# If you were limited to one composer...



## Steber (Jul 11, 2014)

I would like to ask the forum a rather outrageous question. 

If you were limited to listening to one composer for the rest of your life, who would it be?

My own answer is Ludwig van Beethoven.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

I'd go for painters...or writers....or film makers


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

In order to get sufficient variety, I'd probably go for 'anonymous' :devil:


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Sergej Prokofiev


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

As much as it would pain me to never hear Mahler, Brahms or Schubert again... JS Bach.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Jean-Baptiste Lully. An idiotic choice, but for me he just has that 'je ne sais quoi'.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

For me, in my own immaturity, it would have been Tchaikovsky.

But I have to admit, Beethoven was number two.

And in those early years, I wasn't interested in limiting but in broadening. I would not have understood the interest in limiting. (I still don't understand it.) So what if Tchaikovsky was, for awhile, my favorite? Back when I had favorites. That never meant that I had any interest in listening to _only_ Tchaikovsky. Even in those early years, there was already Rachmaninoff and Grieg and Haydn and J.S. Bach and Mozart and Mendelssohn and Vivaldi and Schubert and Schumann and Weber and Richard Strauss and Debussy and Ibert and Chausson and Ravel.

Among others.

With new composers added as quickly as I could get bewildered (and relatively impoverished) parents to buy me more. Best investment they ever made was a good radio for me.

For voracious fans like myself, the impulse to limit--even, as someone always rushes to say, "in fun"--stretches our credulity.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Personally I would go looking for the S O B who introduced the 'edict' and do a Burt Lancaster on him. We have enough 'Big Brother' as things are.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Yeah, it is an outrageous question, about as hard to answer and as practical as "If you had to lose all but one of your internal organs, which would you keep?" 

But anyway. My favourite composer is Mahler but I've kind of got his music in my head already so in an emergency I can call it up without needing to actually hear it. And he wasn't exactly prolific either. So I think I'll go with someone who wrote a lot of music that's not too familiar to me but that I'm reasonably confident I'll like when I get to know it. Let's say... I don't know... Martinu.



Also, congratulations Steber! On TC Bingo you get bonus points for getting consecutive non-answers from PetrB and someguy! :devil:


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

Yeah, how dare we non-answer an unanswerable question? I mean, really, who does that?

Oh, right. Neriffid. Nice save with the Martinu reference, though.:devil:

A little warning to Neriffid--because I loves ya, baby--you might find Martinu a bit too much of a sameness to be the only composer you listen to. He was certainly prolific. But his range is narrowish. Don't get me wrong. I love Martinu. I have dozens of recordings of his music. Indeed, that's how I know (how I have been able to conclude) about his range.

Much better to go with someone who does something different from piece to piece, like Kagel or Ferrari (Luc) or Cage or Ferreyra or Berlioz.

That is, if you want to retain some semblence of variety in your limit. If you like sameness, the comfort of familiarity, and who doesn't now and again?, then Martinu is definitely your man. Reliably good. Reliably similar from piece to piece.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Domenico Scarlatti because he wrote so many keyboard sonatas, I would never have to play the same one ever, twice.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Oh, just wait until you 'grow up' and reach a far greater musical maturity, lol. Because for some, and the youthful 'newer to classical' _it is always Beethoven,_ isn't it?


I don't think I'm ever likely to be commended for my 'musical maturity' (though most of my favourite recordings are pretty old!) but nor have I ever listened to Beethoven with anything other than boredom or aversion. His songs? Meh. Fidelio? Double meh. Bombastic orchestral stuff? Guaranteed to have me running out of the room as fast as my little legs will carry me. I think my one composer choice would have to be Gounod, since there are so many lovely recordings of his songs. 'Le soir' is my favourite, sung by either Renaud or Battistini, though there are an astonishing number of lovely performances. Schubert, Schumann and Faure might have written even better songs, but they were not so well served by recordings back in the day. Plus, who would be without Gounod's Faust? ( Maybe people so keen to impress that they claim to like Beethoven. I couldn't possibly comment :devil


