# Who do you consider to be the Best composers?



## Air

After seeing the worst composers forum, I got tired of the insults and decided to make a forum about best composers.


Tchaikovsky
Prokofiev
Beethoven
Mozart
Shostakovich
Saint-Saens
Rachmaninoff
Mahler
Ravel
Bach

Honorable Mention: Chopin, Liszt, Schubert, Sibelius, Dvorak


----------



## Tapkaara

Funny Saint-Saens and Ravel is on the main list, but Sibelius, Chopin, Liszt, Schubert Dvorak only get honorable mentions.

Sorry, but it's my opinion that this list is flawed even before the discussion has started.

(I don't even like Schubert or Chopin, but these are historically more important composers than Saint-Saens or even Ravel, if you ask me!)

What really constitutes the "best" composer anyway? This type of discussion has been recycled over and over again in this forum and other, never with any type of conclusive results. If you don't like the insults that happened in the other thread, a thread of this type will only beget more insults and hurt feelings when someone tells you the one you think is the best actually sucks.

By the way, my answer is Sibelius. Not 'cause he's the best, but because he's my favorite. How could I say in any way that he is better than Bach or Beethoven? And is Bach really better than Beethoven? Is Mozart better than Bach? Is Prokofiev better than Shostakovich? Is Shostakovich better than Mahler? BUt Mahler is better than Bach...but Bach is not as good as Mozart.

My head hurts.


----------



## World Violist

Bach is the best, I think. Beethoven runs second. I don't know about Mozart, he never really struck as being all he's cracked up to be, no matter how amazing a musician he was and how "perfect" his compositions are. I mean, seriously, anyone can write something that's textbook perfect but it be nothing as good as some ugly, limping thing. (by the way, I think late Mozart is when he really got his stride. Nowhere before is he this good, and that's why I even mention him at all)

Brahms, Sibelius, and Mahler are in the mix somewhere also.


----------



## Weston

That's the thing. We have our favorites and they are the best because they are best for us. It's been a long time since I tried to categorize composers. The more I learn the more I understand that Stravinsky wrote the best Rite of Spring for instance and Mendelssohn wrote the best Hebridean Overture, etc.

Still there is a hiearchy in my composer roster. It gradually changes over time, but today it goes something like this:

1. Beethoven - top composer of all time

2. Next tier but still way up there in the life-changing genius level: J. S. Bach, Vaughan-Williams, Handel, Shostakovich, maybe some others I'm drawing a blank on. 

3. Extaordinary genius level but maybe not life changing: W. A. Mozart, Haydn, Monteverdi, John Dowland, Bruckner, Sibelius, Schubert, Holst, Stravinsky, Telemann, Mendelssohn, D. Scarlatti, and on and on.

4. All the rest of the composers I like a great deal, a list that would fill several threads. It includes (and this is strictly personal taste) Chopin, Berlioz, Prokofiev, Milhaud, and Anonymous, among countless others. 

5. Composers I don't care for much: Schoenberg, Soussa, The Strausses (not Richard), Johann Stamitz, and Nigel Tufnel.

So there you have it, my composer pecking order of the day.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, hell, if I had to pick just ONE, I'd say Beethoven. He has all of the structural soundness and technical knowledge of a Haydn or Mozart, but he also makes music a emotional, dramaitic experience as opposed to just pleasant. Plus, he is sort of THE iconic figure of Western music...I think more people know the name Beethoven than Mozart, and certainly Bach.

Bach is also a candidate. At least, he is certainly better than Mozart, in my ever-so-humble opinion. His tunes are more interesting, and there is just such a level of spiritual depth that is lacking in Moazrt's "tea and pastries" salon music.

Having said all of that, I like Beethoven and Bach a lot, but I do not count them among my personal _favorites_. Just goes to show that best and favorite are two very different things.


----------



## JTech82

That's a pretty unfair list and I think it's stupid to have list like that anyway. What constitutes someone being the best composer? Music is NOT a competition.

Stupid question to ask in my opinion.


----------



## World Violist

JTech82 said:


> That's a pretty unfair list and I think it's stupid to have list like that anyway. What constitutes someone being the best composer? Music is NOT a competition.
> 
> Stupid question to ask in my opinion.


I agree, actually. So much of music is based on individual perception. It's the same problem with the "worst composers" one. Nobody can say a name and have people be able to recognize it and unanimously agree. Actually, I think a name nobody knows as a composer, like "Bartholomew Jenkins" or something, would work best, precisely because it eliminates the chance of anyone opposing you and thus rendering your contribution invalid... or something like that.


----------



## Air

JTech82 said:


> That's a pretty unfair list and I think it's stupid to have list like that anyway. What constitutes someone being the best composer? Music is NOT a competition.
> 
> Stupid question to ask in my opinion.


Yes, I'm starting to feel the tears now. 

I admit it was kind of stupid and I got kind of carried away. "Best" is way too general. I had to mix in personal favorites (Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Ravel, and Saint-Saens, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius) with those I really feel are great (Beethoven, Mahler) and "those who made an impact" (Chopin, Mozart, Bach, Liszt, Schubert). Combined, they make a really funky sounding list like Ravel before Bach, but really I do LIKE Ravel more than Bach, and I do LIKE Prokofiev about the same as Beethoven. (though Beethoven and Bach are obviously the superior)

Of these all, only one probably fills all three spots and that would be Tchaikovsky.

How about this question: Who is/are your personal favorites?

By the way, i know it's hard to answer!


----------



## JTech82

airad2 said:


> Yes, I'm starting to feel the tears now.
> 
> I admit it was kind of stupid and I got kind of carried away. "Best" is way too general. I had to mix in personal favorites (Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Ravel, and Saint-Saens, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius) with those I really feel are great (Beethoven, Mahler) and "those who made an impact" (Chopin, Mozart, Bach, Liszt, Schubert). Combined, they make a really funky sounding list like Ravel before Bach, but really I do LIKE Ravel more than Bach, and I do LIKE Prokofiev about the same as Beethoven. (though Beethoven and Bach are obviously the superior)
> 
> Of these all, only one probably fills all three spots and that would be Tchaikovsky.
> 
> How about this question: Who is/are your personal favorites?
> 
> By the way, i know it's hard to answer!


Now this is my kind of question. My favorite composers are (in no particular order)

Sibelius
Bruckner
Bartok
Dvorak
Nielsen
Mahler
Rachmaninov
Shostakovich
Schubert
Stravinsky
Prokofiev
Haydn
Janacek
Schumann
Ives

I think that about covers it.


----------



## Sid James

I have listed those composers which I think made a great impact on the general course of the history of music. I have also listed the works I think made an important impact. These are not my list of favourites, just those which I think most people can agree objectively were important, compared to others. My list, in order of importance, is:

1. Bach - expanding many forms, including concertos, suites and cantatas
2. Beethoven - expanding the symphonic form
3. Schubert - expanding the symphonic form, transition from classical to romantic
4. Berlioz - establishing romantic music, as in Symphonie Fantastique; Harold in Italy
5. Liszt - composing freer rhapsodic works eg. Piano Concertos, Hungarian Rhapsodies
6. Wagner - revolutionizing the use of the orchestra in his operas
7. Debussy - getting away from the german romantic tradition, establishing impressionism
8. Stravinsky - establishing modernism eg. The Rite of Spring
9. Schonberg - establishing the 12 note system
10. Prokofiev - early works which were at the vanguard of modernism eg. Scythian suite, Visions Fugitives

I think all of these men made an important impact on later music. Some examples: Bach influenced Stravinsky in his neo classical period (eg. the Violin Concerto). The standard set up in Beethoven and Schubert's final symphonies influenced later symphonic composers. Liszt, especially in his piano works, influenced composers like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov and even Debussy to an extent. Wagner's use of the the orchestra greatly influenced Bruckner and to some extent, Mahler. Debussy would make a great impact on later French and English composers in particular. Stravinsky and Prokofiev were iconoclasts, establishing modernism. And Schonberg made a huge impact on his contemporaries and on later generations.


----------



## World Violist

My favorites?

Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Rubbra, Elgar, Britten, Bach, Arvo Part, et al.

I'm sure to remember one right after I post this...


