Who is the Greatest (Not Favourite) Composer

Be as honest as you can - Greatest must not mean Favourite (unless its Beethoven). :)

Haha, hard choice.

Maybe i chose wrong, but its either Beethoven or Mozart..

Maybe slightly Mozart.. its hard.

Voted now anyway :)

:) Roar ;)

Is this limited only to Late Baroque/Classical/Romantic genres?

Beethoven, for almost singlehandedly ushering in the Romantic era. Mozart could not have been, as he was simply the logical next step from Haydn. Technically, Beethoven's ability to spin entire major works from the simplest and briefest of motives is virtually unrivaled. On that count, only Bach, Brahms, and perhaps Shostakovich are near him.

Of course, this does not stop me from preferring Brahms.

I have heard that if Mozart had lived longer he would have "ushered" in the Romantic era. I can't recall where, but I know it is a valid source.

If Mozart had lived longer, there would not have been the Romantic era as we know it, and we would all be talking about Beethoven the unjustly neglected master...if he had even dared be what he ended up being at all.

Mozart was the greatest of all those listed, because unlike Beethoven or any of the others, there was literally nothing he ever attempted - nothing - that he was not the undisputed master of. End of story.

I'm confused can you elaborate more.

What do you mean attempted nothing?

I think you got mixed up with J Lee's rhetoric there.

"there was literally nothing he ever attempted - nothing - that he was not the undisputed master of."

The nothing is just repeated for emphasis. The sentence without that reads:

"there was literally nothing he ever attempted that he was not the undisputed master of."

(p.s. exactly :) )

Ha ha. Well, yes. :)

But I want J to get into more detail on Mozart.

Sincerely,

Extremely interested in whats coming up next.

"there was literally nothing he ever attempted that he was not the undisputed master of."

(p.s. exactly :) )

Yeah, ... Untill Beethoven came along !! :happy:

And yet, for chamber music, I believe Brahms has no rival in history.

duh! Beethoven of course, but think about it Mozart and Schubert died really really young, (mid thirties) only if those two had lived let's say 10-20 more years, i doubt we will be praising beethoven now as much as we do.

I slightly doubt that :laugh:

OJECTION!

Why is Grieg not on this list???

OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!! OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE SELECTION IS TOTTALLY BIASED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grieg! CHOpin of the north!

OJECTION!

Why is Grieg not on this list???

Well, Do you really think Grieg has the slightest chance of ever being Crowned the gretest composer ??? Let's have a look at his Genres of Composition - 1 Piano Concerto, 1 Piano Sonata, 1 Symphony - The work was so bad that the composer requested it never be performed !! Hundreds of Miniatures. I agree that he was possibly the most lyrically gifted - after Schubert, Chopin and the Russians........... but in Classical Music - the composer who writes the best melody dosent exactly write the best music !! (Brilliant Examples - Beethoven & Brahms).

Oh and yes .... the selection is totally biased :laugh:

Come on Beethoven Fans - Mozart seems to be catching up - get voting !!

Akhil G.

And yet, for chamber music, I believe Brahms has no rival in history.

Please tell me your Joking Pal !! :laugh: - Where does the whole - Beethoven - Schubert - Mendelssohn Chamber work go then ?? :blush:

No, I'm not joking. Almost every single chamber work that Brahms completed is at least the equal of the best that Beethoven, Schubert, and Mendelssohn ever produced. If I were to list what I consider to be great chamber masterpieces, I would include two to four pieces each by the latter three composers... and all but two to four pieces from Brahms's entire chamber music output. Listen to his piano quintet, any of his three piano quartets, his horn trio, his clarinet quintet, his first string sextet, either of his first two string quartets... that's just off the top of my head. Not a dull moment in any of them... and each piece is epic in scale, which is incredibly hard to do with a small ensemble. Brahms had a gift for compressing incredible amounts of musical material into compact, coherent forms. Most of Brahms's chamber works can hold my attention for their entire length, 40 minutes to over an hour. I can only say the same for a few chamber works by Beethoven, Schubert, and Mendelssohn.

No, I'm not joking.  Almost every single chamber work that Brahms completed is at least the equal of the best that Beethoven, Schubert, and Mendelssohn ever produced.  If I were to list what I consider to be great chamber masterpieces, I would include two to four pieces each by the latter three composers... and all but two to four pieces from Brahms's entire chamber music output.  Listen to his piano quintet, any of his three piano quartets, his horn trio, his clarinet quintet, his first string sextet, either of his first two string quartets... that's just off the top of my head.  Not a dull moment in any of them... and each piece is epic in scale, which is incredibly hard to do with a small ensemble.  Brahms had a gift for compressing incredible amounts of musical material into compact, coherent forms.  Most of Brahms's chamber works can hold my attention for their entire length, 40 minutes to over an hour.  I can only say the same for a few chamber works by Beethoven, Schubert, and Mendelssohn.

