# Ranking the Greats



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Rank the following composers according to _your own personal preference_ -no compensation please:

*J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner*

For me it's:

_1. Bach
2. Beethoven (or tied with Mozart)
3. Mozart (or tied with Beethoven)
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Wagner
7. Haydn_

I like music from all of these composers, but there are clearly a few that I know I have to explore more. And there are others I just don't feel that I click with as well, but that's just personality/ignorance on my part.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Very well!

1. Brahms
2. Schubert
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Haydn
6. Wagner
7. Bach (I just don't like Baroque, OK?!)


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Air said:


> And there are others I just don't feel that I click with as well, but that's just personality/ignorance on my part.


I would call it personal taste and stop berating myself.

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Schubert (tied with Brahms)
4. Brahms (tied with Schubert)
5. Haydn (to my ears Beethoven learned more form Haydn than from Mozart)
6. Mozart (surprisingly not at the very bottom of my list any more)
7. Wagner (although I love Siefried's Death and Funeral March)

My musical tastes have evolved. Ten years ago Bach would have been on top and Mozart at the bottom. Still today, if I could have substituted I would for at least the bottom three. I would have tried to work in Vaughan-Williams, Bruckner, and maybe Shostakovich.

Glad we don't have to be this strict in our real listening choices.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Polednice said:


> 1. Brahms


I am stunned.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I shall rank by groups:-

Group 1: Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart
Group 2: Brahms, Schubert
Group 3: Wagner

Although group 1 is a long way ahead of the rest. But this ranking has been moulded to suit member Air's list of greats.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

1. Wagner
2. Beethoven 
3. Mozart 
4. Brahms
5. Bach
6. Schubert
7. Haydn


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Weston said:


> I am stunned.


I know, it's amazing isn't it?!  I've actually reached the point now where I am getting sick of hearing myself idolise Brahms so much! Shame there's no competition


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

Mozart



and others

And my favorite is Bruckner.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

5 Germans and 2 Austrians? This list is xenophobic..

J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner

1. Beethoven
2. Wagner
3. Schubert
4. Brahms
5. Haydn
6. Bach
7. Mozart


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Brahms
4. Schubert
5. Mozart
6. Haydn
7. Wagner

What can I say. I just don't like opera.

Schubert and Brahms are very close if not tied.


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2010)

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Brahms
4. Haydn
5. Schubert
6. Mozart
7. Wagner

1 and 2 are pretty close, almost tied, but Beethoven gets the slight edge.

Next tier is Brahms and Haydn. Completely different, I know, but they both affect me in different ways. Actually, Haydn has had a resurgence for me as of late, since I have been listening to his oratorios and masses - wonderful stuff.

Schubert and Mozart are in my third tier. I like Mozart for his operas, and Schubert for several things (String quartets, string quintet, lieder, 8th and 9th symphonies).

Wagner is listed 7th, only because that is the last spot. Really, he would be near the bottom of the list, even if it were longer (bottom quarter). I just don't care for his operas. I continue to try, but it just won't happen, even with my increased interest in opera.

Composers I would add: Mahler, Bruckner. Certainly I enjoy more, but in terms of really monumental composers, those are the 2 that I would add. Mahler would be in the second tier with Brahms and Haydn. Bruckner with Mozart and Schubert.

My third tier isn't meant to disparage those in it - Mozart and Schubert, as well as Bruckner, get very frequent airplay on my MP3 player. I just listened to Schubert's 9th symphony this morning.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Mozart
5. Schubert
6. Haydn
7. Brahms


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

1, Bach
2. Brahms
3, Schubert


4. Mozart
5. Beethoven
6. Wagner
7.Haydn


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

1 Mozart
2 Beethoven
3 Bach
4 Haydn

Mozart is my no.1, the order of nos.2-4 differ depending on the day you ask.

5 Schubert
6 Wagner

On some days I'd rank Wagner ahead of Schubert.

7 Brahms

Nothing against Brahms though. All these composers rank in my top 10 or 15 of most favorite composers.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

DrMike said:


> Wagner is listed 7th, only because that is the last spot. Really, he would be near the bottom of the list, even if it were longer (bottom quarter). I just don't care for his operas. I continue to try, but it just won't happen, even with my increased interest in opera.


Have you also tried earlier operas like Der Fliegende Hollander and Tannhauser which for those who are not Wagner fans already are probably easier to get into than the Ring, Parsifal or Tristan & Isolde?