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> Yeah, it is an outrageous question, about as hard to answer and as practical as "If you had to lose all but one of your internal organs, which would you keep?"
> 
> But anyway. My favourite composer is Mahler but I've kind of got his music in my head already so in an emergency I can call it up without needing to actually hear it. And he wasn't exactly prolific either. So I think I'll go with someone who wrote a lot of music that's not too familiar to me but that I'm reasonably confident I'll like when I get to know it. Let's say... I don't know... Martinu.
> 
> *Also, congratulations Steber! On TC Bingo you get bonus points for getting consecutive non-answers from PetrB and someguy!* :devil:


Haha, and in one of the cases, the non-answer was condescending _and_ belittling! That must be worth _extra _ points. One of them seems to be on a singular mission to divert, distract, and equate musical immaturity with Beethoven, anytime the opportunity presents itself. Hopefully, the newer members still feel welcome. You know, those newer Beethoven "_fanboy_" members "_who like totally like Beethoven 4ever, like totally_" (language that's actually been used before)

The question is outrageous, as the OP even admits, but not "unanswerable". It would extremely difficult to decide, but it would be between Beethoven and Mahler. Truthfully, I can't consider Beethoven my undisputed favorite anymore, they're more like co-favorites. In the end, I would have to choose Beethoven purely because of the Late String Quartets, it's what edges it in Beethoven's favor. If it were purely symphonies, I'd have to choose Mahler.


----------



## garywigan (Oct 17, 2014)

*One composer - Joachim Raff*

I would have to choose Joachim Raff. While that would mean never listening to Beethoven's 6th again (which would be a big miss), I would have my favourite symphonies. 
Raff's 1st, 3rd, 5th, 8th and 9th could play on a loop and I'm sure I'd be happy for a long time.


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

Since this will never happen I have no fear in making an arbitrary selection!

Dvorak.


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

For me, first choice is Maurice Ravel.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

If the question is meant to include any genre and time, I'd choose Ian Anderson.

If we are to pick only one "classical" -- I'll still go with Beethoven until I finally grow up, though it has been several decades now. I usually eschew the more popular, but Beethoven transcends popularity.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polyphemus said:


> Personally I would go looking for the S O B who introduced the 'edict' and do a Burt Lancaster on him. We have enough 'Big Brother' as things are.


Yeah! whoever made it so Beethoven, Tchaikovsky have such pre-consumer's global press _to the near total exclusion of all those other equally great composers_ ought to be drawn and quartered.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Yeah, it is an outrageous question, about as hard to answer and as practical as "If you had to lose all but one of your internal organs, which would you keep?"


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Would have to be Wolfy. He wrote so dang much.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The dilemma of having to choose a single composer with whom to fill my head for a lifetime is so paralyzing that rather than risk catatonia, stroke, and spontaneous combustion trying to make a choice I would give up music completely and enter a monastery.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Beethoven, but it would be a great loss to listen only to Beethoven.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I'd say Haydn. He has an extensive catalogue, wrote in a lot of genres, and his music tends to be quite joyful.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Anton Webern. That way I'll be forced to think on something else than music after his extremely large body of works runs out. 

No, really, this would a tragedy. I would have to pick JS Bach. But I would miss so many other ones...


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

It is indeed an outrageous question. 

In any event, I'd probably be forced into selecting Tchaikovsky, and not just to silence the naysayers.


----------



## Steber (Jul 11, 2014)

Thank you to all for answering my outrageous question!
Steber.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I don't think I'm ever likely to be commended for my 'musical maturity' (though most of my favourite recordings are pretty old!) but nor have I ever listened to Beethoven with anything other than boredom or aversion. His songs? Meh. Fidelio? Double meh. Bombastic orchestral stuff? Guaranteed to have me running out of the room as fast as my little legs will carry me. I think my one composer choice would have to be Gounod, since there are so many lovely recordings of his songs. 'Le soir' is my favourite, sung by either Renaud or Battistini, though there are an astonishing number of lovely performances. Schubert, Schumann and Faure might have written even better songs, but they were not so well served by recordings back in the day. Plus, who would be without Gounod's Faust? ( Maybe people so keen to impress that they claim to like Beethoven. I couldn't possibly comment :devil


Gounod's Faust is "so not really Faust" to the German people they do not call it _Faust,_ (even when slated at the opera) but instead, _Marguerite_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Yeah, it is an outrageous question, about as hard to answer and as practical as "If you had to lose all but one of your internal organs, which would you keep?"





