# most prolific composers



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

Hi there, 

I was wondering would anyone be able to name some of the most prolific composers. I know that Telemann is top of the list usually. If you knew somewhere on the web where number of each composer's works was given that would also be great. Who springs to mind?


Jai


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Try the online New Grove Dictionary of music and musicians. It's constantly updated and a very reliable source. You can also go to websites dedicated to specific composers.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Didn't Haydn write like 3,000 symphonies?

Radio announcer: And now, the 2, 459th symphony of Joseph Haydn, the "Jellyfish SYmphony."


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> Didn't Haydn write like 3,000 symphonies?
> 
> Radio announcer: And now, the 2, 459th symphony of Joseph Haydn, the "Jellyfish SYmphony."


Don't forget his 2500 string quartets, 1890 piano sonatas, 484 operas, 6400 songs, 1450 string trios, 101 oratorios, 745, violin concertos, and 326 piano concertos. In fact he wrote so much the publishers couldn't keep with him. They tried to slow him down using sedatives but all to no avail. He kept on spewing them out. Of course, 99% of his stupendous output never saw the light of day in his own lifetime, but was kept for posterity. It provided a ready source of material for other later "composers" (joke) to mine from, more or less at will. In fact, one theory gaining increasing currency in some musicological circles is that there was no need for any new music until about 1943, and it's all Haydn's up to that date (obviously tarted up in minor fashion to suit the current fashions of the day). So, the greatest symphonists were definitely Haydn, Haydn, Haydn, and Haydn. All the rest were mere scoundrels (not even second raters).


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Andy Loochazee said:


> So, the greatest symphonists were definitely Haydn, Haydn, Haydn, and Haydn. All the rest were mere scoundrels (not even second raters).


No my dear Andy, I believe it's "the rest is silence."


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Andy Loochazee said:


> In fact, one theory gaining increasing currency in some musicological circles is that there was no need for any new music until about 1943, and it's all Haydn's up to that date .


No, Haydn would never write something as hideous as a Sibelius' symphony.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

bdelykleon said:


> No, Haydn would never write something as hideous as a Sibelius' symphony.


Je pense que Sibelius a écrit quelques symphonies merveilleux.

Ich mag besonders Symphonien 2 und 5.

Haydn escribió millares de sinfonías. Convengo que Haydn era symphonist magnífico, y yo estoy seguro que él mucho quisiera el trabajo de Sibelius.

Assim eu penso que você está sendo um pouco injusto.

Scusi prego il mio cambiamento della lingua. Spero che capiate.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

bdelykleon said:


> No, Haydn would never write something as hideous as a Sibelius' symphony.


Sibelius's symphonies are...hideous? What a terribly untrue statement!


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Andy Loochazee said:


> Je pense que Sibelius a écrit quelques symphonies merveilleux.
> 
> Ich mag besonders Symphonien 2 und 5.
> 
> ...


Except in portuguese, there are strange and ungrammatical constructions in all languages, online translators don't work quite well, specially if you don't know the language in question.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> No, Haydn would never write something as hideous as a Sibelius' symphony.


Oh no...Tapkaara's not going to like this statement.


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

For modern day composers i would name Hovhaness as the most prolific (or at least one of the most).

Jim


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

I am shocked at the bad comments on the great Sibelius - one of the greatest symphonists. I was looking at Mozart symphonies which including the unnumbered is over 50. Slacker. I heard once that Martinu wrote way too much and as they usually say in these situations - of uneven quality. 
Hovhaness... I have never heard his music. I must check him out.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Mirror Image said:


> Oh no...Tapkaara's not going to like this statement.


Sadly it's true. Haydn was the master.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Bach said:


> Sadly it's true. Haydn was the master.


There is nothing sad about the truth as it relates to Tapkaara.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Oh no...Tapkaara's not going to like this statement.


