Who is the Greatest (Not Favourite) Composer

Hmmm... my pick isn't on the list...

I'd say Scriabin.

His early piano works brought a brand new way of voicing music into the genre... and his later works brought about an entirely new tonal system that no other composer has been able to match, or even imitate.

... Although I suppose my 2nd pick would have to be Bach. He was really the father of it all. Without the Well Tempered Clavier, Mozart's and Beethoven's works would have been nothing. Mozart only brought new polyphonic depth into his music because of the Well Tempered Clavier, and Beethoven also studied it himself...

... But Scriabin is still my #1 pick. :P

In my opinion, Bach was the greatest composer ever. Although my favorite composer is Bartok, Bach was a master of composition who's work in music has never been matched. His innovations in the genres that he worked with were incredible, and his mastery of counterpoint, along with his music in general, continue to influence composers today.

Bach. And I believe 43 people are incorrect.

uhhh...stravinsky please?

WHAT?!?

This is a little silly. You put Chopin on the list, yet no Debussy? You put Tchaikovsky on the list, yet no Stravinksy? And for the love of God, where is Verdi???

You seem to have forgotten those of the highest applicability to merit.

Of this list, I would say goodbye to Mendelssohn and say hello to Verdi and Stravinksy. That would be somewhat more complete.

No mahler!!! Are you kidding!! Or even Liszt!!!

I's amusing people are upset about a poll made two years and 2 months ago by a poster who stop posting about the same time period ago. It should go without saying that no list could ever encompass all composers who people think were the greatest. It should also go without saying that people are confusing who they personal like with who was really a master of their times. It's only natural.

For me, the choice came down to Mozart and Bach. I ended up picking Bach, because of the sheer complexity and his impact on music from that time to now. Lee has a strong argument for Mozart, but I suspect that if Bach was in Mozart's position, Bach could've done a lot more. Just an opinion.

As for the rest of the composers on the list, and the ones people complain are not on the list, I don't see much justification for calling any of them the greatest. I like their Mozart better, but in terms of talent, influence, technique, genres, and knowledge, I think they all lose out to Mozart and Bach.

Brahms or Beethoven, I cant decide.

I refuse to answer... I don't believe in wasting time debating superlatives.

Don't post then.

I refuse to answer... I don't believe in wasting time debating superlatives.

We could debate who the second-to-best composer of all time is then!

I seriously cannot see how this question goes beyond Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.

Actually, it's hard for me to see how any learned and honest musician could pick against Bach when it comes to the greatest.

But anyways, to each his own, even if it's incorrect.

Beethoven and Mozart, while they where both great composers, did not write music that had the same complexity or influence as Bach's music, imo.

The decision is pretty subjective, though.

I seriously cannot see how this question goes beyond Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.

Actually, it's hard for me to see how any learned and honest musician could pick against Bach when it comes to the greatest.

B

i think it comes from the belief that art is objective.

for those who don't believe art to be objective (instead, they think art to be subjective - that is beyond any count), there are plenty of options.

and 'honest' does mean objective, but, and only, in a relation to oneself. so, it's not necessarily has to do anything with learning as a dominion of knowledge (which is counting). it (honesty) derives its power from choice.

B

The decision is pretty subjective, though.

it's the right part of your argument, but contradicting the previous one.

you can't have your cake and eat it too :)

Beethoven and Mozart, while they where both great composers, did not write music that had the same complexity or influence as Bach's music, imo.

The decision is pretty subjective, though.

Complexity is objective

Complexity is objective

Maybe when it's a single aspect in question. But whether the whole body of work of one composer is more "complex" than that of another is hard to say, as there are so many aspects in which music can be complex. Bach wasn't as complex as many that came after him in timbre (and dynamics, articulation and other nuances), form (particularly greater form), rhythm, etc. I dare say Beethoven was quite a bit more complex in his usage of instruments and greater musical form. But of course Bach was incredibly complex in his contrapunctal connecting of melody and harmony, and in formal details.

This question is intriguing, but obviously unanswerable. I'd refute that Bach's influence has been greater than any other composer (that claim's been bandied around), since he really marked the pinnacle of a period. After his death he quickly slid into obscurity, coinciding more or less with the death of the baroque style.