Couac Addict said:


>


_*Stops!*_----------------


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

I'd probably go with Brahms.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

Life without Mozart's operas is not imaginable. So Mozart it is for me...


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I'd be torn between Bach and Mozart. There are infinite relistens in Bach's music whereas I'm sure I'd burn myself out on Mozart's instrumental works if I continued to hear music as frequently as I do now. That said, Mozart's operas satisfy my craving for the human voice in a way that Bach never does. Also if I pick Mozart I get to keep his arrangement of Handel's Messiah, if that's not cheating.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polyphemus said:


> Personally I would go looking for the S O B who introduced the 'edict' and do a Burt Lancaster on him. We have enough 'Big Brother' as things are.


Yeah, but it is always nice when someone's choice is not the same one to most usual suspect three composers cited in melodramatic novels, films, etc.

...you know, the one which prompts the "Its _always_ _________." Responses!


----------



## Argos (Oct 11, 2014)

Bach for me. If I could sneak one more somehow it would be Handel.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

I would commit suicide. However, listening to J.S Bach could delay that a year or two


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. That state of affairs could be a nightmare. Actually, I would choose Mozart. His wonderful operas, piano concertos, chamber music, etc; Or possibly Mahler. Or even Haydn. Or maybe Beethoven.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

My passion for music would dwindle at a considerable rate. But I would probably take the late Baroque to late Classical era, as it has an air of detachment in which I don't feel it completely obliges to the personal emotions nor the intellect. So perhaps Handel, Bach, Mozart, or Kraus. I'd also have to put Brahms in there, as he's more of an intellectual romantic.

Edit: Crap... how could I forget my dear Haydn?


----------



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

Although the question isn't as drastic as, say, being asked what one type of food you would eat for the rest of your life at the expense of anything else, I honestly would prefer to give up listening to classical altogether and stick with rock and jazz rather than having just one composer to listen to. It's giving me the fear just thinking about it.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Maybe I'd pick Mozart just because I love a few of his pieces and I'm new to most of his music. It's a big risk though, because generally classical and earlier music starts to bore me quicker than romantic and later music on repeated listens.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm not sure why people feel this question is unanswerable. I assume most prefer not to think about it seriously; however, I suspect that if each of us were actually faced with this dilemma, the vast majority (maybe all) would make a decision and move on. For lovers of classical music to choose no classical music over a subset, no matter how small, seems unlikely to me. 

For me the answer would be quick and easy - Mozart. He wrote more beautiful music than anyone else and wrote such a wide range of works. And in so many genres (opera, symphonies, concertos, chamber, masses) he wrote some of my favorite works.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

The scenario is too awful to imagine, so I'll cheat(because I can) and combine the three most prolific great composers into one super composer: Johann Amadeus Haydn. There, now I have enough great music to last a lifetime. Oh no, but I'd still miss Schubert.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure why people feel this question is unanswerable.


Perhaps because it's an unlikely scenario? If you try to think of a possible situation in which you might be forced to make such a choice, it's unlikely that you'd be in a position to select the entire oeuvre of only one composer.

Perhaps because most, if not all of us, don't have a single-composer collection? The thought of spending the rest of my days listening only to Beethoven is a dull prospect, much as I love the fellow and his music, even though there'd be plenty to listen to. Yet if I said Debussy, I'd be choosing a much smaller collection, though maybe one that is more rewarding for me as I'm less familiar with his works.

Haydn then, as I only know his London Symphonies, so 92 to go!


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

J S Bach

Otherwise Mozart.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart!!!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps because it's an unlikely scenario? If you try to think of a possible situation in which you might be forced to make such a choice, it's unlikely that you'd be in a position to select the entire oeuvre of only one composer.


