The Top 5 composers

I guess people are not understanding my post, are they.

You can NOT post a list of "greatest" composers that means anything other than "my favourite composers".... unless you justify it with some musicological information.

Don't just list your "favourite composers".

List some great composers whose music you DON'T like.

If you actually love all of the music of your top 5, then you aren't being honest.

Among the composers I believe deserve recognition (as if they aren't already getting it) are composers I really don't care for musically.

And do NOT list a composer of whom you know only 3 works!

If you are unfamiliar with the majority of his work, then you can't make any sort of informed judgement about their work, can you.

Then again, if you only KNOW two composers, it's kind of useless to conjecture about who is the greatest, isn't it. You obviously haven't been in contact with enough music to make that sort of distinction.

If you only listen to music of the baroque, then how can you make an informed statement when there are nearly 300 years of music yet for you to discover?

Likewise for the classical period (200 years worth, still)... and the romantic (100 years worth, still).

If you only listen to piano music? or only to violin? or celtic squeegy bottle-opener?

I don't know if the message is getting across.

This sort of discussion is totally pointless for the multitude of reasons listed above.

Do you have a name? I would like to talk to you without this cowboy thing...please.

Yes I have heard Schuman's spring symphony and Sibelius' symphony No.2 and 3.

I have heard some of Barber's work and lots of Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev's Piano concertos and his Romeo and Juliet both orchestral and piano version. Though all these composers have written high quality music I do not consider their music in the same level of Mendelssohn's.

Mendelssohn was not a "regular" composer. He is considered by many renowned musicians all over the world as the greatest child Prodigy the world had ever known, even greater then Mozart. He was not only a master composer he also was a legendary pianist and organist of his generation. His technique on the piano was equaled only to that of Liszt’s. You should read some of the reviews of his piano performances by those critics that saw him in concerts. His craftsmanship as a composer was exemplarily. Felix Mendelssohn contributed greatly to symphonic writing, and many famed composers were influenced by his musical inventions, composers like Mahler, Brahms and Borodin to name just a few.

His musical Ideas are clear and refined. You don’t have to think much in order to "get" Mendelssohn's music. His music is so direct and forward that you can enjoy it right away and take something with you that will last a while.

Schumann called Mendelssohn ": the Mozart of the nineteenth century. "I look upon Mendelssohn," he said, "as the first musician of his time, and pay him the homage due to a master."

Harold C. Schonberg wrote:

"He started playing the piano at the age of four and was composing at eight, by which time he had memorized all the Beethoven symphonies and could play them on the piano. He may have even been superior creatively to Mozart as a young man, for Mendelssohn at sixteen had already written the Octet and was to follow it up in the following year with the Midsummer Night’s Dream Overture. Mozart at the same age had nothing comparable to show."

Read Robert Schumann's critic on Mendy :

In his capacity as a music journalist, Robert Schumann wrote of Mendelssohn’s D minor Piano trio: " It is necessary to say but little of Mendelssohn’s trio since it must be in everyone’s hands. It is the master trio of today as in their day were those of Beethoven in B-Flat and D; as was that of Franz Schubert in E-Flat; indeed a lovely composition which years from hence will still delight grand- and great-grand children…he has raised himself so high that we can indeed say he is the Mozart of the nineteenth century; the most brilliant among musicians; the one who has most clearly recognized the contradictions of the time, and the first to reconcile them. After Mozart came Beethoven; this modern Mozart will be followed by a newer Beethoven. Indeed, he may have already been born. And now, what more shall I say of this trio that has not been said by everyone who has heard it? The happiest of all are those who heard it played by its creator. Though perhaps there may be bolder virtuosos, scarcely another than himself knows how to perform Mendelssohn’s works with such enchanting freshness…. I need hardly mention that this trio is not written for the piano player alone; that the two others also must do their part and may depend upon delight and thanks. So let the new work have its effect everywhere, as it should have, and prove anew to us the artistic power of its creator. This now appears to be in fullest flower."

