Best Composer ever

[vinteuil]

OK, to defend Mendelssohn:
Mendelssohn is not the world's greatest composer ever. He is, however a first-rate composer with some brilliant pieces to his name.
He was a conservative. He worked in the old idioms. He did not rediscover Bach. He was not a lot of things.
However, his technical skill is sometimes unbelievable. He very rarely writes pieces with technical flaws; boring, he can do, over-romantic, he can do. Yet, his best works (Elijah, Italian Symphony, 6 Preludes and Fugues) are skillfully crafted, lyrical pieces with wonderful orchestration. His transitions (e.g. the move to the recap in the 1st movement of the same "Italian" symphony) are always done well, as opposed to many composers.

So I would rank him far above Liszt, even if he was a conservative.

[allegroamabile]

Are you a fan of conservative composers as well, Perlnerd666?

[vinteuil]

If the music is good, who cares about whether they were conservative or revolutionary? Berg is as good as Webern. Berlioz is as good as Mendelssohn (sorry, PML). Faure is just as good as Dukas. And, for that matter, Ockeghem is as good as Busnois, and Weber as Schubert. (all opinions. Take it or leave it)

But, of course, late Liszt is fun and interesting, as is early Ives. But so are Copland's Emily Dickinson songs.

[allegroamabile]

Speaking of conservative composers, I have to say I really enjoy the music of Josef Rheinberger, especially his chamber music. His Nonet for Strings and Winds (which is on IMSLP) is very attractive, almost like the Brahms Serenades, in the manner of its lightness. I wish he were played more, especially at chamber recitals. His Der Stern von Bethlehem does get played at Christmas time, which the Finale of that piece sounds immensely Brahmsian, like Brahms's Triumphleid or the Finale to his Variations on a Theme by Haydn. Oddly enough though, Rheinberger did teach Horatio Parker, the teacher of Charles Ives at Yale.

By the way, I really admire conservative composers as well.

[vinteuil]

Speaking of conservative composers, I have to say I really enjoy the music of Josef Rheinberger, especially his chamber music. His Nonet for Strings and Winds (which is on IMSLP) is very attractive, almost like the Brahms Serenades, in the manner of its lightness. I wish he were played more, especially at chamber recitals. His Der Stern von Bethlehem does get played a Christmas time, which the Finale of that piece sounds immensely Brahmsian, like Brahms's Triumphleid or the Finale to his Variations on a Theme by Haydn. Oddly enough though, Rheinberger did teach Horatio Parker, the teacher of Charles Ives at Yale.

Uggh...Rheinberger (I'm an organist) is responsible for ever so many boring pieces and ever so many boring conservative American composers. Just about every american went to study with him - somewhat analogously to Nadia Boulanger 50 years later. He has a few nice pieces, but I get soooo sick of hearing him programmed on organ recitals. His Brahmsianism never really scratches the surface; it's more of a "late romantic conservative german" style - just like the Brahms 1st piano concerto is the best piece that Reger ever wrote .

And I do think that Rheinberger (or frankly Brahms, sadly enough) is not on many's list for #1 greatest composer ever.

P.S. That was a hint on how you can hear more of Rheinberger's stuff.

[allegroamabile]

His Brahmsianism never really scratches the surface; it's more of a "late romantic conservative german" style - just like the Brahms 1st piano concerto is the best piece that Reger ever wrote .

And I do think that Rheinberger (or frankly Brahms, sadly enough) is not on many's list for #1 greatest composer ever.

P.S. That was a hint on how you can hear more of Rheinberger's stuff.

He is not my favorite all time composer ever, one of them though, at least right now. Could you elaborate more on how his Brahmsian never really scratches the surface? Are you saying that he tries to do his own imitation of Brahms, but he never exactly achieves Brahms's quality?

I find his organ works overrated in the realm of all his other works. His chamber music I find is the best genre he wrote in, where I believe that he most sounds like Brahms. His Organ Concerto No. 1 in F major is quite beautiful though, especially the first movement with its warm string excerpts. The second movement is nice too. The beginning organ solo in that movement reminds me of a church service interlude, especially with the stops that are used.

[vinteuil]

He is not my favorite all time composer ever, one of them though, at least right now. Could you elaborate more on how his Brahmsian never really scratches the surface? Are you saying that he tries to do his own imitation of Brahms, but he never exactly achieves Brahms's quality?

