Who is the Greatest composer after Beethoven?

Who do you think is the Greatest composer after Beethoven? This could be anywhere from right after his inspiring years, to his time of his death, and into the 1850s.

Stick to the romantic era for the most part if you can please. Thanks. (Doesn't have to be a romantic composer)

I question this specifically because romantic (era) composers never get discussed that much on this forum and I would like to know the opinions of my friends and fellow composers of whom I have on here. :toothygrin:

Also, the contemparary era seems to be the most liked on youngcomposers. So I want to rediscover before this time into the romantic period to find out what and who inspired contemparary works.

Please write why he/she is the Greatest composer of this time and then let me know if you actually think Beethoven had a universal influence on this composer. Let me know why this composer is influencial too. Also if this is your favorite composer period, of course let that be known.

Don't get mad because I'm posting another Greatest composer post. I'm a very open minded person about music and If you're not an open minded person then whoopee. Let that be said, and well... resaid.

Greatest after Beethoven?

Romantic era: Brahms.

Richard Strauss, much better than Beethoven too. Strauss, is my second favourite (but a very close second) to Mozart. Unlike Beethoven, and many other composers, half there works a exceptional, and half is so-so. Richard Strauss is not like this. No matter what I listen to, I am in complete rapture with. Everyone after Beethoven was influenced by him, even if they don't want to be. And no, he wasn't influential much at all, save orchestration methods maybe. What with 20c composers wanting music that isn't nice and is unmelodic, Strauss was the end. He even went more simple after Salome and Elektra, see Capricio. His orchestration to me is extra-special.

Also, the contemparary era seems to be the most liked on youngcomposers.

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

I'd probably say Debussy, just because he seems so original. Sure his music is maybe not as grandiose, but for me it is pretty evocative and I don't know any other composer really like him. Tchaikovsky would also get a mention as runner-up.

Like Daniel, I say Brahms, too. And Tchaikovsky - to me, his music is special with its expressive, beautiful melodies.

ArcticWind7, although I don't like many 20th century concepts, too, I wouldn't call it crap, but generally, I agree with you. I can't say I am interested in this part of the 20th century avantgarde that tries to fully abandon tonality, for the latter is a law of nature which is well-known to the ear, if not logically to the mind. Someone who denies gravity would seem ridiculous, right? Similarly, the more one denies tonality and tries to avoid it at any cost, the duller the music, with less expressive possibilities; the ear cannot be fooled - the more atonal, the more a-musical. I appreciate those who combine contemporary techniques with sense of tonality - to me, this seems to be the most adequate approach. Let's say it's just my vision, but time will tell...

My vote goes to either Brahms, Wagner or Verdi. Hard to choose.

i'd go for wagner and debussy, since their work is so exceptional.

/////Gustav Mahler////

Mahler smiles at me from the left...

ArcticWind7, although I don't like many 20th century concepts, too, I wouldn't call it crap, but generally, I agree with you.

Yeh I over did it. But with "music" like fluxus... I can't say I have much respect for it. Atonal music like Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, as more effects music than melody, I do enjoy.

Pffh, greatness is so overrated.

Anyways, I don't really want to get into this and derail too much, but Kamen, the classification of tonal music as natural and logical and atonality as unnatural simply doesn't cut it, historically, culturally and physically. (And even if it did, it wouldn't be an argument for quality.) But I understand that it's tempting to regard what one's used to as the most natural and logical thing.

I can actually accept atonal music being called "crap" much more than your statements. After all that's just an opinion, whereas you are saying that atonality is inherently unmusical.

We're looking for the best after Beethoven? There are many many composers who are better than Beethoven! ;) Want to know about those? :D

well yes, me for instance, but i have a slight idea people might get rubbed the wrong way by saying that.

I disagree that there was ever a greater composer than Beethoven, but I'm not going to argue about it. I think the greatest composer after Beethoven was Liszt. His later works are very original, and seem to have been composed without the desire to please an audience (something that I greatly value).

the classification of tonal music as natural and logical and atonality as unnatural simply doesn't cut it, historically, culturally and physically.