Je dis ça seulement pour faire rigoler, Sibelius n'a rien de reprochable, même si je n'aime pas de tout ses symphonies, je reconnais qu'il était maître de sa musique et un trés important compositeur du genre.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Besides Telemann, Martinu & Hovhaness who have already been mentioned, I'd nominate *Heitor Villa-Lobos* as highly prolific (bdelykleon would know this, no doubt)...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

bdelykleon said:


> Je dis ça seulement pour faire rigoler, Sibelius n'a rien de reprochable, même si je n'aime pas de tout ses symphonies, je reconnais qu'il était maître de sa musique et un trés important compositeur du genre.


Oui, il était un maître, et il est impossible de disputer ce fait. Mais quelles sont les symphonies que tu n'aimes pas? Et pourquoi?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Isn't this forum supposed to be in English? Forgive my cultural exclusivity, but I'd like to be able to read what's written, you know...


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Oh, Villa-Lobos was an extremely prolific composer, I've seen estimatives arround 2000 single works, it is hard to assess his works because he was extremely unorganized and didn't keep any record of what he composed. There are several stories about his ease to compose, like when a famous Brazilian conductor asked him about his next symphony searching for it in his apartment, when he told the conductor: "Oh, the symphony isn't there", and pointing to the head "it is here".


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Andre said:


> Isn't this forum supposed to be in English? Forgive my cultural exclusivity, but I'd like to be able to read what's written, you know...


Emmmm, me too...


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

re. Sibelius - certes oui bdelykleon, 'trés important'

I forgot about Villa lobos. I wonder if prolific means that most of what you write doesn't get performed in your lifetime - especially in the 20th Century. It was ok for Bach and Haydn who had a church post and a wealthy court appointment respectively. I wonder how much of Heitor's work has been gathering dust.


----------



## andruini (Apr 14, 2009)

Leif Sergerstam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Segerstam

I mean look at this:

Works
215 Symphonies (on November, 2008)
30 String quartets
13 Violin concertos
8 Cello concertos
4 Viola concertos
4 Piano concertos

The quality of all this is unknown to me as there seems to be no recordings.. (Fail)


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

How is a “prolific” composer defined? 

It could be measured by the number of separate works ever written down by a composer, regardless of length and regardless of whether all those works survive to this day and regardless of whether they form part of the present canon of classical music.

It would be impossible to measure such figures because there are too may gaps in our knowledge for many composers. For example, there isn't any data on the number of works that were abandoned by the composer, or their publishers, after completion. Even if we did have a complete set of such figures, they would be useless because they would tell us nothing about the overall quality of the works. For example, all the works which do not form part of the present canon for that composer could be rubbish. What is the point knowing that Composer X was the most prolific if, say, 90% of his output never saw the light of day, and if the majority of the remainder is not worth the paper they are written on, and hence never performed?

Far more realistically, a starting point for identifying prolific composers should be the number of works which survive to this day which do form part of the present canon, e.g. stocked by record companies or played a reasonable number of times in public concerts. The concept should be refined by taking into account variety of form, and the length of the works overall rather than a simple number count. If such an approach were adopted I don’t think it would throw up any major surprises, as I guess that many of the big name composers that we all know of would appear: Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, etc. We many think of these composers as being "prolific" in the normal sense, but measured in terms of the number/variety of works which form part of the cultural canon of classical music, I bet they would come out on top.

I conclude that the question in the OP is not worth pursuing if the idea is to see who came closest to Telemann as allegedly the most "prolific" composer. Such an approach would, at best, simply produce a list of high output non-entities. All this is pretty obvious really, and I am surprised it wasn't thought out more carefully earlier.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Darius Milhaud was another prolific composer. It's not that often that you listen to a composer's opus 354.

Then you have this guy, who wrote 5000 fugues... 