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

I found this excruciatingly hard to do. This isnt just apples and oranges... its apples, oranges, pears, bananas, peaches, grapes, kiwi & blueberries.

Mozart
Bach
Beethoven
Haydn
Brahms
Schubert
Wagner

The 'top 3'.. you can easily make a case for any of them as we all know. I often want to include Haydn up there as well... and cram 4 of them into the top 3 spots.  

Actually: 'wow'. On reading further I see HarpsichordConcerto says:

" I Shall rank by groups:-
Group 1: Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart
Group 2: Brahms, Schubert
Group 3: Wagner"

*THAT* I agree with completely. If we can squeeze Handel in there as well - I would feel satisfied.


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Have you also tried earlier operas like Der Fliegende Hollander and Tannhauser which for those who are not Wagner fans already are probably easier to get into than the Ring, Parsifal or Tristan & Isolde?


I have Bohm's Ring Cycle with the Bayreuther Festspiele, Solti's Goetterdaemmerung, and Kempe's Lohengrin. I checked out a recording of Tristan from the library with Domingo, and didn't care much for it.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

DrMike said:


> I checked out a recording of Tristan from the library with Domingo, and didn't care much for it.


That's because there is only one recording of Tristan, by HvK, Vickers and Darnesch.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

This is a silly question. That said:

1) Wagner
...
...
...
2) Beethoven
3) Bach
4) Brahms
5) Schubert
6) Mozart
7) Haydn

Talk about endorsing German hegemony!


----------



## Grosse Fugue (Mar 3, 2010)

1.Mozart
2.Bach
3.Beethoven
4.Haydn
5.Wagner
6.Schubert
7.Brahms

This list would look very different if I could add some of my own choices.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Well, the best I can do at the moment:

1. Beethoven (clearly)

2-5. Bach, Brahms, Schubert, Wagner (for whatever you call those pieces when they don't sing) - not necessarily tied or in that order.

6. Mozart
7. Haydn


----------



## Comistra (Feb 27, 2010)

*Not as difficult as the ABCs!*

1. Beethoven
2. Brahms
3. Mozart
4. Haydn
5. Schubert
6. Bach
7. Wagner

I enjoy such constrained requirements. Where's the fun in listing, over and over again, your absolute favorites?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Air said:


> Rank the following composers according to _your own personal preference_ -no compensation please:


Without compensation...

1. *Wagner*
2. *Beethoven*
3. *Mozart*
4. *Brahms*
5. *Schubert*
6. *Bach*
7. *Haydn*


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Beethoven
Wagner
Brahms
Mozart
Bach
Haydn
Schubert


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Aramis said:


> That's because there is only one recording of Tristan, by HvK, Vickers and Darnesch.


Really? So the Bohm, Nilsson, Windgassen from Bayreuth doesn't exist?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Haydn 
7. Wagner

Don't listen to opera all that much, and I have to listen to more Haydn- only familiar with a couple of his works. And I think Bach was the more talented composer, but Beethoven and me just go too far back.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

SPR said:


> I found this excruciatingly hard to do. This isnt just apples and oranges... its apples, oranges, pears, bananas, peaches, grapes, kiwi & blueberries.
> 
> Mozart
> Bach
> ...


 Yes, my friend.


----------



## afterpostjack (May 2, 2010)

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Haydn
5. mozart
6. Brahms
7. Schubert

From spot 3 and below, my list would be altered if I could include composers like Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Vivaldi & Ravel. I'm not much into Schubert or Schumann or Bruckner, I've not heard much from Schubert that I like. Mozart and Haydn are pretty much interchangeable for me.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

1. Beethoven
2. Schubert
3. Brahms
4. Haydn
5. Mozart
6 & 7 (tied). Wagner, Bach


I'm really getting into the chamber music repertoire of the first three composers. I enjoy their works in this genre very much. Haydn & Mozart don't grab me anywhere near as much, but I don't mind them once in a while. As for Wagner & Bach, I rarely listen to them, although their influence on the history of classical is definitely unquestionable. Baroque hasn't tickled my fancy much, neither have the 'late Romantics' like Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss.