----------



## Tapkaara

Yeah, I'm with those who think this is a fool's errand to name the BEST composer. How can there really be such a thing? 

There are any number of composers who have made important advancements of musical art. I can recognize these composers as important, but it does not have to mean that I like them, though.

My favorites (in alphabetical order): Akira Ifukube, Jean Sibelius


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> Yeah, I'm with those who think this is a fool's errand to name the BEST composer. How can there really be such a thing?
> 
> There are any number of composers who have made important advancements of musical art. I can recognize these composers as important, but it does not have to mean that I like them, though.
> 
> My favorites (in alphabetical order): Akira Ifukube, Jean Sibelius


Ifukube's piece "Sinfonia Tapkaara" is a deeply moving composition that not many people I'm afraid have heard. I own a Naxos recording that I didn't even know I had.

You talked about Ifukube a few days ago, but if you hadn't mentioned him at all I would have forgotten that wonderful piece of music he wrote.

There are certainly so many composers to check out, but he's definitely good at what he does.


----------



## jhar26

-1 Mozart
-2 Beethoven
-3 Bach

The above three are a bit ahead of the rest in terms of the amount of great music in many different genres they composed. I could have put them in any ranking order and be ok with it. The fact that I love opera is the main reason that Mozart is my number one.

Very close behind those three I would put in random order...

-4 Haydn
-5 Handel
-6 Wagner
-7 Schubert

And although they probably wouldn't make the top 10 in a 'historically most important composers list' (although they would both make it to somewhere between number twenty and forty) I have to mention....

-8 Strauss
-9 Puccini

....because they have been so important to me over the years. In fact, there are times when I would put Strauss in terms of how much I enjoy his music as high as number four and Puccini at number five.

Many contenders for my number ten spot. In fact, I enjoy the music of most big name composers. There's enough all-time greatness in Monteverdi for him to make many a top ten. Verdi is another candidate for me, as are Chopin, Berlioz, Brahms and Mahler. But maybe I should have a guy from the modern era in there as well - Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich and Stravinsky are obvious candidates, along with a few others like Debussy and Schoenberg who's music I don't know well enough to say. Too difficult, so I'll leave that number ten spot open.


----------



## confuoco

The best composers are three B:

*Bach* - he is from another world
*Beethoven* - no other composer reached hights of his genius as it is present in his best works
*Brahms* - uncompromisingly good-class music, the best average level of works from all composers

Then there are two genial composers who unfortunately died too early:
*Mozart *
*Schubert*

And finally here is in my opinion the most original composer ever - *Debussy*.

One comment...I think the most of members posting in this thread are talking about their favourite composers and not try to think who really was the best. I think Sibelius wasn't so good composer as Mozart by far, nevertheless I like him more than Mozart.

But I agree that music is not a competition.


----------



## World Violist

confuoco said:


> The best composers are three B:
> 
> *Bach* - he is from another world
> *Beethoven* - no other composer reached hights of his genius as it is present in his best works
> *Brahms* - uncompromisingly good-class music, the best average level of works from all composers
> 
> Then there are two genial composers who unfortunately died too early:
> *Mozart *
> *Schubert*
> 
> And finally here is in my opinion the most original composer ever - *Debussy*.
> 
> One comment...I think the most of members posting in this thread are talking about their favourite composers and not try to think who really was the best. I think Sibelius wasn't so good composer as Mozart by far, nevertheless I like him more than Mozart.
> 
> But I agree that music is not a competition.


You do realize that there was a reply at one point where the author of the thread rethought his question and then posed it as "Who is your favorite composer?" for those of us who would prefer to not make fools of ourselves trying to sort out _the best_ from _the others._

I agree, Brahms was up there among the greatest composers, in the top five I'd say. He burned half of his stuff and therefore what was left became the single most consistently-satisfying body of music of any composer who had ever lived.


----------



## confuoco

World Violist said:


> You do realize that there was a reply at one point where the author of the thread rethought his question and then posed it as "Who is your favorite composer?" for those of us who would prefer to not make fools of ourselves trying to sort out _the best_ from _the others._


I did not, sorry , rather made fool of myself .



World Violist said:


> He burned half of his stuff and therefore what was left became the single most consistently-satisfying body of music of any composer who had ever lived.


I agree and there is one more thing that allowed this...his first published works are surprisingly good and often marked as the best first six opuses in history of music. Beethoven for example did huge progress from his first opuses to Symphony No 9 and late string quartets, but Brahms started as excellent composer and then was going better.


----------



## Tapkaara

JTech82 said:


> Ifukube's piece "Sinfonia Tapkaara" is a deeply moving composition that not many people I'm afraid have heard. I own a Naxos recording that I didn't even know I had.
> 
> You talked about Ifukube a few days ago, but if you hadn't mentioned him at all I would have forgotten that wonderful piece of music he wrote.
> 
> There are certainly so many composers to check out, but he's definitely good at what he does.


Glad you enjoy Ifukube! I'm pleased that you enjoy his music!!

Interesting that no one has yet mentione Mozart as the be all end all greatets composer/genius the world has ever known or will ever know. Looks like Beethoven and and Bach are slightly ahead of the game at this point. I like this. Mozart certainly deserves much praise, but he is not, despite his genius, the "best" composer. If there ever could be such a thing, I think Beethevon and Bach are certainly more deserving.

Brahms? Here's a another one who is popular who I just do not get excited about. Well, if we all liked the same thing, what fun would these forums be?


----------



## jhar26

Tapkaara said:


> Interesting that no one has yet mentione Mozart as the be all end all greatets composer/genius the world has ever known or will ever know.


Maybe not, but there was one member who came very close to doing just that.


----------



## JTech82

Another composer people seem to forget about, maybe due to the fact that he has only in recent years been getting more attention, is Glazunov. Anyone interested in this Russian composer should check out the Royal Scottish National Orchestra with Jose Serebrier.

I'm just waiting for this full symphony cycle to be released in a box set. Glazunov for those who don't know already was looked at as kind of a heir to Tchaikovsky, but he went out on his own to prove himself and one of Glazunov's students was none other than Shostakovich! Interesting.

Here is what has been released with Jose Serebrier and the RSNO so far:


----------



## Weston

Tapkaara said:


> Glad you enjoy Ifukube! I'm pleased that you enjoy his music!!
> 
> . . .
> 
> Brahms? Here's a another one who is popular who I just do not get excited about. Well, if we all liked the same thing, what fun would these forums be?


You folks are making me want ot check out this composer, Ifukube, and I can think of few greater services one person can do for another than to introduce them to new art / music. Many thanks.

Brahms is hit and miss with me. Today at work I listened to his Serenade No 1 for orchestra and his 3rd and 4th symphonies. Beautiful - just beautiful. But I find much of his piano music to be in the murky lower registers and not to my liking. He's one of those composers I want to like a LOT, but I'm not there yet.


----------



## confuoco

Weston said:


> Brahms is hit and miss with me. Today at work I listened to his Serenade No 1 for orchestra and his 3rd and 4th symphonies. Beautiful - just beautiful. But I find much of his piano music to be in the murky lower registers and not to my liking. He's one of those composers I want to like a LOT, but I'm not there yet.


I love his piano music, especially *Op. 118* is probably the most beautiful solo piano music work I know, with its "autumn" and nostalgic mood. On the other hand, I love his heroic *Variations on a Theme by Paganini* - just thrilling. One superb intepretation is on youtube (not very available on CDs):






And also *Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Händel* and many other piano works. *Waltzs* for 4 hands - unbelievable.


----------



## Tapkaara

I'm just going to mention that I am not a big fan of Glazunov. And yes, I've had my fill of him. In 2006 i was living in L.A. and both of their local classical stations (Kmozart, KUSC...home of the funny voiced Jim Svejda..love you Jim!) played TONS of Glazunov. I guess the program directors of either station had a thing for this guy! Anyway, whenever Glazunov came on, it was enough to induce a coma. Nicely orchestrated and all, but ultimately characterless, if I may state my OPINION.

So, I certainly don't think Glazunov should be considered in a discussion of the greatest composers, not by a long shot.

