IMSLP Forums

Although Puccini may have some of the most lyrical music (opening of Suor Angelica is perfect example), he composed so far behind his time that I always feel like there is no seriousness in his music. I will not deny his masterful orchestration skills, but I tend to prefer composers who expanded on their predecessors work and really changed the art as we know it.

Of course many people completely disagree with me. Comments?

While Puccini was certainly not a trailblazer like Debussy or Stravinsky, I disagree that he composed "behind his time." In the history of opera, he took the bel canto and verismo traditions to new heights. Plus, he welcomed the influence of Wagner (Tosca), Debussy (Madama Butterfly), and even a little bit of Stravinsky (the bitonailty of certain parts of Turandot come to mind). To me, Puccini's real genius is his dramatic pacing.

You make a good point. My dislike of Puccini probably comes more from the content of the operas themselves, i.e. romance plots. Don't get me wrong, I could listen to Eugene Onegin, der Rosenkavalier, even Turandot over and over again because of the music, but not pay attention to the plots. I much prefer a light Mozart comedy, or, in contrast, a dark, Strauss tragedy.

If I may quote a couple of Cesar Cui's quips involving Puccini.

This is from his article "Из моих оперных вспоминания" ("From My Reminiscences about Opera"), 1899-1900, reprinted in his Избранные статьи [Selected articles], p. 510-525:

[...] if we take a group of contemporary fashionable young Italians (Mascagni, Leoncavallo, Puccini, Giordano) we will see that same type of adroit and unceremonious illustrators in sound of various faits divers and of street scenes who have made use by those same techniques of a tasteless, coarse, exaggeratedly clear writing.

Letter from Cui to S. I. Mamontov, 23 January 1899, in Cui, Избранные письма [Selected Letters], p. 198:

La Bohème? The scenes about everyday life and genre-painting represent a mixed salad of variegated little phrases mechanically combined with one another. In any five minutes the lyric scenes lead to wailing on high notes with a disintegration of the orchestra. [...] But nevertheless Puccini is a talented and spirited person, and, of course, in La Bohème there are exceptions.

(Both of these excerpts as translated in my dissertation, p. 708, 952.)

Personally, I admire Percy Grainger and would definitely name him as my favorite composer. His deviation from standard composing style during his lifetime created some of the most amazing music in existence today. He was one of the first to write for the modern Wind Ensemble (after receiving Frederick Fennell's, the creator the Wind Ensemble, letter that laid out the standard instrumentation for it and requested compositions for it). Grainger's music is eclectic and covers a variety of different styles, from jaunty country tunes to slow, flowing, harmonious ones. My favorite Grainger pieces would include Lincolshire Posy, Green Bushes, Shepherd's Hey, Blithe Bells, A Sussex Mummer's Christmas Carol and Scotch Strathspey and Reel (the version arranged by Leroy Osman is particularly good) , though I enjoy almost all of his music. Anybody who's heard these pieces or played them would understand why a horn player would enjoy listening to and/or playing these pieces (I play french horn).

The more I think about it, the more I find that Schubert and Brahms don't get enough credit for what they did - especially Brahms. As far as tonal music goes, his symphonies are among the most achieved pieces ever written; and by the way, let's not forget the fourth movement of his 4th symphony is bascically rearranged Bach


However, I'd like to mention two composers that seem to have been almost completely forgotten, which I feel is unfair because they deserve better: Camille Saint-Saëns and Antonín Dvo?ák. The latter is, in my opinion at least, a very gifted composer who managed to use orchestras to their full potential - 8th & 9th symphonies, Cello Concerto, etc. - without flying off the handle either, like Mahler in his 8th (don't get me wrong though: I *love* Mahler, but his 8th is not something you really listen to every other day).