That's something of it. Brahms is like Chopin in some respects with his contrapuntal mastery; Brahms is all counterpoint, although his melodic and harmonic gifts are what elevate him. Rheinberger is just to sterile and academic in his treatment of the style and he never is as brilliant as a Brahms, Chopin, Bach or Palestrina in his counterpoint.

I find his organ works overrated in the realm of all his other works. His chamber music I find is the best genre he wrote in, where I believe that he most sounds like Brahms. His Organ Concerto No. 1 in F major is quite beautiful though, especially the first movement with its warm string excerpts. The second movement is nice too. The beginning organ solo in that movement reminds me of a church service interlude, especially with the stops that are used.

I just listened to this; it is quite nice. Like Reger, Rheinberger is less prone to the Germanic tendency to bloatedness in chamber music. Still, I would rather listen to my Victoria than Rheinberger...only so much time and there is quite a lot of good music.

Speaking of Victoria, it is striking how underplayed some of the Spanish composers are. Spain is a country with few peers: few other countries can claim as good a symphonist as Roberto Gerhard, as good a writer of keyboard sonatas as Soler, as good a writer for the organ as Cabezón, as good a writer of sacred music as Victoria, and as good a violinist as Sarasate. Although none of these are quite the "great"est, Victoria and Gerhard come extremely close in their own ways.

[sbeckmesser]

Although none of these are quite the "great"est, Victoria and Gerhard come extremely close in their own ways.

I've always found Victoria quite the most interesting of the late-Renaissance polyphonic masters, surpassing both Palestrina and Lassus in every genre they have in common. It's also good that Victoria's scores are very well represented on the Internet, both here and elsewhere. And while IMSLP has a very good Morales collection there needs to be more Guerrero online, speaking of Spanish masters.

--Sixtus

[allegroamabile]

Then you have Arriaga, another Spanish composer, who I feel is a very dry Beethoven. There is also Sarasate's Zigeunerweisen which is played far too often and I feel that it has a superficial melodramatic feel to it.

A Portuguese composer (another country who has very small amount of composers) who I take a great liking to is Jose Vianna da Motta. He was Franz Liszt's last pupil for the piano and as a composer he ironically writes in a late romantic conservative German style (e.g. Piano Sonata in D major), similar to that of Rheinberger.

[madcapellan]

Brahms is all counterpoint, although his melodic and harmonic gifts are what elevate him

Did I really just read this? Brahms was a terrible melody writer. He thought that writing melodies was taking parts of a major triad and stringing them together. He was apparently trying to copy Beethoven, but failed miserably at it.

However, whenever Brahms "borrowed" a melody from somewhere else, the results were often gold. Academic Festival Overture gets a lot of flak, but it's by far his most enjoyable piece. All of his idiosyncratic trademarks (random diminished arpeggios, unnecessary allusions to Beethoven's 9th, "echo" rhythms) work to enhance the music, instead of being the focus. You can throw some of the Hungarian Dances and Varitions On A Theme Of Haydn in there too. Take care of the melody, and Brahms showed he was actually a talented composer. But it's clear he thought too much, especially with the unnecessary buildup to his first symphony.

I know people love to bring up the Lullaby, although that too starts with just a major triad. I'm not saying Brahms couldn't write melodies, but that he was overall rather bad at it. The difference between him and Dvorak, otherwise two very similar composers, is amazing. Dvorak crapped melodies, while Brahms just sorta wrote crap.

[vinteuil]

Did I really just read this? Brahms was a terrible melody writer. He thought that writing melodies was taking parts of a major triad and stringing them together. He was apparently trying to copy Beethoven, but failed miserably at it.

Ouch!!!! All melodies tend to fall into the categories of a) stepwise and b) triadic. Brahms is both; for a) see Op. 3/II, Op. 8/I, Op. 12, Op. 18/I, Op. 18/IV, Op. 33/III, Op. 33/VI, Op. 34/III, Op.65/I, Op. 83/I, Op. 88/I, Op. 90/I (not the greatest melody, perhaps, but...), Op. 108/I, Op. 115/I, Op. 119/III, Op. 119/IV, etc. Have you listened much to his lieder??? Often his melodic quality is at least as good as Schubert's. Op. 91 is rapturous in this respect.