Yes, I agree with some of the others, that this list is somewhat problematic as it only has Austro-German composers. I would have liked to see some others (but if you want to stay confined to that part of the world, where's Mendelssohn & Schumann?). But I tend not to rank composers that much, I can equally enjoy composers like Janacek & Beethoven (or even people like Boulez, Ives or Carter!). It's the variety that counts for me, not necessarily the representatives of 'tradition.'


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Keep in mind that I tried to keep this list as basic as I could _with little or no compensation_. I do apologize if Austro-Germany is drastically overrepresented here (ya think?!), but the point here is not inclusion, but exclusion. The fact that the list must include _all 7 of these composers in a set order_... well that's just different. And plus, you have to decide between Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart (plus others). How many threads force you to do something like _that_?

You want to discuss your p_ersonal favorite composers_? Don't worry, we have something called a search function. If you really feel the need to, post your little "favorites" list on all of the 100+ threads that show up when you type in "favorite composers". You'll probably even find my ***** list(s). But here, cutting it down a little bit is a very interesting variation on this theme, and whether you regard these composers highly is definitely none of _my_ concern. (Have you noticed that there is no outsider on this list that you can pick just to feel like a rebel?)

Maybe I would have felt the need to cut the list at 8 instead of 7 (feels better doesn't it?), and include a G.F. Handel too, or maybe at 10 with an Igor Stravinsky and Robert Schumann thrown in. But then I would feel the dire need to include greats like Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, and Mendelssohn or even Liszt, Chopin, and Verdi. But what is it with this bull-**** list? It is so exclusively traditional, mundane, and even boring. _I want to talk about Villa-Ginazolla Joio and Toru Ifuhayashide instead_. But do you think this thread cares what _you want to do_? No, it is feelingless and emotionless (Don't you just want to punch the computer?). So the best thing to do, I've learned, is just to get on with it.

And as I think I've explained myself well enough, I'll try to refrain from making comments about the _dreadfully. low. placement. of Bach_. Wagner too, but Wagner tends to have a more "exclusive" group of followers who adore him to death, and then there's everyone else who just doesn't get it...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

1. Bach



2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. Wagner
6. Brahms
7. Haydn (although considering the Creation and his masses I might bump him above Brahms at other points)

This would pretty much be the same even if I were able to consider any and all other composers... with the exception that I'd probably plug Handel in there between Schubert and Wagner. After that?... Give me Schumann, Richard Strauss, and Mahler to complete the Austro-Germanic hegemony... before I'd start to throw in some non-Germans: Debussy, Dvorak, Monteverdi, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, etc...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Have you also tried earlier operas like Der Fliegende Hollander and Tannhauser which for those who are not Wagner fans already are probably easier to get into than the Ring, Parsifal or Tristan & Isolde?

If you can't get into Tristan & Isolde, Parsifal, or The Ring, you don't deserve to grasp the splendor that is Wagner that the "enlightened" alone can know. Come to Wagner by the back door you say?! Pshaw!!


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Something like this, I guess: 

1. Schubert
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Bach
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Wagner

Or, if other composers are included: 

...
11. Schubert
...
14. Mozart
...
38. Beethoven
...
46. Bach
...
52. Haydn
...
77. Brahms
...
251. Wagner
...


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Have you also tried earlier operas like Der Fliegende Hollander and Tannhauser which for those who are not Wagner fans already are probably easier to get into than the Ring, Parsifal or Tristan & Isolde?
> 
> If you can't get into Tristan & Isolde, Parsifal, or The Ring, you don't deserve to grasp the splendor that is Wagner that the "enlightened" alone can know. Come to Wagner by the back door you say?! Pshaw!!


Getting into Wagner through the backdoor allows for opening the frontdoor from the inside.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

What is this forum's obsession with ranking music as 'great' or 'greatest' or 'greater than anyone else's taste'? 

As far as I can tell, there's no accounting for taste. If there is, then it would be for bad taste


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Why has not one other person yet put Brahms at the top? Infidels!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Why has not one other person yet put Brahms at the top? Infidels!


His beard weights him down HO HO HO GOOD JOKE


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Head_case said:


> What is this forum's obsession with ranking music as 'great' or 'greatest' or 'greater than anyone else's taste'?
> 
> As far as I can tell, there's no accounting for taste. If there is, then it would be for bad taste


It's the obvious discussion point: what do you like, what don't you like? Although the reasons for liking or disliking something are perhaps an even better subject.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Wagner
Schubert
Haydn
Brahms


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

Weston said:


> I would call it personal taste and stop berating myself.
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach
> ...


