like much of what he composed.


Of course, none of this means anything. If you hate opera, who cares that Brahms never wrote one?

It just reminds me of what a one in a million phenom Mozart was!!


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DrMike said:


> True. Brahms does not have one, neither does Schubert, or Chopin. Most importantly, Bach has none to his name.
> 
> For me, this issue is not critical at all, other than as a curiosity. Do I lament the fact that Beethoven didn't write more operas? Not in the least. I am quite happy with what he did write. I don't enjoy Mozart because he wrote in so many different genres - I enjoy Mozart because I like much of what he composed.


Schubert *does* have operas. Five of them, actually. True, they weren't succesful but that's mostly because of the poor libretti. I've heard parts of Claudio Abbado's recording of Fierrabras, very good imo (not that I've heard many operas).


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Yeah, but nobody has written so much quality in quantity across so many different forms. Nobody!


Very well put indeed.


----------



## binkley (Feb 2, 2013)

I think the genius demonstrated by "completeness" is significant, at least in terms of biographical interest. For me, the astonishing breadth of Mozart doesn't diminish one iota the genius of specialists such as Wagner, Chopin or Paganini.

Moving on, Shostakovich was no slouch in the completeness department.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Say what you will, in THIS particular contest, nobody even approaches Mozart.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

In terms of completeness, I think it's fairly objective to put Mozart at the top of this list, after that I think it may be safe to say Beethoven. After those two, I couldn't put them in order.

So, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Stravinsky (or Tchaikovsky?), Mendelssohn


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

What about Dvorak? Orchestral works, piano music, operas, chamber and choral music.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Hindemith may be the sleeper in this race.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Der Leiermann said:


> What about Dvorak? Orchestral works, piano music, operas, chamber and choral music.


Yes, definitely another contender. It's almost impossible to not neglect a worthy composer when you can only name 5 composers.

Also, in terms of completeness, can't this be determined objectively/statistically? Like using numbers and math and stuff, and all that confusing stuff (math was never my strong point! lol). I'd love to see an object list of the most complete composers.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Hindemith may be the sleeper in this race.


Define "sleeper".


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Stavrogin said:


> Did Mozart write suites?


He wrote one uncompleted suite for keyboard K.399 which is a mix of Bach and Handel's style, and to answer your other question "did he write for solo instruments other than piano?" Yes, the two fantasias for mechanical clock which are now commonly played on the organ.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

Der Leiermann said:


> What about Dvorak? Orchestral works, piano music, operas, chamber and choral music.


Good point. I hadn't considered Dvorak.

Symphonies/orchestral works? Check.
Choral music? Check.
Opera? Check. 
Chamber music? Check in most categories. Piano trios, piano quintets, string quartets, string quintets . . .
Concerti? Check.
I have to admit I am ignorant of his piano music output. I need to look into this - he is one of my favorite composers. Easily top 5.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Define "sleeper".


One who is not awake.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Define "sleeper".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_hit

Though probably wishful thinking :lol: In any case, I see somebody else beat me to him, so I'll mention another wide-ranging talent: Ottorino Respighi. Great all-rounder, even though nobody (outside the forum) ever talks about anything except his tone poems.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Stavrogin said:


> I don't know.
> I'd say they are smaller scale compositions (both in terms of ensemble and duration) than a suite.
> Or maybe they are just subsets of a bigger set called "suites"? In which case, I guess that yes, he did write suites.
> But I really don't know if/how those "labels" differ. Someone more expert might chime in.


You're getting way to specific here.

The OP smartly stuck with general categories: chamber, opera, solo instrumental, etc. He mentioned symphonic works, but not specifically symphonies.

Neither Debussy nor Bartok wrote symphonies, but they wrote pieces that could have been called that.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Yes, yes. Tchaikovsky and Dvorak are both excellent options as well, and would absolutely make my top 10. Also, if Brahms is mentioned, then surely Schubert would qualify as well. Schubert never wrote a concerto but Brahms didn't complete his first symphony until he was 42/43 years old. It's staggering to think what Schubert may have accomplished given even 5 more years, let alone reaching the age Brahms completed Symphony 1. Certainly a concerto or two and more operas would have been possible. The genres Schubert did explore, he did remarkable well in. So I'll cast a vote for my old buddy Franz.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

^^^a seconding for grand maestro Schubert. I am often staggered by his phenomenal output and feel more cheated by his early death than with others. I mean, if he had even lived as long as Mozart the mind boggles. Most of my favourite Mozart works were written after his 33rd birthday!!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

poconoron said:


> I would be interested in learning opinions on the following question: "Who were the 5 most complete composers in musical history..............that is, those who could do it in all genres - from choral music to chamber music to solo instrumental music to concertos to operas to symphonic music? Also who were well versed in counterpoint, harmony and melody.
> 
> And all of the above resulting in compositions produced at the very highest level.
> 
> ...