This is part one.. of my response to your comments on Mendelssohn.

Saul, I just went to town amending the walls of text you posted to hyperlinks pointing to their original source (or at least an original source). Not only is the verbatim copying of text from other sites a possible legal issue, it is obnoxious and inconsiderate to other users who are reading the thread.

Please don't do it again - if you do, you'll be met with a much cooler response than a moderator bending over backwards for you.

EDIT: And I see you did it again, except you beat me to posting. I will leave the above alone, though.

Before I begin my posting... JohnGalt, I do not "get" Prokofiev, and probably never will, so I'm very biased against him subjectively. Objectively, he did create new sounds in music and opened up another whole "realm" of it, but I just don't "get" or "like" his music, whichever word is preffered there.

Hehe, not many people do. Try listening to some of his later works, especially ballet, which are much more lyrical than his early, highly rhythmic works. Prokofiev kinda softened out when he was living in Soviet Russia, trying to compose music that made the people (aka the Soviets) happy.

Don't just list your "favourite composers".

At least for me, "favorite" and "greatest" are equatable.

List some great composers whose music you DON'T like.

If you actually love all of the music of your top 5, then you aren't being honest.

Assumption.

And do NOT list a composer of whom you know only 3 works!

If you are unfamiliar with the majority of his work, then you can't make any sort of informed judgement about their work, can you.

Now this is important. Among the 5 I listed, I have, for two of them, nearly everything written (Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky), and about half of the works of each of the other 3 (Kabalevsky, Khachaturian, and Shostakovich).

I don't know if the message is getting across.

This sort of discussion is totally pointless for the multitude of reasons listed above.

When in doubt, assume it isn't. Someone's always got to come along and start calling subjective taste objective truth.

actually, you've just demonstrated that you do NOT know the composers I named.

It's SchumAN not Schumann I was refering to.

The American symphonist: William Schuman.

At this point, I will put a stop to this discussion.

I see no point in beating a dead horse.

You obviously like Mendelsohn.

Many others here, and many professionals would agree, are not of the same opinion as you.

Now let it go.

Cowboy: Don't base what you say on a typo, or a spelling error. It degrades what you're saying (to what I agree).

JohnGalt:

What are the chances that the 5 greatest composers are ALL russian??? seems odd to me, no? Further more on your initial post you mention "my top 5 composers", which is exactly what qcowboy is talking about. ;)

JohnGalt:

What are the chances that the 5 greatest composers are ALL russian??? seems odd to me, no? Further more on your initial post you mention "my top 5 composers", which is exactly what qcowboy is talking about. ;)

Hehe.

It's highly subjective. I'm not claiming to list the top 5 greatest composers, I'm listing what I feel are the top 5 greatest composers. Undoubtedly, many people will disagree, but it doesn't matter, there isn't a correct answer. Attacking someone else's list is like assaulting their choice of lunch. (By the way, grilled cheese is the best ever, ham sandwiches are overrated.)

actually, you've just demonstrated that you do NOT know the composers I named.

It's SchumAN not Schumann I was refering to.

The American symphonist: William Schuman.

At this point, I will put a stop to this discussion.

I see no point in beating a dead horse.

You obviously like Mendelsohn.

Many others here, and many professionals would agree, are not of the same opinion as you.

Now let it go.

W.Schuman?

I can't believe you can rank any recent composer higher then Mendelssohn.

I'm astonished.

Oh.. well....;)

W.Schuman?

I can't believe you can rank any recent composer higher then Mendelssohn.

I'm astonished.

Oh.. well....;)

Age does not necessarily impart worth or importance.

At least for me, "favorite" and "greatest" are equatable.

Assumption.

Now this is important. Among the 5 I listed, I have, for two of them, nearly everything written (Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky), and about half of the works of each of the other 3 (Kabalevsky, Khachaturian, and Shostakovich).

When in doubt, assume it isn't. Someone's always got to come along and start calling subjective taste objective truth.

Yes John, it was an assumption, but one which sadly is too often true.

