Who is the Greatest (Not Favourite) Composer

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Nov 16 2005, 03:03 AM
[b]If Mozart had lived longer, there would not have been the Romantic era as we know it, and we would all be talking about Beethoven the unjustly neglected master...if he had even dared be what he ended up being at all.

Mozart was the greatest of all those listed, because unlike Beethoven or any of the others, there was literally nothing he ever attempted - nothing - that he was not the undisputed master of.* End of story.

I love what you are saying, but this is complete opinion, as is the question.

I love what you are saying, but this is complete opinion, as is the question.

No, it's not opinion. Consider that Beethoven wrote only one opera, for example; Mozart wrote 14. Beethoven's is a fine example, but it doesn't come close to any of Mozart's last five operas in quality. Not only do most musicologists agree on this, Beethoven himself would have agreed.

Mozart also wrote better music for the Church than Beethoven ever attempted. If you're looking at Beethoven's "Missa Solemnis" or "Mass in C," these were not works practical for use in actual liturgies and were not intended as such. Mozart managed to crank out masterpiece after masterpiece intended for actual use in religious services. Beethoven wrote few of these...he couldn't rein himself in enough. There is something to be said for the kind of discipline Mozart was able to muster while creating deathlessly great music.

Beethoven's symphonies and concerti were logical progressions from what Mozart had already accomplished. Mozart's symphonic work was only rivaled by Haydn's in his own time, and his concerted works had no rival at all until Beethoven picked up the baton and moved on, practically a generation later. Not to lessen Beethoven's contributions, but without Mozart, Beethoven would have had nothing upon which to build. Let's not forget that when Beethoven went to Vienna the first time when was 17, he wanted nothing more than to study with Mozart.

Mozart wrote in a number of other genres Beethoven never attempted, and he mastered everything he ever tried - something Beethoven couldn't say.

Shall I go on?

And I still submit altogether reasonably that if Mozart had lived until 1820, we would barely know who Beethoven is now, and the whole world of art music would be completely different now. Mozart would have ended up doing what Beethoven did - only probably a lot better.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Nov 19 2005, 07:16 PM
[b] Mozart would have ended up doing what Beethoven did - only probably a lot better.

And my World comes Crashing Down !! I've created a monster !!

Yes, Certainly Mozart cranked out one master piece after another but none of his symphonies come even close to the brilliance of Beethoven's Symphonies. As for Beethoven's Concerti, These set the benchmark for the fully Romantic Concerti to follow. So no, Beethoven, In my View, is not the next logical step from Mozart. Hummel or Czerny or even more obscure Johann Hall sure - Not Beethoven. It just can't be ... All his hard work had to be greater than all of this !! So let the Poll decide - Beethoven or Mozart !!

J. Lee Graham,

I have nothing for respect for you and your music (it has all been exceptional from what I have heard and I often listen to most recent Symphony in G) and just like you, I love Mozart and fully agree that he is an undisputed master of music. His works are other-worldly and they are without a doubt some of the greatest pieces ever created.

With that said, and airing on the side of caution, I will say just this: In my own life, Beethoven's music is far more significant than Mozart's. The opinion of Musicologists will not change this, nor will the fact that Mozart could write useable Church music. I cannot describe how significant Beethoven's music is to me, but every time that I hear it I know exactly why it is. Furthermore, Beethoven was able to write music that got me interested in classical music, whereas Mozart wasn't. Beethoven brought me into the genre and only then did I learn to appreciate the majestic genius of Mozart.

So on that note, I'll take a bow and continue to love both of these fantastic composers!

Many many cheers and keep the great music coming!

I don't do it often, but I was purposely being contentious. I wasn't saying anything outlandish that I couldn't back up, though.

Now personal significance...that's a whole different ball of wax, and it needn't have anything to do with greatness in a historical context. For me, Mendelssohn and Brahms often have more significance in my life now, where Mozart meant more to me when I was younger. I owe him everything. Maybe that's why I am a bit of a bulldog in his corner...and I probably would not even have liked him had I known him.

Akhil, standing next to Beethoven's symphonies, I think all Mozart's symphonies seem to lack is Beethoven's modernism (for the time). It is this that sets Beethoven apart. Mozart was every bit his equal in craftsmanship.