Well, it's wildly unlikely as an actual scenario, but it's a thought experiment to see how people would react. Thought experiments are fairly common and TC has plenty of them. Maybe some people just aren't familiar with thinking that way and/or feel it's a waste of time.

We did learn something so far. Apparently most people (at least on TC) do not choose Beethoven (although the majority did choose Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart).


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure why people feel this question is unanswerable.


I am.



mmsbls said:


> I assume most prefer not to think about it seriously


Well, since no one has the power to enforce this, and even if someone did, they wouldn't use it to force some TCer or other to only listen to one composer for the rest of their lives, I suppose there's no compelling reason to take it seriously. I mean, come on. One composer for the rest of your life? Who would even do that? It's ridiculous.



mmsbls said:


> however, I suspect that if each of us were actually faced with this dilemma, the vast majority (maybe all) would make a decision and move on.


Really?



mmsbls said:


> For me the answer would be quick and easy - Mozart. He wrote more beautiful music than anyone else and wrote such a wide range of works. And in so many genres (opera, symphonies, concertos, chamber, masses) he wrote some of my favorite works.


Ah. Well, there you are, then. Do it!! I dare ya.:lol:


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

My risky response would be to a choose a composer I have barely explored, just so I can go through the experience of getting-to-know-you. Maybe someone I'd never heard, just for the joy of discovery. 

A big risk, though, if I turn out not to like it so much.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I'm not telling who I would choose its a secret

But more seriously I really would not wish to only have the music of one composer so glad I don't have to make a choice in real life


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

I hope I am not forced to do this. I would have a serious internal debate. LvB or some Russian one should do.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

poconoron said:


> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart!!!


Probably my choice too if forced. I could easily live and be happy with his operas, chamber music, violin/keyboard sonatas, keyboard concertos and violin concertos, even flute concertos (under protest!), if I had too.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I wouldn't want to be forced to listen to only one composer for the rest of my life, but I like to think I could make something of the situation.

I'd want a major composer whose works I hadn't yet explored very fully, but of whom I knew enough to anticipate that there would be a lot worth getting to know. Beethoven or Mahler I surely wouldn't choose as I am familiar with their output and I can reconstruct a reasonable simulacrum in my head. Besides, I crave to hear new music. 

For that reason I'd make my choice between Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Mozart since I haven't yet heard more than a fraction of what each of them wrote.


----------



## Wolfie (Jun 9, 2014)

Very hard choice for me, but I would have to say JS Bach.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Please tell me it will never happen!!!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> I am.


I certainly understand why people would prefer not to be in the position of having to choose, but I'm not sure why they'd believe the question is unanswerable. Given that some people have answered the question, it's clear that, at least for some, the question is clearly answerable.



some guy said:


> I suppose there's no compelling reason to take it seriously. I mean, come on. One composer for the rest of your life? Who would even do that? It's ridiculous.


Good thing it's a thought experiment.



some guy said:


> Really?


Well, I assume lovers of classical music would prefer to hear some classical music rather then none. I guess I could be wrong.



some guy said:


> Ah. Well, there you are, then. Do it!! I dare ya.:lol:


Done. It's easy. Remember it's a thought experiment.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I'd be a conscientious objector :tiphat:


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

My first gut reaction would be the safe choice of LvB, but since I so adore the symphonies of Sibelius I might go with the Finn.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

J.S. Bach.
The vastness and variety of his music -- the great number of works, such as the cantatas (to which alone I could devote the remainder of my listening life) -- the sublime choral works, the numinous sonatas and solo works, the vast organ library of which my own listening has only scratched the surface, the wonderful _Brandenburg Concerti _which sound magnificently "different" from interpretation to interpretation ... there is much to recommend J.S. Bach. But if there were only the _B minor Mass_, that would probably be enough.
Since the edges of the sublime lie in infinity, one can never reach the end of Bach.


----------



## Wolfie (Jun 9, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> J.S. Bach.
> The vastness and variety of his music -- the great number of works, such as the cantatas (to which alone I could devote the remainder of my listening life) -- the sublime choral works, the numinous sonatas and solo works, the vast organ library of which my own listening has only scratched the surface, the wonderful _Brandenburg Concerti _which sound magnificently "different" from interpretation to interpretation ... there is much to recommend J.S. Bach. But if there were only the _B minor Mass_, that would probably be enough.
> Since the edges of the sublime lie in infinity, one can never reach the end of Bach.