Physically it is impossible to say it doesn't cut it. Historically, only because in 1400 people weren't aware, oh wait Plato was... Culturally? How all systems still use it.

After all that's just an opinion, whereas you are saying that atonality is inherently unmusical.

That is total bullshit. Saying it is unnatural is not saying it is unmusical.

There are many many composers who are better than Beethoven!

Wagner,Mahler, Strauss, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Bach, Handel, Puccini..... Oh Haydn as well.

His later works are very original,

Since when was originality a prerequisite to quality.

seem to have been composed without the desire to please an audience (something that I greatly value).

Take a minute to think about how backwards that is!

Beethoven did not compose without the desire to please an audience; he composed how he wanted, hoping his works would please an audience (I think), but when his artistic view would have disagreed with the audience's wishes, he mostly favoured his own view.

He did not compose with the specific aim only to please himself. That's just stupid.

Physically it is impossible to say it doesn't cut it. Historically, only because in 1400 people weren't aware, oh wait Plato was... Culturally? How all systems still use it.

As I said, I don't want to derail too much, so I'll refrain from arguing. Especially as this particular issue already derailed another thread, in which I commented on it.

That is total bullshit. Saying it is unnatural is not saying it is unmusical.

Certainly. But Kamen said it.

the more atonal, the more a-musical

the more atonal, the more a-musical

I agree, but in a different line. Atonal is a revolt against what is pleasant and nice. Look at the painting as well.

Anyone ever hear of a composer named Max Bruch?

Anyone ever hear of a composer named Max Bruch?

Of course. Good Clarinet,Viola and Piano trios.

Heard of Robert Fuchs? He taught Mahler and Sibelius (among others).

Heard of:

Juan C. de Arriaga

Lachners

Georges Onslow

Pe. Jos

Anyone ever hear of a composer named Max Bruch?

Of course. Good Clarinet,Viola and Piano trios.

Heard of Robert Fuchs? He taught Mahler and Sibelius (among others).

Heard of:

Juan C. de Arriaga

Lachners

Georges Onslow

Pe. Jos

Oddly enough I have not heard of the other 5, can you elaborate please?

Not really, I know very little, because there is very little. But the small amount I have heard is brilliant.

Juan C. de Arriaga - "Spanish Mozart"

Lachners - German mid 19th C brothers.

Georges Onslow - "French Beethoven"

Pe. Jos

Bruch hated that people only enjoyed that as he saw his 2nd concerto to be better.

Every single composer in that period said something along those lines

Tchiakovsky was angry when people who hated his swan lake praised hi symphonic poem in 4 mvts..

Back to topic, the greatest composer after Beethoven was clearly Bach.

:shifty:

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

Garderner: Yes, it would be a huge thread if we discuss this here. I don't see any need to do it and my intention is not to argue or create some crappy topic such as "tonal vs atonal", since I am not such a closed minded person and I don't look at things from such an angle. It wasn't good idea to add this sentence ("atonal – a-musical"), but anyway - I added it. I mean, this is how things appear to most listeners. Which is not without reason. And as I expected, maybe my statement seems overdone, so I'd like to clarify I don't mean that atonal music is unmusical at all (in a black-white sense) or has worse quality - far away from it. Furthermore, there is a big room for subjectivity here. I think it is more a matter of degree (as the word "more" indicates). Since it is music (and we all agree on this), and it can serve to express something and convey certain feelings, of course it is and can be musical, and it is welcome! However, tonal music is the more natural, which comes from the properties of sound and the way our auditory system knows and interprets them. People have intuited this in the past despite the fact they were unable to explain it very well with acoustics and cognition. Now, some of this things can be logically explained and the more one is familiar with this technical stuff, the more one is convinced in that.

Anyway, this is really an endless old topic which many others discuss and will probably discuss to the end of time. And most of them seem to keep their initial positions, looking for more facts and explanations to support them. But after all, the important thing is music.

Anyway, this is really an endless old topic which many others discuss and will probably discuss to the end of time. And most of them seem to keep their initial positions, looking for more facts and explanations to support them. But after all, the important thing is music.

We can agree on all of these, after all. :)