Who is the Greatest composer after Beethoven?

It's not even worth commenting about the atonal-tonal nonsense with the sort of comments I've seen here, but otherwise I don't like Beethoven much. His music doesn't do anything to me, so.

Then again, most things from romantic (though calling Beethoven romantic would be inaccurate at best, technically.) bore me to death. However, I do really really enjoy Schubert's Winterreise, and Schumann's Liederkreis. Stuff like that, Lieds are neat.

The 20th century, thank heavens, was a time of decline for greatness and mystified genius. We could again witness such unparallelled craftsmanship such as Stravinsky's or Berio's. Or Ligeti's or Lutoslawski's.

As for contemporary music being unmusical -- if you really want to be the kind of person to label the stuff you like as real, true music and label the stuff that doesn't fit in your taste as "unmusical" then go ahead, be my guest, be that person. I sure as hell wouldn't want to. I mean it is quite a coincidence that you've been been blessed with the power of recognizing true art, where as we lesser beings dwelve in this "artsy crap", being the pretentious losers that we obviously are.

edit: i'm starting to get the feeling that i'm just not "young" enough for this board... i'll personally ban myself for getting caught in a flame war of this sort. g'nite.

Arnold Schoenberg.

Schoenberg definitely deserves credit, too - very influential and as far as I know (and as I can see from some of his books), also a great teacher.

Oh, and just to throw it out there because I don't recall him being mentioned, Stravinsky.

(though calling Beethoven romantic would be inaccurate at best, technically.)

It is not classical....

Well actually, I take back what I said. Stravinksy is in this period, but he is more so in the late period, the one that I didn't want to take a close look at.

So what exactly are we basing greatness on? What's the criteria? Or is this just a thread for Anonymous Internets users to spout whatever they want? Honestly, this thread has spawned very little discussion of actual value. Can't we just settle for the fact that every composer mentioned in this thread is great. Any composer who gets to a level where anyone can really say, "He did something spectacular" is certainly a great composer. Your internet quest for "the greatest composer" is meaningless at best. And to those who just use this thread to bash other musicians, obviously out of jealousy or just some kind of vitriol which I can't pinpoint, just cut it out. That's all I have to say for now.

To keep this thread on topic

LOL I think Strauss is the greatest composer ever EVER, and anyone who thinks differently sucks!!! LOLolololOloLOLOLOL!!111!!

Sincerely,

15 year old kid with an opinion and an iBook

I'm shocked that Tchaikovsky was mentioned in this thread. While I am indifferent, I was always under the impression that Tchaikovsky was considered 2nd rate, in that same little category as Rachmaninoff, Korsakov, and others. You know, popular, quite talented, but not genius. If you want my opinion, I'm not a big fan of Tchaikovsky. You know, aside from some moments in his symphonies I really think he's overrated. Of course that's one man's opinion against another, I'm not going to say he "sucks" or something (lolz)

Can't stand contemporary music, it's a bunch of artsy crap.

Aren't you a contemporary composer? Seeing that you compose music and aren't dead...

Brahms

then Mahler

Brahms

then Mahler

then Dvorak

Brahms, a given

Mahler, a given

Dvorak???

Sincerely,

15 year old kid with an opinion and an iBook

Suppose you add 5 glorious years.

Aren't you a contemporary composer? Seeing that you compose music and aren't dead...

Most of what I write, save the awarded ones are not "contemporary". There is no point in developing my own style, without learning the styles that came before me. Thus I learn them first.

How long have you been writing?

Anything after Eroica is.

It is not classical....

I like that Beethoven eventually became neither classical nor romantic. He was just Beethoven.

I like that Beethoven eventually became neither classical nor romantic. He was just Beethoven.

Bull*********** he was a bridge between both eras. Ya know? This is obvious, hold on I have to throw up hahahahgaa

Bull*********** he was a bridge between both eras. Ya know? This is obvious, hold on I have to throw up hahahahgaa

His music after eroica, was not entirely romantic, it was different from other romantics. And his classical was scraggy.

How long have you been writing?

Yes, make sure you stick to your textbook!

His music after eroica, was not entirely romantic, it was different from other romantics. And his classical was scraggy.

5 years, been doing uni for 4 years.

Oh ok it all makes sense now, Kanga

explain

His music after eroica, was not entirely romantic, it was different from other romantics.

Isn't that true for most composers though? Styles are merely an attempt to put a group of diverse music in one category, not things "composers write in" really. Bach isn't typical at all for baroque music, Haydn (while often seen as the "typical" classicist) broke through formal "rules" all the time in his very own way, Brahms was very anachronistic in his inclination to chamber music (both actual chamber music and "chamber-musical" orchestral music) which was seen as very old-fashioned (until it became highly modern again with Schoenberg), etc. The number of highly respected composers who really wrote in the "style of their time" is minimal.

Isn't that true for most composers though? Styles are merely an attempt to put a group of diverse music in one category, not things "composers write in" really. Bach isn't typical at all for baroque music, Haydn (while often seen as the "typical" classicist) broke through formal "rules" all the time in his very own way, Brahms was very anachronistic in his inclination to chamber music (both actual chamber music and "chamber-musical" orchestral music) which was seen as very old-fashioned (until it became highly modern again with Schoenberg), etc. The number of highly respected composers who really wrote in the "style of their time" is minimal.

Brahms

then Mahler

Brahms, a given

Mahler, a given

Dvorak???

NOOO, Mahler then Dvor

NOOO, Mahler then Dvor

NOOO, Mahler then Dvor

Brahms, Mozart, Beethoven, Strauss... etc. NO-ONE is a genius. Genius implies that they were born into it. They were not, everything they achieved is through hard work and practice, and maybe a bit of luck early in life.

Oh wow, the New World Symphony. Yes, us fresh faced musical novices have never heard this piece.

*YAWN*

Of course I've heard Dvorak 9, which itself isn't even that good compared to every other symphony from that era. I'll admit that's a very subjective opinion on my part, but I'm sure others would be inclined to agree. Of course the 2nd movement is quite pretty

I agree with everything in this post. Brahms was definitely a genius. First rate composer, Dvorak is second rate, he's barely a Rachmaninoff though one step above Saint-Saens.

The new world symph. is mainly famous because of where the composer drew inspiration from; I love dvorak's style of composing with short musical motifs and the like they are a blast!