No, I'm not joking.* Almost every single chamber work that Brahms completed is at least the equal of the best that Beethoven, Schubert, and Mendelssohn ever produced.* If I were to list what I consider to be great chamber masterpieces, I would include two to four pieces each by the latter three composers... and all but two to four pieces from Brahms's entire chamber music output.* Listen to his piano quintet, any of his three piano quartets, his horn trio, his clarinet quintet, his first string sextet, either of his first two string quartets... that's just off the top of my head.* Not a dull moment in any of them... and each piece is epic in scale, which is incredibly hard to do with a small ensemble.* Brahms had a gift for compressing incredible amounts of musical material into compact, coherent forms.* Most of Brahms's chamber works can hold my attention for their entire length, 40 minutes to over an hour.* I can only say the same for a few chamber works by Beethoven, Schubert, and Mendelssohn.

Brahms Sonata for Clarinet was pretty bad(made in his later part of life). I disliked it quite a bit. Though his trios are quite amazing. SO chamber music is quite the diverse little bunch

I've been giving some thought on this Mozart vs. Beehtoven

So I think we should tally it up!

Orchestration: Personally Beehtoven,(Pastorale) Though Mozart knew how to properly balance the orchestra.

Memorable Melodies: As I can think of Beehtoven had tons more. LIke Fur Elise, Ode to Joy, BUM BUM BUUUUMMMMM Beehtoven's 5th. Only One I can think of for mozart that is popular with the kids today is Eine Kleine Nacht.

Accesible: I'd say Mozart. Lee brought up a good point about Mozart's ability to make music that can work with many different festivals/church music.

Structure: I think this is what Beehtoven is known for and since I'm beehtoven biased I'd give it to HIM!!

Counterpoint: NOW thats a toughy

Innovative: BEEHTOVEN! modernist he is!

3:2:1
There is probably tons more but this is all I can think of at the moment. So you guys/gals start think'n up more like this. ANd LETS TALLY EM UP!!!

i'd make a few disagreements with that statement.
Orchestration: fair enough, you prefer beethoven. id have to go for mozart because of his wonderful knowledge of all the instruments, and how to write well for them, and the wonderful way he makes use of them. but i heartily agree that beethoven was great at orchestration too.
Memorable melodies, id say mozart again.
beethoven has ode to joy, 5th symphony, fur elise. that's about it.
i take it by memorable melodies you mean ones the general public know well, because he has far more than those 3.
mozart has the andante from piano concerto 21. eine kleine nachtmusik. piano sonata 16 (facile). possibly marriage of figaro overture. queen of the night aria. symphony 40 1st movement. probably some more.
btw, if you disagree, ive heard most of those as ringtones
oh yeah, and for beethoven moonlight sonata.
but on the whole, id say mozart has more.
accessable. well some from each composer. probably mozart more.
but accessability is nothing to do with being a great composer. it maybe was at the time, when he had to compose to please certain people, but we're a different generation now, so accessability isnt a measure of greatness.

structure... i dont know. theres just something about the structure of the first movement of beehoven's fourth piano concerto that annoys me.
but apart from that his structure seems good to me. obviously he made a lot of innovations, so il give this one to Beethoven.
Mozart's structure always seems to be perfect to my ears, but he didn't make the innovations that beehoven did/ (some say that makes him greater, but come on, Beethoven hasnt got any points yet)

Counterpoint.... well Beethoven has the Grosse Fugue, and the Hammerklavier sonata, but Mozart has the Finale of the Jupiter Symphony, and finale of piano concerto 19, and the C minor fugue for two pianos (attached)

Im not sure...... maybe tie. im not familiar enough with both the composers' contrapuntal works to say.

Innovative, ok, yea Beethoven.

so thats 3:2 plus a tie.

btw, i included the midi of that mozart fugue i mentioned, because i dont think many people have heard it, and it really is good.

Yeah, I don't think we can say that the most popular melodies are the most memorable...

I saw the Borodin Quartet play the Grosse Fuge last month. Ah, that was something. (Especially since I'd managed never to have heard the piece.)

Originally posted by Chad dream eyes@Nov 21 2005, 12:27 PM
[b]Brahms Sonata for Clarinet was pretty bad(made in his later part of life). I disliked it quite a bit. Though his trios are quite amazing. SO chamber music is quite the diverse little bunch

I wouldn't say "pretty bad" to that. It's a different kind of piece from the rest, but I still love it. (That said, it's interesting that, IMHO, the viola transcription sounds better than the original.)