They happen to be my five personal greatest favorites as well. Pure and simple.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

poconoron said:


> Unimportant that a composer could excel in every considerable genre of music? Surely you jest!


No, it's just quite a personal opinion. I am a consumer of music I like - wherever I can find it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DrMike said:


> One who is not awake.


Ahh....as in "Sleepers, Awake!!"


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

MagneticGhost said:


> ^^^a seconding for grand maestro Schubert. I am often staggered by his phenomenal output and feel more cheated by his early death than with others. I mean, if he had even lived as long as Mozart the mind boggles. Most of my favourite Mozart works were written after his 33rd birthday!!


Yes! Schubert, above all, is the composer that I wish to have lived longer.

One can only imagine had he lived to at least to his mid-fifties. It boggles my mind.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Stavrogin said:


> I apologize for my ignorance, but did Mozart write music for solo instruments other than piano?


No, he didn´t. It´s a less important fact, though.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> No, he didn´t. It´s a less important fact, though.


He did write some Organ works.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

joen_cph said:


> No, he didn´t. It´s a less important fact, though.


If you read the other pages you'd see I mentioned his fantasias for mechanical clock/organ: k.594, k.608.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I´m aware of this but would categorize it as mainly keyboard music.

If there were works for solo wind instruments or solo string instruments, not to say substantial ones, this could be said to illlustrate a multi-facetted talent maybe in the case of some other composers - but with Mozart, it is not really the case, his excellent instrumental writing in ensembles already speaking for itself.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

poconoron said:


> I would be interested in learning opinions on the following question: "Who were the 5 most complete composers in musical history..............that is, those who could do it in all genres - from choral music to chamber music to solo instrumental music to concertos to operas to symphonic music? Also who were well versed in counterpoint, harmony and melody.
> 
> And all of the above resulting in compositions produced at the very highest level.
> 
> ...


Is the Bach in your post refering to J.S, C.P.E., or P.D.Q.?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

poconoron said:


> Certain "great" composers like Chopin, Wagner, Verdi, Schumann were too genre-specific to be considered, IMHO.


Wagner transcends such trifles as "genres" to complete the _Gesamtkunstwerk, _the all-encompassing art of a purity first conceived in Ancient Greece. The pretty pieces of Mozart and Beethoven were but distractions endured to get there.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I would say:
Mozart
Stravinsky
Vaughan Williams
Bach
Haydn


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk ambitions - with various added effects such as those of light and colour shows, spatial effects, public rituals, mystery symbolism etc. - also apply to Scriabin´s "Final Mystery", Obuchov´s "The Book of Life" and Stockhausen´s "Licht" cycle, to mention some.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Yeah, but nobody has written so much quality in quantity across so many different forms. Nobody!


nah, no great oratorios. Haydn got him there. Plus, Mozart's greatest quartets and symphonies would've sounded different if not for Haydn.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Hovhaness maybe....
Definitely Ligeti albeit without symphonies 
Mozart wrote fine examples in every genre
Stravinsky and Shostakovich may be the most "complete" when it comes to the 20th century 
Don't discount Sibelius! He wrote tonnes of music in almost every genre and most of it is sadly neglected!
Bach, although for some reason I think of him partly as "genre specific" to church music (choral music, organ music) even though he wrote a smaller amount of non-church music which have arguably become better known. 
Hildegard was a mastermind and very unusual in composing both secular and sacred works as a nun in the 12th century! Many genres of the time were explored by her which I suppose not many of her contemporaries did (although I may be proven otherwise if anyone knows more).


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> nah, no great oratorios. Haydn got him there. Plus, Mozart's greatest quartets and symphonies would've sounded different if not for Haydn.


Just throwing it out there, but wouldn't all great composers have sounded different if not for the greats who came before them and influenced them? I'm not sure how Haydn's influence on Mozart affects Mozart's well-roundedness or completeness.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Tchaikovsky and Mozart are the most obvious I think.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Machaut
Josquin
Carter
Mozart
Bach


----------



## Harrytjuh (Apr 4, 2013)

Hindemith wrote much more than you would think, sonatas for almost all instruments, operas, and lots of concertos, like his horn concerto 
Shostakovich shouldn't be ruled out I think, although I know no ballets...
Bartók has written in many genres (not much though): an opera, two ballets, an oratoria, six string quartets, many solo piano works, songs, and symphony-like pieces.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Just throwing it out there, but wouldn't all great composers have sounded different if not for the greats who came before them and influenced them? I'm not sure how Haydn's influence on Mozart affects his well-roundedness or completeness.


I'd say Haydn is the most well-rounded composer - in every field, tons of amazing music. Can't go wrong with that guy. Symphonies, oratorios, masses, piano trios, quartets, piano sonatas, some great concertos (cello conertos, trumpet concerto), songs, etc.