How many times have you spoken to someone who said something along the lines of "I just discovered by composer-X, I think he's the greatest genius in the history of music!!!!".

And you end up finding out that your dear, dear, and probably soon to be ex-friend knows only that one single piece by that composer.

Or better yet, this same soon to be ex-friend states that "Composer-A is much better than Composer-B" despite the fact that he knows 100 works of composer-A, but only one minor work of Composer-B.

All things being equal... oh, that's right, they so seldom are.

We both know that's not what I meant.

There are no Mendelssohns these days or in the past 150 years.

To rank someone that came after him higher doesnt make any sense .

Yes John, it was an assumption, but one which sadly is too often true.

Granted.

How many times have you spoken to someone who said something along the lines of "I just discovered by composer-X, I think he's the greatest genius in the history of music!!!!".

Honestly, I can't ever remember hearing that. But I know what you're talking about.

And you end up finding out that your dear, dear, and probably soon to be ex-friend knows only that one single piece by that composer.

Very common. I love to collect the music of my favorite composers, but my suite mate is that way. He's actually got a fairly large collection of Stravinsky, but lacks only but a few compositions by his favorite composers.

We both know that's not what I meant.

There are no Mendelssohns these days or in the past 150 years.

Assumption and reliance on highly subjective taste.

To rank someone that came after him higher doesnt make any sense .

No, you don't make any sense.

Cowboy: Don't base what you say on a typo, or a spelling error. It degrades what you're saying (to what I agree).

no, I'm not basing it on a typo, I'm basing it on the fact that he identified the "Spring" symphony... which is by Robert Schumann, when I was refering to William Schuman, a composer whose work he probably knows very little.

And just in case you missed his later post, he rejected out of hand ANY composer of the 20th century as being inferior to Mendelsohn.

Before you start taking me to task for perceived slights, I would start by rereading all of my comments here.

W.Schuman?

I can't believe you can rank any recent composer higher then Mendelssohn.

I'm astonished.

Oh.. well....;)

wow!

Ok. There goes 100+ years of evolution, thinking, creativity, blah blah..

never mind really...

We both know that's not what I meant.

There are no Mendelssohns these days or in the past 150 years.

To rank someone that came after him higher doesnt make any sense .

that's exactly what you meant, and you even underscored it with

To rank someone that came after him higher doesnt make any sense

How exactly do you know there are "no Mendelsohns these days or in the past 150 years"? Are you a musicologist? Do you know ALL of music? (you've already amply demonstrated that the latter would be a gross exaggeration).

It doesn't make sense to YOU.

It makes perfect sense to anyone who has bothered to keep up with musical advancement.

And before you spout off about musical studies not being necessary to understand the greatness of whatever, understand this:

Musical studies open your mind, they make you see alternatives, they help you understand things that just listening would NOT let you understand. During your studies you are exposed to thought and controversy. During your studies you are forced to expand your horizons and your expectations. And during your studies you are pushed to examine things that you might not have noticed without poking and prodding by a professor.

If this were not true, then simply wanting to be a doctor should be enough to be one. Reading enough books about it and watching House and ER on TV would be enough to grant you your licence.

I'm sorry Saul, but you are dead wrong on all of this. The reason you are wrong is that you are confusing your own personal preference with some sort of immutable fact.

no, I'm not basing it on a typo, I'm basing it on the fact that he identified the "Spring" symphony... which is by Robert Schumann, when I was refering to William Schuman, a composer whose work he probably knows very little.

And just in case you missed his later post, he rejected out of hand ANY composer of the 20th century as being inferior to Mendelsohn.

Before you start taking me to task for perceived slights, I would start by rereading all of my comments here.

The simple fact is that there are no Mendelssohns after Mendelssohn.

This is a fact.

Before I discovered Mendelssohn by favorite composers were Bach and Chopin.

But after listening to Mendy, I knew it right there and then that his music ranks on a much high level then these two composers. In fact, I still didn’t come across a composer that has anything greater to offer then Mendelssohn.