By the way Jtech, I'm trying to get an Akira Ifukube thread off the ground here if you are interested:

http://www.talkclassical.com/4394-akira-ifukube.html


----------



## JTech82

Who said anything about Glazunov being one of the greatest composers? All I said was he's not talked about that much. Regardless of what you think, "Seasons" is a beautiful piece of work.

As for Ifukube, no thanks I'll pass. He wasn't that great of a composer or at least as great as you make him out to be. He certainly isn't on par with my favorite composer Sibelius. Maybe he meant something to you emotionally speaking, but all I did was comment on one of his works and said I liked it. That's about as far as it goes. I wouldn't make a habit out of listening to him.

Now Sibelius, Prokofiev, Nielsen, Bruckner, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich on the other hand, I can't live without.


----------



## Tapkaara

Man Jtech, you are a fiesty little thing.

And yes, Ifukube IS on par with Sibelius. But that is my opinon.

See, we all have opinions in this forum!


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> Man Jtech, you are a fiesty little thing.
> 
> And yes, Ifukube IS on par with Sibelius. But that is my opinon.
> 
> See, we all have opinions in this forum!


Yes, we all have opinions and I DISAGREE about Ifukube being on the same level as Sibelius. In your opinion, perhaps he is, but like I said you have an emotional attachment to Ifukube and not me.


----------



## Tapkaara

Of course I have an emotional connection to Ifukube...I have this attachment to any of the composers I like. 

By the way, did you know Sibelius was an admirer of Ifukube? Great minds think alike!

But we are digressing too much at this point. All futher discussion on THIS topic should be moved to the Ifukube thread, but alas, it remains empty. 

OK, so who really is the best composer?


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> Of course I have an emotional connection to Ifukube...I have this attachment to any of the composers I like.
> 
> By the way, did you know Sibelius was an admirer of Ifukube? Great minds think alike!


Who cares if Sibelius admired him or not? I sure don't.

You're the only one on this site, so far, who even talks about Ifukube. I mean the guy did a few orchestral works and did the soundtrack for Godzilla. I'm not impressed.


----------



## Tapkaara

And I respect your opinion, Jtech.


----------



## JTech82

I think Nielsen is one of the greatest composers of all-time, but that's just my opinion. He seems to not get enough recognition. Even though his works are readily available and have been performed by many world-class symphonies.

I'm listening to Shostakovich's Symphony No. 15 right now and it's pretty brutal. I think Shostakovich's compositional style is just amazing. I like the contrasts between lightness and darkness found in his pieces much like Prokofiev. Going in and out of shadow.


----------



## Tapkaara

I need to try to get into Nielsen some more. I have a disc of his 2nd and 3rd symphonies. The 3rd is quite good! I have also heard snippets of his 4th which also sounds good. 

Shostakovich is a great composer, certainly worthy of being mentioned in a thread like this. He is one of the great symphonists of the 20th century, better generally than Prokofiev in that genre, I think. Shostakovich is just more accessible, generally, than Prokofiev, but I like Prokofiev too.

But again, this is not really a competition. While Shostakovich had better technical skill in the symphony, in my humble and never to be taken as the holy gospel opinion, doesn't mean that I cannot enjoy both.


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> I need to try to get into Nielsen some more. I have a disc of his 2nd and 3rd symphonies. The 3rd is quite good! I have also heard snippets of his 4th which also sounds good.
> 
> Shostakovich is a great composer, certainly worthy of being mentioned in a thread like this. He is one of the great symphonists of the 20th century, better generally than Prokofiev in that genre, I think. Shostakovich is just more accessible, generally, than Prokofiev, but I like Prokofiev too.
> 
> But again, this is not really a competition. While Shostakovich had better technical skill in the symphony, in my humble and never to be taken as the holy gospel opinion, doesn't mean that I cannot enjoy both.


What do you own by Nielsen?

Shostakovich had better skill writing for symphony than Prokofiev. I DISAGREE with that. I guess you never heard Prokofiev's Symphony No. 2, then have you? What Prokofiev have you heard?

Shostakovich and Prokofiev are two of my favorite composers, because they carved a very different path in classical music while keeping an eye on the tradition of the symphony.


----------



## thePianoMan

In my opinion:

1: Rachmaninoff
2: Beethoven
3: Shostakovich
4: Debussy or Tchaikovsky


----------



## JTech82

I also love Debussy and Ravel. They composed some of the most melodic music I've ever heard.

I finally broke down and bought the Jean Martinon 8-disc EMI box set the other day:










Here's that box set's track listing:

La Mer, symphonic sketches (3) for orchestra, L. 109 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Nocturnes, for female chorus & orchestra, L. 91 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune (Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun), for orchestra, L. 86 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with Alain Marion 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Marche écossaise, sur un thème populaire, for piano, 4 hands (or orchestra), L. 77 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Berceuse héroïque for piano (or orchestra), L. 132 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Le roi Lear (King Lear), incidental music, for orchestra, L. 107 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Jeux, ballet, L. 126 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Images (3), for orchestra, L. 122 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Printemps, symphonic suite for chorus, piano & orchestra, L. 61 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with Michel Sendrez, Fabienne Boury 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Children's Corner, suite for piano (or orchestra), L. 113 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with Jules Goetgheluck 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Petite suite (4), for piano, 4 hands (or orchestra), L. 65 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Danses sacrée et profane, for chromatic harp & string orchestra, L. 103 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with Marie-Claire Jamet 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

La boîte à joujoux (The Toybox), ballet, L. 128 I. le Magasin de jouets 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

La boîte à joujoux (The Toybox), ballet, L. 128 II. Le Champ de bataille 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

La boîte à joujoux (The Toybox), ballet, L. 128 III. La Bergerie à vendre 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

La boîte à joujoux (The Toybox), ballet, L. 128 IV. Après fortune faite 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Fantaisie for piano & orchestra, L. 73 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with Aldo Ciccolini 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

La plus que lente, waltz for piano (or orchestra), L. 121 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with John Leach 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Rhapsodie for clarinet & piano (or orchestra), L. 116 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with Guy Dangain 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Rhapsody for alto saxophone & orchestra (or piano), L. 98 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with Jean-Marie Loneix 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Khamma, ballet, L. 125 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
with Fabienne Boury 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Tarantelle styrienne (Danse), for piano (or orchestra), L. 69 
Composed by Claude Debussy 
Performed by Orchestre National de l' O.R.T.F. 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Boléro, ballet for orchestra (or piano) 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
with Marcel Galiegue 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Une barque sur l'océan, for orchestra 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Ma mère l'oye, ballet for orchestra 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Alborada del Gracioso, for orchestra 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
with Andre Sennedat 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Rhapsodie espagnole, for orchestra (or 2 pianos) 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Shéhérazade--Fairy Overture, for orchestra (or 2 pianos) 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

La valse, poème choréographique for orchestra 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Le tombeau de Couperin, for orchestra 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Menuet antique, for piano (or orchestra) 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Pavane pour une infante défunte, for piano (or orchestra) 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
with Michel Garcin-Marrou 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Valses (8) nobles et sentimentales, for piano (or orchestra) 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Daphnis et Chloé, ballet for orchestra 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Piano Concerto in D major (for the left hand) 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
with Aldo Ciccolini 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Piano Concerto in G major 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
with Jean-Claude Malgoire, Aldo Ciccolini 
Conducted by Jean Martinon

Tzigane, rhapsodie de concert, for violin & piano (or orchestra) 
Composed by Maurice Ravel 
Performed by Paris Orchestra (members of) 
with Itzhak Perlman 
Conducted by Jean Martinon


----------



## Tapkaara

JTech82 said:


> What do you own by Nielsen?
> 
> Shostakovich had better skill writing for symphony than Prokofiev. I DISAGREE with that. I guess you never heard Prokofiev's Symphony No. 2, then have you? What Prokofiev have you heard?
> 
> Shostakovich and Prokofiev are two of my favorite composers, because they carved a very different path in classical music while keeping an eye on the tradition of the symphony.


I have heard all of Prokofiev's symphonies, including the 2nd. I also have heard all of Shostkovich. It is my assertion that Shostakovich was a better symphonist.

Yes, I have a dsic of Nielsen's 2nd and 3rd Symphony, also his Violin Concerto.