Great response. The B minor Mass alone had a pretty big impact on my response as well. No matter how much I listen to it it never stops amazing me.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I've listened to only Bach for long stretches of time, so this pick is easy. Also loving the king of instruments is a nice bonus.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

This is a terrifying thought.
Bach, because he wrote so much good music.
Or Schubert, for the same reason.
Or Mozart.
Or Ligeti.
Or Haydn.
Or Ravel.
Or Beethoven.
Or Saint-Saens.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Hmm, Ligeti looks rather out of place on that list. I'd better add Britten and Penderecki to stop him from getting lonely.
Also, Elgar and Vaughan Williams.
*See! This is why I'm hopeless at decisions!*


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

If you choose John Williams, you get to listen to _everyone_.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Steber said:


> If you were limited to listening to one composer for the rest of your life, who would it be?


Then I would not listen to any one.
Is that allowed?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Maybe the answer is to 'become' the one composer; you could then work up themes from all your remembered favourites and die in a blaze of delight.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Maybe the answer is to 'become' the one composer; [...] and die in a blaze of delight.


Haha! I almost said that.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm certain I'd grow to resent the one composer I'd selected. Playing along though, I'd select Mozart as his catalog is extensive, he's almost universally lauded, and I'm largely unfamiliar with the majority of his work. Now, if I had one composer to listen to for the rest of my life, and that life was only 24 hours to live? Ladies and Gentlemen, ---> Franz Peter Schubert


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Probably my choice too if forced. I could easily live and be happy with his operas, chamber music, violin/keyboard sonatas, keyboard concertos and violin concertos, even flute concertos (under protest!), if I had too.


Yes, that's what pushed me over the top with Mozart..............the amazing variety, quantity and quality of works across all genres.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The dilemma of having to choose a single composer with whom to fill my head for a lifetime is so paralyzing that rather than risk catatonia, stroke, and spontaneous combustion trying to make a choice I would give up music completely and enter a monastery.


Yes, but then you'd be forced to sing Gregorian Chants and bang a board on your head for the rest of your life.



some guy said:


> Well, since no one has the power to enforce this, and even if someone did, they wouldn't use it to force some TCer or other to only listen to one composer for the rest of their lives, I suppose there's no compelling reason to take it seriously. I mean, come on. One composer for the rest of your life? Who would even do that? It's ridiculous.


Well maybe not someone, but perhaps something. When the zombie apocalypse happens or the alien invasion occurs, the few survivors will have very limited power sources and have little, if any ability to listen to music.

What if the house you go into to salvage food only has one classical cd in it, and it's "Johann Strauss' Greatest Hits" and all it has is 15 different versions of the Blue Danube? I don't have to tell you that you will recall this thread with great nostalgia and cry out, "If only I took that question more seriously!!!"

J.S. Bach for me. Be damned the zombies and aliens!

V


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Ah, but if we were holed up in the Springbank distillery during said apocalypse, J. Strauss would certainly become more palatable, no?


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

^^^ maybe, but that would take A LOT of scotch!!!!

V


----------



## Blue Miasma (Oct 17, 2014)

I'm gonna cheat and say Mahler for Classical and Mozart for Opera, if cheating is not allowed then someone will have to make the choice for me because mentally I'm incapable of choosing myself


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2014)

Having skimmed this thread I would choose Lutoslawski, in the Caol Ila distillery, with the liver.

(Please be aware that I'm posting whilst imbibing Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby).


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

gog said:


> Having skimmed this thread I would choose Lutoslawski, in the Caol Ila distillery, with the liver.


Sorry, is this the TC online Cluedo thread I've stumbled into?

(P.S. please be aware, as it happens, I have been imbibing Caol Ila...)


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I would simply refuse to, and then go jump off a stool.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Sorry, is this the TC online Cluedo thread I've stumbled into?
> 
> (P.S. please be aware, as it happens, I have been imbibing Caol Ila...)


