Who is the best composer of all time? Look inside please!

QcCowboy haha. I was being sarcastic! :w00t:

Don't worry about it. Raise your hands and jump around. You will get shot eventually.

Sarcasm is difficult on the internet.

I may have already said this but:

MOZART!!! :w00t:

Post No. 394

"Handel is the greatest composer that ever lived."

-Beethoven

http://books.google.com/books?id=u5596V_Q9wQC&pg=PA376

And since when should we trust Beethoven? :P

Well, he didn't really get to see all the composers who lived after him...like HINDEMITH!!! :w00t:

Also he was deaf. I don't trust the music taste of deaf people!

This would be a good time to remind everyone that the rules of the thread state that all posters must NOT quote in this thread and that they should NOT refer to others' posts in any manner in this thread.

Thanks maelstrom! :)

quit discussing. Who the gently caress cares who is the better teacher (which to begin with is redundant to talk about Schumann, sorry).

Just let go and move to your favourite composers of all times! Ok?

BTW, a man can have a changeof heart right?

Diablo Swing Orchestra (new album in september) on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads

AWESOME STUFF! AWESOME!

This would be a good time to remind everyone that the rules of the thread state that all posters must NOT quote in this thread and that they should NOT refer to others' posts in any manner in this thread.

Does this count?

Samuel Barber:

1) for being true to his calling as a "lyrical" composer who embraced tonality,

2) yet also being a true visionary and seeking out ways of incorporating modern techniques into his use of tonality, including serialism.

3) for his incredible attention to detail of form, construction, orchestration, etc...

4) for the amount of time he spent on each of his works, for never taking the "easy path" and treating every work - whether a symphony or a short song - with all the respect and attention it was due.

5) for being misunderstood and being repeatedly called a "neo-romantic" :P (yo! dudes, he was a "neo-classicist")

6) for writing the most awesome cello concerto ever written, the most awesome piano concerto ever written, the most awesome piano sonata ever written, the most awesome Cantata ever written (Prayers of Kierkegaard), for writing the most awesome "concerto grosso" ever written (Capricorn Concerto), the most awesome collection of songs, the most... well.. you get my drift.

7) for being gay. :w00t:

I dont really care if Beethoven is "the answer" for this question. He has been, and always will be #1 in my book.

I suppose for starters it's important to look at what came before him. He was basically going off of Mozart, Haydn, and Bach. How he came out with what he did given that... will always be extraordinarily to me.

He was the first dude to support himself with free composition, which in and of itself is impressive, but he simultaneously changed composition forever. Mozart and Haydn both churned music out at obscene rates (there is a reason large portions of their symphonies get overlooked), Beethoven published how many? 9 symphonies and made every single one count. There was not a note on any page he wrote that was simply filler, there to advance his next paycheck.

There's plenty of music out there by talented composers that just wont hold my attention if I'm not in the mood, and the only composers that seem to defy that state of mind are Vivaldi and Beethoven. They both (moreso Beethoven) seem to have this rhythmic drive to their music that holds it together. It allows the music to be intellectual without asking for anything more than humanity in order to attain understanding of what it is that is happening.

Everything he did for form, orchestration, thematic development, and essentially freeing music from its prison... was amazing.

Oh, and didnt they keep having to redesign the piano because he kept breaking the ones he played? And they extended string fingerboards because Beethoven kept writing notes that went onto the body of the instrument? Yeah, that's pretty neat.

Igor Stravinsky.

His use of texture, melody, harmony, form, and rhythm are all very high quality. Additionally, he did not merely write in one genre or instrumentation - I have seen pieces for orchestra as well as jazz band. I feel that this combination of great technical ability, creativity, and experimentation/diversity would put him up there.

Now, I don't think that he is the best composer of all time, but I do feel that the above attributes should be mentioned.

Tchaikovsky,

some people prefer music in a perfect form. but I've never heard screaming emotions as i have in Tchaikovsky melody and orchestration. as a matter of fact I'll always say that his orchestration is the best I've heard.

I don't know that I can really say who is the greatest composer of all time or even my favorite.

That said, I really love Shostakovich, especially his string quartets. he isn't one of the most talked about composers but he really provided a foundation for tonal, modern music

Duke Ellington

The eternal question!

It is hard to seperate who I LIKE, vs. who, objectively, was the "best" composer.

I like Schubert very much. His quartets 14 and 15 are two of the greatest pieces of music we have. I like Mendelssohn as well, and he has much to recommend him as a great: learned, inventive, composed masterpieces across several genres--symphonies, organ works, oratorio, the violin concerto, quartets,the octet... I respect Haydn.

