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

Dude, people need to cut it out with one word "replies". Agreeing with someone is nice, but at least say WHY you agree with them. It makes you so much more credible, and makes the discussion more interesting.

I think that the best composers for each person are, by definition, the pieces they like the most, so this is kind of a favorites list for me. If you want to argue which composer is the "best", then make a new topic, because it's been specifically stated that arguement is NOT the goal of this thread.

My favorite composer is...Eric Whitacre. Yes, I know I'm going to take a lot of flak for that, but I am still absolutely amazed by When David Heard (I'm a die-hard Romanticist). I've never heard anything like it, and never really expect to. Also, his pieces have such variety, while still retaining his unique voice. Compare The Stolen Child to Leonardo Dreams of His Flying Machine if you want to see what I mean. My second favorite choral composer is probably John Rutter. His Distant Land is so simply beautiful.

My favorite classical composer is definitely J.S. Bach, especially his fugue works. Just so amazingly organized and mathematical that it boggles my mind. Second is Ralph Vaughan Williams for Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis.

I'm not sure who my favorite movie composer is. Michael Giaccino's Ratatouille soundtrack is incredibly fresh and exciting, and the Wall Rat track is just so fun. But John Williams is just so amazing. Schindler's List has some of the most emotional and sad music that you'll ever hear.

I'm going to plug another lesser-known composer. Louise Farrenc is a very unknown and unappreciated French composer of orchestral and chamber music. People have remarked on how she never seemed to write a second-rate piece. Her music's very nice, and you can find a few samples here.

George Benjamin

I don't think I need to justify that.

I don't know if this will be breaking the rules, but this is just my opinion on the subject.

I don't think that such thing as "best composer of all time" exists. Even if it's only subjective. Like with all other arts music in a way is meant to inspire emotions. And feeling different emotions every day, I think all would agree that some days we just prefer one music over the other.

On a strict technical point of view many composers could be nominated for have done this and that, but I'm pretty sure all did something remarkably well, and there is just no good system of evaluation of their works that would do them justice. And to compliment that, I have to say that value of music is highly subjective and influenced by an individuals state of mind (emotions). And I at least think that I will never be capable of judging a piece of music strictly on it's form, quality of sound, the instruments used, the progression of chords, sequence of notes in a solo or whatever, but by the way it makes me feel and I hope I will always stay like that. And I like an individual cannot name one composer to be the supreme. And lets just imagine for a second that there is a system by which to value the quality of music. If one was to take all the best from all the best, and somehow insert it all in to the mind of the best composer alive, that composer still would not be able to make a song that would be deemed the best, so he can be called the best composer of all time. (you need a bit of imagination to understand the last part:D)

(I kind of agree with PhantomOftheOpera...read above)

mmmmm really hard question to me....I can only say one name....ok...

Gustav Mahler.

I switch my answer to Hindemith. :P

My favorite varies.. but I am pretty sure that it is most consistently Olivier Messiaen.

This guy is rivaled only by stravinsky for composing as long and as successfully (perhaps Carter too..)

But seriously.. I am a fan of pretty much everything that i have heard by this composer. His music is beautiful, haunting, agressive, cheerful, intellectual, emotional.. and the list could go on.

His music can be extremely complex and theoretical, but somehow, he is still able to convey a ton of emotion.

Maybe its just me (I didn't see his name anywhere else in the last 180 posts...) but I am deeply affected by the music of Olivier Messiaen.

I'll throw my hat in for

J S Bach

Firstly, he is by far and away the most consistent composer ever. While others may occasionally (albeit rarely) equal his work, he retained a high level of quality control throughout his life. His cantatas, although generally unknown, are almost universally magnificent. Not for him pot boiling works like Wellington's Victory or Mozart's feeble variation sets.

In every field he composed, his is the definitive example, ie solo cello, violin, variations (the goldbergs) organ, cantata, baroque concerto grosso etc. One can argue about what symphonist or classical sonata composer is best.

Bach's influence is also notable in other fields apart from classical. It has influenced jazz and rock music too.

Bach's principles of harmony and counterpoint form the basis of all later teaching.

His music can be as appreciated by the musical novice for its simple appeal as by the connoisseur.

Ludwig Van Beethoven.

Why? His music is WET with emotion. It changes me. Not only does it make me feel, it FEELS me. It's alive. Mozart, Bach, and Handel are all amazing as well, but can be a "dry" at times. Beethoven is never dry. Always fresh, opus after opus.

His music is the kind that can recalibrate the human nervous system.

This is all besides the fact that he was deaf.

I am going to say Debussy above Messiaen because Debussy was more of a teacher. He said here is what is, and now I am going to change this part to what I think it should be so you can see the difference I make.

Messaien didn't make that so available. He just seemed to write and created context more than character. Not that it's a bad thing. I just think Debussy is more inspirational because of his ability to differentiate beside the point of lovely invention. Anyone can do it, but he did it rather well.

I also don't think he's the best composer, but I wanted to explain why I like his music more than Messaien's even though it's not necessarily better.

None of what you just said seems to fit to Messiaen at all... sorry, I just may be missing something.

Messiaen was a teacher as few others were, extremely detailed in describing his ideas, with a fundamental link to his current and past musical environment/history, and with a great focus on a diligent and considerate execution of his ideas. It's anything but just "lovely invention". What gave you all these ideas?

None of what you just said seems to fit to Messiaen at all... sorry, I just may be missing something.

Messiaen was a teacher as few others were, extremely detailed in describing his ideas, with a fundamental link to his current and past musical environment/history, and with a great focus on a diligent and considerate execution of his ideas. It's anything but just "lovely invention". What gave you all these ideas?

Exactly... he taught extensively, and wrote extensively about his compositional process, in both a theoretical and philosophical light.

Also, few of his students write music that sounds like his. To me, this says that he was a master at teaching because he led his students to find their own manner of music.

We might also mention that Debussy abhorred teaching.

He held the few students he did have in the highest disdain!

Debussy is a much better teacher.

What? They just proved you wrong, and you insist on saying it again?

Plus, Messiaen taught Xenakis. Automatic win.

Wait, your username is Schumann. Shouldn't you say Schumann, then?

What? They just proved you wrong, and you insist on saying it again?

When one composes, they may have no intention of teaching. That's fine. But by my opinion, one doesn't have a say once they become famous.

Wait, your username is Schumann. Shouldn't you say Schumann, then?

I spoke not of best.

When one composes, they may have no intention of teaching. That's fine. But by my opinion, one doesn't have a say once they become famous.

... that one actually makes some amount of sense. Its not a complete argument, but its a decent start.

So Debussy was necessarily a techer because he composed? And Messiaen was less so? What?

So Debussy was necessarily a techer because he composed? And Messiaen was less so? What?

...following the logic that you can learn more directly from studying Debussy's music than you can from Messiaen. It may or may not be true, but it is a decent point to make.

Fair enough (as true or untrue as it may be), but I wouldn't call an example from which you can learn a "teacher".

Regardless of how much we learn from Debussy's legacy, Messiaen was one of the greatest compositional pedagogues of the last half of the 20th century. The fact that we choose to glean so much compositional knowledge from Debussy's music isn't indicative of his skill as a teacher but as a composer.

Regardless of how much we learn from Debussy's legacy, Messiaen was one of the greatest compositional pedagogues of the last half of the 20th century. The fact that we choose to glean so much compositional knowledge from Debussy's music isn't indicative of his skill as a teacher but as a composer.

The point is he did something great that eventually taught me a lot. No logic involved in that statement. Did you not get your chance to make your opinions that you must critique my own?

*puts the thread back on the tracks*

The point is he did something great that eventually taught me a lot. No logic involved in that statement. Did you not get your chance to make your opinions that you must critique my own?

The point is not that anyone agrees or disagrees that YOU personally learned more from the scores of Debussy.

The point is that you state that Debussy was a better/greater teacher than Messiaen. This is, by all evidence, not factual.

Say that you learned more from the scores of Debussy. No one can argue with that, particularly if you then admit to not spending much time with the scores of Messiaen, from which you could have learned immense amounts, and on topics quite different from those which the scores of Debussy bring to you.

Messiaen was a great teacher. He is recognized as such by, well, apparently everyone but you.

Debussy was a composer who hated teaching, had very few students, was unpleasant to those he DID have, and spent very little time actually explaining his compositional processes. This is not, at least in this teacher's opinion, a sign of a "good teacher".

The only thing people on this forum are objecting to, in your statement, IS the "logic" of what you stated. You cannot say that Debussy was a greater teacher than Messiaen without backing up this statement with SOME form of evidence.

I would like to change my answer from Saint-Saens to Debussy.

The point is not that anyone agrees or disagrees that YOU personally learned more from the scores of Debussy.

The point is that you state that Debussy was a better/greater teacher than Messiaen. This is, by all evidence, not factual.

Say that you learned more from the scores of Debussy. No one can argue with that, particularly if you then admit to not spending much time with the scores of Messiaen, from which you could have learned immense amounts, and on topics quite different from those which the scores of Debussy bring to you.

Messiaen was a great teacher. He is recognized as such by, well, apparently everyone but you.

Debussy was a composer who hated teaching, had very few students, was unpleasant to those he DID have, and spent very little time actually explaining his compositional processes. This is not, at least in this teacher's opinion, a sign of a "good teacher".

The only thing people on this forum are objecting to, in your statement, IS the "logic" of what you stated. You cannot say that Debussy was a greater teacher than Messiaen without backing up this statement with SOME form of evidence.

QcCowboy haha. I was being sarcastic! :w00t:

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