Weston, I hope you live another 50 years. Who knows, by that time Mozart might have reached first place.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Groups, which some people have used, are in some ways better. As for them being 'Austro-German', well no such country existed at the time though I suppose there is a somewhat common language between them. In the period many consider the peak of western classical music from the later 18th century to the earlier 19th century Vienna was the main place. If you take a more baroque perspective composers from elsewhere would feature, same really with romanticism or modern.

Wagner would be at the bottom for me, but really I know his work least well. His work doesn't really encompass many different genres though.

Next at the bottom would be Brahms, he just didn't compose so much.

Next Schubert, he died young so his mature work in some areas isn't as expansive as others.

Then it gets more difficult, but I'll try not to opt out from making the hard decisions.

I'll put Haydn next because he although very prolific (he had a very long life and good employment) and good his best works in *some* genres are often considered surpassed by Beethoven and Mozart. He himself seemed to think Mozart was better.

Next I'll put Beethoven, even though he could be put 2nd or 1st. He built upon the work of previous masters but showed great inventiveness and fortitude. His gift wasn't as natural a gift arguably as the next two but he was a giant of his age, nobody really there to take any of his glory (Schubert died early and was virtually unknown).

Who comes next partly depends on whether you want to put baroque or classical first. I'll put classical first as that is what this list is mainly about and ultimately that arguably has been the single greatest period of influence within the whole genre of classical music. So...

2 JS Bach

1 Mozart


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

Beethoven
Bach
Brahms
Mozart
Wagner
Schubert
Haydn

There arent any composers on this list that I dislike - the listing reflects the amount of time I have spent listening to/exploring each composers work .


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

1. Beethoven
2. Brahms
3. Wagner
4. Bach
5. Schubert
6. Mozart
7. Haydn

I'm not a particularly big fan of Baroque/Classical period music; my musical tastes are from Beethoven onwards, hence my ordering


----------



## teccomin (Mar 21, 2008)

1. B
2. B
3. M
4. B
5. W
6. S
7. H


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Aramis said:


> His beard weights him down HO HO HO GOOD JOKE


HAHA that was actually hilarious no sarcasm.


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Getting into Wagner through the backdoor allows for opening the frontdoor from the inside.


Thanks, lady (I hope that's an acceptable term?), that gave me a good laugh.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

gurthbruins said:


> Thanks, lady (I hope that's an acceptable term?), that gave me a good laugh.


jhar26 is a man. _Martha Argerich_ is a lady.


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

I guess he asked for it then


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

gurthbruins said:


> I guess he asked for it then


No problem. Someone confusing me with Argerich is the biggest compliment I ever got in my life.


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

Mozart
Beethoven
Bach
Schubert
Haydn
Brahms
Wagner

Nothing original, I'm afraid. 
I liked the joke about the beard.
This ranking game also gives me a chance to rank the participants!
I note carefully those who put Mozart first! 

Personal preferences? Wagner doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather hear the Sibelius Violin Concerto, Vivaldi (something other than the 4 Seasons, which is overheard), Scarlatti, Paganini, Boccherini or Mendelssohn. Just to name a few off the top of my head.


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

Hmm, I don't consider myself quite qualified enough to post on this yet, because I still have so much listening to do! But tentatively:

_1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Schubert
7. Brahms_

The distance between #1 and #2 is pretty small, though clear. The distance between #2 and #3 is pretty large, and then all of them thereafter are on the verge of interchangeable just because I haven't spent enough time with them. Though I can't imagine Brahms gaining much ground, I wouldn't be surprised if Schubert overtook Haydn eventually


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

So far no-one appears to have questioned whether the list of 7 "greats" as set out in the OP is a valid list, or where it came from, etc.

Might I suggest that it is, in all probabilty, the list set out many years ago by journalist Phil G Goulding in his book "Classical Music", where he ranked the top 50 composers. Goulding's top 20 (using his descriptors) were:

*IMMORTAL*
1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven

*DEMI-GOD*
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Schubert
8. Schumann
9. Handel
10. Tchaikovsky

*GENIUS*
11. Mendelssohn
12. Dvorak
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Stravinsky
16. Verdi
17. Mahler
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovich
20. R. Strauss

It is interesting that the Digital Dream Door (DDD) music website went through a process of selecting the top classical composers in 2006/7 and came up with (top 20):

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
8. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893
9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
10. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971
11. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
12. Frederic Chopin - 1810-1849
13. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847
14. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918
15. Franz Liszt - 1811-1886
16. Antonin Dvorak - 1841-1904
17. Giuseppe Verdi - 1813-1901
18. Gustav Mahler - 1860-1911
19. Hector Berlioz - 1803-1869
20. Antonio Vivaldi - 1678-1741

The similarities between the two lists are obvious, certainly among the top 10.