But, I think you have to consider who pushed the musical landscape forward, established new standards, attained PERFECTION.

This leaves Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Is it even possible to put one of these ahead of the others, given their epochs and personal missions? I can't refine my answer beyond this point.

I'm just glad they were here for a time.

I will say that considering 20th century composers among these three seems absurd to a great degree. You would have to have a question like "Who is the greatest 20th century composer?"--sort of a special olympics type of thing (just to be clear, I am a great fan of the special olympics...).

I will say that considering 20th century composers among these three seems absurd to a great degree. You would have to have a question like "Who is the greatest 20th century composer?"--sort of a special olympics type of thing (just to be clear, I am a great fan of the special olympics...).

I disagree actually! Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are fine composers no doubt, but look hard enough and you will find some 20th century music you can really associate with. Not only that, but you will find music that is both pleasing and incredibly competently written. (So it pleases both hemispheres of your brain :D) The 20th century has produced it's fair share of 'classics', pieces that will live on perhaps for as long as humanity continues (in my opinion). Holst's The Planets, Barber's Adagio and lots of others (that are unfairly ignored). Debussy, Ravel, Elgar and many more...! I would also consider Tschaikovsky/Mussorgsky (maybe..) and Wagner as candidates.

The question was who was the greatest composer. I do like some 20th c. music, but I'd hardly consider Barber and Holst among the greats. Sure, they wrote a few outstanding pieces, but...

Tschaikovsky and Wagner certainly deserve a run at the top slot, I'd think.

The "problem" with Mozart, Bach and Beethoven is that thy wrote at such a high standard, for so long, and for so many different forms that challenging them becomes very difficult.

I think the difficulty with many 20th century composers is that the trend towards highly individualized styles and "systems" essentially creates a situation that doesn't allow for any sort of rational comparative evaluation. Its the flip side of rugged individualism, and why should they "have it both ways"...?

Please reread the first post.

I would like to restate: Hindemith!

The question was who was the greatest composer. I do like some 20th c. music, but I'd hardly consider Barber and Holst among the greats. Sure, they wrote a few outstanding pieces, but...

Tschaikovsky and Wagner certainly deserve a run at the top slot, I'd think.

Perhaps, I'm not really a Barber expert but his early works are almost entirely comprised of considerably distinct and very well written works. Like Stravinsky he covered a lot of ground, and yet managed to write so fluently, probably in every case. I don't know his later works so I can't really comment on those. You may be right about Holst though, he's a bit of a one hit wonder! I'd possibly consider Puccini or Strauss however..!

Perhaps two things to consider are memorability and originality. Often a composer can write a very distinct work, that unfortunately is fairly forgettable. Occassionally however, composers write music that shine out from the rest of the pack and is completely unforgettable almost from start to finish. I think if a composer has written something that matches these criteria than perhaps deserves a place in this thread! Despite the fact that some of the 20th c. composers are only known or remembered for a few of their works, they can be considered in my opinion.

Oh and I know we're not supposed to comment on other people's comments, but well... sorry..!

Why is memorability important when it comes to composition? I don't remember every aspect of my life, but I'll be damned if I didn't have some incredible times. I think all music should be judged on its own merits, for one, and also we need to consider that hearing music is in itself an EXPERIENCE! Music to me is about a 3-step process

1) Anticipation

2) Performance

3) Feelings felt afterward

Simply having experienced the music will have an affect on you in some way, being able to remember it is a stupid and arbitrary standard and has no place here or anywhere else.

Fair enough. I don't think we can necassarily ascertain any concrete standard in the evaluation of musical composition, but I personally find memorability to be an important issue. To write a piece that is both complicated and memorable - ie Shotakovich 5th symphony final movement - is not easy.

I am not saying all pieces of good music are memorable however. I can think of many pieces I've really enjoyed, where weeks after I can perhaps only remember one or two specific moments. Despite this I think memorability is at least one criteria that isn't governed by massive amounts of subjectivity and is therefore something to at least consider when choosing who is the "best" composer of all time!

*wants to say something about memorability and music and a John Cage quote too but realizes just in time that this is not the topic of this thread

Luigi Nono. Fragmente... that says it all.

Obviously,

Jesus. He wrote all of Beethoven's music for him. That's why he went deaf, from hearing the voice of God.

alright then...

It is hard for me to place a favorite.

However, I do really enjoy Sibelius.

Obviously,

Jesus. He wrote all of Beethoven's music for him. That's why he went deaf, from hearing the voice of God.

I'm begining to wonder more and more if you're mocking the church. :whistling: