# The three M's



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Mahler...

In your estimation, how do they compare to the "three B's" of Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms?

Is this a "lesser" trio or is there enough talent between them to prove equal? 

Maybe we should replace Mendelssohn with Monteverdi? I don't know, but it helps to see Mendelssohn as somewhat of a bridge between Mozart and Mahler. 

This may be a stupid thread, I don't know. I'm stuck at home waiting on a package and demand online engagement to pass the time 

What are some other alliterative trios? Maybe the three S's of the Modern era - Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Shostakovich...? 

I don't know. What do you think?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Speaking, as always, from personal preference:

Mahler is between Bach and Brahms, making my top 3. I prefer Mendelssohn and Mozart clearly over Beethoven, so overall these 3Ms are roughly at the same level as the 3 B's. Putting in Monteverdi would decrease the case for the M's.

For the S, why go for the modern area alone? Schubert, Shostakovich, Sibelius would make a very fine trio. Again, according to my taste.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Restricting the S category to the modern would make for an easier choice. Between Schubert, Schumann, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Scarlatti, Shostakovich, Satie, Stravinsky, Sibelius, R. Strauss, there are a surprisingly large number of masterful composers who share that initial... (overall though, I think your picks of Schubert, Shostakovich, and Sibelius would be my trio as well  though Scriabin MAYBE would edge out Shostakovich)

I prefer Mozart over Beethoven and Brahms certainly. Mendelssohn MAYBE over Brahms, not over Beethoven. Mahler I don't care for but he is a titan of a composer (no pun intended) and he certainly would bring a lot to the team. However, Bach and Beethoven are both top 3 for me (1 and 3).

Not an easy choice!

Here's a great Mendelssohn piece I'm just now hearing for the first time:






Went ahead and ordered the CD off the strength of the first 5 minutes. I think it was under $5 shipping included in total so I couldn't pass it up 

He wrote this at age 13...?! Certainly an even more precocious prodigy than even Mozart.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Restricting the S category to the modern would make for an easier choice. Between Schubert, Schumann, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Scarlatti, Shostakovich, Satie, Stravinsky, Sibelius, R. Strauss, there are a surprisingly large number of masterful composers who share that initial... (overall though, I think your picks of Schubert, Shostakovich, and Sibelius would be my trio as well  though Scriabin MAYBE would edge out Shostakovich)
> 
> I prefer Mozart over Beethoven and Brahms certainly. Mendelssohn MAYBE over Brahms, not over Beethoven. Mahler I don't care for but he is a titan of a composer (no pun intended) and he certainly would bring a lot to the team. However, Bach and Beethoven are both top 3 for me (1 and 3).
> 
> ...


I love his string symphonies...great choice. I hope you ordered the complete set.

And, yes, he was the greatest prodigy in the history of Western art music.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Mendelssohn is pretty down on my list, I'd probably take Medtner, Martinu and Messiaen in stead, maybe also Myaskovsky and Mussorgsky, maybe-maybe Monteverdi. In spite of good works like Elias, Symphony 3, The Hebrides, Violin Cto, the piano trios etc. It's just generally a bit too Biedermeier for me.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Unfortunately it's the Naxos volume with only 6, 7, and 8. I'll probably purchase the other two volumes as well if I like this one. Probably not the smartest call I ever made. Likely coulda got them all for cheaper.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

My three Ms are Mendelssohn, Mahler, and either Mussorgsky or Monteverdi.

Mozart is not one I listen to and, to be fair, neither is Bach.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Deleted deleted


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The Brilliant 40 CD Mendelssohn box can also be had quite cheaply, often. Lots of quite good performances there.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Unfortunately it's the Naxos volume with only 6, 7, and 8. I'll probably purchase the other two volumes as well if I like this one. Probably not the smartest call I ever made. Likely coulda got them all for cheaper.


All 5 symphonies and all 13 string symphonies for $15.44

https://www.amazon.com/Mendelssohn-Complete-Symphonies-String-6CD/dp/B01GSUHVMA/ref=asc_df_B01GSUHVMA/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312188680720&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14162275815415196244&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031174&hvtargid=pla-492419895522&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=60264131217&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312188680720&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14162275815415196244&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031174&hvtargid=pla-492419895522


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Wow, dirt cheap. Weeell. Let me see if I can cancel my order :lol:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Mahler...
> 
> In your estimation, how do they compare to the "three B's" of Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms?
> 
> ...


Cut the Mendelssohn, add Monteverdi.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Mahler...
> 
> In your estimation, how do they compare to the "three B's" of Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms?
> 
> ...


Cut the Mendelssohn, add Machaut.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Mahler...
> 
> In your estimation, how do they compare to the "three B's" of Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms?
> 
> ...


For me, cut the Mahler and add Monteverdi.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Haydn70 said:


> All 5 symphonies and all 13 string symphonies for $15.44
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Mendelssohn-Complete-Symphonies-String-6CD/dp/B01GSUHVMA/ref=asc_df_B01GSUHVMA/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312188680720&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14162275815415196244&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031174&hvtargid=pla-492419895522&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=60264131217&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312188680720&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14162275815415196244&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031174&hvtargid=pla-492419895522


Ordered it on blind faith. Better be good, my friend


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Ordered it on blind faith. Better be good, my friend


Excellent! Enjoy!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Meh, Meh, and Meh. I'm waiting for the three Qs. So far I have only Quilter.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> He wrote this at age 13...?! Certainly an even more precocious prodigy than even Mozart.


Mozart wrote Waisenhausmesse K139 and Missa Brevis in D minor K65 at 12, and Dominicusmesse K66 at 13. Waisenhausmesse, Dominicusmesse are full scale masses with fugues at the end of Gloria and Credo. 

















From late teens to early twenties he was writing:




What does Mendelssohn have to match with Mozart in this department?

And let's not forget Mendelssohn was one of very few composers in history who had complete freedom to write whatever he wanted all his life thanks to the buttload of wealth he inherited from his parents.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Handel, Haydn, Hummel


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Meh, Meh, and Meh. I'm waiting for the three Qs. So far I have only Quilter.


Courtesy of Wikipedia, here are some more Qs:

Qu Xiaosong (born 1952)
Qu Xixian (born 1919)
Johannes de Quadris (c. 1410-after 1456)
Paolo Quagliati (c. 1555-1628)
Johann Joachim Quantz (1697-1773)
Joseph Quesnel (1746-1809)
Alfred Quidant (1815-1893)
Marie-Anne-Catherine Quinault (1695-1791)
Lucia Quinciani (born c. 1566; fl. 1611)
Marcel Quinet (1915-1986)
Daniel Patrick Quinn (born 1981)
Manuel Quiroga (1892-1961)
Manuel José de Quirós (c. 1690?-1765)


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> And let's not forget Mendelssohn was one of very few composers in history who had complete freedom to write whatever he wanted all his life thanks to the buttload of wealth he inherited from his parents.


"A buttload of wealth." Charming. Just charming. It wasn't Mozart who wrote the delightful Midsummer Nights Dream, was it?, which some people enjoy as a nice change from Mozart. He who lives by the comparison shall parish by the comparison because it can be poisonous to the enjoyment of anything. Mozart himself might have appreciated such a work, and not everything has to be written with the verdict of eternity hanging over a composer's head. Mendelssohn worked his "butt" off during his lifetime, despite his inherited wealth, and it probably contributed to his early death. Mendelssohn was not without his own unique genius and virtues, and not just in such great works of his violin concerto and the unforgettable fairy dust sprinkled over some of his other works. His Italian and Scottish Symphonies sparkle and Otto Klemperer gave fantastic performances.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart wrote Waisenhausmesse K139 and Missa Brevis in D minor K65 at 12, and Dominicusmesse K66 at 13. Waisenhausmesse, Dominicusmesse are full scale masses with fugues at the end of Gloria and Credo.
> 
> What does Mendelssohn have to match with Mozart *in this department*?
> 
> And let's not forget Mendelssohn was one of very few composers in history who had complete freedom to write whatever he wanted all his life thanks to the *buttload* of wealth he inherited from his parents.


Who cares about that "department"? You can have your dreary "buttload" of little Wolfie's kyries, credos, agnuses and fugal exercises. Give me Mendelssohn's Octet, Trio in d minor, Quartet in a minor/A Major and Midsummer Night's Delight any moment of any day.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> [...]
> *This may be a stupid thread*, I don't know. I'm stuck at home *waiting on a package* and *demand online engagement to pass the time *


I fully understand! It is a bit silly, but we don't mind.
Waiting on a package? You no chair have?
Demand online engagement to pass the time? Well, no problem there!!


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Mendelssohn had a rather dreary, conservative teacher in Zelter--the same man who sycophantically confirmed Goethe's pedestrian musical tastes that found little to appreciate in Beethoven, Weber, or Schubert. Goethe preferred Zelter's settings of his poems to those of Schubert, the former being now mercifully known only to musical archaeologists.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Who cares about that "department"? You can have your dreary "buttload" of little Wolfie's kyries, credos, agnuses and fugal exercises.Give me Mendelssohn's Octet, Trio in d minor, Quartet in a minor/A Major and Midsummer Night's delight any moment of any day.


Tell that to Beethoven who studied K222, K167 (mere "exercises" by young Mozart according to you) in writing the final movement of his ninth. "Who cares about department?" That's what I should be asking. Who cares about the department, "early works". I'm the one who should be asking. Why do people compare Mendelssohn's early work to Mozart in every Mendelssohn thread to prove Mendelssohn's superiority in the precociousness department?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Tell that to Beethoven who studied K222, K167 (mere "exercises" by young Mozart according to you) in writing the final movement of his ninth. "Who cares about department?" That's what I should be asking. Who cares about the department, "early works". I'm the one who should be asking. *Why do people compare Mendelssohn's early work to Mozart in every Mendelssohn** thread to prove Mendelssohn's superiority in the precociousness department?*


Why do people insist on comparing things when you'd think simply appreciating them would be enough? I'm always asking that question. In the case of Mozart and Mendelssohn, though, we have by general consent the two greatest prodigies in music (even better than Alma Deutscher ). It's a sort of Mr. Baby Universe competition. Kinda funny, really. I'm just playing along (but do keep your kyries, credos, etc. in a drawer somewhere. For this secular soul the mass was on life support before Mozart ever wrote one and was embalmed and ready for burial after Berlioz).


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Tell that to Beethoven who studied K222, K167 (mere "exercises" by young Mozart according to you) in writing the final movement of his ninth. "Who cares about department?" That's what I should be asking. Who cares about the department, "early works". I'm the one who should be asking. Why do people compare Mendelssohn's early work to Mozart in every Mendelssohn thread to prove Mendelssohn's superiority in the precociousness department?


If it eases your mind, I definitely prefer Mozart's later works to anything Mendelssohn ever wrote. But I digress; for our purposes the two are on the same team. Maybe we can compare both Mendelssohn and Mozart's early works to those of Brahms and Beethoven (are any extant for either?) to totally trash them


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Meh, Meh, and Meh. I'm waiting for the three Qs. So far I have only Quilter.


Qin, Wenchen (b. 1966)
Qin Peng Zhang 
Qin Wen-chen 
Qin Yong Cheng (b.1933)
Qing Zhu 
Qu Wei 
Qu Xiang 
Qu Xiao-Song (b.1952)
Quadreny, Mestres (b.1929)
Quadris, Johannes de (fl.1450)
Quagliarini, Marco (b. 1973)
Quagliati, Paolo (1555-1628)
Qualliotine, Armand (b.1954)
Quantz, Johann Joachim (1679-1773)
Quaranta, Felice (1910-92)
Quarles, Charles (1660-1727)
Quarrington, Tony 
Quartel, Sarah (b.1982)
Quate, Amy (b.1953)
Quayle, Matthew 
Quef, Charles (1873-1931)
Queldryk 
Quell, Michael (b.1960)
Quentin, Jean Baptiste (c.1685-c.1750)
Querfurth, Franz 
Quero, Irene G. (b. 1985)
Quesada, Adolfo de (1830-?)
Quick, Jonathan 
Quignard 
Quilling, Howard Lee (1935-2016)
Quilter, Roger (1877-1953)
Quin, Douglas 
Quindici, Rosalba 
Quinn, Iain (b.1973)
Quinta 
Quintanilla, Giacinto (fl. 1672)
Quintero, Juan Carlos 
Quintyn, Koen 
Quirici, Giovanni (1824-96)
Quiroga, Manuel (1892-1961)
Quirós, Manuel José de (d.1765)
Quoquochi, Pascal Sasseville

I would keep Quilter and add Quagliati and Quantz...


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> Speaking, as always, from personal preference:
> 
> Mahler is between Bach and Brahms, making my top 3. I prefer Mendelssohn and Mozart clearly over Beethoven, so overall these 3Ms are roughly at the same level as the 3 B's. Putting in Monteverdi would decrease the case for the M's.
> 
> For the S, why go for the modern area alone? Schubert, Shostakovich, Sibelius would make a very fine trio. Again, according to my taste.


I'll take this approach:

Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms are (IMO) the 1st, 2nd, and 4th greatest composers (Bach and Beethoven are pretty much tied for #1, but I'd have to go with Bach). Mozart is 3, and Mendelssohn and Mahler are probably in my top 20 but not my top 10. My list is a bit more "conventional" (aligns more with traditional academic consensus) than Art Rock's, but there are some unusual things about it as well. I also think that 3 S's would have a stronger showing than 3 M's.

What about 3 D's: Debussy, Dvorak, Des Prez?

Or 3 R's: Rameau, Rachmaninoff, Ravel?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I am quite partial to Mendelssohn, and would probably put him fourth on my top composer list (one of the other M's is just above him). So B-B-M-M?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

People are too obsessed with old composers. Was Beethoven the best composer? Arguably yes. Were classical composers some of the best ever? Yes. However, has their music been _significantly _improved on ie. is there much better neoclassical music out there now? Yes tenfold. It's essential to learn how great these early classical and romantic composers were at inventing and influencing brilliant ideas. But that's not the main train of music.

People have taken Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Wagner, way beyond their original quality into whole new matrices and genres within classical. It's the absolute fundamental nature of evolution: Music always gets better, you have to find it. Everyone can find much better in the 20th century if classical style is what you seek, I don't even need to say anything, you'll find it within seconds. It's the _mindset_ that needs to change: New copiers of classic composers have mastered the craft and significant inventions within it, they come from every single year just as they did in the 1800s but there's just _more of them_ and more inventions, variations, and more utter perfection.

Start a simple search into neoclassical and neoromance, it's merely *your *duty to get passed *the* *intro mindset* "Beethoven was the best inventor" *(which is a true statement!)* and into the more sensible mindset "_but all these other composers wrote like Beethoven and improved on Beethoven" _or 'insert composer name here.' There's so much better music out there. You don't need to be listening to the best composers/inventors, you aught to be listening to the_ best music._ That is because people place too much emotional value always on the originals that it completely stunts their growth and expansion into learning about significantly higher-level music and theory, and people here are massively uninformed.

This is one of the most true things you're ever going to hear about classical era composers. They were what they were: geniuses, and without them we wouldn't have even better music. The majority of the greatest composers always learn from and get inspired by best music and ideas, not the best composers. This is how it is even today, and this is because they're confident in their own ideas, they're confident in sculpting some qualia of experience into their very own method and musical ideology. We have everything we ever need but we're ignoring it, we'd rather remain faithfully stuck to a playwright of history that is simply outdated. Research and mindset, my friends. I know some of you at least will get over these mass traditionalist habits by reading this.

Obsession over great composers isn't anything useful. They were the best, and yet they're still outknowledged and outperformed by their successors, and the successors of successors, which the internet doesn't talk about (the internet is society, it's not thinking straight.) And don't take my word for it. Do your research


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> People are too obsessed with old composers. Were they the best composers? Yes. But has their music been _significantly _improved on ie. is there much better orchestral music out there now? Yes tenfold. It's essential to learn how great these early classical and romantic composers were at inventing and influencing brilliant ideas. But that's not the main train of music. People have taken Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Wagner, *way beyond their original quality into whole new matrices and genres within classical*. It's the absolute fundamental nature of evolution. Music always gets better, you just have to find the better music.


That looks very intellectual but what is it supposed to mean?

P.S. What is the "main train of music"? The 3:50 to Vienna?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Becca said:


> That looks very intellectual but what is it supposed to mean?
> 
> P.S. What is the "main train of music"? The 3:50 to Vienna?


Main train? Vienna? "During the 1860s the Southern Railway, for example, operated highly popular 'pleasure trains', offering surprise journeys with mystery destinations. This attraction provided the younger Johann Strauss with the title for the lively and descriptive quick polka he composed for the Association of Industrial Societies' Ball, held in the Redoutensaal on 19 January 1864." AKA -- _Pleasure Train Polka_!


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Mahler...
> 
> In your estimation, how do they compare to the "three B's" of Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms?
> 
> Is this a "lesser" trio or is there enough talent between them to prove equal?


That's an interesting comparison. In my estimation, I would rank those six composers:
1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Mendelssohn
They would probably all make my top 10, or close to it, so there isn't much separation between them. "Lesser trio" would be a strong way of putting it. But clearly there are more B's at the top and more M's at the bottom.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> but do keep your kyries, credos, etc. in a drawer somewhere.


I understand your preference, but I'm still curious why you would keep calling Mozart's masses, vespers, litanies as kyries, glorias, credos etc as if to diminish them mish-mash of random movements. You wouldn't describe something like Chopin Sonata B flat minor the way Schumann described it, right? an allegro, a scherzo, a march, and a prelude?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> People are too obsessed with old composers. Was Beethoven the best composer? Arguably yes. Were classical composers some of the best ever? Yes. However, has their music been _significantly _improved on ie. is there much better neoclassical music out there now? Yes tenfold. It's essential to learn how great these early classical and romantic composers were at inventing and influencing brilliant ideas. But that's not the main train of music.
> 
> People have taken Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Wagner, way beyond their original quality into whole new matrices and genres within classical. It's the absolute fundamental nature of evolution: Music always gets better, you have to find it. Everyone can find much better in the 20th century if classical style is what you seek, I don't even need to say anything, you'll find it within seconds. It's the _mindset_ that needs to change: New copiers of classic composers have mastered the craft and significant inventions within it, they come from every single year just as they did in the 1800s but there's just _more of them_ and more inventions, variations, and more utter perfection.
> 
> ...


Well, you've got me curious now. Can you name one or two of these contemporary "neoclassical and neoromance" composers who you rate as better than Beethoven? Bonus points if you can link to one or few of their best pieces.

Are you talking about 20th century composers such as Schoenberg, Stravinsky etc? I see the Modern (and later Postmodern) as another movement alongside Baroque, Classical, Romantic etc... wouldn't call it "better" or "worse" as I wouldn't for any of those other periods. But from the way you phrased your post, I'm thinking you meant that there are composers better than Beethoven currently active today? Definitely would appreciate some clarification: if there's more Beethovens out there, I need to know.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I understand your preference, but I'm still curious why you would keep calling Mozart's masses, vespers, litanies as kyries, glorias, credos etc as if to diminish them mish-mash of random movements. You wouldn't describe something like Chopin Sonata B flat minor the way Schumann described it, right? an allegro, a scherzo, a march, and a prelude?


No reason, really, except my own amusement. I regard masses in general as medieval relics like papal bulls, confession booths, rosary beads and thuribles, and am thus amused as well as bored by their persistence in the modern world and by composers' fondness for setting their statements of dogma to music. I tend to roll my eyes at the obligatory gestures toward traditional forms such as fugues, even if they're well written. I suppose Beethoven started the process of making something really new out of the fugue, and when Mendelssohn breaks into fugal writing in his Octet the whole spirit is, to me, fresh and exhilarating.

Chopin's 2nd Sonata is a unique creation. I don't know how I'd describe it. I guess I wouldn't try.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> ...Music always gets better, you have to find it. Everyone can find much better in the 20th century if classical style is what you seek, I don't even need to say anything, you'll find it within seconds. It's the _mindset_ that needs to change: New copiers of classic composers have mastered the craft and significant inventions within it, they come from every single year just as they did in the 1800s but there's just _more of them_ and more inventions, variations, and more utter perfection.


Most interesting. Bach is superseded rubbish, Mozart is pretty-boy music that's being done much better now. Beethoven? Sadly out of date and his whole shtick has long since been "improved."

Evolution has led to improvement in everything. Homer's epic poems are hardly worth a glance these days, and modern playwrights put Shakespeare to shame. Ain't progress wonderful?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> Was Beethoven the best composer? Arguably yes. Were classical composers some of the best ever? Yes. However, has their music been _significantly _improved on i.e. is there much better neoclassical music out there now? Yes tenfold.
> 
> It's the absolute fundamental nature of evolution: Music always gets better, you have to find it. Everyone can find much better in the 20th century if classical style is what you seek, I don't even need to say anything, you'll find it within seconds.
> 
> Obsession over great composers isn't anything useful. They were the best, and yet they're still outknowledged and outperformed by their successors, and the successors of successors.


So... The great composers of the past were the best, but thanks to evolution the composers of today are better.

Now why didn't someone think of that before now?


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Becca said:


> That looks very intellectual but what is it supposed to mean?


And here I was all impressed!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think my three M's are Machaut, Monteverdi and Mozart. (Mendelssohn, Mahler and Mussorgsky are excellent too.)



Woodduck said:


> Chopin's 2nd Sonata is a unique creation. I don't know how I'd describe it. I guess I wouldn't try.


Charles Rosen thought highly of Chopin's piano sonatas, cited their uniqueness and went on to say "The greater the composer, the larger the terms of his control over the significance of his ideas, even when the range of his conception is deliberately narrowed: that is why Chopin must be considered in the company of the greatest in spite of the limitations of genre and medium that he imposed on himself."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> No reason, really, except my own amusement. I regard masses in general as medieval relics like papal bulls, confession booths, rosary beads and thuribles, and am thus amused as well as bored by their persistence in the modern world and by composers' fondness for setting their statements of dogma to music. I tend to roll my eyes at the obligatory gestures toward traditional forms such as fugues, even if they're well written. I suppose Beethoven started the process of making something really new out of the fugue, and when Mendelssohn breaks into fugal writing in his Octet the whole spirit is, to me, fresh and exhilarating.
> 
> Chopin's 2nd Sonata is a unique creation. I don't know how I'd describe it. I guess I wouldn't try.


Indeed, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Chopin etc did unique creations with various resources at their command, but (you must remember) so did Haydn and Mozart. For example, thematische Arbeit (thematic working), one of the most important techniques they developed and passed on to Beethoven. What it is basically is, a musical language that combines the popular style melody and bass with learned style of counterpoint so that (for example) each of the all four voices in a string quartet carries equal weight and _"No single instrument accompanies for very long: each of them plays an essential part in both the melodic development and its accompaniment."_










Some of the early quartets by Haydn and Mozart contain middle movements written in the canon form, and final movements in the fugue form. As they matured, they achieved this fusion of the new style and the old style so ingeniously they no longer had to write them separately anymore. I know it's quite common for Romantic music enthusiasts to fall into prejudice thinking Haydn and Mozart bound themselves in a safety zone, did not innovate music like the Romantics. In reality, these classical masters were just as innovative as Wagner and Schoenberg.










https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/
_"Let's move now to the work that concerns us this week, Mozart's so-called 'Dissonance' quartet, written in the mid-1780s, when he was at the height of his short-lived career in Vienna and only five or so years before his untimely death. This date might seem to take us back nearly to the origins of the genre, but in fact a great deal of ground had been covered in the short time since string quartets had emerged at about the middle of the century. Mozart himself had written more than a dozen youthful quartets before the set of six to which the 'Dissonance' belongs, ones typical of the earliest examples in the genre. From our perspective today, they seem peculiarly divided in style. On the one hand, most movements are dominated by a very simple texture, with a clear melody line in the first violin and a clear bass in the cello, and with the inner two parts involved in functional accompaniment figures. This was the modern style of the time: a radical simplicity of effect when compared to the music of Bach and his contemporaries a generation earlier. On the other hand, though, certain movements are in the form of elaborate, Bach-like fugues, with absolute equality between all four instruments. As I said, this mixture sounds strange to us, a clashing of the old and the new, but it was not necessarily so at the time, when (after all) fugal writing persisted in certain musical genres (notably religious ones) all the way through the eighteenth and even the nineteenth centuries.

However, the set of six quartets that Mozart wrote in the first half of the 1780s, to which the 'Dissonance' belongs, is very different, and the differences come precisely in the absence of that clear division between 'old-style' counterpoint and 'new-style' melody and accompaniment. The string quartet, at least in the hands of Mozart, found a new balance, one sometimes associated the very ideals of the Enlightenment. It is as if the elements of old-style fugal writing, with its strict independence of the voices, has somehow been combined with the new-style, melody-and-bass simplicity, in a 'modern' texture which has obvious elements of melody and accompaniment, but which constantly injects into this a sense of independence among the parts. No single instrument accompanies for very long: each of them plays an essential part in both the melodic development and its accompaniment. People near the time gave this new, more complex texture a severe-sounding German name; they called it thematische Arbeit, thematic working - all elements of the ensemble are independent (and individual), but each works with the others to produce the total effect.

How did this revolution come about? Mozart gives as a broad hint in his dedication to the published version of the six quartets, which came out in 1785. He said that the quartets had been 'the fruit of a long and laborious endeavour' (and this much can be borne out by a glance at his autograph score, which sits less than a mile away from here in the British Library, and is full of evidence of second thoughts and improvements). And he dedicated them to 'a very celebrated Man' who is 'at the same time his best Friend'. The man was none other than Joseph Haydn, and there's plenty of evidence that Haydn's recent collections of quartets, in particular his Op. 33, were part of the inspiration for this new burst ofthematische Arbeit that Mozart indulged in these quartets. I say 'part of' because these musical developments weren't merely being passed between two great men: a gathering complexity of musical language, a rebelling against the simple melody-and-bass regime, was being felt in many genres, and in the work of many composers.

But Mozart, to the consternation of many at the time, undoubtedly went further in these quartets than anyone had before. Each of them seems consciously to explore new ground; the sense of experimentation, the 'long and laborious endeavour', is evident throughout the set. As it happens, though, the most radical of all is probably the 'Dissonance' quartet. Like all these six works, It's divided into four movements; an opening Allegro in sonata form, a slow movement, a Minuet and Trio and then a Finale. Its individuality is not, though, in manipulations of these outer forms (which are quite conventional), but in the inner workings of the movements: in the intricate way the instrumentalists interact with each other, and, in particular, the way in which Mozart enriches this inner working by constantly injecting into the harmonic vocabulary surprising twists and turns. The quartet is in the key of C Major, but this sunny, 'open' tonality is constantly interrupted by the intrusion of new, startlingly different harmonic colours (we call it, technically, 'chromaticism'), injections of complexity that trouble the surface._






https://unheardbeethoven.org/search.php?Identifier=hess37
_"Without any doubt, Mozart's Fugue in C minor for two pianos, KV.426, is one of the greatest fugues ever written since the death of J.S.Bach. A staggering amount of canonic devices is let loose on the fugue's main subject, while maintaining a remarkable clarity of texture, demonstrating Mozart's total control of counterpoint. At the same time the music is pervaded with a holy anger one expects of a Beethoven, rather than a Mozart. In short, Mozart combines in this unique masterpiece Bach's intellectualism with Beethoven's deep passion.
It's therefore important to realize that Beethoven not only knew Mozart's fugue, but even made a copy of it in his own handwriting. We must assume he was impressed by this work. It's somewhat surprising that, as far as we know, Beethoven never attempted to compose a similar fugue himself."_


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Ethereality said:


> People are too obsessed with old composers. Was Beethoven the best composer? Arguably yes. Were classical composers some of the best ever? Yes. However, has their music been _significantly _improved on ie. is there much better neoclassical music out there now? Yes tenfold. It's essential to learn how great these early classical and romantic composers were at inventing and influencing brilliant ideas. But that's not the main train of music.
> 
> People have taken Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Wagner, way beyond their original quality into whole new matrices and genres within classical. It's the absolute fundamental nature of evolution: Music always gets better, you have to find it. Everyone can find much better in the 20th century if classical style is what you seek, I don't even need to say anything, you'll find it within seconds. It's the _mindset_ that needs to change: New copiers of classic composers have mastered the craft and significant inventions within it, they come from every single year just as they did in the 1800s but there's just _more of them_ and more inventions, variations, and more utter perfection.
> 
> ...


Your voice comes to us from on high (as it were) as you castigate us for tastes that are conditioned by biases and obsessions? Maybe you need to do _your _research but I'm not sure how that "research" works. Is it about finding informed opinion and/or critical analysis? If it is then I am 100% certain you won't find proof that Mozart and Beethoven have been improved upon. So you are left with listening to the music, something that many of us here have been doing for our lifetimes. If we disagree with your suggestion is it our research that has failed? We almost certain know many of the works you feel can replace Mozart but have not come to the conclusions you have.

You seem to see the Classical and Romantic traditions as separate so you can compare more recent neo-classical composers (like Stravinsky?) as improving on only the earlier Classical composers, not the earlier Romantics? And it is the same for Romantic music - it has been bettered by neo-Romantics (like Shostakovich?). What about all the modern music that is not neo-anything? And what about Early and Baroque music? Has that also been bettered? By what?

I wonder what happened in between. Did the Romantic Brahms improve upon the Romantic Beethoven only to be improved upon by Mahler? And where do the other Romantic composers - the ones with quite different aesthetics to Beethoven and Brahms (like Chopin, Schumann, Schubert, Liszt, Wagner ...) - fit into this theory?

I love a lot of modern and contemporary music and do see it as growing out of our musical past. But I don't see any of it as improving on the music of the past. Science might progress like that but not art. And FYI if you see evolution as a story of continual "improvement" to greater and better organisms you need to go back and study it some more. What is "better" in evolutionary terms? The word doesn't even make sense for that context.

You feel that most listeners - most of _us_, I suppose - are rather mindless victims of their own obsessions with the past, victims who have little capability of developing their own individual taste. We listen to and revere Mozart and don't realise we can get the same only better from Stravinsky? Well. I have done my research and love both but I know that I could not find what I find in Mozart in any other composer.

What you have written seems so extraordinary that I keep wondering if I have understood you correctly. Maybe if you could share the benefit of some of your own "research" and give us some examples that show Mozart and Beethoven as being bettered by more recent composers .... maybe then I would begin to understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Indeed, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Chopin etc did unique creations with various resources at their command, but *(you must remember)* so did Haydn and Mozart.


Dear me. _Must_ I remember? Clearly, if anyone fails to remember ANYTHING, you will chastise them for their dementia in interminable post after interminable post in tribute to the Great God Mozart, replete with more musical examples than anyone has time to listen to.

It's clearly unbearable to you for anyone to say anything touching on His Holiness which is anything less than a paean of praise. You must be terribly insecure to have to defend yourself - I mean, Mozart's self - so strenuously. I'm so sorry.

But guess what? You can post ten thousand pages "proving" that Mozart created the universe in six days, and I will still prefer the fugues of Bach, the string quartets of Haydn, the piano and clarinet quintets and violin sonatas of Brahms, the symphonies of Sibelius, the piano sonatas of Beethoven, the concertos of Rachmaninoff, the requiem of Berlioz, and the operas of Wagner to the works of Mozart in those genres.

Punkt.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> And let's not forget Mendelssohn was one of very few composers in history who had complete freedom to write whatever he wanted all his life thanks to the buttload of wealth he inherited from his parents.


What a ludicrous and blinkered way of judging a composer's output.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann (Jan 1, 2014)

I think I swap Monteverdi with Mahler. Then I let Brahms go and take Bruckner instead. And so I declare a draw between the Bs and the Ms.
Having done that, I wonder if I should instead focus a bit on the three S's: Schütz, Scheidt and Schubert. Or find two other K
s to match Kuhlau. At least that must be easier than "Q"...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Mahler... In your estimation, how do they compare to the "three B's" of Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms?_

They don't compare very well, in my opinion. I'd say the three Bs are somewhat similar -- all in the top 4 composers ever.

The three Ms, in my opinion, has the top composer (Mozart), one in the middle teens to 20th-best (Mendelssohn) and then Mahler sagging back around No. 35 or so.

I think most people can listen to the greatest composers all day because their output is both varied and outstanding -- chamber works, vocal music, solo instrumental, sacred choral music, symphonies, concertos -- they wrote great stuff in all venues.

The less-great have less variance. This, to me, is where Mahler falls, trailing all the other names on this list. If you like gargantuan symphonies and songs he may be your man.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Dear me. _Must_ I remember? Clearly, if anyone fails to remember ANYTHING, you will chastise them for their dementia in interminable post after interminable post in tribute to the Great God Mozart, replete with more musical examples than anyone has time to listen to.
> 
> It's clearly unbearable to you for anyone to say anything touching on His Holiness which is anything less than a paean of praise. You must be terribly insecure to have to defend yourself - I mean, Mozart's self - so strenuously. I'm so sorry.


I can only echo these sentiments. I've never encountered such abject idolatry of any composer before, although when it comes to Mozart I've seen some that comes close. It's truly remarkable.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

No one says anyone has to like Mozart but you have to be a fool not to know he is the greatest. If you take everything he wrote he is typically at or near the top of the heap with all other composers. Consider in:

Opera his Don Giovanni and Marriage of Figaro are on every top 10 opera list. One is usually at the top.

Symphonies his No. 41 is on every greatest list with anything from 35-40 not far off the mark.

His piano concertos as a body of work transcend anyone else in history. Only Beethoven compares.

His sacred choral music, the Requiem and Mass in C minor, are either the best or second-best of each ever written.

His harmonie music is better than anyone else in history. 

Much of his other chamber music, from piano quartets to string quartets to solo piano music, ranks with anyone else.

His concertos for woodwind -- clarinet, horn, oboe, bassoon and flute -- are better as a body of work than anyone in history.

His music for theater, from Thomas King of Egypt to his Masonic works, ranks with any other classical composer of any era.

As nearly as I can tell it is only his songs that don't rank with the best of the rest.

He also didn't write much ballet.

Excepting the two composers that rank near him, Bach and Beethoven, no one in history compares to the excellence of his total output.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

larold said:


> No one says anyone has to like Mozart but you have to be a fool not to know he is the greatest.


So anybody who thinks that Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bartok, Schoenberg, and on, and on, and on, was the greatest composer is a fool?

Please defend this proposition using objectively verifiable empirical facts. I can't wait to see it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The three Z's: Zappa, Zemlinsky, Zimmerman.

My three B's: Boulez, Babbitt, Barraque.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Überstürzter Neumann said:


> I think I swap Monteverdi with Mahler. Then I let Brahms go and take Bruckner instead. And so I declare a draw between the Bs and the Ms.


I'll see your Monteverdi, and raise you a Maderna.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Mahler
Martinû
Mozetich


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bluecrab said:


> I can only echo these sentiments. I've never encountered such abject idolatry of any composer before, although when it comes to Mozart I've seen some that comes close. It's truly remarkable.


_"Dissonance Quartet in C is an ordinary work. Third Razumovsky Quartet in C is a masterpiece of craftsmanship."
"Adagio and Fugue for Strings in C minor is an 'exercise' in fugal writing. Piano Sonata Op.111 in C minor is a masterwork of innovation."_

You don't see this kind of abject hypocrisy with other types of fanatics. Now, this is truly remarkable.
I mean they consider stuff like Choral Fantasy one of the greatest choral works ever because it was written by him :lol:

Like they always say:
_"The Great Messiah of Music Who Brought Emotion to Music"_
The greatest composer? 
Why does music get so angsty and dark with/after Beethoven?

I can only say "Amen" to this


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

@Ethereality:

"
However, has their music been significantly improved on ie. is there much better neoclassical music out there now? Yes tenfold.



People have taken Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Wagner, way beyond their original quality into whole new matrices and genres within classical. It's the absolute fundamental nature of evolution: Music always gets better, you have to find it. Everyone can find much better in the 20th century if classical style is what you seek, I don't even need to say anything, you'll find it within seconds.


"but all these other composers wrote like Beethoven and improved on Beethoven"

...
"

I think you make some decent points in your post, but I disagree with this premise, both on an intellectual and (especially) an artistic level. I've thought about it a lot in the past, and looked into it, and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot (unfortunately!!!) accept it. There is no composer today who "improves" upon, or even copies, the style of, say, Beethoven. This does not mean I'm against neoclassicism or neoromanticism, but I completely reject your premise. If you'd like I can go into my reasoning.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Why does music get so angsty and dark with/after Beethoven?
> 
> I can only say "Amen" to this


Why not also say "Hosanna," "Hallelujah," "Selah," "Praise the Wolfie," and "We magnify The Name of Amadeus now and for all eternity"?

Of course what you're saying "amen" to is simply not the case. Music _doesn't_ become "angsty and dark" after Beethoven. What it does become is reflective of a philosophical outlook and a social order uncentered from authoritarian creeds and structures and centered on the human individual and his psychological nature. This was occurring in Mozart's time, and the reflection of it - the newly personal, psychological character music was soon to exploit to the hilt - can be heard in some of his late works.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Why not also say "Hosanna," "Hallelujah," "Selah," "Praise the Wolfie," and "We magnify The Name of Amadeus now and for all eternity"?
> 
> Of course what you're saying "amen" to is simply not the case. *Music doesn't become "angsty and dark" after Beethoven.* What it does become is reflective of a philosophical outlook and a social order uncentered from authoritarian creeds and structures and centered on the human individual and his psychological nature. This was occurring in Mozart's time, and the reflection of it - the newly personal, psychological character music was soon to exploit to the hilt - can be heard in some of his late works.


Jeez, I can think of much Baroque music that is _*angsty and dark*_. For me, a prime example would be the Chaconne in Bach's Partita N° 2:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> And let's not forget Mendelssohn was one of very few composers in history who had complete freedom to write whatever he wanted all his life thanks to the buttload of wealth he inherited from his parents.


Recalling from the book on Mendelssohn I read a few years ago it seems that Mendelssohn's composing career was hindered by his work as a conductor and director of an orchestra. So while he was free to write whatever he pleased, he apparently did not have as much time for it as was needed. Would his parents have continued to give him money all his life so he would not have to work outside of composing? Maybe, but perhaps only if he stayed home, which was apparently not his desire. I understand his parents were very restrictive and sheltered him excessively, so he probably wanted to break free of that.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Why not also say "Hosanna," "Hallelujah," "Selah," "Praise the Wolfie," and "We magnify The Name of Amadeus now and for all eternity"?


I don't know what is it in the things I've said that caused unrest in some people here. So far I've been stating only facts, that there's merit in both early Mozart as there is in early Mendelssohn. (I don't care if you praise early Beethoven for that matter, the fact is that just because you don't like it doesn't make it objectively worthless) 
Also, by saying that Mendelssohn didn't have to work for an employer all his life, I wasn't criticizing his fine mature works such as violin concerto. I just found it worth mentioning that his predecessors had to follow composition restrictions put on them by their employers. (Archbishop Colleredo in the case of teenage Mozart) 
I acknowledge the artistry in Beethoven's contrapuntal work and Mendelssohn's early work, but then there's artistry in Mozart's as well. This is all I've been saying in this thread, backing up with facts from various academic sources. Again, just because you think it's crap, it's not objectively crap. People who bring expressions like 'Great God', 'idolatry' into discussions first should ask themselves if they're the ones always thinking in the mindset to prove or disprove greatness of one over another based on rankings. At least I wasn't doing that in saying the things above.



Couchie said:


> On the contrary his solo keyboard work is dull to listen to and even more of a chore to play.
> 
> As a piano student you typically have to choose between a Beethoven or Mozart sonata for exam classical-era requirements. *NOBODY PICKS MOZART.*


What represents the peak of Mozart's works to you?
Using bold capital letters in red.. I'm sometimes intimidated by these people.

_"I've never encountered such abject idolatry of any composer before,"_ -Bluecrab

Give me a break please  ..
Speaking of personal preferences and tastes, there are people who prefer Bach Mass in G minor and Cantata BWV54, for example, over Beethoven's choral works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know what is it in the things I've said that caused unrest in some people here. So far I've been stating only facts...
> Also, by saying that Mendelssohn didn't have to work for an employer all his life, I wasn't criticizing his fine mature works such as violin concerto. I just found it worth mentioning that his predecessors had to follow composition restrictions put on them by their employers. (Archbishop Colleredo in the case of teenage Mozart)
> I acknowledge the artistry in Beethoven's contrapuntal work and Mendelssohn's early work, but then there's artistry in Mozart's as well. This is all I've been saying in this thread, backing up with facts from various academic sources. Again, just because you think it's crap, it's not objectively crap. People who bring expressions like 'Great God', 'idolatry' into discussions first should ask themselves if they're the ones always thinking in the mindset to prove or disprove greatness of one over another based on rankings. At least I wasn't doing that in saying the things above.


Odd the things you fixate on and the things you ignore. Why did you quote the beginning of my post - which was merely an amused response to your "Amen" - but not address the actual substance of my post, which was to point out the false conception of musical history to which you were saying "Amen"?

Nobody questions the facts you state, but it's not true that you've been "stating only facts." The statement, "in reality, these classical masters were just as innovative as Wagner and Schoenberg" isn't one you can defend as a fact (even if it's true - but I'd argue with it at least with respect to Wagner; Haydn and Mozart didn't shake up music and the wider culture the way he did).

You're also not stating a fact when you say, "people who bring expressions like 'Great God', 'idolatry' into discussions first should ask themselves if they're the ones always thinking in the mindset to prove or disprove greatness of one over another..." I used one of those expressions, and I don't need to ask myself the thing you suggest, because I'm not concerned to prove that one composer is greater or the greatest. You do seem concerned, but aren't admitting it. If you weren't you wouldn't fill thread after thread with musical examples from Mozart every time someone expresses a preference for another composer. It's just fine to believe that Mozart is the greatest composer and to say so, but saying it by your actions while protesting that you're just citing "facts" seems either disingenuous or unaware. Dumping a truckload of YouTube posts of Mozart's music on every suggestion that some other composer might have been better at something, or merely that a listener might find other music more interesting, sure seems like evidence of a "mindset to prove or disprove greatness of one over another," especially when it's accompanied by remarks like the one about Mendelssohn's privileged childhood.

So what do you think about the more important point of my post? Did music _really_ become dark and angsty after Beethoven? I'd say Mozart's G minor quintet is pretty angsty, but of course he was obliged by his culture to end it cheerily, as was also the case with _Don Giovanni_. There's definitely some darkness and angst in the G minor symphony, and of course the _Requiem_ (because it's a requiem). Maybe it's more accurate to say that with Beethoven's generation composers were free to write unapologetically dark and angsty works, along with all their brighter and more cheerful ones. It's also accurate to say that composers used the expanded vocabularies of harmony, orchestration and form to explore subject matter and areas of feeling that music hadn't touched before, and to which simplistic categorizations like "dark,""bright," "angsty" or "cheerful" don't begin to do justice. That strikes me as a gain, not a loss, and something _I_ would say "Amen" to (if I were inclined to use that expression).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

larold said:


> No one says anyone has to like Mozart but you have to be a fool not to know he is the greatest. If you take everything he wrote he is typically at or near the top of the heap with all other composers. Consider in:
> 
> Opera his Don Giovanni and Marriage of Figaro are on every top 10 opera list. One is usually at the top.
> 
> ...


Essentially this distils into an assertion that Mozart is popular.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Essentially this distils into an assertion that Mozart is popular.


... among classical music fans.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Come on, let's not bring up drama from old threads here...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Amen to that. But I was merely rounding off a neat summary - as an act of appreciation, really.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> You're also not stating a fact when you say, "people who bring expressions like 'Great God', 'idolatry' into discussions first should ask themselves if they're the ones always thinking in the mindset to prove or disprove greatness of one over another..." I used one of those expressions, and I don't need to ask myself the thing you suggest, because I'm not concerned to prove that one composer is greater or the greatest. You do seem concerned, but aren't admitting it. If you weren't you wouldn't fill thread after thread with musical examples from Mozart every time someone expresses a preference for another composer. It's just fine to believe that Mozart is the greatest composer and to say so, but saying it by your actions while protesting that you're just citing "facts" seems either disingenuous or unaware. Dumping a truckload of YouTube posts of Mozart's music on every suggestion that some other composer might have been better at something, or merely that a listener might find other music more interesting, sure seems like evidence of a "mindset to prove or disprove greatness of one over another," especially when it's accompanied by remarks like the one about Mendelssohn's privileged childhood.


I'm not concerned with it either. You should know that in all my utterances I never said or implied once that Mozart is the greatest. I even once said that "I don't really buy into the idea that there exists 'greatest things' in music. I believe that there is music that's so exemplary that it inspires other artists through ages and that's where its value lies. But for us common listeners, everyone's preference differs, the word 'greatest' doesn't really hold significant meaning." Or something to the effect.
All I'm doing is trying to be fair and make other people look at things from a different perspective. I'm not really favoring Mozart over other greats, but I read a lot of old threads on this forum and I feel there's more nonsense spoken about Mozart than any other greats. Even regarding this issue at hand, there's not a single post that says "early Mendelssohn is crap" whereas posts that say "early Mozart is crap", there's a huge bunch of them. So, reading a lot of these threads, I feel it's fair to ask the question, "isn't early Mozart just as good as early Mendelssohn? Why do people hype early Mendelssohn while trashing early Mozart?" 
Due to the frustration I got from reading the old threads, I tend to get a little sensitive, overreact and exaggerate some things I say, but let's face it. There is certain 'propaganda' to brand Mozart an unfair, negative image and there's more bashing on Mozart than any other greats, there's even a thread discussing this: Music that is OK to deride 
Likewise, there are plenty of posts like "Mozart keyboard music is crap compared to Beethoven, and it's one reason why Mozart is overrated", but I'm wondering if they have dedicated time to seriously listen: 



 I'm merely asking them to think twice, "are you really being fair or rational in your judgment?" 
And I don't know why some of you pretend there is a cult with Mozart but not others. Bach versus Beethoven The greatest composer? Many members here even think Beethoven is greater than Bach. For some reason this is perfectly ok and not seen as an attempt to mythify Beethoven as a 'Great God' figure or an attempt at 'Beethoven World Conquest'. I'm curious what Bluecrab would say about this.
As I said, I do not believe there exists such a thing as the 'greatest artist', but if we were to pick one by evaluating the achievements and influences, I know other than Mozart, there are others like Bach, Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, who are equally good as candidates. I think that even composers that I criticized have certain elements in their work that make them unique from others'.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not concerned with it either. You should know that in all my utterances I never said or implied once that Mozart is the greatest. I even once said that "I don't really buy into the idea that there exists 'greatest things' in music. I believe that there is music that's so exemplary that it inspires other artists through ages and that's where its value lies. But for us common listeners, everyone's preference differs, the word 'greatest' doesn't really hold significant meaning." Or something to the effect.
> All I'm doing is trying to be fair and make other people look at things from a different perspective. I'm not really favoring Mozart over other greats, but I read a lot of old threads on this forum and I feel there's more nonsense spoken about Mozart than any other greats. Even regarding this issue at hand, there's not a single post that says "early Mendelssohn is crap" whereas posts that say "early Mozart is crap", there's a huge bunch of them. So, reading a lot of these threads, I feel it's fair to ask the question, "isn't early Mozart just as good as early Mendelssohn? Why do people hype early Mendelssohn while trashing early Mozart?"
> Due to the frustration I got from reading the old threads, I tend to get a little sensitive, overreact and exaggerate some things I say, but let's face it. There is certain 'propaganda' to brand Mozart an unfair, negative image and there's more bashing on Mozart than any other greats, there's even a thread discussing this: Music that is OK to deride
> Likewise, there are plenty of posts like "Mozart keyboard music is crap compared to Beethoven, and it's one reason why Mozart is overrated", but I'm wondering if they have dedicated time to seriously listen:
> ...


It's probably not surprising that such criticism is directly proportional to the success of the composer.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2019)

TOP 50 of Classical Composers according to number of outstanding works (lasting more than 10 minutes). Subjective evaluation based on the works of 600 composers in my collection.
Cycles like the Brandenburg Concertos are considered as one work. String quartets or piano sonatas are separate works. However I chose max 3 piano sonatas per composer in order not to skew the results.
This puts Bach and Haydn at a disadvantage because of their major large which are counted as one work only. 
The list is not meant as a final judgement but as a comparison tool.
As a conclusion five past masters prevail: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mozart. But a lot of modern and contemporary composers are not far behind and some of them still have a long life before them.
Outstanding composers like Wagner lose out because of their lack of polyvalence. Opera lovers might put him on top.
Some beloved composers like Machaut or Ockeghem are not mentioned because of a lack of recorded works.


B : Bach (23), Bartok (16), Beethoven (33), Brahms (25), Britten (19)
C: Cage (11), Chopin (10)
D: Debussy (12), Des Prés (15), Dusapin (10), Dvorak (12)
F: Faure (17), Feldman (17), Ferneyhough (13)
G: Gubaidulina (13)
H: G.F.Haas (11), Händel (14), Haydn (18), Hindemith (17)
J: Janacek (16)
L: Lassus (10), Ligeti (18), Lutoslawski (13)
M: Mahler (17), Manoury (13), Mendelssohn (10), Monteverdi (10), Mozart (33)
N: Nörgard (16)
P: Penderecki (15), Prokofiev (13)
R: Rachmaninov (14), Ravel (12), Reich (13), Rihm (12)
S: R.Saunders (14), Scelsi (12), Schnittke (19), Schönberg (11), Schubert (24), Schumann (20), Shostakovich (24), Stockhausen (10), R.Strauss (16), Stravinsky (14)
T: Tchaikovsky (14)
V: Vivaldi (16)
W: Wagner (12), Widmann (13)
X: Xenakis (22)


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

That list is a crime. You have Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Mozart, and even Shostakovich outstripping JS Bach, the man without whom no other on this list would be here. You have Schnittke in front of Haydn :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

And major composers like Bruckner missing ...


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> And major composers like Bruckner missing ...


And Liszt, and Sibelius, and Webern... and Ferneyhough in front of Monteverdi :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

So many problems, actually. Why should number of "outstanding works" mean very much? Some composers were prolific, others not so much. And who decides what is a an outstanding work? And, while some cycles are treated as one, I wonder if this applies to, say, Beethoven's symphonies? And has it been applied to Bach's cantatas? I'm not sure what mb was trying to show, anyway. Most of the discussion here has been about which three composers, all with names beginning with the same letter, are the greatest three. That involved discussion of people's (subjective) opinions of which would be the strongest three. What is being attempted in that list is something very different and seemingly arbitrary.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2019)

thanks for the lovely comments which I expected as usual. the respondents do not even read the preliminary comments I have made. Shame on you.I provide a comparison tool, nothing more. It will educate a lot of people who read it and apparently a lot of TC members badly need this, especially flamencosketches who considers this list to be a crime.
that being said it will be my last post on TC, as i cannot bear the idiocy of its members.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

marc bollansee said:


> thanks for the lovely comments which I expected as usual. the respondents do not even read the preliminary comments I have made. Shame on you.I provide a comparison tool, nothing more. It will educate a lot of people who read it and apparently a lot of TC members badly need this, especially flamencosketches who considers this list to be a crime.
> that being said it will be my last post on TC, as i cannot bear the idiocy of its members.


But you can't leave... we "idiots" NEED you, badly, as you say.

Shame on you and your arrogance. I was simply disagreeing with your list and you took it to heart.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

marc bollansee said:


> thanks for the lovely comments which I expected as usual. the respondents do not even read the preliminary comments I have made. Shame on you.I provide a comparison tool, nothing more. It will educate a lot of people who read it and apparently a lot of TC members badly need this, especially flamencosketches who considers this list to be a crime.
> that being said it will be my last post on TC, as i cannot bear the idiocy of its members.


Actually, marc, I read every word you wrote and did not come away with a clear understanding of what you were trying to say or why you thought your method would enable you to say it. I know you consider us as your students and see your posts as educational. Zen masters can teach by being obscure but I don't think it works for classical music.

BUT - don't go away! Engage. Participate. Join as an equal. Come down among the idiots!


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Mussorgsky, Mompou and ..... hmmmm..... ok Mozart I guess.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

marc bollansee said:


> thanks for the lovely comments which I expected as usual. the respondents do not even read the preliminary comments I have made. Shame on you.I provide a comparison tool, nothing more. It will educate a lot of people who read it and apparently a lot of TC members badly need this, especially flamencosketches who considers this list to be a crime.
> that being said it will be my last post on TC, as i cannot bear the idiocy of its members.


You are not our teacher or coach - you're just a TC member like the rest of us. Get over yourself!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'd go with Mahler, Mozart, and Myaskovsky; Mendelssohn doesn't make the cut.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> So what do you think about the more important point of my post? Did music _really_ become dark and angsty after Beethoven? I'd say Mozart's G minor quintet is pretty angsty, but of course he was obliged by his culture to end it cheerily, as was also the case with _Don Giovanni_. There's definitely some darkness and angst in the G minor symphony, and of course the _Requiem_ (because it's a requiem). Maybe it's more accurate to say that with Beethoven's generation composers were free to write unapologetically dark and angsty works, along with all their brighter and more cheerful ones.


One more thing. Having read some of your posts in other threads in addition to this one, I sense that you seem to care a lot whether a piece ends tragically or cheerily. Sure, Mozart was obliged by his culture to end his pieces cheerily, but look at Adagio and Fugue in C minor K546, Fantasy in C minor K475, Sonata in C minor K457, Concerto in C minor K491. Do they end cheerily? And what of Beethoven's Symphony in C minor Op.67, Concerto in C minor Op.37, Sonata in C minor Op.111. Even though Beethoven was allowed more artistic freedom in his time, do they end tragically? I'm not even sure if it's fair to compare them this way. 
I remember you saying one of the threads about Beethoven's ninth, "if you people want things civil, go listen to Mozart", which I did not respond to. On the contrary, I think it's about time Beethoven enthusiasts accept that there are people who think other composers did better than him in certain aspects. As I said, there are people who prefer Bach over Beethoven for real drama. For example, (I think) it's doubtful if Beethoven's choral work can compare favorably with Bach Mass in G minor BWV235. Even though extreme Beethoven enthusiasts constantly pretend Beethoven wrote the most turbulent and disturbing music ever that puts all his predecessors to shame-and the propaganda has won over the classical community so completely that anybody who dares to suggest otherwise is considered a philistine,-and as a result, something like Adagio from Mozart String Quartet in E flat K428 is branded with an image of being mere trivial music appropriate for the time before the coming of the 'Great Messiah of Emotion in Music'-
There are still people who would prefer other music aside from Beethoven for real turbulence and disturbance. I once had to quote Brahms's remark comparing Beethoven with his predecessors to get my point across. "Bach's use of dissonance is not to be found in Beethoven." It's also interesting to note that Beethoven did not even believe himself he wrote the most radically dissonant or chromatic music of his time and did not intend to write it that way.

_"Spohr's music is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music is marred by chromatic melody."_ 
-L.V. Beethoven



Woodduck said:


> It's also accurate to say that composers used the expanded vocabularies of harmony, orchestration and form to explore subject matter and areas of feeling that music hadn't touched before, and to which simplistic categorizations like "dark,""bright," "angsty" or "cheerful" don't begin to do justice.


So in which simplistic categorization would you put something like the major-key ending of Maurerische Trauermusik K477, 



 is it "dark,""bright," "angsty" or "cheerful"? How would our view of the piece be different if it was written by Beethoven?


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Handel, Haydn, Hummel


Hindemith, Handel, Hovhaness.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Having read some of your posts in other threads in addition to this one, I sense that you seem to care a lot whether a piece ends tragically or cheerily. Sure, Mozart was obliged by his culture to end his pieces cheerily, but look at Adagio and Fugue in C minor K546, Fantasy in C minor K475, Sonata in C minor K457, Concerto in C minor K491. Do they end cheerily? And what of Beethoven's Symphony in C minor Op.67, Concerto in C minor Op.37, Sonata in C minor Op.111. Even though Beethoven was allowed more artistic freedom in his time, do they end tragically? I'm not even sure if it's fair to compare them this way.


One can always find exceptions. What does that prove?

No, I don't "care a lot"; I'm just pointing out a change in the expressive intention of music. As a generality, minor key works in the Classical period ended with an upbeat movement in the major. Before Beethoven, this was really just a way of leaving the audience with a feeling of "normality." With Beethoven, the convention of minor-to-major began to represent a drama of "triumph through struggle," or a resolution of a narrative of conflict and turbulence set up by the previous movements.



> I remember you saying one of the threads about Beethoven's ninth, "if you people want things civil, go listen to Mozart", which I did not respond to.


Good thing. You'd probably have misinterpreted it.



> On the contrary, I think it's about time Beethoven enthusiasts accept that there are people who think other composers did better than him in certain aspects.


The only people I know who think one composer did everything perfectly - even things he died too soon to do but "would have done better than anyone if he had lived" - are Mozart lovers.



> As I said, there are people who prefer Bach over Beethoven for real drama.