I often think that one of the reasons for the sudden, sharp alteration in style between the baroque and classical period (which appears much more discernable than the classical-romantic divide) is that the ever-increasing complexity of counterpoint forced musicians to start afresh. There simply weren't enough people who could do it.

Bach's life must have been a terribly frustrating one, considering his genius. To write something as brilliant as the Brandenburg concerti as a gift, and then not even receive aknowledgement?

This question is intriguing, but obviously unanswerable. I'd refute that Bach's influence has been greater than any other composer (that claim's been bandied around), since he really marked the pinnacle of a period. After his death he quickly slid into obscurity, coinciding more or less with the death of the baroque style.

Bach never slid into obscurity; his popularity has always been more or less the same, which is to say that those who know, know. In his life time he was mostly known as a virtuoso organist, and very few truly understood the breadth of his compositional output. After his death, he went on to greatly influence through his works: Mozart (who began to fully employ mature counterpoint in his works after encountering Bach and who, it is said, always kept a copy of DWK open at his piano), Beethoven (who earned his early reputation through the playing of Bach and, consequently, learned his preliminaries of performance and composition technique therein), Chopin (who also learned composition and performance largely through study of DWK and who, as is widely known, wrote a set of 24 preludes in tribute), as well as basically everyone on that list, and then many more.

I answered correctly.

Since you said that you answered correctly I almost don't dare adding or questioning anything. Almost. You are certainly right that Bach wasn't much more well-known while he was still alive than afterwards. But "his popularity has always been more or less the same"? I certainly don't think he was as well-known in the 18th and 19th century as today! Yes, many great composers knew about him and learned from his pieces. But they had to look for them in order to study them, it wasn't just thrown at them. Certainly Mozart learned lots from Bach, but how long did it take until he had even discovered him? Surely, today a child that is musically trained as Mozart was would know of Bach as one of the first composers! Sure, Beethoven, Schumann and Chopin knew of Bach and admired him, but the average person on the street had no clue. Today almost everyone in Europe and America has heard once or twice of Bach, or even heard a piece by him once. Him having influenced generations of composers says nothing about his "popularity".

Fine. You're right, Bach's "popularity" has spiked over the last hundred years particularly, but has been rising for a while. I guess I should have made specific that I wasn't talking about general popularity (i.e. the public) but rather his popularity among musicians of importance (i.e. the people on that list and beyond).

Basically, what I was trying to say was that Bach's popularity among studying musicians has always been the highest, not that the same amount of people have always known of him. My bad for the confusion.

So yes, how many generations of musicians and how deeply they were influenced says nothing about general popularity, but it does say a lot about his greatness (I feel).

I certainly agree there.

What exacly is a "greatest composer"? Is it like: the Michael Jackson of classical music? It depends on what one finds the most important quality of a composer, what might mean it could be a composer who's not the best in orchestration, but very creative and has a tons of great ideas put on paper. Or a composer who changed music the most might indicate the "greatestness" of a composer. But that would exclude all new composers, because nothing could be crazy enough the last century. You can't measure how much the composers of the last century might change the music of these days.

So I'll go for Tschaikovsky. My favourite composer is not on the list: Shostakovich. My favourite orchestrator is not on the list either: Ravel.

Well, it's probably a lack in my upbringing, but I'm not a great fan of most music older than, say, 200 years. Not totally true, because I started being interested in classical music because of Mozart. But after listening so much, it has been flogged to death to me, brilliant it may be.

I'll chime in with

there IS no "greatest" composer if you must leave out the "favourite" aspect.

particularly on this forum.

this is a forum of YOUNG composers, people for whom the life-long journey of exploration into "what exactly IS music" has barely begun!

to think that anyone here has anything OTHER than an opinion on greatness that isn't merely a reflection of their personal bias/preference is... well, silly.

If you know ALL music by ALL composers, then you can start to consider this question. Until you've actually heard ALL music by ALL composers, well, it's pretty pointless.

Even then, it all depends on our definition of greatness, which can be so varied that discussion on the matter is basically just that, discussion; there will never be a proclaimed greates composer. Still, it's interesting to see others' takes on it, and why.

I would probably say Beethoven, but even then I don't want because I also believe other great composers to be just as great....if that makes sense :P. Anyway, I do love Beethoven, though :musicwhistle:.