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> I have heard all of Prokofiev's symphonies, including the 2nd. I also have heard all of Shostkovich. It is my assertion that Shostakovich was a better symphonist.
> 
> Yes, I have a dsic of Nielsen's 2nd and 3rd Symphony, also his Violin Concerto.


You know Tapkaara saying you have heard something doesn't always mean you understand it right away.

Do you OWN all of Prokofiev's symphonies? Do you own all of Nielsen's symphonies?

Claiming that you've heard them doesn't mean that you fully understand and connect with them. I this is why ownership is so important, because when you own something you can hear it forever.

After you've heard Prokofiev's symphonies at least 3 times all the way through. Get back with me.


----------



## Tapkaara

JTech82 said:


> You know Tapkaara saying you have heard something doesn't always mean you understand it right away.
> 
> Do you OWN all of Prokofiev's symphonies? Do you own all of Nielsen's symphonies?


I already said I only onw Nielsen's 2nd and 3rd symphonies, and his violin concerto. I never said I liked/disliked his work, I said I need to explore it more. I do like the 3rd.

Yes, I own Gergiev's cycle of Prokofiev's symphonies



JTech82 said:


> Claiming that you've heard them doesn't mean that you fully understand and connect with them. I this is why ownership is so important, because when you own something you can hear it forever.
> 
> After you've heard Prokofiev's symphonies at least 3 times all the way through. Get back with me.


I don't think ownership of a recording qualifies/disqualifies anyone from understanding a work. And what does understanding a work really mean? I own plenty of works on disc that, frankly, I do not underastand. And just because I buy a work I "don't understand" and listen to it all the time, it does not mean that eventually I will come around. Ownership and "understanding" are not the same, and ownership does not necesarry lead to greater appreciation of any work.

I've heard Prokofiev's symphonies more than 3 times each. So allow me to get back with you now. I consider Shostakovich to be the beter symphonist. Sorry that rubs you the wrong way. But just because I THINK that, it does not make it FINAL that, somehow, Shostakovich IS BETTER than Prokofiev. Maybe he is to me, but why should one man;s opinio affect your interpretation or enjoyment of Prokofiev's symphonies? Short answer: it shouldn't...you should not let it. Why can't you just accept/respect my opnions and not rake me over the coals?

So, in defense of Ifukube, (and to turn this back on you), maybe you should listen to several of his works at least three times before you pass negative judgement on him. I honestly don't think you understand him yet.

Jtech, my friend, you've proven to be too difficult to talk with. You seem hell bent on attacking me if I don't like a composer you like, if I think composer X is a better symphonist than composer Y, etc. I feel that I respect your opinions, even if I do not agree with them. I, on the otherhand, am taken to task by you everytime I disagree with you. You also seem quick to give me instructions on what I need to do to beter appreciate works you like, but I don't. Thanks for the advice, but I don't need it. Like everyone else in this forum, I am a fan of clasical music, and I've listened to it for a long time. I know what I like, I know what I don't like. Sometimes you will agree with other members on great composers and great works, sometime you will disgaree. It's all part of the forum experience. But once it becomes a back and forth like this, I am just not interested in keeping a dialogue with you. So, this is the last post I will make towards you, Jtech.

I hope you have a great time in this forum and make lots of friends.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Bach. Simple as that.


----------



## JTech82

Anyway, I'm listening to Rimsky-Korsakov's "Scheherazade" right now conducted by Fritz Reiner with the Chicago Symphony. One hell of a piece of music.


----------



## JTech82

confuoco said:


> JTech82, if you are not able to accept different opinion without insults, forum is not the best place for you.
> 
> BTW, Sibelius has been very controversial composer for many decades.


Okay here's what I don't understand: it's okay for people to undermine and disrespect me, but they're strictly off limits? I don't think so. Grow a thicker skin.

Sibelius may have been very controversial, but his work is available by most of the major symphonies. Gee let's think who's conducted Sibelius...hmmm....let's think, oh let me see: Karajan, Bernstein, Jarvi, Berglund, Davis, Barbirolli, Maazel, Ashkenazy, Ormandy...do you want me to keep going or am I done making my point?

Controversial or not, his work is readily available to the public and he's regarded as one of the finest composers of the Romantic period.

Which brings me to my next question: how many people know of the work of Ibekubite? I rest my case.


----------



## confuoco

JTech82 said:


> Which brings me to my next question: how many people know of the work of Ibekubite? I rest my case.


Who is more known in the world today, Madonna or Natalie Dessay? There is no direct corelation between number of fans and quality.


----------



## JTech82

confuoco said:


> Who is more known in the world today, Madonna or Natalie Dessay? There is no direct corelation between number of fans and quality.


I think you missed the point, which was that Alfalka Ibikubite composed works that no conductor cares about doing. In other words, he didn't impact classical music at all.

You get me there Einstein or do I have spell it out for you some more? You drinking again?


----------



## Bach

The greatest composers are as follows. This is the definitive list. No riff-raff like Sibelius and Vaughan Williams on this list:

1. Ludwig van Beethoven - 1770-1827
2. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883 
5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809 
6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897 
7. Arnold Schoenberg - 1874 - 1951
8. Claude Debussy - 1862 - 1918
9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759 
10. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971 

Composers that just missed the list:

Schumann
Chopin
Bartok
Mendelssohn
Schubert


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> The greatest composers are as follows. This is the definitive list. No riff-raff like Sibelius and Vaughan Williams on this list:


lol. Seriously, this made me laugh.


----------



## Sid James

I think the best composers equate with the most influential composers. As per my earlier post, I think these are:

1. Bach - expanding many forms, including concertos, suites and cantatas
2. Beethoven - expanding the symphonic form
3. Schubert - expanding the symphonic form, transition from classical to romantic
4. Berlioz - establishing romantic music, as in Symphonie Fantastique; Harold in Italy
5. Liszt - composing freer rhapsodic works eg. Piano Concertos, Hungarian Rhapsodies
6. Wagner - revolutionizing the use of the orchestra in his operas
7. Debussy - getting away from the german romantic tradition, establishing early modernism
8. Stravinsky - establishing modernism eg. The Rite of Spring
9. Schonberg - establishing the 12 note system
10. Prokofiev - early works which were at the vanguard of modernism eg. Scythian suite, Visions Fugitives
11. Varese - music concrete

I also think there were other great composers, obviously, but they were all influenced in some way by some of those above. These would include Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Bartok, Stockhausen, the list can go on...


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I think you'll find that Pierre Schaeffer was the one who started and influenced concréte

Actually, most of your definitions on why those composers are influential are quite a way off....

I find it hard to believe that Mozart is left off (even going by your shaking definition of great as influential), when considering his music left such a mark on so many composers over many eras. Yes, he didn't invent a chord or revolutionise harmony, or an orchestra, but leaving him out is leaving out a huge chunk of 'influence'. How Mozart influenced, was less superficial than making an Orchestra larger, he influenced musicality in general.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> The greatest composers are as follows. This is the definitive list. No riff-raff like Sibelius and Vaughan Williams on this list


Just because you don't like Sibelius or Vaughan Williams doesn't mean that other people don't. Let's try and be more respectful of composers that other people like.

Okay, so you don't like Vaughan Williams and Sibelius, I think everybody knows that, but I find your ignorance to be overwhelmingly surprising when you described them as "riff raff."

I would hate to live in your sonic world where everything is so small and narrow. I bet there are about 100 composers that you never even heard of that are as good if not better than anyone on your list, but you chose not to listen to them, because they weren't "definitive" in your eyes.

Quit being so pompous. Music is merely an opinionated medium. Your opinion isn't the ONLY opinion. There are plenty of composers who never got their due, because of people like you and because of the general politics of the music business.

If you don't connect intellectually to a composer, since you said that's the only way you can connect with them, which makes me wonder if you even have a heart or any true feelings, then don't discount them. I HATE Schoenberg, Berg, Hindemith, Webern, but you don't see me calling them "riff raff."

Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Sid James

Yagan Kiely said:


> I think you'll find that Pierre Schaeffer was the one who started and influenced concréte
> 
> Actually, most of your definitions on why those composers are influential are quite a way off....
> 
> I find it hard to believe that Mozart is left off (even going by your shaking definition of great as influential), when considering his music left such a mark on so many composers over many eras. Yes, he didn't invent a chord or revolutionise harmony, or an orchestra, but leaving him out is leaving out a huge chunk of 'influence'. How Mozart influenced, was less superficial than making an Orchestra larger, he influenced musicality in general.


Yes, I'd have to agree with you that it was somewhat of a glaring omission to leave Mozart off the list. I would probably include him with Haydn as well. They both did significant things, especially with regard to symphonies and concertos.

I also did not include any of the nationalistic composers like Smetana or Dvorak who were influential in their own ways.

I haven't heard of Schaeffer, but if he's the one who started music concrete, then perhaps he should replace Varese on the list!


----------



## JTech82

Again, I want to digress, the word "best" is merely subjective. Everybody has their own opinions of who they consider the best, just like they have their opinions of who they think are the "worst."

Some of my favorite composers aren't even on the lists of most of these people's, with the notable exceptions of Debussy, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Prokofiev, Sibelius, and Stravinsky.


----------



## species motrix

I'm not going to get into the always-contentious "What Is The Definition of Best" contest just now, but my 10 favorite composers-I-can-think-of-at-the-moment are:

Bach, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Monteverdi, Grieg, Dvorak.


----------



## jhar26

Yagan Kiely said:


> I think you'll find that Pierre Schaeffer was the one who started and influenced concréte
> 
> Actually, most of your definitions on why those composers are influential are quite a way off....
> 
> I find it hard to believe that Mozart is left off (even going by your shaking definition of great as influential), when considering his music left such a mark on so many composers over many eras. Yes, he didn't invent a chord or revolutionise harmony, or an orchestra, but leaving him out is leaving out a huge chunk of 'influence'. How Mozart influenced, was less superficial than making an Orchestra larger, he influenced musicality in general.


It counts, but influence isn't the only thing to consider when judging the greatness of a composer in my opinion. It mainly has to do with the quality of a composers' body of work. Even if Mozart did nothing new, he still did it better than anyone else, which is why today we're still listening to him and much less to, say, Dittersdorf, Salieri, Stamitz or Paisiello.

But valid as it may be, such an argument isn't even necessary because both Haydn and Mozart were VERY influential. Haydn practically invented chamber music as we know it and he and Mozart turned the symphony from the six minute overture or divertimento it was when they started into a 'serious' 30 minute + art form. The concerto was a totally different animal by the time Mozart was done with it also. Beethoven only could be Beethoven because there had been a Haydn and a Mozart before him. He only could have composed those symphonies, string quartets and what have you because he had the works of Haydn and Mozart to build on. It wouldn't have been possible if his starting point had been Vanhal or even Boccherini. Haydn and Mozart were a crucial link in the chain of musical history. They changed the musical landscape of their day beyond recognition, brought sophistication and maturaty to genres that were still in their infancy (or didn't even exist at all) when they started - if that ain't influence I don't know what is.

Mozart was crucial for the development of opera too. His most popular operas were about real people instead of the mythologigal figures of baroque opera and the characters in his operas were more realistic in that they were seldom 100% good or bad. They were more human than the cardboard one-dimensional figures which often populated the operas of his predecessors.


----------



## Gorm Less

jhar26 said:


> ... influence isn't the only thing to consider when judging the greatness of a composer in my opinion. It mainly has to do with the quality of a composers' body of work.


Can you please clarify what you mean by "quality of a composers' body of work"?

How does one measure the quality of any individual work? Whose opinion on such matters does one take? If it is not entirely a personal matter, where are these opinions set out for public inspection? In order to assess the overall "greatness" of a composer, does one add up the quality scores for each and every work of the composer in question, or does one ignore any below par works? Are scores for individual works additive?

I ask these questions because I'm still learning the game, and not as clever as many of the musical geniuses that post on this Board.

Looking forward to clarifications.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I haven't heard of Schaeffer, but if he's the one who started music concrete, then perhaps he should replace Varese on the list!


That said, I prefer Varese.  What he did do was much more musical imo than Schaeffer. Shaeffer started it, but didn't really do the best job of it. Varese added an extra layer into the music.



> or does one ignore any below par works?


Clearly no, Beethoven wouldn't rate at all if we were to do this.


----------



## jhar26

Gorm Less said:


> Can you please clarify what you mean by "quality of a composers' body of work"?
> 
> How does one measure the quality of any individual work? Whose opinion on such matters does one take? If it is not entirely a personal matter, where are these opinions set out for public inspection?


It's inevitably to a large degree a matter of personal taste I think. If not everyone's ranking of great composers would be the same, which as you will have noticed is definitely not the case. Even so - nearly everyone here will agree that Bach was a greater composer than his contemporary Telemann, that Mozart was better than Salieri, that Beethoven was better than Spohr, that Puccini was better than Mascagni, etc. Not that the second named composers in these H2H's weren't good as well - but that the first named were superior is pretty much a universally accepted truth I think. Whether the fact that these composers were important representatives of their era earns them a place on someone's list of all-time greats depends mostly on how much the person in question likes the music of that era - or the genre(s) said composers excelled at. Someone who hates baroque music isn't going to rank Monteverdi or Bach - no matter how great they were. Someone who hates opera isn't going to rank Wagner. Someone who loves solo piano music is more likely to put Chopin on his list than someone who prefers to listen to symphonies, and so on.



> In order to assess the overall "greatness" of a composer, does one add up the quality scores for each and every work of the composer in question, or does one ignore any below par works?


I think that you have to judge them all by their best works - not their worst. Seems to me that to be considered an all-time great the body of great works needs to be substantial though. How substantial is something everyone has to decide for him/herself. Mahler's number of works for example is relatively small, but they are so long that they add up to plenty of hours of excellent music.



> I ask these questions because I'm still learning the game, and not as clever as many of the musical geniuses that post on this Board.


Well, I for one am as far as it gets from a musical genius. Just a passionate music lover giving his opinion(s) realizing that they are no more or less valid than those of everyone else here.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

All my favourite composers have a very consistent quality to their music. While I agree that you cannot judge them on their bad pieces, if theoretically a composer had 50/50 good/bad, you have to factor that in. Or what if he/she only wrote one good piece?


----------



## jhar26

Yagan Kiely said:


> All my favourite composers have a very consistent quality to their music. While I agree that you cannot judge them on their bad pieces, if theoretically a composer had 50/50 good/bad, you have to factor that in. Or what if he/she only wrote one good piece?


Well, just one great work doesn't qualify one as an all-time great composer in my opinion, although the work itself might feature on a list of best symphonies, concertos, quartets or whatever the work in question was.

I don't know about the 50/50 good/bad argument. It's for example hard to hold it against Mozart that the pieces that he wrote when he was 7 aren't as great as those he wrote when he was 34. And 18th century composers couldn't afford to work for years on one symphony or opera. They had to compose a huge amount of music to make ends meet and even the best painter can't come up with the prettiest picture on a daily basis.


----------



## Gorm Less

jhar26 said:


> It's inevitably to a large degree a matter of personal taste I think. If not everyone's ranking of great composers would be the same, which as you will have noticed is definitely not the case. Even so - nearly everyone here will agree that Bach was a greater composer than his contemporary Telemann, that Mozart was better than Salieri, that Beethoven was better than Spohr, that Puccini was better than Mascagni, etc.
> 
> ...


I see that you believe that the perception of quality in a composer's work is largely a matter of personal taste but that somehow certain "universal truths" emerge from this process whereby it is held, for example, that Mozart was greater than Salieri. Given this, I wonder if it amounts to saying that the quality of each composer's works is entirely a matter of public opinion. Thus, while some classical music consumers may not like a particular composer, provided a majority do so then that composer would be regarded as "great" in some way. By "consumer" in this context I mean those people willing and able pay for access to the works of that composer (eg CD, concert, or whatever.)

Extending this idea, perhaps you might agree that the relative "greatness" of composers could be approximated by aggregating the verdicts of a large random sample of classical music consumers. If so, one wouldn't need to consider the number or "quality" of their works, or their novelty, complexity, or aesthetic properties etc. Nor would it be necessary to consider how many quality works were produced by each composer and how many duff ones, and no need to weight the two types together. And one would not need to try to evaluate the "influence" of individual composers on later ones.