Is "real drama" in Bach the same thing as "real drama" in Beethoven? (Clue: no, it isn't.)



> For example, (I think) it's doubtful if Beethoven's choral work can compare favorably with Bach Mass in G minor BWV235.


Not many people would rank Beethoven with Bach as a choral composer.



> Even though extreme Beethoven enthusiasts constantly pretend Beethoven wrote the most turbulent and disturbing music ever that puts all his predecessors to shame-and the propaganda has won over the classical community so completely that anybody who dares to suggest otherwise is considered a philistine,-and as a result, something like Adagio from Mozart String Quartet in E flat K428 is branded with an image of being mere trivial music appropriate for the time before the coming of the 'Great Messiah of Emotion in Music'


Find me one person who considers the Andante (not Adagio) of K428 "mere trivial music." And who are the "extreme Beethoven enthusiasts" who "constantly pretend Beethoven wrote the most turbulent and disturbing music ever"? I can't think of any. This is fantasy.



> There are still people who would prefer other music aside from Beethoven for real turbulence and disturbance.


Who cares what sort of turbulence anyone prefers? What does this prove?



> I once had to quote Brahms's remark comparing Beethoven with his predecessors to get my point across. "Bach's use of dissonance is not to be found in Beethoven." It's also interesting to note that Beethoven did not even believe himself he wrote the most radically dissonant or chromatic music of his time and did not intend to write it that way.
> 
> _"Spohr's music is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music is marred by chromatic melody."_
> -L.V. Beethoven


What point were you trying to get across? So what if Beethoven didn't like Spohr's use of chromaticism? Why do you think that was? Might he have had specific artistic reasons for it? Maybe he had a concept of aesthetic economy - of saving effects for when they were really needed - that he felt Spohr lacked. Wagner, king of chromaticism, once wrote, "never leave a key until you've said all you can say in it." He was warning against pointless modulating and gratuitous harmonic "effects." Beethoven - and Mozart, and Bach - would have understood that.



> So in which simplistic categorization would you put something like the major-key ending of Maurerische Trauermusik K477,
> 
> 
> 
> is it "dark,""bright," "angsty" or "cheerful"? How would our view of the piece be different if it was written by Beethoven?


The descriptive adjectives were not meant to be exhaustive, merely characteristic.

Despite your protestations, it always comes back to Mozart, doesn't it?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Replace Mendelssohn (whom I like but don't love) with Messiaen and I'd declare the M's the winner. With Mendelssohn it's pretty close: Mozart is my #1, but Beethoven is very close. Both Brahms and Mahler are in my top 10 (Mahler slightly higher), Bach is in my top 15, Mendelssohn in my top 30.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I'd go with Mahler, Mozart, and Myaskovsky; Mendelssohn doesn't make the cut.


Mendelssohn doesn't make my cut either. And although Mozart is not among my favourite composers, I'd be insane to ignore his greatness....

So I'd go with Mahler, Mozart and Martinů, with Mussorgsky as first reserve!


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

marc bollansee said:


> thanks for the lovely comments which I expected as usual. the respondents do not even read the preliminary comments I have made. Shame on you.I provide a comparison tool, nothing more. It will educate a lot of people who read it and apparently a lot of TC members badly need this, especially flamencosketches who considers this list to be a crime.
> that being said it will be my last post on TC, as i cannot bear the idiocy of its members.


What????

As to the list of greatest composers you have compiled, I'll ignore the obvious omissions, as it is as you say, subjective. I will confess I am struggling to think of seventeen compositions by Mahler that could be considered outstanding. Eleven Symphonies, some song cycles, and what? If you're including the piano quartet, it rather devalues the concept of "outstanding", surely?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> The descriptive adjectives were not meant to be exhaustive, merely characteristic.
> Despite your protestations, it always comes back to Mozart, doesn't it?


Why do you think expressing my complaints that people don't treat Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn fairly leads to the conclusion Mozart = greatest? Maybe you're the one who's insecure, always having this mindset to decide who is the greatest. The things I said above does not prove in any way Mozart = greatest,

because aside from Mozart, remember, there's Bach who demonstrated mastery in all: instrumental, orchestral works, vocal works, choral works, solo, chamber etc and craftsmanship in various textures, polyphony, homophony, monophony etc. When someone says none can compare to Bach in terms of number of achievements. It's a fair statement I can't really argue against. Also I can't find come up with an argument to refute "WTC is the greatest set of keyboard works ever written", in terms of craftsmanship involved and influence on later generations. Also there's Haydn, for example, who wrote Nelson Mass, Theresienmesse, Creation Mass, Harmoniemesse, Oratorios The Creation, The Seasons etc, of which Beethoven said "inimitable masterpieces", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_C_major_(Beethoven) and whatabout Handel whose masterpieces such as "Messiah", which continually inspired the later generations.

Maybe it's the extreme Beethoven enthusiasts who are always concerned with the question who is the greatest. People who claim Beethoven's superiority using 'slogans' such as "music before Beethoven sucked, they had no emotion or individuality. All that changed with the coming of Beethoven." (which literally translates to 'they never had depth of expression like Beethoven did')" Does Beethoven Have the Strongest Voice of the Big Three? Why does music get so angsty and dark with/after Beethoven?
Remember, it's Beethoven who gets the highest number of votes, he even beats Bach. The greatest composer?
You always have issues with me complaining people don't treat these masters fair. You don't have issues with something like this? Bach versus Beethoven
Surely you don't _think_ Beethoven reigns supreme over _all, including Bach_, do you? 

"_something like_ _Andante con moto_ of K428", (right, I knew I made a mistake and wrote Adagio to mean the 'slow movement', I was too lazy to come back and fix it earlier.) - when I say 'something like', I can mean other pieces of the same caliber as well. If someone says 'Mozart wrote trivial stuff, he's totally overrated', he's automatically condemning stuff like Andante of K428 as being mere trivial music without mentioning the works specifically. Many of them don't even mention specific pieces. They just say 'Mozart is overrated' without giving valid reasons, which is just as bad in my view.

There is a huge bunch of these throughout the old threads. Surely you don't deny there's far more _unfair_ bashing on Mozart than other greats?



millionrainbows said:


> Why does this "Mozart is overrated" idea keep cropping up, in various different places?
> It has become a "meme," and has a life of its own.





Captainnumber36 said:


> Overly complex compositions are too convoluted. Listen to Mozart and find sheer bliss, and non-contrived music.





Tapkaara said:


> Violence? This is a noun that I have never heard attached to Mozart. Please elaborate your thoughts on the "violence" of this music.





JohannesBrahms said:


> I think Mozart is overrated. That is not to say that I think he is a bad composer. I just don't enjoy any of his works, except for the piano sonatas, which even those I don't listen to very often at all. I think people make him out to be a better composer than he is. He is usually grouped with Bach and Beethoven, when really he is just not at their level.


As I said, the thing that worries me isn't necessarily whether people thought Mozart was the greatest or not. That's not the point. I care whether his sincerity with music is _misrepresented_. I understand how you and Bluecrab can find me annoying but you should try to understand my position as well.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Mendelssohn was my second love after Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> As I said, the thing that worries me isn't necessarily whether people thought Mozart was the greatest or not. That's not the point. I care whether his sincerity with music is _misrepresented_. I understand how you and Bluecrab can find me annoying but you should try to understand my position as well.


So opinions of Mozart differ. How could it have happened? Something is wrong in the universe.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Replace Mendelssohn (whom I like but don't love) with Messiaen and I'd declare the M's the winner. With Mendelssohn it's pretty close: Mozart is my #1, but Beethoven is very close. Both Brahms and Mahler are in my top 10 (Mahler slightly higher), Bach is in my top 15, Mendelssohn in my top 30.


Since I've read other posts by you, this is interesting. Because I don't rank composers. But I very much enjoy ranking individual works of different composers. It's not really ranking the pieces, but comparing them, their strengths and weaknesses (according to how I appreciate the fundamentals of music that they were using for expression).

For their exact time in music history, they're all equal - on the same level, composing something new, as they have learned from the past?


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I understand how you and Bluecrab can find me annoying but you should try to understand my position as well.


Oh, I don't find you annoying. Rather, I find you perplexing. I can't comprehend why anybody would spend so much time and effort to trawl years-old threads just to finds posts that are either negatively critical of Mozart or that praise Beethoven. For example, look at your post 84 above. Since I've been lurking here much of the afternoon, I've noticed that you've edited that post at least 3 times (including once to delete a link to a post I made God knows how long ago that was complimentary of one of Beethoven's late string quartets... probably Op. 131, but I'm not boring back into the past to find out exactly which one it was). Here's what I perceive: you certainly do believe that Mozart was the greatest composer ever, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. You also are terribly resentful because there are a lot of members here who consider Beethoven a "greater" composer than Mozart. In the grand scheme of things, does any of this really matter? There are those who believe that Beethoven was the greatest composer ever. There are those who believe that Mozart was the greatest composer ever. And Bach. And Handel. And even Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg. And probably even John Williams. And so on. That's just the way it is. People's tastes vary, and are subjective. We all must simply accept that.

At the end of the day, this is nothing more than an informal internet discussion forum. The musical knowledge of the members here ranges from virtually nil to vast (e.g., degreed musicologists). It should surprise none of us who have lots of experience listening to classical music (which obviously includes you) that some of the uninformed will post untenable and objectionable negative comments about every composer under the sun-Mozart included. Why get exercised about such drivel? It's just not worth it. Life is too short.

Have a good day, hammeredklavier.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bluecrab said:


> Oh, I don't find you annoying. Rather, I find you perplexing. I can't comprehend why anybody would spend so much time and effort to trawl years-old threads just to finds posts that are either negatively critical of Mozart or that praise Beethoven. For example, look at your post 84 above. Since I've been lurking here much of the afternoon, I've noticed that you've edited that post at least 3 times (including once to delete a link to a post I made God knows how long ago that was complimentary of one of Beethoven's late string quartets... probably Op. 131, but I'm not boring back into the past to find out exactly which one it was). Here's what I perceive: you certainly do believe that Mozart was the greatest composer ever, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. You also are terribly resentful because there are a lot of members here who consider Beethoven a "greater" composer than Mozart. In the grand scheme of things, does any of this really matter? There are those who believe that Beethoven was the greatest composer ever. There are those who believe that Mozart was the greatest composer ever. And Bach. And Handel. And even Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg. And probably even John Williams. And so on. That's just the way it is. People's tastes vary, and are subjective. We all must simply accept that.


For many members on this forum including me English isn't our first language and need to proofread and fix things we write a number of times. I know those examples I gave above aren't the best of the kind. Woodduck asked for examples, but since I didn't want to spend hours going through the forum to search for them again, I just went through my search history, which led me to threads I had recently been to and I picked some posts from them. 
I happened to include a post by yours, but then when I was proofreading, I thought it wasn't the best example, I switched with another one. That thread was from June 2018 I believe. Sorry, I don't try to pick on you specifically. But from late 2018 to early 2019, I've been actively reading and posting on this forum and I remember seeing a lot of Mozart bashing during that time as well. I remember there was a thread discussing 'Mozart is cold, emotionless, unlike Romantic music' something to the effect. I think part of the reason why there's significantly less threads like those around now is because I've been actively around to argue against them.

As I've said, the stuff that really ticks me off is NOT something like
"Beethoven is the greatest genius who ever lived. I consider all his works masterpieces."