However, whenever Brahms "borrowed" a melody from somewhere else, the results were often gold. Academic Festival Overture gets a lot of flak, but it's by far his most enjoyable piece. All of his idiosyncratic trademarks (random diminished arpeggios, unnecessary allusions to Beethoven's 9th, "echo" rhythms) work to enhance the music, instead of being the focus.

"Random"? Someone's a pianist . Besides, Liszt and C.P.E. Bach aren't hurt much by that . It's hardly a trademark.
I rarely find diminished arpeggios to be the focus in Brahms; Beethoven 9 in only the 1st symphony; Echo rhythms are used by just about everyone. Now, 2 against 3 and constant doubling at the 3rd and 6th....

You can throw some of the Hungarian Dances and Varitions On A Theme Of Haydn in there too. Take care of the melody, and Brahms showed he was actually a talented composer. But it's clear he thought too much, especially with the unnecessary buildup to his first symphony.

The first symphony, the two overtures, and some of the early piano pieces are always too heavy for my taste. The Brahms of Op. 33, Op. 40, Op. 111 is much nicer; his orchestral works have a tendency to be overwrought in this respect - and of course people know orchestral works best. However, this has not stopped the German Requiem from being a fantastic piece - throw those melodies in the list too.

I know people love to bring up the Lullaby, although that too starts with just a major triad. I'm not saying Brahms couldn't write melodies, but that he was overall rather bad at it. The difference between him and Dvorak, otherwise two very similar composers, is amazing. Dvorak crapped melodies, while Brahms just sorta wrote crap.

I hate the Lullaby, BTW.
I guess that late Brahms always appeals more to me.

[allegroamabile]

I must stand behind Perlnerd with Brahms having good melodies. The opening of the Op. 88 String Quintet he mentioned is beautiful, especially with the interdependent viola counterpoint. Don't forget the fourth movement of the Op. 36 String Sextet. Who couldn't love the second theme of the Second Symphony introduced by the cellos in the first movement? I find that melody rather Dvorakian due to its pastoral nature. I will agree with you on one thing though, Dvorak did "crap" good melodies.

[KGill]

Dvorak also had a rather poor sense of harmonic development. It's what makes his music so uninteresting (for the most part) - he just can't think outside his little box. He's very similar in that way to Tchaikovsky, except of course the latter could at least write fabulous tunes. The piano trios of both these composers are perfect examples of what I mean (although there are many others)
As for the triadic melody thing, why is that even necessarily a bad thing? What's the main theme to the first movement of the Eroica Symphony, after all? And where does this leave R. Strauss (half his operatic motifs are based on triads)?
And even if it is a bad thing, I don't believe it's logical to conclude that Brahms was bad at melody writing unless you've only heard a couple pieces, and they happened to be bad ones. All of the violin sonatas and String Quartet No.3 are more examples of him displaying a sometimes amazingly sublime melodic gift.

[madcapellan]

As for the triadic melody thing, why is that even necessarily a bad thing? What's the main theme to the first movement of the Eroica Symphony, after all?

I'm well aware Beethoven did the same thing, but he did it well and memorably, and always with emotion. Brahms obviously tried to copy Beethoven in this respect (and many other aspects from the Eroica), and failed miserably whenever he did (*ahem* Second Symphony). I don't know what his fetish with Beethoven was anyways. It's a wonder he could write anything with a bust of the man staring at him all the time. Brahms put form above everything else, and in doing so entirely missed the point of the Romantic period. The joking little coda from the third movement of Beethoven's 9th sounds very "Brahmsian", and shows exactly why Brahms would only ever be a pale imitation of Beethoven.

Dvorak also had a rather poor sense of harmonic development. It's what makes his music so uninteresting (for the most part) - he just can't think outside his little box.

I think you could say that about almost every composer before the 20th century. Even Wagner's crazy stuff is still obviously grounded in a very tonal framework, even if the actual key is shifting a lot or whatever. Very few composers before the 20th century can be said to have "thought outside the box". Especially the acknowledged greats like Mozart and Bach, who doggedly kept writing their style without ever questioning what music could be. Yeah, times were different and all that, but even 10 years after Mozart died, Beethoven had had enough and changed his style, bringing the rest of classical music along with him, eventually. Although by the end of the 19th century, most composers had fallen into a similar rut, including Dvorak and Brahms. In retrospect, Schoenberg's big break shouldn't have been quite as revolutionary, or as difficult for him to do. No one could bring themselves to think outside of "the key" until literally the start of the 20th century.