Rather, it would appear that all that matters in deciding upon quality or "greatness" is the extent to which the overall classical music consuming public rates each composer. One needs a good definition of popularity but that is another matter. It might be based, for example, on the number of recordings available, or a combination of various statistics. Very simply the "greatest" composers would be the most popular ones and the most useless one would be those least liked by the public, as measured by these statistics. A rank order of greatness could be derived based on relative popularity.

Thus, if "greatness" boils down to general popularity, then while individual posters' viewpoints on greatness may be interesting they are largely if not wholly irrelevant and the entire discussion in this thread becomes otiose. The same applies to the discussion in the sister thread on "the worst composer", which thread to me seems self-evidently entirely daft anyway. As I said earlier, I don't know much about any these issues and I am here mainly to learn and soak up all the pearls of wisdom strewn around this Board from the "experts".


----------



## jhar26

Gorm Less said:


> Rather, it would appear that all that matters in deciding upon quality or "greatness" is the extent to which the overall classical music consuming public rates each composer. One needs a good definition of popularity but that is another matter. It might be based, for example, on the number of recordings available, or a combination of various statistics. Very simply the "greatest" composers would be the most popular ones and the most useless one would be those least liked by the public, as measured by these statistics. A rank order of greatness could be derived based on relative popularity.


Compared to others within their field or era - maybe. But it's not a sport where the one who crosses the line first has proven himself to be the best. Everyone has their own point of view.


----------



## JTech82

Again, these kinds of threads are exactly what the classical music community DOESN'T need. The word "best" is merely subjective depending on the listener. It doesn't hold any validity in the world of music.


----------



## Bach

> If you don't connect intellectually to a composer, since you said that's the only way you can connect with them, which makes me wonder if you even have a heart or any true feelings, then don't discount them. I HATE Schoenberg, Berg, Hindemith, Webern, but you don't see me calling them "riff raff."


That's probably because they aren't. They all know how to structure and innovate!

Besides, I like Vaughan-Williams and Sibelius, they write nice music, they're just not very innovative or artistically interesting. Bit pastiche and not terribly well structured. (Sibelius is better than RVW in that respect - admittedly)


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> That's probably because they aren't. They all know how to structure and innovate!
> 
> Besides, I like Vaughan-Williams and Sibelius, they write nice music, they're just not very innovative or artistically interesting. Bit pastiche and not terribly well structured. (Sibelius is better than RVW in that respect - admittedly)


Whatever helps you sleep better at night.


----------



## Bach

Oh, it doesn't. I can spend hours musing on a single monophonic phrase of a Beethoven late quartet - often keeps me awake at night.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> Oh, it doesn't. I can spend hours musing on a single monophonic phrase of a Beethoven late quartet - often keeps me awake at night.


Whatever, Bach.


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> I think that you have to judge them all by their best works - not their worst.


I agree with the wise words of jhar26. This is always the position I adopt when playing the 'who is the greatest artist?' game, I think because there's a kind of essential feeling for the humanity of the artist built into the idea: an understanding that this is his 'this is the best of me' moment (or moments). Also, otherwise, I'd find myself trying to figure out some sort of average rating, which is absurd and (far worse) not even much fun.

It's worth remembering that the game of 'who is the greatest musician?' really _is_ only a game, though. But it's a wierd and unsatisfactory game because there's no agreed rulebook, and so everyone plays it by his own version of the rules, and so it goes round, and round, and tempers get frayed, and blood pressure rises .... and all for nothing, really.


----------



## JTech82

Since this is a game, like Elgarian said, I'll just view it as such.

Here is my list in no particular order:

1. Sibelius
2. Bax
3. Rachmaninov
4. Mahler
5. Shostakovich
6. Prokofiev
7. Vaughan Williams
8. Ravel
9. Stravinsky
10. Bruckner

Close contenders: Debussy, Ives, Barber, Borodin, Dvorak, Berlioz, Brahms, Schumann, and Elgar.


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> It's worth remembering that the game of 'who is the greatest musician?' really _is_ only a game, though. But it's a wierd and unsatisfactory game because there's no agreed rulebook, and so everyone plays it by his own version of the rules, and so it goes round, and round, and tempers get frayed, and blood pressure rises .... and all for nothing, really.


That's true. There's always a danger that we start taking these things much too seriously.


----------



## Sid James

Bach said:


> Besides, I like Vaughan-Williams and Sibelius, they write nice music, they're just not very innovative or artistically interesting. Bit pastiche and not terribly well structured. (Sibelius is better than RVW in that respect - admittedly)


Looking at this website in general, Vaughan Williams and Sibelius seems to be two of the most contentious composers, they tend to galvanise people who passionately like them or loathe them.

I read a quote from Vaughan Williams admitting that his music was derivative, that he had a wide array of influences. He also said something like "Music does not have to be original to be interesting." So he would have probably agreed with you that his music was not really innovative, although he was one of the first composers to integrate British folk music in his compositions.

As for Sibelius, he put Finland on the map musically speaking, so to do this he had to be original to some degree. He also had a wide array of influences, principally Tchaikovsky, but he developed his own voice and departed from them markedly.

I won't comment upon what I think about these composers, I just wanted to note how it's interesting how they seem to divide people as they do.


----------



## Bach

> principally Tchaikovsky


Another horrifically overrated mess.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> Another horrifically overrated mess.


Again, what's with the condescending comments all the time? There's no need in it. Your interest in classical music fascinates me. You say you like this music, but you ridicule and downgrade composers that people like? This has to be the behavior of somebody young and foolish.

I HATE Bach the composer, but you don't see me degrading his music. If you don't like somebody just say you don't like them and be done with it.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Another horrifically overrated mess.


Robin Holloway, Professor of Composition at Cambridge (and an extremely good composer and profoundly insightful writer) doesn't think so. You can read his panegyric to Tchaikovsky on JSTOR.


----------



## Bach

He has his moments, but his music is generally too tune-heavy and not thematically developmental enough to interest me.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> He has his moments, but his music is generally too tune-heavy and not thematically developmental enough to interest me.


Perhaps it would be wise to listen to a composer for what he or she offers. For example, it would be idiotic to complain of athematic music having no thematic development. It would be similarly stupid to make the same complaint about most Lieder.

Come back when you've read the article to which I've directed you.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Perhaps it would be wise to listen to a composer for what he or she offers. For example, it would be idiotic to complain of athematic music having no thematic development. It would be similarly stupid to make the same complaint about most Lieder.
> 
> Come back when you've read the article to which I've directed you.


Herzeleide,

This kid needs to do two things: 1. go read what I wrote him on the Ravel thread and 2. grow up.

This kid needs a dose of reality and that's all he needs. He wants to act like a kid, then he'll be treated as one.


----------



## Rondo

Bach said:


> No riff-raff like Sibelius ...


Could you explain why you believe Sibelius to be "_riff-raff_"? Maybe it's just semantics, and/or a poor choice of words.


----------



## JTech82

Rondo said:


> Could you explain why you believe Sibelius to be "_riff-raff_"? Maybe it's just semantics, and/or a poor choice of words.


No he can't explain. The only explaining Bach needs to do is why he continues to act like a child. As you can see, he hasn't responded to any of us all night, so that speaks volumes right there.

As I said, he needs to read my two posts to him in the Ravel thread, because there, he will find something he doesn't want to hear...the truth.


----------



## Bach

I think some people take the internet a little too seriously. Of course I'm going to be inflammatory - mainly because I want to see how people justify themselves.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> I think some people take the internet a little too seriously. Of course I'm going to be inflammatory - mainly because I want to see how people justify themselves.


I think the problem is you don't take anything seriously, because you're just a kid. Grow up and be sure to read my posts I made to you in the Ravel thread.


----------



## Gorm Less

JTech82 said:


> I think the problem is you don't take anything seriously, because you're just kid. Grow up and be sure to read my posts I made to you in the Ravel thread.


What I have found from my travels around various classical music message boards is that the older, more experienced members are generally far less dogmatic in their opinions about the "best" among composers, and less derogatory about ones they dislike, than the teenage scribblers of 17 or whatever.