The kind of thing that really ticks me off is when someone suddenly says in a thread about contemporary music, (for example) "Mozart is also hated as badly as contemporary music", pretending like that's a good thing. People who go further than merely 'expressing opinions' to promote iconoclastic hatred and bias. This is the kind of thing I find really unfair and unjust. Due to the frustration, I make comparisons between composers to establish that other people are biased. This fires up a debate on whether how fairly they're rated based on their achievements - which in turn inevitably leads to a debate on their greatness - something I don't necessarily intend in the first place. In short, the kind of mindset in people that 'it's ok to mock Mozart more than other greats' is what I find disturbing.
You can call me bitter and twisted, but I have past memories of seeing all kinds of things said about Mozart in other sites over the net that I can't forget.


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> In short, the kind of mindset in people that 'it's ok to mock Mozart more than other greats' is what I find disturbing.


You obviously haven't read through many of the threads on Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ManateeFL said:


> You obviously haven't read through many of the threads on Wagner.


When Wagner is mocked it's usually for nonmusical reasons. His music, interestingly, still tends to baffle people who don't love it; of all the acknowledged giants of music, he's probably the hardest to view in context because of the unusual form his music takes. There is one member of the forum who's been dedicated to dishing dirt on Wagner for years, and it's annoying because it's persistent and seems calculated to annoy. Most of us find what he actually says about Wagner's works unworthy of debate. I would feel the same way about people who find Mozart's music frivolous (or whatever), and wouldn't bother making an issue of their opinions unless they indicated a pattern of trolling.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> But from late 2018 to early 2019, I've been actively reading and posting on this forum and I remember seeing a lot of Mozart bashing during that time as well. I remember there was a thread discussing 'Mozart is cold, emotionless, unlike Romantic music' something to the effect. I think part of the reason why there's significantly less threads like those around now is because I've been actively around to argue against them.
> 
> As I've said, the stuff that really ticks me off is NOT something like
> "Beethoven is the greatest genius who ever lived. I consider all his works masterpieces."
> ...


You make it seem like poor Mozart himself is being robbed. You'd have much better luck getting to people if you weren't posting such punctilious, pernicious posts all the damn time. I'm a huge Mozart fan, but all I see you write is how poor Mozart is some beaten-down and trodden ghetto-dweller. He might as well be physically persecuted, perhaps some repressed and oppressed poor soul who's constantly being deprived nourishment.

Let the beatings stop, dammit!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

AeolianStrains said:


> You make it seem like poor Mozart himself is being robbed. You'd have much better luck getting to people if you weren't posting such punctilious, pernicious posts all the damn time. I'm a huge Mozart fan, but all I see you write is how poor Mozart is some beaten-down and trodden ghetto-dweller. He might as well be physically persecuted, perhaps some repressed and oppressed poor soul who's constantly being deprived nourishment.
> 
> Let the beatings stop, dammit!


Mozart -- an effeminate little Nancy-boy in satin pants with a manic giggle and a tendency to bow and scrape. While he was churning out scads of "pretty" music, other composers were writing things that mattered. No wonder Salieri steamed!

There, I feel so much better now that that's off my chest.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

KenOC said:


> Mozart -- an effeminate little Nancy-boy in satin pants with a manic giggle and a tendency to bow and scrape. While he was churning out scads of "pretty" music, other composers were writing things that mattered. No wonder Salieri steamed!
> 
> There, I feel so much better now that that's off my chest.


:lol:

Mozart vs Beethoven... over how many centuries have people been having this pointless debate.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Isn't it just a tiresome modern phenomenon? It is the sort of discussion that seems to belong on the internet.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

If anything, the internet has certainly radicalized both sides.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ And facilitated discussions that would never take place face-to-face or by letter. I suppose the closest would be newspaper letters columns but they would never get so silly.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Since I've read other posts by you, this is interesting. Because I don't rank composers. But I very much enjoy ranking individual works of different composers. It's not really ranking the pieces, but comparing them, their strengths and weaknesses (according to how I appreciate the fundamentals of music that they were using for expression).
> 
> For their exact time in music history, they're all equal - on the same level, composing something new, as they have learned from the past?


I enjoy rating/ranking things--it probably comes from my love of reading stuff like The Blockbuster Movie Guide growing up and how much I used various "best" lists to introduce myself to various mediums and genres--but I don't take them too seriously. It's mostly a way to clarify my own thoughts and opinions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> Isn't it just a tiresome modern phenomenon? It is the sort of discussion that seems to belong on the internet.


The internet is the perfect place to debate things that don't need debating. It not only affords us the opportunity to nourish our inner child by seeking to prove that "my daddy can beat up your daddy," but it gives people otherwise fated to anonymity a hope of fulfilling Andy Warhol's prediction, "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes."


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Mahler...
> 
> In your estimation, how do they compare to the "three B's" of Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms?
> 
> ...


Arguably the B's were more influential and had more impact on music history than the M's. In terms of personal musical taste, I also stay with the former, as both Beethoven and Bach are, together with Wagner, on the very top of my favorite composers's list, and as overall I rank Brahms higher than Mendelssohn or Mahler in this same list.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I don't think I'll ever be able to pick a number one favorite composer, but I think it's funny how the music I'm drawn to the most is all of the BIG names... I love the music of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart (in addition to Schubert who is on the same level in my personal preference) consistently above just about everyone else. Such boring taste... 

... however, I don't think I'm alone here. It seems if I were to poll the whole site, 9 in 10 TC'ers would have at least Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart (if not all 3) in their top 5. (After that, I'd say a good 7 in 10 would have one of at least Mahler, Wagner, or Bruckner... "The Three ____ers" - new thread idea). 

What gives? Do these few composers really dominate or are we all just conformists?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I enjoy rating/ranking things--it probably comes from my love of reading stuff like The Blockbuster Movie Guide growing up and how much I used various "best" lists to introduce myself to various mediums and genres--but I don't take them too seriously. It's mostly a way to clarify my own thoughts and opinions.


If you guess wrong, you might never go back and re-assess the ranking. I've had that 'problem'. I mis-ranked op61 by Chopin.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> If anything, the internet has certainly radicalized both sides.


I've noticed among my music loving friends the pitfall of hearing a few works by Mozart and Beethoven and deciding that Mozart is pleasant sounding, old fashioned and almost too easy to follow. While LvB is bombastic and then often too difficult to follow. Debates tend to open up the subject for people who haven't had the opportunity to compare them on the level playing field using just words.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> If you guess wrong, you might never go back and re-assess the ranking. I've had that 'problem'. I mis-ranked op61 by Chopin.


I would never say I "guessed wrong," I would say I felt one way then and feel differently now.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

flamencosketches said:


> I don't think I'll ever be able to pick a number one favorite composer, but I think it's funny how the music I'm drawn to the most is all of the BIG names... I love the music of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart (in addition to Schubert who is on the same level in my personal preference) consistently above just about everyone else. Such boring taste...
> 
> ... however, I don't think I'm alone here. It seems if I were to poll the whole site, 9 in 10 TC'ers would have at least Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart (if not all 3) in their top 5. (After that, I'd say a good 7 in 10 would have one of at least Mahler, Wagner, or Bruckner... "The Three ____ers" - new thread idea).
> 
> What gives? Do these few composers really dominate or are we all just conformists?


I think you are hearing it as I hear it (I feel it rather than sit down to rank the greats) *but *you miss the greatness of Brahms. For the rest, there are a great many composers who are arguably just a little less that those greats and a world dominated solely by the big 5 would be immeasurably poorer than it is.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I like Brahms but I don't put him on that level, not just yet anyway. I'm mostly a fan of his piano music; the symphonies kind of lose me.

As for myself, I rank Chopin, Debussy, Handel, and Haydn just outside of the "big 3".


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> I don't think I'll ever be able to pick a number one favorite composer,* but I think it's funny how the music I'm drawn to the most is all of the BIG names.*.. I love the music of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart (in addition to Schubert who is on the same level in my personal preference) consistently above just about everyone else. Such boring taste...
> 
> ... however, I don't think I'm alone here. It seems if I were to poll the whole site, 9 in 10 TC'ers would have at least Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart (if not all 3) in their top 5. (After that, I'd say a good 7 in 10 would have one of at least Mahler, Wagner, or Bruckner... "The Three ____ers" - new thread idea).
> 
> What gives? Do these few composers really dominate or are we all just conformists?


Are they not BIG names for a reason - that they composed the "best" music

so why should it be funny you, like most CM lovers, are most drawn to them?

would you feel better if your top 10 were obscure?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

stomanek said:


> Are they not BIG names for a reason - that they composed the "best" music
> 
> so why should it be funny you, like most CM lovers, are most drawn to them?
> 
> would you feel better if your top 10 were obscure?


I didn't say that. I just think what are the odds that so many will have preferences for the same few? We have all lived vastly different lives and are vastly different people.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Are they not BIG names for a reason - that they composed the "best" music
> 
> so why should it be funny you, like most CM lovers, are most drawn to them?
> 
> would you feel better if your top 10 were obscure?


Nobody has composed the 'best' music - it's a tendentious claim; they are certainly the most popular though.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

My three W's: Wagner, Weber, and Mahler 

(Ok so you think it's an M, but I think it is an upside down "W"--so there!)


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Vivaldi, Verdi, and Vaughan Williams?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> My three W's: Wagner, Weber, and Mahler
> 
> (Ok so you think it's an M, but I think it is an upside down "W"--so there!)


:lol:

Swap Mahler for Webern and that is a worthy list.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

flamencosketches said:


> :lol:
> 
> Swap Mahler for Webern and that is a worthy list.


I am afraid that I have never experienced Webern. What did he produce? Symphonies? Operas? Those are my main two areas of focus. Guess I need to do some exploring.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am afraid that I have never experienced Webern. What did he produce? Symphonies? Operas? Those are my main two areas of focus. Guess I need to do some exploring.


Webern didn't produce much. You can fit his complete works onto a measly 6 discs. I'm not a fan, but many love his "pristinely sculpted 12-tone miniatures" (as I've heard them called). He didn't write any operas. Only one symphony (IIRC). Mostly various pieces for orchestras, chamber ensembles, and for voice. Here's his symphony:


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Webern's early _Im Sommerwind _for orchestra and the cello & piano pieces are probably his most immediately attractive works. But certainly not characteristic of the bulk of the oeuvre.

The late-style tiny _Klavierstück_ played by Zimerman is a gem too, for example.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Nobody has composed the 'best' music - it's a tendentious claim; they are certainly the most popular though.


It isn't really so controversial to claim that some composers are better than others. It would be controversial (to say the least) to say the opposite.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> It isn't really so controversial to claim that some composers are better than others. It would be controversial (to say the least) to say the opposite.


I disagree. Music doesn't exist in any real sense without an auditor.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> It isn't really so controversial to claim that some composers are better than others. It would be controversial (to say the least) to say the opposite.


You think that telling a music lover that such and such composer is better than their favourite isn't disrespectful?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

janxharris said:


> You don't think that telling a music lover that such and such composer is better than their favourite isn't disrespectful?


If there's a specified discussion about the subject of quality going on, I don't really think it is.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

joen_cph said:


> If there's a specified discussion about the subject of quality going on, I don't really think it is.


Assertions that a particular composer is greater than another are, de facto, expressions of mere opinion.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

janxharris said:


> Assertions that a particular composer is greater than another are, de facto, expressions of mere opinion.


We've had this discussion many times before, and that's in itself a too theoretical, yet in some respects trendy, statement.

Of course, according to some parametres, some people experience a lot of qualities in _The Elephant Song_.





Please argue that it is technically and as regards content, the equal quality-wise of Wagners _Der Ring des Nibelungen.
_


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Assertions that a particular composer is greater than another are, de facto, expressions of mere opinion.


