# A general question about composers' popularity



## obwan (Oct 24, 2011)

Has anyone else ever wondered why it is there are so many compoers of the baroque and romantic periods that enjoy at least a bit of popular name recognition by both musicians and the general public alike? Baroque Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, are the givens but even composers such as corelli, scarlatti, purcell, rameau, lully, have a fair amount of name recognition even by the general public. Romantics Wagner, Brahms, Chopin, Lizst, verdi, puccinni, rossini, schubert, schumann, tchaikovsky, debussy, mahler, all also enjoy name recognition. not that every body is going to be acquainted with them all, but you wouldn't have to try to hard to find somene who has heard of them. With classical its just 3, Haydn, Beethoven and mozart. I'm excluding gluck and clementi and salieri from this list as youre only gonna know of them for a specific reason, i.e., your an opera fan, you studied piano, or you saw the movie amadeus. but any idea how many random people you would have to ask on the street if they'd heard of Cimarosa or Martin y Soler or any of the other numerous classical composers? 

Any reason to this? Were the classical composers just simply less gifted and this is why mozart and beethoven shine so brilliantly above all the rest? or did mozart haydn and beethoven just overwhelm all the others (due to their übergenius)?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I think you are being too generous with your assessment of the general public's knowledge of baroque composers beyond Bach, Handel and Vivaldi.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I wonder why is it that you have capitalized half of the names but did not capitalize the rest. Do you have no respect for Verdi, Schubert and Mahler?


----------



## obwan (Oct 24, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I think you are being too generous with your assessment of the general public's knowledge of baroque composers beyond Bach, Handel and Vivaldi.


Well I'm sure they enjoy more name recognition than Josef Mysliveček & Franz Xaver Süssmayr or Luigi Cherubini or Luigi Boccherini. 
And i'm being fair, i'm including the names of the most famous classical compoers other than mozart beethoven and haydn.


----------



## obwan (Oct 24, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I wonder why is it that you have capitalized half of the names but did not capitalize the rest. Do you have no respect for Verdi, Schubert and Mahler?


I didn't even capitalize Mozart and he's my favorite composer.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

obwan said:


> Has anyone else ever wondered why it is there are so many compoers of the baroque and romantic periods that enjoy at least a bit of popular name recognition by both musicians and the general public alike? Baroque Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, are the givens but even composers such as corelli, scarlatti, purcell, rameau, lully, have a fair amount of name recognition even by the general public. Romantics Wagner, Brahms, Chopin, Lizst, verdi, puccinni, rossini, schubert, schumann, tchaikovsky, debussy, mahler, all also enjoy name recognition. not that every body is going to be acquainted with them all, but you wouldn't have to try to hard to find somene who has heard of them.


Debussy is not a Romantic, and I doubt that Mahler has as much name recognition among the general public as Stravinsky (who at least is known for either Fantasia or his influence on jazz musicians like Charlie Parker).



obwan said:


> Any reason to this? Were the classical composers just simply less gifted and this is why mozart and beethoven shine so brilliantly above all the rest? or did mozart haydn and beethoven just overwhelm all the others (due to their übergenius)?


Some, like Charles Rosen (whose The Classical Style I've read a part of), say yes. I'm not familiar enough with galant style music to give my own personal opinion, but I'm usually less impressed by works by lesser known Classical era composers, even when I'm not told in advance whose work I'm going to listen to.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> ...but I'm usually less impressed by works by lesser known Classical era composers, even when I'm not told in advance whose work I'm going to listen to.


I think the general judgment is right. I have a large collection of the music of many composers of the classical era, and (to me) the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven is on its own plane. Nobody else comes close. This has been the accepted wisdom ever since those three composers lived.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I think the general judgment is right. I have a large collection of the music of many composers of the classical era, and (to me) the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven is on its own plane. Nobody else comes close. This has been the accepted wisdom ever since those three composers lived.


Correct. These three folks from the time they died, their most popular works have never fell to oblivion, no "re-discovering" needed. They made classical music what it is. Although the Classical period is not my personal favourite, I do not disregard these as historical facts.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Here's another thing to consider as part of the reason.