As for those who said Mozart had little influence on the other composers of his time: I agree, but I would rather say that's simply because he's something else. He's just there, some brilliant, unidentified flying composer, who came up with an almost life-like kind of music. Don't you ever have that impression, where you feel the piece is breathing? There wasn't much to understand, contrary to Beethoven or Brahm's music. For example, unless I'm mistaken, Mozart never did anything like Brahm's third symphony, i.e. a semi-parody of his period's style - the third movement, as beautiful as it is, is almost ridiculously romantic - with an actual play on words (F-A-F at first, F-A-E at the end). You don't understand Mozart's music: you just love it.

Mahler. No question.

Oh goodness *faints*
"Best" is not the same as "Favorite." Although Brahms is my favorite, Bach might very well be the best.

I would take issue with a couple of people who said that 'best' doesn't mean 'most innovative'. Music is an art, and art is an attempt at perfection of innovation. Mozart got the perfection all right, better than anyone else (although there are some who come close), but many were more innovative (in my opinion). He created one basic system/style (dare I say mold?) early on and stuck with it through virtually everything (I say that because of course I haven't heard all of his music). That isn't to say I don't like any of his music- I like some of it. But Bach was more innovative, with a bit less structural perfection (e.g. the D Minor Partita for Violin- the first movement is close to improvisatory, in a way, but quite haunting with a good player). (Although I admit I don't particularly care for Bach's music either- I'm just trying to analyze it a bit in a more unbiased way.)
With all of that said, I would go with Beethoven and Shostakovich as the absolute top. Beethoven was the original Romantic and started the breakdown of tonality while producing music with that same instinctive ebb and flow as that of Mozart or Bach; and Shostakovich (especially Opp. 15 or so to 43- before Stalin crushed him) was a similarly brilliant judge of context (meaning how long or short a section should be- the hardest thing for a composer to get [in terms of skill, not talent]), as well as alternating between immensely profound melodies and almost cheap rhythmic figures that seem eerie (check out the first movement of the Violin Sonata Op. 134)- he was the indisputable master of the grotesque. (Again, not looking at Song of the Forests here!)
Maybe you can judge a composer by his/her string quartets (well, except for Bach, I guess). Mozart's and Haydn's are quite good- extremely good, I would say. But the core of the repertoire is strongly bolstered by the quartets of Beethoven and Shostakovich- pretty much unprecedented in their tragedy/pathos and general inventiveness/brilliance. (And, of course, Bartok's are also pretty amazing, although not quite as good.) So there you have it, I guess- another of my lectures...Feel free to argue.

Bach was in no way innovative. And quite a few fantastic composers wrote nothing of the sort: Monteverdi, Dufay, Josquin, Lasso, etc. as well as Verdi whose string quartet is better than most of his output.

The best could be Bach; the most influential, Wagner; the most innovative, Beethoven; the most tuneful, Schubert; and the most deep, Carter. But my favorite is still Brahms. (followed by Stravinsky. I have eclectic tastes)

Bach was definitely innovative, you don't see his level of chromaticism until Wagner, Beethoven didn't add much at all to Bachs work.

(especially Opp. 15 or so to 43- before Stalin crushed him)

Given the involvement of the CIA and McCarthyism, what Stalin did was no different than what the US did.

I do not think anyone is the best composer. The composers we consider in the highest council (E.G. Rameau, Haydn, Grieg, Debussy, Rachmaninoff etc...) are all good in there own ways. My personal favorite is Rachmaninoff, because the emotions in his music are real, as oppose to Chopin's music who I find fake, and along with the feeling it also as a copious amount of depth.

Yagan Kiely wrote:Bach was definitely innovative, you don't see his level of chromaticism until Wagner

Monteverdi is the one from whom Bach got that chromaticism - it was not invented. The classicists found it distasteful and innovated things like form.
And Beethoven redefined the conception of music and musicians. He added expression in a wholly new way - not Monteverdi's "expressive dissonance" - and streched boundaries from tempo, to length, to, of course, harmony. And the Late works - say, after Op. 101 - can be as dissonant as anything, when he wants them to be.

Does nobody else here like Renaissance music? I saw that perlnerd mentioned Josquin and others, but that's it. I'd certainly put Palestrina, Byrd, Tallis, and Victoria near the top of my list (though Dvorak and Brahms still occupy the top two spots).