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


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

Andy - I suppose I am referring to finished works by a composer and also those published since unpublished works are often lost or disgarded. It is hardly 'impossible' as you say if you see that someone has published 500 works to have a good idea of their proliferation. I am talking about those who generally fall within the realm of classical music too and work titles give you an idea of amount of work such as symphony. It won't be shorter than 5 minutes and it will likely be for orchestra. 
'wasn't thought out more carefully' wow, you are a fun guy aren't you. 
This is just for my amusement as it is for everyone here. It is not some kind of tutorial. I have studied music for a very long time Andy, I just happen to find it interesting to throw these ideas around. 
Also it doesn't matter if the stuff was not performed or recorded. That is hardly relevant. I am only talking about compositions not recordings, not a popularity contest. 
Anyway!
*Tres Picos*, thanks for the Milhaud. 
Sechter wrote about 5000 fugues too many, I reckon 

*Andruini* Leif Segerstam and his viola concerti! That is a lot of concertos for a neglected instrument. Beating Haydn on the Symphonies is impressive


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

jaibyrne said:


> Andy - I suppose I am referring to finished works by a composer and also those published since unpublished works are often lost or disgarded. It is hardly 'impossible' as you say if you see that someone has published 500 works to have a good idea of their proliferation. I am talking about those who generally fall within the realm of classical music too and work titles give you an idea of amount of work such as symphony. It won't be shorter than 5 minutes and it will likely be for orchestra.
> 'wasn't thought out more carefully' wow, you are a fun guy aren't you.
> This is just for my amusement as it is for everyone here. It is not some kind of tutorial. I have studied music for a very long time Andy, I just happen to find it interesting to throw these ideas around.
> Also it doesn't matter if the stuff was not performed or recorded. That is hardly relevant. I am only talking about compositions not recordings, not a popularity contest.
> Anyway!


When I said "... wasn't thought out more carefully earlier "I meant that you hadn't explained what you meant by "prolific", and depending on the interpretation widely different answers could result, as I attempted to explain.

You now say you are interested in finished works which are "published". Even so, many such works may be so obscure or trivial in nature that they are hardly worth talking about, except academically perhaps.

I would still maintain that the main criterion should be is whether or not the works form part of the generally accepted canon of classical music, i.e. listed in CD albums or performed regularly. Otherwise you would be involved in counting many trivial and generally insignificant works. With that in mind, I suspect, as I said before, that the likes of Mozart and Schubert may well come out very highly indeed, together with a few others possibly.

I don't mean to spoil your fun, but Wiki is a normally pretty good source of informaton on lists of composers' compositions. If ever I need any advice on issues of this broad nature, that's where I normally go first.

Regards Telemann, I have an interest in this composer but would doubt that much of his enormous output is actually played/recorded all that much. The main pieces that tend to get played on radio, for example, number no more than about 100 pieces at most.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Didn't Haydn write like 3,000 symphonies?
> 
> Radio announcer: And now, the 2, 459th symphony of Joseph Haydn, the "Jellyfish SYmphony."


:
Right on, Tapkaara!


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I don't think being a "prolific" composer is anything to write home or even brag about. In most cases, unless the composer was a crazy, mad genius, when a composer writes a lot of music it's pretty uneven. I would rather a composer write 15 really good works, then 200 mediocre ones.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I don't think being a "prolific" composer is anything to write home or even brag about. In most cases, unless the composer was a crazy, mad genius, when a composer writes a lot of music it's pretty uneven. I would rather a composer write 15 really good works, then 200 mediocre ones.


Although we don't see eye to eye in most matters, I totally agree with you on this one.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

danae said:


> Although we don't see eye to eye in most matters, I totally agree with you on this one.


You actually agree with me on something? This is amazing.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

So, I spent a day browsing Wikipedia, looking for prolific composers...

These are the *current standings*. Please be aware that the numbers in many cases are estimates, and that some lesser known composers might be missing altogether. But still...

1. Sechter 8000+
2. Caldara 3400
3. Telemann 3000+
4. Piazzolla 3000
5. Villa-Lobos 2000+
5. di Lasso 2000+
7. M Praetorius 1300+
7. Vanhal 1300+
9. J S Bach 1100+
10. A Scarlatti 1000?