The baroque period lasted, 150 years. The Romantic and Modern close to 100. The classic period? More like 60 years. So why do we call all of it classical? I'm being very loose with my definitions here, and they all blur into one another. But maybe the classic period did not have as much time statistically to nurture as many great composers.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Weston said:


> Here's another thing to consider as part of the reason.
> 
> The baroque period lasted, 150 years. The Romantic and Modern close to 100. The classic period? More like 60 years. So why do we call all of it classical? I'm being very loose with my definitions here, and they all blur into one another. But maybe the classic period did not have as much time statistically to nurture as many great composers.


The other thing is the proliferation of musical talent and instruction in the later Romantic era continuing into the 20th century. This allowed areas of Europe and elsewhere that hadn't produced composers before to partake in the Western Classical Tradition. Previously, composition was more or less limited to Germany, Italy, and France, with a few outliers elsewhere.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> The other thing is the proliferation of musical talent and instruction in the later Romantic era continuing into the 20th century. This allowed areas of Europe and elsewhere that hadn't produced composers before to partake in the Western Classical Tradition. Previously, composition was more or less limited to Germany, Italy, and France, with a few outliers elsewhere.


I would add the present-day Czech Republic, at least that part historically called Bohemia. There were many esteemed composers from that region for at least 200 years, from Zelenka through Kozeluch and friends.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I think the general judgment is right. I have a large collection of the music of many composers of the classical era, and (to me) the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven is on its own plane. Nobody else comes close. This has been the accepted wisdom ever since those three composers lived.


I can't understand why Spohr is not more widely known and admired. I think he used to be.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

obwan said:


> Has anyone else ever wondered why it is there are so many compoers of the baroque and romantic periods that enjoy at least a bit of popular name recognition by both musicians and the general public alike? Baroque Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, are the givens but even composers such as corelli, scarlatti, purcell, rameau, lully, have a fair amount of name recognition even by the general public. Romantics Wagner, Brahms, Chopin, Lizst, verdi, puccinni, rossini, schubert, schumann, tchaikovsky, debussy, mahler, all also enjoy name recognition. not that every body is going to be acquainted with them all, but you wouldn't have to try to hard to find somene who has heard of them. With classical its just 3, Haydn, Beethoven and mozart. I'm excluding gluck and clementi and salieri from this list as youre only gonna know of them for a specific reason, i.e., your an opera fan, you studied piano, or you saw the movie amadeus. but any idea how many random people you would have to ask on the street if they'd heard of Cimarosa or Martin y Soler or any of the other numerous classical composers?
> 
> Any reason to this? Were the classical composers just simply less gifted and this is why mozart and beethoven shine so brilliantly above all the rest? or did mozart haydn and beethoven just overwhelm all the others (due to their übergenius)?


I think it would depend on which members of the general public you asked. I think you are being hopeful that most people would come up with as many names as you suggest in your post, but then again you may be asking someone who has a keen interest in music. Overall, there is an equal name recognition from each period - I think it would be the last composer the non - classical music person had heard which they would come up with, so that would be across the board.
I don't think you necessary have to like the lesser known composers for a particular reason other than you like their music - I greatly admire Vanhal and Michael Haydn for that very reason. There have in recent years been great steps in promoting the lesser known composers from each period so in time John Field might be as familar as Chopin, but that's a long way off. Composers from the classical era weren't any less gifted than from any other. Composers such as Gluck etc were in their day as celebrated as much as the three you mention. Mozart and Haydn have had their dry periods of popularity and it wasn't until the pioneering work of scholars such as H C Robbins Landon in the twentieth century that Haydn was truly acknowledged as the towering genius he was. Also, many of Mozart's works we take for standard repetoire now were not generally known until around 50 or 60 years ago. Beethoven as with Mozart and Haydn were in essence better than all their contempories, and that's why they are more famous and more listened too.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

This is a interesting topic. Assume for the sake of argument that there were really only three truly great composers in the classical era (classifying Schubert as a Romantic), while there were far more outstanding composers in the Baroque and Romantic periods. I'm inclined to seek the cause in changing historical conditions. Could aristocratic patronage have had something to do with this? Or the fact that what we call the classical era was much less diverse and more insular than the Baroque and Romantic eras--that is, it was basically dominated by the Vienna School and therefore one could only really _have _a career if one had the right connections? ("Receive the spirit of Mozart from Haydn," etc. . )

Compare the Baroque period, with flourishing and relatively autonomous music cultures in Italy, the Netherlands, the German states, etc. etc. to the classical era. I mean there's Arriaga in Spain, yet he's essentially writing Viennese music. Telemann and Handel and Bach and Vivaldi have more distinct voices to my ear.