It seems to me that we can learn much from the critical consensus that has emerged over centuries and that when we have learned much of that we may indeed be entitled to make claims for our own tastes. My listener's repertoire has grown enormously and consistently over the decades that I have listened to music. Some of this very enjoyable growth came naturally from following the map laid down for us and what came with greater difficulty was possible because of my certainty that when I didn't like something that is supposed to be great it could very well be me that is wrong.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

joen_cph said:


> We've had this discussion many times before, and that's in itself a too theoretical, yet in some respects trendy, statement.
> 
> Of course, according to some parametres, some people experience a lot of qualities in _The Elephant Song_.
> 
> ...


This is only a valid comment if you equate (at least to a considerable extent) "greatness" with technique and content. For most people who want to enjoy music, it is not. Even for many classical music lovers, technique is not a determining factor - it certainly is not for me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

flamencosketches said:


> I like Brahms but I don't put him on that level, not just yet anyway. I'm mostly a fan of his piano music; the symphonies kind of lose me.


What really sold me on Brahms was his chamber music, which is not only my favorite genre of his output, but my favorite of any composers' chamber genre output. The thing with Brahms is that he tends to favor thick textures and complex forms, and when you "thin" that down to chamber proportions it makes the form more easy to comprehend. I had a new appreciation for his orchestral music when I revisited it after listening to his chamber works. The piano music is very good too, but Brahms is pretty far down on my list of favorite composers for piano.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

joen_cph said:


> Please argue that it is technically and as regards content, the equal quality-wise of Wagners _Der Ring des Nibelungen.
> _


I don't need to to maintain my assertion. But if somebody wishes to then that is fine with me. If it works for them then I'm not going to disrespect their view.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> This is only a valid comment if you equate (at least to a considerable extent) "greatness" with technique and content. For most people who want to enjoy music, it is not. Even for many classical music lovers, technique is not a determining factor - it certainly is not for me.


If not technique and content, then what? I agree (I think this is what you are saying) that technique is merely a means to an end even though some people listen to/for it. But surely "content" is what we ultimately want, whatever our tastes?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Emotion, reaction, satisfaction, undefinable really. "Content" is another word that can mean so many things to different people. I really don't know why I love a composition or composer, I just know what I love listening to. I have no problem making statements like "I love A more than B", which for me makes A greater than B, because in the end that is what I care for. And of course, these types of comparisons will be different for different listeners.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Emotion, reaction, satisfaction, undefinable really. "Content" is another word that can mean so many things to different people. I really don't know why I love a composition or composer, I just know what I love listening to. I have no problem making statements like "I love A more than B", which for me makes A greater than B, because in the end that is what I care for. *And of course, these types of comparisons will be different for different listeners.*


It's undeniable.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> Emotion, reaction, satisfaction, undefinable really. "Content" is another word that can mean so many things to different people. I really don't know why I love a composition or composer, I just know what I love listening to. I have no problem making statements like "I love A more than B", which for me makes A greater than B, because in the end that is what I care for. And of course, these types of comparisons will be different for different listeners.


I have a huge problem with equating "I prefer A to B" with "I feel A is greater than B". They are very different things.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I have a huge problem with equating "I prefer A to B" with "I feel A is greater than B". They are very different things.


Do you have an example Enthusiast?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

One I gave the other day was the Dvorak piano concerto, a work that is seriously flawed but which I love more than many works that are, I know, greater.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Art Rock said:


> Emotion, reaction, satisfaction, undefinable really. "Content" is another word that can mean so many things to different people. I really don't know why I love a composition or composer, I just know what I love listening to. I have no problem making statements like "I love A more than B", which for me makes A greater than B, because in the end that is what I care for. And of course, these types of comparisons will be different for different listeners.


Yes, there are uniqueness and styles that differentiate these artists and make them unique. But the fact remains, some have inspired more than others. And hence statistical research and analysis on classical music by major institutes always show there indeed exist something called "the most influential artists" in history.







So even though there were different styles, not all had the same musical skills and talents. Some are easier to "copy" than others. All the discussions and analysis involving how much craftsmanship there is with structure, form, melody, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, etc etc around a composer is to prove whether or not what they did was easy for 'other artists' to copy. How much they "stand out" from the rest of the crowd.
I won't mention the specific names, but some composers in history do make me wonder how hard would have been to copy their techniques if I was a talented composer living in the same period as them. 
And some people still deny these and keep asserting "music is completely subjective." "It's all about what I like, that ultimately decides "greatness" in music." -I still want to tolerate and respect their opinions as much as I can, but I sense certain anti-intellectualism in them.

Even David C F Wright wrote an essay on this topic (like in other essays, he says a lot of useless things, but I kind of agree with the general idea). https://www.wrightmusic.net/pages/miscellaneous.html


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

janxharris said:


> I don't need to to maintain my assertion. But if somebody wishes to then that is fine with me. If it works for them then I'm not going to disrespect their view.


I'm not arguing for disrespect. I'm arguing that for specified parametres, qualified critique is posssible, even to the point where it becomes intersubjectively valid.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Enthusiast said:


> I have a huge problem with equating "I prefer A to B" with "I feel A is greater than B". They are very different things.


Not for me, they're not. The problem is of course in the word "great" which is undefined. Some say it is all about influence, others say it is about pages in a music book, others say it is about popularity, others say it is about sales of CDs, and so on. All very nice, all reasonably quantifiable, but why would any of these (or some kind of weighed mixture - who does the weighing?) equate great for all of us? I know I could not care less for any of these things as they have zero effect on my listening pleasure. Therefore I prefer "great" as a subjective term. Or not to use it at all, which would be fine with me as well.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It is about community and consensus.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

What is? Are you saying that it is better for the community (which I presume to mean CM lovers) to have consensus about who are the greatest composers? If so, why? We have consensus. Average all individual preferences and you end up with the BBM triumvirate. That does not change the individual listening preferences.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

You were asking how we designate music as great. I replied. I don't think anyone would say that the legitimacy (or otherwise) of this consensus would change individual preferences! But it might put them into some sort of context.


----------



## MaxKellerman (Jun 4, 2017)

Obviously Ludwig van Beethoven was a greater composer than Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. He was far more innovative and far more inspired. And this is reflected in Beethoven's immense influence, his immeasurable impact on out culture and collective imagination. It's reflected in the continued demand for Beethoven's music among classical music listeners and it's popularity across the centuries. And this in no way is contradicted by the fact that any particular individual may prefer Dittersdorf to Beethoven.


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> My three Ms are Mendelssohn, Mahler, and either Mussorgsky or Monteverdi.
> 
> Mozart is not one I listen to and, to be fair, neither is Bach.


Yes, (partly).

I also cannot abide Mozart.


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> What is? Are you saying that it is better for the community (which I presume to mean CM lovers) to have consensus about who are the greatest composers? If so, why? We have consensus. Average all individual preferences and you end up with the BBM triumvirate. That does not change the individual listening preferences.


Agreed.

I cannot abide Mozart's music. But I would imagine that 90 out of 100 CM lovers think it is wonderful.

So be it. There is thus consensus, but that does not change the way I feel about his music.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Interesting how many totally eschew Mozart! Here I was thinking he wrote something for everyone. 

Not an opera guy, hoodjem? I'm not either, but I make an exception for Mozart's great works for the stage. Or are you just not fond of that period in music?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

> I cannot abide Mozart's music. But I would imagine that 90 out of 100 CM lovers think it is wonderful.
> 
> So be it. There is thus consensus, but that does not change the way I feel about his music.


^ Fair enough. You hate Mozart. I'll have to take your word for it that you _know _Mozart but that seems unlikely as why would you listen a lot to music you hate? A point I want to make is that knowing that the critical consensus is against me has often led to my recognising that the "fault" is probably with me and has led to my trying again and again over years and often eventually discovering music that I now value very highly and get huge and unique enjoyment from. This has happened for me over the last few years with Debussy, Vaughan Williams, a lot of "early music" and others. I am still unimpressed by Liszt but will probably get there one day.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^I think part of the dislike comes from people like me and you constantly telling him how great Mozart is, and how there's something wrong with him, and that he should just keep trying :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I don't think I was telling him that. What I was saying is that the critical consensus can be a helpful guide to what might be worth keeping an open mind about and might provide some perspective to enrich his own perfectly legitimate personal tastes. I don't care if he likes or hates Mozart as he is not (yet?) one of those who posts the same assessment again and again. I do not advocate keeping trying except occasionally and over a long time frame. I know you can't will or force yourself to like something that is leaving you cold or making you hot!


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I definitely agree with all of that, but I must not be alone in thinking that some might take it that way? Some people do not put as much value in consensus/conformity as do others.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

flamencosketches said:


> I definitely agree with all of that, but I must not be alone in thinking that some might take it that way? Some people do not put as much value in consensus/conformity as do others.


This. Definitely. There are plenty of so-called great composers and acknowledged masterpieces that I do not like at all. Yes, I've tried, many, many times for the most famous ones, but enough is enough.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

flamencosketches said:


> I definitely agree with all of that, but I must not be alone in thinking that some might take it that way? Some people do not put as much value in consensus/conformity as do others.


It _is _strange of me to suggest some respect for tradition while at the same time recommending an unforced and chilled approach to listening to the music. It is just what I have found works for me and it doesn't worry me at all that others are content to go with what immediately appeals to them. There is more than enough music out there to fill many lifetimes.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

We can all agree with that :cheers:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> One I gave the other day was the Dvorak piano concerto, a work that is seriously flawed but which I love more than many works that are, I know, greater.


I know what you write can't be a contradiction, but it sounds like one.

Speaking for myself, I can't accept that a favourite of mine is somehow objectively lesser in quality than a particularly work revered by the majority; all one need admit, surely, is that the other work is more popular and obviously great - but not greater?

Our brains and characters are very different are they not? If someone finds Beethoven riddled with tonic/dominant harmony (Mr. Tonic Dominant) who am I to say they are wrong?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MaxKellerman said:


> Obviously Ludwig van Beethoven was a greater composer than Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. He was far more innovative and far more inspired. And this is reflected in Beethoven's immense influence, his immeasurable impact on out culture and collective imagination. It's reflected in the continued demand for Beethoven's music among classical music listeners and it's popularity across the centuries. And this in no way is contradicted by the fact that any particular individual may prefer Dittersdorf to Beethoven.


I don't know any Dittersdorf, but in effect you are asserting, aren't you, that any of the 'Big Three' are greater than other comparable composers?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mozart, Monteverdi, and then Mussorgsky or Machaut.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

duplicateeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Fair enough. You hate Mozart. I'll have to take your word for it that you _know _Mozart but that seems unlikely as why would you listen a lot to music you hate? A point I want to make is that knowing that the critical consensus is against me has often led to my recognising that the "fault" is probably with me and has led to my trying again and again over years and often eventually discovering music that I now value very highly and get huge and unique enjoyment from.


I do own a lot of Mozart's music, but alas, I seldom listen to it.

I own all the symphonies, all the piano concertos and piano sonatas, a fair amount of his chamber music, and four operas.
Exceptionally, I do like _Die Zauberflöte_ and the later string quintets.

(I do _hear_ his music on the radio a lot--until I can change the station.)

Oddly, I enjoy Haydn very, very much. (I enjoy also Debussy and Vaughan Williams; Liszt is okay but seems to be more about technique than ideas.)


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Haydn is awesome. I think he beats his younger contemporary Mozart in both symphonies and SQs, Mozart outstrips the older master in opera (duh) as well as concertos. Jury is still out on solo piano work. As of now I give the edge to Mozart. I'm a new fan of Haydn (just this past month).


----------