11. Schubert 998
12. Vivaldi 950
13. C P E Bach 875
14. Czerny 861
15. M Haydn 830+
16. Palestrina 800+
17. J Haydn 750+
18. Seixas 700+
18. D Scarlatti 700+
18. Farkas 700+

21. Reutter 677
22. Händel 640
23. Mozart 626
24. Preyer 600+
25. Molter 600
26. Boccherini 590
27. Pinkham 560
28. Charpentier 550+
29. Segerstam 540
30. Purcell 530+

Just outside the list: 
Pachelbel, Hovhaness, Sammartini, Donizetti, Milhaud, J C Bach, Martinu, Josquin, Liszt, Reinecke, Dittersdorf, Weber, Sweelinck, Busoni, Saint-Saëns, Cimarosa and others.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I didn't know that Piazzolla was so prolific (3000 works). I guess that, as with most of those other composers, most of his output has not seen the light of day, so to speak...


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

How can Seixas have so many works, if almost everything he composed was lost in the Lisbon earthquacke of 1749? I'm a big fan of his and am sorry to acknoledge we have only about 120 pieces of him.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> How can Seixas have so many works, if almost everything he composed was lost in the Lisbon earthquacke of 1749? I'm a big fan of his and am sorry to acknoledge we have only about 120 pieces of him.


If he wrote 700+ pieces (estimate from German Wikipedia), then that's what he should get credit for, I think, even though 600 harpsicord sonatas happened to be lost in the earthquake.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Andre said:


> I didn't know that Piazzolla was so prolific (3000 works). I guess that, as with most of those other composers, most of his output has not seen the light of day, so to speak...


It's easier to be prolific if every work is a two-minute tango rather than a 75-minute symphony.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

TresPicos said:


> It's easier to be prolific if every work is a two-minute tango rather than a 75-minute symphony.


Sadly I'd have to agree with this. Sadly, because I really like Piazzola's music and I respect the man.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

danae said:


> Sadly I'd have to agree with this. Sadly, because I really like Piazzola's music and I respect the man.


Well, I'm sure he wrote all those two-minute tangos for better reasons than just becoming more prolific, so there's really no reason to lose any respect here.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Another prolific composer: Rowan Taylor (3000+)


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I think it’s Telemann that’s regarded as the most prolific composer of all time with 3000 works, many of great length and complexity.
I bet he certainly wrote more semi-quavers than anyone else:lol:


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

The most prolific composers that spring to mind: Telemann, Hovhaness (yes, I know they've already been mentioned), Vivaldi, Milhaud, Leif Segerstam, Saint-Saëns, Leo Ornstein.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Weber surprises me with his inclusion in the 'bubbling under' list - I know he wrote about 90 songs but I can only assume there must also be a hell of a lot of obscure piano and chamber works that bulk up his output?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

TresPicos said:


> So, I spent a day browsing Wikipedia, looking for prolific composers...
> 
> These are the *current standings*.


Shouldn't the ranking be based on number of hours of music, not number of works? Though I understand that the former is more difficult to put together. I came across a guinness world records type book at a used book store about a year ago that listed the top 10 composers who wrote the most hours of music. Sadly, they only accounted for what seemed like big names... it had the usual suspects, Haydn, Bach, Schubert, with Telemann taking the number one position.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

_Carson Cooman_ (1982 - ). 
A busy man, this fellow seems to be approching his opus 1000 now. Never heard a note, but he seems to have a certain reputation in the USA
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2007/June07/Cooman_8559329.htm
http://www.carsoncooman.com/index.html

_Niels Viggo Bentzon_ (1919 - 2000)
664 opuses, including many sets of multiple works (14 x 48 Preludes & Fugues)
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2000/may00/bentzon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Viggo_Bentzon

_Fartein Valen_ (1887 - 1952).
The main works don´t form a very big production, but in addition to that he wrote 25,000 etudes for piano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fartein_Valen


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

TresPicos said:


> So, I spent a day browsing Wikipedia, looking for prolific composers...
> 
> These are the *current standings*. Please be aware that the numbers in many cases are estimates, and that some lesser known composers might be missing altogether. But still...
> 
> ...


For J. Haydn, I've seen sources that counted over 1000 works.


----------