Anyway, haven't thought this through; just throwing it out there.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Well, I would have to agree that your listing of "well-known" Baroque composers is a bit generous, but it is still a very interesting observation. If I were to admit to your premise, I would say that the reason is because the Classical era was a lot shorter than the Baroque and Romantic eras, and because Mozart, Beethoven, and Haydn were such genius musical giants that most everyone else from their time has been forgotten.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

obwan said:


> or did mozart haydn and beethoven just overwhelm all the others (due to their übergenius)?


I think your speculation that Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are just so great that they overwhelm the others is probably the biggest reason. The short time span of the era is another reason. JS Bach died in 1750. The exact beginning of the romantic era is hard to pin down. Some musicologists put Beethovens early work in the classical era and later works in the romantic era. One possible date for the start of the romantic era is 1815, the year Schubert wrote his most famous lieder, "Erlkonig". So a span of just 65 years for the classical era is not a bad estimate.


----------



## obwan (Oct 24, 2011)

First let me respond by saying that yes, part of my assessment of baroque and classical composers popularity is strictly subjective, but if I, as a classical music enthusiast, have never even heard of Composers like Cimarosa & Louis Spohr until quite recently, yet I've heard of correli and scarlatti et al. for most of my life, then I do reckon it is quite logical to assume (until proven otherwise) that these baroque composers are in general more famous than most of the classical composers. 


And second, at first glance the reasoning that the classical period was much shorter does seem to do well, but if you reconsider almost all of the famous baroque composers were from the late baroque period just before the roccocco period. Monteverdi is about the only I can think of from the early baroque period, and lully and correlli are bout the only 2 from the middle period (that I can think of).


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I might be surprised, if the man/woman in the street first uttered Bach or Haydn. I'd guess one of the spoonfed Big 5 of classical music radio--Vivaldi, Mozart, LvB, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak. Bach or Haydn would probably come in the next group of rememberings, along with Brahms, Ravel, Debussy.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Vaneyes said:


> I might be surprised, if the man/woman in the street first uttered Bach or Haydn. I'd guess one of the spoonfed Big 5 of classical music radio--Vivaldi, Mozart, LvB, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak. Bach or Haydn would probably come in the next group of rememberings, along with Brahms, Ravel, Debussy.


I think we are talking about popularity with the public who listen to Art Music aren't we? Not the general public who are fans of Snoop Doggy or the latest "American Idol".


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

obwan said:


> First let me respond by saying that yes, part of my assessment of baroque and classical composers popularity is strictly subjective, but if I, as a classical music enthusiast, have never even heard of Composers like Cimarosa & Louis Spohr until quite recently, yet I've heard of correli and scarlatti et al. for most of my life, then I do reckon it is quite logical to assume (until proven otherwise) that these baroque composers are in general more famous than most of the classical composers.
> 
> And second, at first glance the reasoning that the classical period was much shorter does seem to do well, but if you reconsider almost all of the famous baroque composers were from the late baroque period just before the roccocco period. Monteverdi is about the only I can think of from the early baroque period, and lully and correlli are bout the only 2 from the middle period (that I can think of).


Well if you are going to use the roccocco as a seperate era from the baroque or classical then you have an even smaller pond to fish from. Would you put CPE Bach and Bocherini into the roccocco or the classical? Both were often cited as roccocco in texts from the mid-twentieth century, but today both are cited as classical era composers.

Another fun classical era composer is Carl Ditter von Dittersdorf. In addition to having an awesome name, he was extremely talented. He wrote something like 120 symphonies, plus concertos, operas, oratorios, etc. He was a personal friend of both Haydn and Mozart, playing in quartets with them just for laughs, not as a pro performance group. I personally think he is much better than Spohr or Cimarosa. Dittersdorf seems to have enjoyed considerable success during his lifetime. Why isn't he remembered today? I don't know the answer.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Can we also factor in not just whether the man on the street has heard of the composer's name, but the music itself? 