That would be SO much fun!
Who wrote the work?
"I suggest that it was Ravel in the Moscow Conservatoire with the orchestra!"
(receives PM from other user saying "Ravel, Orchestra")
Next turn: "Britten in the Moscow Conservatoire with the string quartet!"
(Receives "String Quartet" PM)
Finally: "I accuse Britten in the Moscow Conservatoire with the solo cello!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Okay, now I'm going to have to try some Springbank. I knew this thread had a latent capacity for usefulness somewhere.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2014)

John Cage, in the library, with the silence.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

How did this scenario even eventuate? Am I stranded on a desert island or something? Did Tom Hanks sail off with my record collection?

Is the island populated by monkeys that could be trained to form a rudimentary wind quintet? ...because I already have all the music I need thanks to this new composer I've just met.


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

Anton Bruckner. Of course.


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

Suicide said:


> I'm gonna cheat and say Mahler for Classical and Mozart for Opera, if cheating is not allowed then someone will have to make the choice for me because mentally I'm incapable of choosing myself


Dont worry. I just chose Mahler for you.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Suicide said:


> I'm gonna cheat and say Mahler for Classical and Mozart for Opera, if cheating is not allowed then someone will have to make the choice for me because mentally I'm incapable of choosing myself





Nevum said:


> Dont worry. I just chose Mahler for you.


Then I'll chose Mozart and you can have both. Maybe.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

J.S. Bach or Mahler for me.


----------



## Dave Whitmore (Oct 3, 2014)

Tchaikovsky is one of my favourites, too.

But if I had to pick just one composer to listen to it would have to be Beethoven.


----------



## Wiglaf (Jun 2, 2014)

Bach, Mozart or Schubert...as unoriginal as that sounds...


----------



## Dutchman (Mar 28, 2014)

Beethoven for me. His music affects me the most.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

At this point in time, I could listen to Mahler exclusively for the rest of my life.


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

But what is behind these hypothetical questions? It seems we want to get closer to our own sense of identity by finding which composer, is 'my' composer. If we find him/her then we find more of ourselves? But I don't feel I do really... Same goes with favourite writers, painters etc.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Augggggggh! This is a horrible question. For a while I could handle being limited only to Beethoven, but since then I have expanded out to other composers and especially with operas (alas, Beethoven has only one), and so now the question is almost as bad as asking me would you prefer having your arm cut off or your foot? I never should have entertained this thread in the first place.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I feel sympathy to questions like this, because the idea of self-induced limits and negations appeals to me. It seems to me that here one would have to make a compromise between the quantity of output and one's affection and opinion of the music.

I'll go with Haydn - huge, huge output and music that I like very much.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I do make self imposed limits. For example, to keep myself from going totally nuts with way too much music to try out, I purposefully avoid some composers whose works are surely going to be to my liking. For example, I largely avoid Bach, Mozart, and Haydn. I was keeping focused in Beethoven, but had to go afield for operas. Also, I got to trying out a number of different composer's symphonies and suddenly found myself drawn into Mendelssohn to the point that I have all of them, two sets, complete symphonies and complete string symphonies. Yeah, if I don't have a way to limit myself I fear (half jokingly) I will end up in a madhouse, or spending myself into the poor house (do either of these things still exist these days?).


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I'll also go with Haydn. But the best is a combination of all the great composers.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Florestan said:


> I do make self imposed limits. For example, to keep myself from going totally nuts with way too much music to try out, I purposefully avoid some composers whose works are surely going to be to my liking. For example, I largely avoid Bach, Mozart, and Haydn. I was keeping focused in Beethoven, but had to go afield for operas. Also, I got to trying out a number of different composer's symphonies and suddenly found myself drawn into Mendelssohn to the point that I have all of them, two sets, complete symphonies and complete string symphonies. Yeah, if I don't have a way to limit myself I fear (half jokingly) I will end up in a madhouse, or spending myself into the poor house (do either of these things still exist these days?).


Avoiding Haydn? Muahaha, but WHY? He's really fun to listen to, I wouldn't avoid him for too long .