Perhaps your right .... yep heard all of Brahms' Chamber Work ...... Yes I must agree with you there on closer examination .... although our friends on this site won't be as open minded !! Not a single Brahms Chamber piece or any other Brahms piece is the work of an Apprentice. One could Quote Schumann Saying " Brahms just appeared a complete musician ". ;)

Either appeared a complete musician, or just took his time.

Brahms spent 24 years (yes, twenty-four years), on and off, composing his first symphony. Most members of this site haven't even been alive for 24 years. He was just 18 years old when he started it; he was 42 when he finally completed it, which meant that at the time it was premiered he was a middle-aged man who had literally spent more than half his life writing that single piece. Now that's patience!

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Nov 16 2005, 03:03 AM

If Mozart had lived longer, there would not have been the Romantic era as we know it, and we would all be talking about Beethoven the unjustly neglected master...if he had even dared be what he ended up being at all.

Mozart was the greatest of all those listed, because unlike Beethoven or any of the others, there was literally nothing he ever attempted - nothing - that he was not the undisputed master of.

I love what you are saying, but this is complete opinion, as is the question.

No, it's not opinion. Consider that Beethoven wrote only one opera, for example; Mozart wrote 14. Beethoven's is a fine example, but it doesn't come close to any of Mozart's last five operas in quality. Not only do most musicologists agree on this, Beethoven himself would have agreed.

Mozart also wrote better music for the Church than Beethoven ever attempted. If you're looking at Beethoven's "Missa Solemnis" or "Mass in C," these were not works practical for use in actual liturgies and were not intended as such. Mozart managed to crank out masterpiece after masterpiece intended for actual use in religious services. Beethoven wrote few of these...he couldn't rein himself in enough. There is something to be said for the kind of discipline Mozart was able to muster while creating deathlessly great music.

Beethoven's symphonies and concerti were logical progressions from what Mozart had already accomplished. Mozart's symphonic work was only rivaled by Haydn's in his own time, and his concerted works had no rival at all until Beethoven picked up the baton and moved on, practically a generation later. Not to lessen Beethoven's contributions, but without Mozart, Beethoven would have had nothing upon which to build. Let's not forget that when Beethoven went to Vienna the first time when was 17, he wanted nothing more than to study with Mozart.

Mozart wrote in a number of other genres Beethoven never attempted, and he mastered everything he ever tried - something Beethoven couldn't say.

Shall I go on? ;)

And I still submit altogether reasonably that if Mozart had lived until 1820, we would barely know who Beethoven is now, and the whole world of art music would be completely different now. Mozart would have ended up doing what Beethoven did - only probably a lot better.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Nov 19 2005, 07:16 PM

Mozart would have ended up doing what Beethoven did - only probably a lot better.

;) And my World comes Crashing Down !! I've created a monster !!

Yes, Certainly Mozart cranked out one master piece after another but none of his symphonies come even close to the brilliance of Beethoven's Symphonies. As for Beethoven's Concerti, These set the benchmark for the fully Romantic Concerti to follow. So no, Beethoven, In my View, is not the next logical step from Mozart. Hummel or Czerny or even more obscure Johann Hall sure - Not Beethoven. It just can't be ... All his hard work had to be greater than all of this !! So let the Poll decide - Beethoven or Mozart !!

J. Lee Graham,

I have nothing for respect for you and your music (it has all been exceptional from what I have heard and I often listen to most recent Symphony in G) and just like you, I love Mozart and fully agree that he is an undisputed master of music. His works are other-worldly and they are without a doubt some of the greatest pieces ever created.

With that said, and airing on the side of caution, I will say just this: In my own life, Beethoven's music is far more significant than Mozart's. The opinion of Musicologists will not change this, nor will the fact that Mozart could write useable Church music. I cannot describe how significant Beethoven's music is to me, but every time that I hear it I know exactly why it is. Furthermore, Beethoven was able to write music that got me interested in classical music, whereas Mozart wasn't. Beethoven brought me into the genre and only then did I learn to appreciate the majestic genius of Mozart.

So on that note, I'll take a bow and continue to love both of these fantastic composers!

Many many cheers and keep the great music coming!

I don't do it often, but I was purposely being contentious. ;) I wasn't saying anything outlandish that I couldn't back up, though.

Now personal significance...that's a whole different ball of wax, and it needn't have anything to do with greatness in a historical context. For me, Mendelssohn and Brahms often have more significance in my life now, where Mozart meant more to me when I was younger. I owe him everything. Maybe that's why I am a bit of a bulldog in his corner...and I probably would not even have liked him had I known him.

Akhil, standing next to Beethoven's symphonies, I think all Mozart's symphonies seem to lack is Beethoven's modernism (for the time). It is this that sets Beethoven apart. Mozart was every bit his equal in craftsmanship.