Do I think this way because I love Mendelssohn's music.? I promise you that I also loved Bach and Chopin and still love their music, but one cant argue with reality and facts. Mendelssohn's music is just absolutely fantastic and great then any of these and other composers.

Prokofiev's music is sorry to tell you this is "A joke" compared that of Mendelssohn.

To claim that he is greater then Mendelssohn is been blind and closed to reality and reason. Mendelssohn’s music is well crafted, imaginative, astonishingly accurate and lyrical, passionate and vivid, colorful and exuberant then any of the "Picasso like " up and down drills and fast up and down scale running of Prokofiev. I can guarantee that If you had asked Prokofiev if his music is came close to Mendy's.. if would have laughed.

The simple fact is that there are no Mendelssohns after Mendelssohn.

This is a fact.

Fact is rarely fact outside of science.

Before I discovered Mendelssohn by favorite composers were Bach and Chopin.

But after listening to Mendy, I knew it right there and then that his music ranks on a much high level then these two composers. In fact, I still didn’t come across a composer that has anything greater to offer then Mendelssohn.

You place him over those?! Those two remain two of the greatest piano composers ever.

Do I think this way because I love Mendelssohn's music. I promise you that I also loved Bach and Chopin and still love their music, but one cant argue with reality and facts. Mendelssohn's music is just absolutely fantastic and great then any of these and other composers.

You're misusing "reality" and "facts." I hate people like you. You have no regard for rationality and logic.

Prokofiev's music is sorry to tell you this "A joke" compared that of Mendelssohn.

The only "joke" in Prokofiev's music is Humoresques and Sarcasms.

To claim that he is greater then Mendelssohn is been blind and closed to reality and reason. Mendelssohn’s music is well crafted, imaginative, astonishingly accurate and lyrical, passionate and vivid, colorful and exuberant then any of the "Picasso like " up and down drills and fast up and down scale running of Prokofiev. I can guarantee that If you had asked Prokofiev if his music is come close to Mendy's.. if would have laughed at you so hard.

You are in no place to talk to me about reason. You do not understand the objective nature of reality and the subjective nature of taste. Prokofiev considered himself the greatest composer (And Stravinsky as well, besides himself of course). Prokofiev was extremely blunt and arrogant. You are in no place to talk about his music, let alone his personality and life. Prokofiev was embroiled in the Russian and French composers of the 20th century, not the Romantic Period but the avant garde movements, especially in France, and neoclassical in Russia. I sincerely doubt Prokofiev even heard anything of Mendelssohns, let alone even remark about his work.

Before I discovered Mendelssohn by favorite composers were Bach and Chopin.

But after listening to Mendy, I knew it right there and then that his music ranks on a much high level then these two composers. In fact, I still didn

... any of the "Picasso like " up and down drills and fast up and down scale running of Prokofiev. I can guarantee that

well, I would love for you to demonstrate your profound knowledge of Prokoviev's music.

(Drills? I presume that was a typo for trills? just asking)

So, fast up and down trills and scales... hmmm... well that just about describes the entirety of Mendelssohn's piano music. I have here in front of me his piano trios... lots of scalar passages, lots of sequences.

here let me pull out my Prokoviev concerto no.2... hmmm... not too many scales here in the first movement, actually, a rather lovely melody in G minor. Ah, darnit, he went and ruined it with an arpeggio figure in the left hand.

HAHAHA.. it must have been a joke on his part.

Come to think of it, that sort of describes your piece Chanukah! Endless scales and arpeggios... so you yourself would classify your own music as a joke?

well, I would love for you to demonstrate your profound knowledge of Prokoviev's music.

(Drills? I presume that was a typo for trills? just asking)

So, fast up and down trills and scales... hmmm... well that just about describes the entirety of Mendelssohn's piano music. I have here in front of me his piano trios... lots of scalar passages, lots of sequences.

here let me pull out my Prokoviev concerto no.2... hmmm... not too many scales here in the first movement, actually, a rather lovely melody in G minor. Ah, darnit, he went and ruined it with an arpeggio figure in the left hand.