I think this must have something to do with the much-quoted fact that one's tastes in classical music change and evolve over time. An early admiration for the likes of Beethoven and Bach is not unusual, but I have seen some people say that after a while they eventually tire of all that kind of stuff and look for alternative forms and styles. Some people finish up liking composers they once denounced, and in some cases they become cynical about the exuberant claims made younger, less experienced people about the merits of composers they formerly revered.

To illustrate, some finish up preferring to listen to something like a Monteverdi madrigal or Schubert song, than Beethoven's Eroica or Bach's Mass in B minor, whereas in their immature youth they would have laughed at the suggestion. Or they come to admire the piano works of Satie or Debussy, when once they wouldn't have given either of these composers any house room in comparison with Beethoven or Chopin or Liszt. Likewise, people who may have started out liking mainly 20th C nationalistic material like that of Elgar or Vaughan Williams can finish up largely discarding all that and becoming seriously interested in Mozart divertimenti or Haydn's piano sonatas, or whatever.

In my view the only way to get any real handle on who are the best or greatest composers is to look at factual evidence on the tastes of the majority of consumers as reflected, for example, in the number of alternative recordings available. I take little notice of opinions I read on message boards like this, unless the comments are attempts to gauge the best composers based on some kind of objective criteria.


----------



## JTech82

Gorm Less said:


> What I have found from my travels around various classical music message boards is that the older, more experienced members are generally far less dogmatic in their opinions about the "best" among composers, and less derogatory about ones they dislike, than the teenage scribblers of 17 or whatever.
> 
> I think this must have something to do with the much-quoted fact that one's tastes in classical music change and evolve over time. An early admiration for the likes of Beethoven and Bach is not unusual, but I have seen some people say that after a while they eventually tire of all that kind of stuff and look for alternative forms and styles. Some people finish up liking composers they once denounced, and in some cases they become cynical about the exuberant claims made younger, less experienced people about the merits of composers they formerly revered.
> 
> To illustrate, some finish up preferring to listen to something like a Monteverdi madrigal or Schubert song, than Beethoven's Eroica or Bach's Mass in B minor, whereas in their immature youth they would have laughed at the suggestion. Or they come to admire the piano works of Satie or Debussy, when once they wouldn't have given either of these composers any house room in comparison with Beethoven or Chopin or Liszt. Likewise, people who may have started out liking mainly 20th C nationalistic material like that of Elgar or Vaughan Williams can finish up largely discarding all that and becoming seriously interested in Mozart divertimenti or Haydn's piano sonatas, or whatever.
> 
> In my view the only way to get any real handle on who are the best or greatest composers is to look at factual evidence on the tastes of the majority of consumers as reflected, for example, in the number of alternative recordings available. I take little notice of opinions I read on message boards like this, unless the comments are attempts to gauge the best composers based on some kind of objective criteria.


Good points. I will just add that I think we're all drawn to classical, or those of us that have an affinity or love for it, from something that interests and resonates with us from an emotional standpoint.

For example, I'll never forget the first time I heard Sibelius' music. He is what attracted me to this music and inspired me to keep listening. I feel the same way about Ravel. His music is just so special to me that I can never tire of it. You don't tire of something that means something to you, because it's going beyond the music at this point and speaking to your soul, which is what Sibelius and Ravel did for me and still do.

So no, I think we always come back to the classical composers that inspired us to keep listening at some point or another. There are so many composers to check out, but I almost have all the classical music I want. There are a few more recordings I'm wanting to get, but now it's all a matter of the test of time and so far, for me, Sibelius and Ravel are the ones I continue to come back to.

Other composers that have touched me emotionally: Barber, Vaughan Williams, Bax, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, Delius, Ives, Elgar, and R. Strauss.


----------



## Gorm Less

JTech82 said:


> ... I think we always come back to the classical composers that inspired us to keep listening at some point or another. There are so many composers to check out, but I almost have all the classical music I want. There are a few more recordings I'm wanting to get, but now it's all a matter of the test of time and so far, for me, Sibelius and Ravel are the ones I continue to come back to.
> 
> Other composers that have touched me emotionally: Barber, Vaughan Williams, Bax, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, Delius, Ives, Elgar, and R. Strauss.


Thanks for that. I didn't mean to imply that one invariably loses interest in all former favourites. Rather, I meant to suggest that major re-alignments of preferences can take place over time, and in extreme cases one can lose interest quite significantly in former favourites against all expectations. My comments were mainly aimed at those who reckon they have discovered musical nirvana and the composer "gods" who reside therein. The chances are these people will eventually change their mind and possibly see merit in something they previously disliked.

I also greatly like most of the composers you mention. Others I like are Debussy, Walton, Tippet, Britten, and Holst. I am constantly adding to my stock of their works. My main interest however is in Continental 18th & 19th C composers: Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, Haydn, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt, and several others. There is no major work of theirs which I do not have. There are only a small number of major composers I am not that enthusiastic over, chiefly Mahler and Bruckner. I have all their main works and my relative lack of enthusiasm is not for lack of trying. In the case of Wagner, I have rather mixed feelings. Whilst I have all of his main works I have collapsed all the sections which I like into about 8 hours!

Unlike yours, my classical music collection is always expanding. There is another Board (which I won't mention by name) which contains some excellent lists of the best works by all the major composers, and which I have drawn upon to fill up many previous gaps in my collection. Without such a guide it is possible to acquire "blind spots" not only in relation to some major composers but also in relation to some of their works, and I have seen some of evidence of that here. Once I acquired a decent stock of CDs I am now mainly adding to it by taping music from the radio.

As an example of changing tastes, currently I am interested in acquiring HIP versions of relevant works (mainly Beethoven, Mozart) which is rather odd because I used to be rather cynical of it, preferring instead the lusher, richer, generally slower versions a la Klemperer, Bohm, and HvK et al. I have not become any sort of fanatic over HIP and I do not pretend to have any expertise or special knowledge in this area, but I do find some of it very refreshing compared with the more syrupy versions I had become used to.


----------



## JTech82

Gorm Less said:


> Unlike yours, my classical music collection is always expanding.


How do you not know that I have more classical music than you do? It's not wise to assume anything about anybody.

Despite me saying I've collected almost all of the classical music I need, it's not wise to make some kind of high brow remark like that.

I own around 1,000 classical recordings, so I think I'm doing pretty good.

By the way, most of the composers you mentioned I don't like and never have liked. I especially dislike Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, and I really hate Chopin. They do nothing for me.


----------



## species motrix

JTech82 said:


> How do you not know that I have more classical music than you do? It's not wise to assume anything about anybody.
> 
> Despite me saying I've collected almost all of the classical music I need, it's not wise to make some kind of high brow remark like that.
> 
> I own around 1,000 classical recordings, so I think I'm doing pretty good.
> 
> By the way, most of the composers you mentioned I don't like and never have liked. I especially dislike Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, and I really hate Chopin. They do nothing for me.


I don't mean to barge in on a minor forum spat of which I couldn't care less about the outcome, but he didn't say he had more classical music than you, he said that the rate at which he is acquiring classical music is higher.

This brings to mind Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise... if JTech82 has a head start on the acquisition of classical music records, but Gorm Less collects music at a faster rate, can Gorm Less ever really catch up to JTech82? Discuss.


----------



## Elgarian

species motrix said:


> if JTech82 has a head start on the acquisition of classical music records, but Gorm Less collects music at a faster rate, can Gorm Less ever really catch up to JTech82? Discuss.


Let us suppose that the rate of acquisition in both cases is linear; that JTech82's mean acquisition rate is *a*, and Gorm Less's mean acquisition rate is *b* (in CDs per year), where *b* is greater than *a*. We shall assume that JTech82 begins collecting CDs at time *t=0*, and that Gorm Less begins his collecting at some later time, *T*.

Then the size, *s*, of JTech82's collection at any time* t* will be given by *s=at*; and the size of Gorm Less's collection at time *t* will be given by *s=b(t-T).*

By solving these two equations, *s=at*, and *s=b(t-T)*, simultaneously, we can calculate the time at which Gorm Less's collection will overtake JTech's. At that time (the moment of overtaking) we will have:
*at= b(t-T)*
i.e. *at = bt - bT*
and so JTech82 will be overtaken at time *t = bT/(b-a).*

All we need, then, are the values of *a* and *b* (average collection rates in CDs per year), the number of years start that JTech82 had before Gorm Less started (that's *T*), and we have the answer.