Hard to narrow it down to 5: I'd have to include Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert and one of the following - Brahms, Bach, Telemann, Handel.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Ahh....as in "Sleepers, Awake!!"


Nah, more along the lines of, "The Sleeper must awaken."


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I'm with hpowders on this one Mozart stands head and shoulders over everyone in this discussion.
He excelled in each of the areas he composed for, no weaknesses 
Haydn and Beethoven are fighting for second place for me with the rest of the field behind


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Gustav Mahler, any of his works have seconds of all the traits of the musical world!

/ptr


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Der Leiermann said:


> What about Dvorak? Orchestral works, piano music, operas, chamber and choral music.


Good point.........I hadn't considered him at first blush.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Triplets said:


> Is the Bach in your post refering to J.S, C.P.E., or P.D.Q.?


Johann Sebastian.


----------



## Pip (Aug 16, 2013)

I don't know how anyone can say that Mozart did not write for other solo instruments.

Clarinet Concerto K622
Flute Concerto K313
Flute & Harp K299
Bassoon Concerto K191
4 Horn Concertos K412 K417, K447, K495


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Not sure if serious...


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Pip said:


> I don't know how anyone can say that Mozart did not write for other solo instruments.
> 
> Clarinet Concerto K622
> Flute Concerto K313
> ...


They mean solo music as in only that instrument not instrument+orchestra...


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Haydn man said:


> I'm with hpowders on this one Mozart stands head and shoulders over everyone in this discussion.
> He excelled in each of the areas he composed for, no weaknesses
> Haydn and Beethoven are fighting for second place for me with the rest of the field behind


I agree Mozart stands well above the others in the most complete, all-around composer category. In a somewhat crude baseball analogy - Willie Mays is generally considered the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time, though Ted Williams may have been the greatest pure hitter, Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron hit more homeruns, Rickie Henderson stole far more bases, etc., etc.

And Haydn himself said _"Friends often flatter me that l have some genius, but he (Mozart) stood far above me."_

My list at this point in time stands:

1. Mozart, by a considerable margin, 
2. Beethoven (despite just one opera)
3. Haydn for the vast array and quality across all genres
4. JS Bach, with oratorios substituting for operas
5. Handel, ditto Bach

But Dvorak, Tsaichovsky and some others are strong contenders and may have a legitimate claim to a top 5 position.

This thread has made me take new interest in Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schubert, Debussy and others.

Keep it coming, guys and gals.


----------



## Harrytjuh (Apr 4, 2013)

I wouldn't put Beethoven that high, he wrote only one opera, concertos for only two different instruments, and his solo output isn't that big either...


----------



## binkley (Feb 2, 2013)

Harrytjuh said:


> I wouldn't put Beethoven that high, he wrote only one opera, concertos for only two different instruments, and his solo output isn't that big either...


I think 32 piano sonatas is pretty impressive output, but otherwise I agree -- LvB tops my list of great composers, but falls short of my "most complete" list.

Fidelio has some nice arias and choruses (not to mention a world-record number of overtures!), but I have a hard time viewing singspiel as great opera. Also, try as I might, I can't warm up to his choral works (the sole exception being the last movement of the 9th symphony).


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Harrytjuh said:


> I wouldn't put Beethoven that high, he wrote only one opera, concertos for only two different instruments, and his solo output isn't that big either...


Well, let's see...

9 Symphonies
Violin Concerto
Triple Concerto
5 Piano Concertos
Choral Fantasy
1 Opera
Overtures
Incidental Music (i.e., Egmont, King Stephen, Ruins of Athens)
Ballet (Creatures of Prometheus)
Romances

10 Violin Sonatas
32 Piano Sonatas
5 Cello Sonatas
Horn Sonata
Piano Trios
VARIATIONS 
String Trios
String Quartets
String Quintets
Preludes and Fugues
Quintets
Septets
Serenades
Trios
Bagatelles
Polonaises
Fantasias
Rondos

Mass in C Major
Missa Solemnis
Oratorios (!)
Cantatas (!)
Recitatives

a ton of Lieder/songs (the inventor of the Song-Cycle)
Folk Song arrangements
Secular Vocal Work
Music for Wind Band

But yes, he did only write one Opera.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Actually, has anyone mentioned Tchaikovsky yet? He was quite well-rounded...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'm surprised more people aren't mentioning Medieval and early Renaissance composers. It's pretty easy to be well rounded when all you have to worry about are masses, motets and part songs.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Seems to me that the king of instruments has received little attention on this thread. Bach didn't have operas, but his organ works easily make up for it. Mozart is held up as the best well-rounded composer, but where are his wonderful organ compositions?


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Bulldog said:


> Seems to me that the king of instruments has received little attention on this thread. Bach didn't have operas, but his organ works easily make up for it. Mozart is held up as the best well-rounded composer, but where are his wonderful organ compositions?


There are maybe a handful of good ones, but you have to dig for them:






I prefer the more mellow pieces, though:


----------