If we think about recognizing melodies, we might have to add Boccherini to the classic list of big names for his famous minuet, and Weber for his Invitation to the Dance both as recognizable as the most famous Mozart pieces, and more recognizable than any Haydn piece. I suppose Rossini is the true beginning of romantic, but he sounds very classic to me. Then part of the William Tell and Thieving Magpie overtures would need consideration even over most Beethoven.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

Perhaps it is partially because many of the classical era composers wrote for the aristocracy; the tastes of the other classes were rarely consulted. Nor did they matter to the main consumers of music. With the Romantic era, the upper classes were no longer the sole consumes of music, but the rising middle class began to appreciate the more serious music being written. As wealth through sources other than that of inheritance started to give people more power to explore the arts, music became more varied in its expression. 

To answer such a question at all completely would be very difficult, but it seems many of the responses to your initial question have touched on a number of social issues which have to do with the changing tastes in music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Let's face it, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were no better than anybody else. But they had great PR machines! As Glenn Gould pointed out, "Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip."


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Let's face it, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were no better than anybody else. But they had great PR machines! As Glenn Gould pointed out, "Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip."


"no better than anybody else?" (shudder) Please say you are joking. Please.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Truckload said:


> I think we are talking about popularity with the public who listen to Art Music aren't we? Not the general public who are fans of Snoop Doggy or the latest "American Idol".


You're wrong.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vaneyes said:


> You're wrong.


Lol, that means all of TC are elitists.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Truckload said:


> "no better than anybody else?" (shudder) Please say you are joking. Please.


Can you explain how they are better? Don't mistake this for an attack (or: please answer rationally and without hostility), it's just that I'm always curious to see what people say when faced with that question.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Can you explain how they are better? Don't mistake this for an attack (or: please answer rationally and without hostility), it's just that I'm always curious to see what people say when faced with that question.


There have been many volumes written about these three great artists so nothing I can say will add anything to the pool of knowledge available. However, to summarize we can say that these men exhibit complete mastery of both the art and the science of musical composition. They write music which demonstrates their mastery through melody (motive), harmony, rythm, form, orchestration, development of ideas, and artistic impression.

Some also put great weight on factors such as innovation, influence on other composers and "breaking new ground". Personally I do not consider these factors of any importance, but many do.

Now, perhaps you can tell me how you would explain why Mozart's Symphony No. 41 is superior to his Symphony No. 9. Please be specific.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

obwan said:


> Has anyone else ever wondered why it is there are so many compoers of the baroque and romantic periods that enjoy at least a bit of popular name recognition by both musicians and the general public alike? ...
> 
> Any reason to this? Were the classical composers just simply less gifted and this is why mozart and beethoven shine so brilliantly above all the rest? or did mozart haydn and beethoven just overwhelm all the others (due to their übergenius)?


This thread I created, esp. my opening post, might be of relevance to what you're talking about here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/22117-warhorses-their-popularity-past.html

I don't think its a lack of talent, more other factors like the decline of classical music as meaning something to a wider public, as was the case in the 19th century, even up till some time in the 20th century (mid-century maybe?). Now the audience is too fragmented between things - eg. the warhorse brigade, the new music groupies, the archeological diggers (HIP groupies), fans exclusively devoted to one genre thats less popular than orchestral (eg. opera or chamber) and so on.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Truckload said:


> Now, perhaps you can tell me how you would explain why Mozart's Symphony No. 41 is superior to his Symphony No. 9. Please be specific.


I don't understand the point of this request.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> I don't understand the point of this request.


I am curious as to the level of your musical expertise. Can you please explain specificly how and why Mozart's Symphony No. 41 is superior to Mozart's Symphony No. 9?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Truckload said:


> I am curious as to the level of your musical expertise. Can you please explain specificly how and why Mozart's Symphony No. 41 is superior to Mozart's Symphony No. 9?


No. Neither specificly nor specifically.


----------