HAHAHA.. it must have been a joke on his part.

Come to think of it, that sort of describes your piece Chanukah! Endless scales and arpeggios... so you yourself would classify your own music as a joke?

The scales in Prokofiev's music (mostly in things like the sonatas and later concertos) are still difficult enough to make a pianist bleed and still convey classical Prokofiev charm and style. Anything, even the most basic concepts for piano were turned into incredibly difficult technical passages in Prokofiev's music. It helped that he was an absolutely phenomenal pianist.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/79097-post32.html

That's a link to a post containing my pride and joy, the 1932 recording of Prokofiev playing his 3rd concerto with the LSO.

The scales in Prokofiev's music (mostly in things like the sonatas and later concertos) are still difficult enough to make a pianist bleed and still convey classical Prokofiev charm and style. Anything, even the most basic concepts for piano were turned into incredibly difficult technical passages in Prokofiev's music. It helped that he was an absolutely phenomenal pianist.

mmmm, I hope the facetious nature of my post came across?

***

On a more personal note, I still prefer the Prokoviev 2nd piano concerto to the perenially popular 3rd.

Come to think of it, I often tend to prefer the less popular of various composers' works.

I like Rachmaninov's 4th piano concerto better than the other three.

I prefer his Symphonic Dances to any of his "real" symphonies.

I like the delicate Schostakowitch 2nd better than the more popular and flamboyant 1st piano concerto.

I like Sibelius' 7th symphony better than his more popular 5th.

I like Suor Angelica and Turandot considerably more so than any of Puccini's other, more popular operas

Why, I even prefer John Williams' soundtrack to Space Camp better than many of his (arguably) better scores.

I'm going to make an oblique point here: Bach was not a piano composer.

There.

(yes we all know he played the piano some several times, but the majority of his work probably wasn't written for it. That said, his keyboard writing was extremely important)

Let's get serious for a moment (not directed to QCowboy of course).

what about trying to define what makes a composer great? what are the attributes you attach to a composer, or his/her works that make him or his works great?

For me:

* Innovation

* Exploration of new ways/new aesthetics

* Imortality

* Philosophy behind his works/in lifestyle

At least for me:

Beethoven:

* Made the sonata we know today, from scracth. Managed to make the most moronic themes (arpeggios all the way), into huge successes. Remember a composer is not the 1% of the melody that comes first but the work one puts in afterwards (even in Mozarts case).

* sure he did. So many great new ideas, things, the appeal to the masses, instead of the crown, etc...

* Yup!

* Well duh! Faith, misery, life and death, ode to joy, etc...

Let's pick up a random Russian composer (Prokofiev, ahem)

* Not that much I have to admit on that part, he's not the most inovative composer ever. But then again some works (the Cantata for the 20th commemoration of the aniversary of the Octombrian Revolution), is filled with sfx, and could be classified as phychedilic work, plenty of years before Pink floyd came :)

* Yes he did actually. New sound worlds with great orchestrations, new means of exploration (film music for example), etc

* Again yes

* Plenty!

Let's go to Mendelsson now.

* Not really. Not that I know off. Great melodies sure, but nothing else

* Not really...

* Yes, sure

* Hem, not so much...

Let's try one last time:

Bartok

* YES

* YES

* YES

* Most of the times

I don't know... At least that's (not exaclty but close) how I clasify things in this thread...

What makes Mendelsson a great composer and not Puccini or Verdi btw? I don't see much difference really... ;)

mmmm, I hope the facetious nature of my post came across?

Oh, sorry, I was quoting your post as a precursor to mine, not contesting it.

But then again some works (the Cantata for the 20th commemoration of the aniversary of the Octombrian Revolution), is filled with sfx, and could be classified as phychedilic work, plenty of years before Pink floyd came

Wow! Someone else that's heard the October Cantata! To those who haven't heard of it, it was written for an absolutely massive group of performers requiring 3 different orchestras and 3 full vocal ensembles.