As for my personal ranking I would say that could have selected more or less any order of those listed in the OP at various different points in my listening career which extends over 25 years. I remember when Beethoven was my favourite, and ditto for Mozart, Wagner, Brahms etc.

But one's tastes and preferences change. Right now I would go for:

1 Schubert and Beethoven (equal first)
3 Mozart and Brahms (equal second)
5 Bach
6 Haydn
7 Wagner

These 7 happen to correspond very largely to my absolute favourites, with the possible exception that I would place Schumann in 7th place and Wagner in 8th.


----------



## motpasm23 (May 30, 2009)

This is a pretty interesting test. I tend to base "best" or objective qualifiers like that on breadth and quality of work. Hence, I can't see a way to rank Wagner or Mahler very high on my list, as much as I think they are incredible composers within specific genres. Given that, I'd have to say

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Bach

After that I simply can't rate any of the other options. Partially because I'm stubborn and can't stand Brahms.


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

beethoven is over hype to the max. its bee thi and bee that when apart from his symphonies all his worl is not that high of qualities. on piano only you cannot even put him with chopin schumann and liszt. he did not write opera, his paino conerto dont come close to mozart masterpieces. maybe his strings quartets are good but I really don't understand the hype for BEE. I feel sad for people who always talk about his symphonies. grow up are you always listening to the same music. thats elitist to do that. Bee was good but he would not even make my top 10. his symp are good esoecially the 3 and 7 but the 5 and 9 are so overplayed im sick of those. the 5 for me is so childish and the nine is really really overplayed.So it would be

Mozart
Bach
Schubert
Brahms
haydn 
wagner
Beethoven
Beethoven and wagner would not even be there but we were told about those. Beethoven for me would be like 11-12. his symp rank high but the rest put him 11 for me


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Machiavel said:


> beethoven is over hype to the max. its bee thi and bee that...


You know, your argument would've sounded less fishy if not for this...



Machiavel said:


> when *apart from his symphonies* all his worl is not that high of qualities. on piano only you cannot even put him with chopin schumann and liszt


So you consider everything "apart from his symphonies" overrated. Good for you, but I beg to differ! I would say that if anything about Beethoven is overrated it would probably _be_ the symphonies. The _32 Piano Sonatas_, on the other hand, are his *supreme achievements*. It's true though that one cannot compare them to Chopin, Schumann, or Liszt just as one cannot compare Bach's keyboard works to Beethoven's 32.



Machiavel said:


> he did not write opera


Ever heard of _Fidelio_?



Machiavel said:


> the 5 for me is so childish


This one made me laugh... child's play? Are you sure you've been listening to the _5th_? 

You may want to reassess your thoughts about Beethoven. It's all right to dislike a great composer (Beethoven is not my favorite either), but at least, your reasons have to be convincing and legitimate.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I've already said elsewhere that his piano sonatas are his best achievement imo. The string quartets are great no doubt, though it's possible Haydn did more good ones (yet to come to a conclusion on that though). There is some hype concerning the symphonies, I think because they stood out at the time to people.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In all the genres that he composed in - symphonies, string quartets, concertos, piano sonatas, even his one opera - Beethoven stood supreme. He was a HUGE influence over succeeding generations of composers, right up until today. I've been listening to the string quartets of Bartok, Tippett & Carter and none of these men could have done what they did had it not been for Beethoven. I agree that the symphonies are what most people know him for, and are thus maybe overplayed (live in concert & on radio, etc). This is a pity, because his works in the other genres are equal to (if not better?) with what he did with the symphonic genre.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't care about influence, how is it measured anyway? What about those who are badly influenced? Better to look at the different genres from an historical perspective. Composers before Beethoven for their time did - at the very least - as much for the symphony or quartet. It's very questionable whether Beethoven's achievement in concerto, opera, quintets, wind music, trios, violin sonatas, diverimenti, lieder, dances, piano miniatures, religious music, organ music or other genres is greater than other composers.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm not necessarily saying "greater" but just "great." Beethoven contributed enormously to most of the genres he composed in. There's no doubt though that other near contemporaries, like Haydn, also composed much music that was of value. & I don't think that influence can be objectively "measured" but all you can do is just read about what later composers said about what & who influenced them & then get an idea of how things developed due to these influences.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It's very questionable whether Beethoven's achievement in concerto, opera, quintets, wind music, trios, violin sonatas, diverimenti, lieder, dances, piano miniatures, religious music, organ music or other genres is greater than other composers.