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Florestan said:


> I purposefully avoid some composers whose works are surely going to be to my liking.


That's an interesting approach to something that I do as an enjoyable activity.

I guess you mean that when exploring new works, you like to widen your horizons?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Bach..................


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Charles Koechlin


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> That's an interesting approach to something that I do as an enjoyable activity.
> 
> I guess you mean that when exploring new works, you like to widen your horizons?


I've said something similar about Mozart. I know his music is quality and I'm waiting for the right time to truly explore. It's not going anywhere and it's comforting to have such a giant on the shelf, just waiting for you.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Someone unknown to me, preferably with a vast oeuvre for me to discover and why not someone contemporary with an attitude defies convention.. I really can't understand people who select something they are already very familiar with, way to safe and unexciting, life and music should be all about exploration and challenging all Your preconceptions! ut:

/ptr


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Mahler*

Mahler. I have heard in live performances all of his symphonies except the Seventh. Also Das Lied and Wayfarer. I have performed the Fourth and that was an awesome experience.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

scratchgolf said:


> I've said something similar about Mozart. I know his music is quality and I'm waiting for the right time to truly explore. It's not going anywhere and it's comforting to have such a giant on the shelf, just waiting for you.


Exactly. And if I get going on it, I might just have to buy every symphony which is pretty immense for Haydn. I recently got into Mendelssohn and it was quite contained with 5 symphonies and 12 string symphonies. I guess you could say I don't have enough self control to just dip in. So I just tiptoe around them.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Florestan said:


> Exactly. And if I get going on it, I might just have to buy every symphony which is pretty immense for Haydn. I recently got into Mendelssohn and it was quite contained with 5 symphonies and 12 string symphonies. I guess you could say I don't have enough self control to just dip in. So I just tiptoe around them.


I did just that. Purchased complete collections of Haydn and Mozart symphonies. I've dabbled in both but given neither serious and concentrated listening. I'm already quite familiar with Mozart's 38th, 40th, and 41st. The rest are pretty much uncharted territory.

As for Mendelssohn, he's near the very top for me. His violin concerto and octet are two instant grabbers and his string quartets are wonderful as well. There's no need to rush into anyone or anything. I've reserved this winter for the "Russian Invasion". I'm finally getting around to music I purchased 2 years ago. Tonight is Glazunov symphonies and enough vodka to kill a Kennedy.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

For me it's Chopin.

Though I may have 'heard' every note of his we know of, there's no end to the new discoveries still ahead in each piece. It's like fractals: I can always go deeper. The subtle beauty, the truly astonishing glimpses into his mind - ah, it's an endless feast.

I think I remember a quote something like "There is more music in the silences between the notes of Chopin than in all the trumpetings of [Composer X]." Did I dream it, or is someone familiar with the actual quote? I wonder.

At any rate, I choose Chopin because, if I chose anyone else, (even my adored Mozart, for example) I would ache for Chopin every moment.


----------



## CharlieCello (Nov 21, 2014)

I like the John Williams post! 

For me it would be Camille Saint Saens because it was listening to the Danse Macabre which got me into classical music and 'The Swan' which got me playing the cello. 

For me, easy decision


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Top picks so far:

Bach (10)
Beethoven (6)
Mozart (6)
Haydn (4)
Mahler (3)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't recall whether I've posted in this thread or not, but at the moment I think my choice would be Brahms. 

My second choice, and maybe even my first... hard to say... would be Stravinsky. Stravinsky has more variety to that'd be an advantage. But the problem with Stravinsky is that I can't listen to much of it when my wife is home. So, probably Brahms....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Upon further thinking, either Mahler or Mozart would fill the bill here.

I could happily listen exclusively to either composers' masterpieces for the rest of my life and never get tired, unless I was running the Boston Marathon while listening.


----------



## billeames (Jan 17, 2014)

This is a great question and a hard one. Beethoven because of Missa Solemnis best work ever in my opinion. For secondary possibilities: Shostakovich (giant of the 20th century) because of the 8th, 10th, and 5th, Poor Columbus, Execution of Stepan Razin. Mahler because of the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 8th. Brahms because of the Symphonies and Requiem. Bruckner because of 1, 3, 4, 5, 6. 8, 9 and Te Deum. Mozart Mass in c minor, Symph 25-41, Requiem. I could go on with Verdi, etc. 