The best works by Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, and yes, Brahms, have no problem standing the test of time. But their lesser works all end up sounding like they're blandly going through the motions (this is true of most composers with a "voice"). Especially when you know there are chords they will never use, and that the progressions are generally predictable-sounding.

Who couldn't love the second theme of the Second Symphony introduced by the cellos in the first movement?

Apparently perlnerd, who hates the Brahms Lullaby. It was obvious even when I played this in high school that this melody was a ripoff of the Lullaby. Why waste the only good melody he ever wrote when you can use it again and most people won't notice? The entire Second Symphony is an abomination from start to finish. And what was worse was that Dvorak decided to rewrite this entire symphony for his Sixth. Fortunately for him, it wasn't a perfect imitation. Also fortunately, Dvorak came to his senses shortly thereafter, and his final three symphonies are masterpieces. If Brahms and Dvorak had just been themselves instead of trying to imitate other composers like this, they'd have left behind far more worthwhile works.

[vinteuil]

I think you could say that about almost every composer before the 20th century. Even Wagner's crazy stuff is still obviously grounded in a very tonal framework, even if the actual key is shifting a lot or whatever. Very few composers before the 20th century can be said to have "thought outside the box". Especially the acknowledged greats like Mozart and Bach, who doggedly kept writing their style without ever questioning what music could be. Yeah, times were different and all that, but even 10 years after Mozart died, Beethoven had had enough and changed his style, bringing the rest of classical music along with him, eventually. Although by the end of the 19th century, most composers had fallen into a similar rut, including Dvorak and Brahms. In retrospect, Schoenberg's big break shouldn't have been quite as revolutionary, or as difficult for him to do. No one could bring themselves to think outside of "the key" until literally the start of the 20th century.

Actually, tonal harmony is just about the same (augmented 6 chords excluded) from Corelli to Schubert. Beethoven didn't revolutionize much in that respect, nor form.
I think that we often overcredit revolution; Schoenberg didn't really do much of anything in terms of breaking apart tonality and emancipating the dissonance. Music was tending there anyways, and Bartók, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Ives, Stravinsky, et al happened to do the same thing at the same time. Some people call Josquin conservative for his rather prudish use of dissonance; at the time, however, it was more avant garde to restrict dissonance, making Ockeghem much more antiquated. Besides, Debussy wrote Prelude de l'après midi d'un faune in the 1890s

That said, two of my very favorites are Varèse and Ives. I would put Varèse up for "greatest" composer of all time, too to be honest. His works were, although not as revolutionary perhaps as everyone makes them out to be, wonderfully constructed and perfectly put together. I like the direction in which music is going now. However, we must remember that Gesualdo and Franck often sound alike. De Vitry was once a revolutionary, and some of his ideas are recirculating now - music is always dredging ideas up from the past. It is foolish to underestimate the past.

And besides, the stuff Beethoven wrote in 1802 wasn't very far from Mozart; only when you get to something like An die ferne Geliebte or the Missa Solemnis does the change become noticeable. And even the great revolutionary Weber isn't that revolutionary to the ear not tuned to subtleties.

Who couldn't love the second theme of the Second Symphony introduced by the cellos in the first movement?

Apparently perlnerd, who hates the Brahms Lullaby. It was obvious even when I played this in high school that this melody was a ripoff of the Lullaby. Why waste the only good melody he ever wrote when you can use it again and most people won't notice? The entire Second Symphony is an abomination from start to finish. And what was worse was that Dvorak decided to rewrite this entire symphony for his Sixth. Fortunately for him, it wasn't a perfect imitation. Also fortunately, Dvorak came to his senses shortly thereafter, and his final three symphonies are masterpieces. If Brahms and Dvorak had just been themselves instead of trying to imitate other composers like this, they'd have left behind far more worthwhile works.

I said I disliked the Lullaby, not the theme
That said, the second is my favorite...not that any of his symphonies are quite as good as Opp. 33, 91, or 119
And you still haven't answered about lieder