The problem is that influences overlap... the impact of a specific work or body of work in one genre need not be limited to that genre. If it were, the most "influential" composers would simply be those who worked in the broadest range of forms. Yet Wagner was clearly inspired by Beethoven's symphonies... in spite of never writing a single symphony... while Bruckner, who was profoundly influenced by Wagner, wrote almost nothing but symphonies. Beethoven's achievements across the spectrum are more than impressive. Certainly the piano sonatas, quartets, and symphonies are central... but his piano concertos are nothing to laugh at... nor are his other chamber works, his choral works, or even _Fidelio_. The idea that a given composer or work is overplayed and thus the composer/work is overrated is ridiculous. Popularity has little to do with artistic merit... for or against.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I never said that anything Beethoven did was something to laugh at, but simply that the idea that he "stood supreme" in every genre he composed was questionable in my opinion. Perhaps piano sonatas, but overwise he has competition and sometimes very strong competition.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... Yet Wagner was clearly inspired by Beethoven's symphonies... *in spite of never writing a single symphony*... while Bruckner, who was profoundly influenced by Wagner, wrote almost nothing but symphonies.


Wagner wrote his Symphony in C in 1832.

Was it you a while back who said that Haydn didn't write any opera?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Opal said:


> Was it you a while back who said that Haydn didn't write any opera?


No stupid, it was Mozart who never wrote any opera, but Mozart did write lots of symphonic poems.


----------



## Boccherini (Mar 29, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Mozart did write lots of symphonic poems.


Indeed, but Atonal ones, in the style of Rock-Baroque.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I find those people on avatars wearing wigs hilarious! Who are they? Some panel of classical music judges?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Wagner wrote his Symphony in C in 1832.

Was it you a while back who said that Haydn didn't write any opera?

At age 19... and it is far from a mature work by Wagner. I doubt that I was the one saying anything about Haydn's lack of operas... especially considering that I own a couple... including this which I recently posted on the "current listening" thread:










As well as this one, which I have coming in the mail... having picked up on it for a ridiculously low price (less than $5 US in spite of selling for over $55 through Amazon!)


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

Air wrote:

"So you consider everything "apart from his symphonies" overrated. Good for you, but I beg to differ! I would say that if anything about Beethoven is overrated it would probably be the symphonies. The 32 Piano Sonatas, on the other hand, are his supreme achievements."

- I agree with that.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

I think that Beethoven's symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas are arguably the most impressive bodies of work in their respective genres, so none of these are overrated in my opinion. True - his symphonies are more popular than the piano sonatas or string quartets, but that's because the symphony is the most popular type of instrumental music. Within their own genres the string quartets and piano sonatas are very popular.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

As far as quality of oeuvre goes, very few compare to Brahms. His ratio of masterpiece-to-good works is arguably greater than that of any composer. There's little of mediocrity in his repertoire, if any at all. Even his op. 1 is awesome.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> *True - his symphonies are more popular than the piano sonatas* or string quartets, but that's because the symphony is the most popular type of instrumental music.


That's what I said...

I don't really care whether "symphonies are the most popular type of instrumental music". I'm just pointing out that perhaps their popularity _do_ overshadow the composer's other achievements. No wonder that the "Beethoven's greatest achievement" poll has his symphonies clearly in the lead. But it's also no wonder that many members, including me, have instead pointed towards the _32 Piano Sonatas_ as his greatest achievement. I'm especially thinking of the late piano sonatas here... not exactly "popular" in the 3rd/5th/6th/7th/9th symphony sense. (The same thing can be said about his chamber works too.)


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

LvB, then others.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Brahms
5. Haydn
6. Wagner
7. Schubert

No particular reason, just personal taste.


----------