The model is imperfect, of course; the collection rates are almost certainly not constant, and so the equations will be non-linear. But we have a tentative beginning to the solution of this fascinating problem. My own estimates suggest that the overtaking will occur at about half past *z* on February 37th, but I may have made a mistake, there, and need to check my results.

Anyone care to produce a formula to calculate the best composer?


----------



## Gorm Less

JTech82 said:


> How do you not know that I have more classical music than you do? It's not wise to assume anything about anybody.
> 
> Despite me saying I've collected almost all of the classical music I need, it's not wise to make some kind of high brow remark like that.
> 
> I own around 1,000 classical recordings, so I think I'm doing pretty good.
> 
> By the way, most of the composers you mentioned I don't like and never have liked. I especially dislike Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, and I really hate Chopin. They do nothing for me.


What a weird response.

I clearly did not make any assumption about the size of your CD collection. Nor did I make any "high brow" remark when I noted that I am still increasing my stock of classical music. I should think that 90% + of the members of this Board are doing just that. I only mentioned this issue to illustrate the point I was making that I have a fairly open mind about the music I will listen to.

......

Now, having dealt with those matters, I am intrigued by the following apparently contradictory statements of yours:



JTech82; 27 Feb 09 said:


> I especially dislike Beethoven, Mozart, *Schubert*, and I really hate Chopin. They do nothing for me.





JTech82; 25 Feb 09 said:


> Since *Ravel* is one of my favorite composers, I own several different versions of his orchestral works ....





JTech 82; 10 Feb 09 said:


> My favorite composers are (in no particular order)
> 
> Sibelius
> Bruckner
> Bartok
> Dvorak
> Nielsen
> Mahler
> Rachmaninov
> Shostakovich
> *Schubert*
> Stravinsky
> Prokofiev
> Haydn
> Janacek
> Schumann
> Ives


In the first quote you say you do not like Schubert and in the second you say that Ravel is one of your favorite composers. However, two weeks ago, on 10 Feb in this thread, you listed Schubert among your favorite composers but not Ravel. Have you perhaps had a major re-think over the past couple of weeks?

It would also be interesting to hear why, according to your first quote above, you like Haydn but not Mozart. Most people either like both or neither, but I guess you may simply want to be different, which is fair enough. If that is the case what do you like in Haydn that is not present in Mozart? Can you please be specific on the differences, or rather weaknesses as you perceive them in Mozart vis-a-vis Haydn.

It is also fascinating that you say you like Schumann and Bruckner, both of whom revered Beethoven, but you don't like Beethoven. What is it about Beethoven you dislike? Can you spell it out?


----------



## Gorm Less

Elgarian said:


> Let us suppose that the rate of acquisition in both cases is linear; that JTech82's mean acquisition rate is *a*, and Gorm Less's mean acquisition rate is *b* (in CDs per year), where *b* is greater than *a*. We shall assume that JTech82 begins collecting CDs at time *t=0*, and that Gorm Less begins his collecting at some later time, *T*.
> 
> etc


Having adequate qualifications in mathematics myself (not that much is needed), I can confirm that your algebra is in order insofar that it goes, but read on. However, I am rather reminded of sledgehammers and nuts, even assuming the basic validity of the model.

As you say, the model is far from perfect. For clarity perhaps you should really have said that the size of Jtech's collection at t = s1, and Gorm's collection at = s2, and that s2>s1 when t>bT/(b-a), where (b-a)>0 and T>0. However, the starting premise that T>0 may be invalid, for example if Gorm inherited a large collection from a relative which pre-dated Jtech's first acquisition. On that basis, s2>s1 for all t>0 provided (b-a)>0, so that the model serves no useful purpose.

On the other hand, if we suppose a more complex acquisition rate, say a logistic curve of some type where the curve has asymptotic properties as t increases (within a feasible range) the problem is not solved so easily, as T<0 may not be sufficient to ensure that s2>s1 for all t>0. In order to tackle this I think you might agree that such a logistic curve is probably more appropriate, given the probable similarity of human CD collection rates and the rate at which flies acumulate in a sealed bottle.

To do this calculation we would need to ask both parties a number of further questions, eg when when they expect to meet their "saddle points", how they quickly their asymptotic propensities may be affected by things like exposure to comments from Board members here, whether they are familiar with the right kind of Mozart, their general state of health, when they last saw their mothers, what they think of Rod Corkin, whether or not they have any interest in passing on their CD collection to family members, or whatever.

If you ask me, I'm not telling.


----------



## Elgarian

Elgarian said:


> My own estimates suggest that the overtaking will occur at about half past *z* on February 37th, but I may have made a mistake, there, and need to check my results.


Just an update: I had indeed made a mistake, and my new estimate places it closer to something like a quarter past *w*.


----------



## Gorm Less

Elgarian said:


> Just an update: I had indeed made a mistake, and my new estimate places it closer to something like a quarter past *w*.


Perhaps you might read my post above yours, from which you will see that you are more than 15 minutes out, more like a couple of light years, and fast approaching a Black Hole.

I hope you will not be too put off by my corrections, as I am only here to help. Perhaps in due course we can look forward to colluding on a grand mathematical treatise reconciling how it is possible for someone who has it all to like Schubert and not like him almost at the same time. Just a clue here: we may need to think in terms of a trigonometric function with alternating plus and minus segments.


----------



## livemylife

Rachmaninoff will always be number 1 in my book.
Sibelius is a close second though.
I like all Romantic composers and other ones, except the ones I listed in that other thread. lol


----------



## LOLWUT

1. Mahler
2. Wagner
3. Schubert
4. Chopin
5. Bach
6. Beethoven
7. Mozart
8. Sibelius
9. Brahms
10. Bruckner


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

No best, only favorites. I'll limit it to ten, and no necessary order of preference:

1) Brahms
2) Dvorak
3) Sibelius
4) Haydn
5) Debussy
6) Ravel
7) Tchaikovsky
8) Borodin
9) Mendelssohn
10)Schubert


----------



## Medtnaculus

Don't really know who I'd nominate but I know for sure Ravel and Scriabin would be up there!


----------



## Tchaikov6

from favorite to least favorite
1. Tchaikovsky
2. Rimsky-Korsakov
3. Ravel
4. Beethoven
5. Mendelssohn
6. Stravinsky
7. Mozart
8. Brahms
9. Schubert
10. Schumann


----------



## ST4

John
Bob
and David :tiphat:


----------



## MoonlightSonata

ST4 said:


> John
> Bob
> and David :tiphat:


I think Alfred's quite good too.


----------



## ST4

MoonlightSonata said:


> I think Alfred's quite good too.


Have you tried George's music? you may like it a lot!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

ST4 said:


> Have you tried George's music? you may like it a lot!


Yeah, it's great. Linda's always quite good too.


----------



## ST4

MoonlightSonata said:


> Yeah, it's great. Linda's always quite good too.


Have you ever considered trying Jack or James?


----------



## Guest

Is this game like Mornington Crescent?


----------



## ST4

MacLeod said:


> Is this game like Mornington Crescent?


Depends if your speaking factually or statistically


----------



## Guest

ST4 said:


> Depends if your speaking factually or statistically


Do you have something against metaphorically?


----------



## ST4

MacLeod said:


> Do you have something against metaphorically?


Again, depends on the circumstance. If you're speaking figuratively with your hands crossed, how is it going to work?


----------



## Judith

Tchaikovsky is usually my favourite composer but recently my heart has been telling me Brahms!!


----------



## hpowders

My brain, my heart and my spirituality are all telling me quite loudly, JS BACH!!!!

It's a long, long way down to No.2 which for me would be a tie between Mozart & Beethoven.


----------



## johankillen

The mighty B-GOD-eethoven


----------



## PresenTense

- Debussy
- Ravel
- Rachmaninoff
- K. Stockhausen
- O. Messiaen
- J.S Bach


----------