Bill


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

^^^Luckily it's only a theoretical question and we don't have to worry about it!!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

The solo piano music of Scriabin - from the first to the last piece - would get me very far, as I don't seem to get bored of it. Even without the sonatas I would last a very long time.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I sincerely believe if you dropped me on an island with a lifetime supply of batteries, I could be happy simply listening to Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, Books One and Two for the rest of my life.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Hm, difficult decision.

Glazunov of Prokofiev?

Prokofiev is the hot and exciting side of music with sweetness and quirk mixed in. But Glazunov is the gentleman through and through, always noble and heaven-minded. It would be a tremendous loss of Prokofiev (perhaps I would cheat with him here and there), but I would have to say "I do" to Glazunov (as long as he allows me to cheat on him, although I think this unlikely). And besides! Glazunov has always been there for me, even more so than Prokofiev! Glazunov gets loyalty points.
:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OldFashionedGirl said:


> J.S. Bach or Mahler for me.


Me too!!!


----------



## sprigofflowers (Nov 23, 2014)

To rephrase the original question, if you were forced to condemn yourself to one composer… bach.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Myself. I'm not trying to be cute, and there's no way I believe I'm a better composer than any of the names I might pick, but I do have one point in my favour: I'm alive. The mere fact that I can produce so many new works each year tips the choice in my own favour, also avoiding much of the boredom I might well encounter with nothing but Famous Dead Guy #1097563 on tap.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

If I were forced to limit myself to listening to only only one composer, no matter which one I would choose, I would be listening to a LOT less music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Crudblud said:


> Myself. I'm not trying to be cute, and there's no way I believe I'm a better composer than any of the names I might pick, but I do have one point in my favour: I'm alive. The mere fact that I can produce so many new works each year tips the choice in my own favour, also avoiding much of the boredom I might well encounter with nothing but Famous Dead Guy #1097563 on tap.


You honestly enjoy listening to your own music that much?  I'm a painter and certainly spend a lot of time looking at my own paintings... but this is mostly during that actual process of painting. I can't say I spend a lot of time looking at my own work for pleasure when I could be looking at paintings by Matisse, Beckmann, Bonnard, Ingres, Rembrandt, Rubens, Michelangelo, etc... Even if I were limited to living artists I know any number whose work I would rather spend time looking at than my own work.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> If I were forced to limit myself to listening to only only one composer, no matter which one I would choose, I would be listening to a LOT less music.


Yes. That certainly would be true....unless you chose Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Handel, Bach or Scarlatti.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> You honestly enjoy listening to your own music that much?  I'm a painter and certainly spend a lot of time looking at my own paintings... but this is mostly during that actual process of painting. I can't say I spend a lot of time looking at my own work for pleasure when I could be looking at paintings by Matisse, Beckmann, Bonnard, Ingres, Rembrandt, Rubens, Michelangelo, etc... Even if I were limited to living artists I know any number whose work I would rather spend time looking at than my own work.


I'm the only guaranteed audience for my work, if I didn't enjoy listening to it all that much, what would be the point? I don't put in the proverbial blood sweat and tears to create something only to let it sit gathering dust, I do it to create work that is worth listening to again and again, and I like to make the most of my efforts.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann (Jan 1, 2014)

Bruckner. Life would be much duller without his last 5 symphonies.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Myself. I'm not trying to be cute, and there's no way I believe I'm a better composer than any of the names I might pick, but I do have one point in my favour: I'm alive. The mere fact that I can produce so many new works each year tips the choice in my own favour, also avoiding much of the boredom I might well encounter with nothing but Famous Dead Guy #1097563 on tap.


Well, I envy you and I can imagine that in the end the joy and satisfaction of creating outweighs listening to other music.


----------



## JohnD (Jan 27, 2014)

I guess it would have to be J.S. Bach for me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Alma Deutscher. I can watch her grow and mature as a composer.


----------

