What do you think are the particular qualities of the music of the "great" composers....?

Favorite Answer

There appears to be a soupçon of mischief mixed into the phrasing of your question, Glinzek? :-)

A soupçon that has tempted quite a few replies to concentrate on the greatness (or otherwise) of *composers* -- among which, I enjoyed Scots Pines' very much indeed -- while it is the qualities in the *works* instead you appear to want to concentrate on.

Before anything else, I have to take issue with your illustrative premise that Beethoven's (piano) concertos are considered in the manner you describe, compared with those of Hummel. When do you speak of, and so regarded by whom? Between 1805 and 1850, Hummel's were held in incomparanbly higher esteem, and were of far profounder influence on (piano) concerto composition by one, or even two generations of (pianist-)composers commencing their careers at that time. (It was this that caused Brahms such public grief with his, he having taken his lead from Beethoven instead.) It took the tenacity and grit of an incomparable advocate, Franz Liszt, at the time to force the musical world's attention back to Beethoven's achievement by insisting on public performance of the c-minor, op. 37, in particular, frequently at the explicit expense of his own concertante output, for which public demand was infinitely greater, and financial return commensurately higher. Schubert benefitted from similar eloquence and advocacy on Liszt's and Schumann's part, and Bach from the tireless efforts of Mendelssohn, Schumann, LIszt and Chopin, each within their own sphere of influence, likewise. That's greatness in selfless service of others' greatness. And it doesn't only apply to events of a century and a half ago: without similar, tireless advocacy in the 1930s of, among others, an Edwin Fischer and a Fritz Busch, for example, the course of events in the process of returning Mozarts' concerto achievement to its rightful place of pre-eminence it enjoys now might simply not have occurred at all, or certainly been delayed very much further still.

To list the contributive elements of a work's greatness has been done many times, and the useful, if a little wilfully contentious <s> article that Bearcat pointed to contains a set of 10 criteria that I can't find much exception with -- though I do with how they are applied at times <g> -- but to regurgitate them in a form principally similar here, would be pointless. Instead, let me add the criterion I find missing in so many discussions of this, and one which I am inclined to give greater weight than any of the others, singly or combined. The extent to which (a) great work(s) end(s) up reflecting it's/their quality and influence embedded in the (great) creative output of others, both of contemporaries and successors, sometimes even centuries later. Bach's instrumental polyphony and architectural sense, as well as Bellini's 'estase', in Chopin; Haydn's quartet practice and Handel's choral handling in Mozart; the eclecticism of Mahler in a Berio and an Ives; 15th and 16th century polyphonists' practice in Brahms; Chopin's figurative precision and harmonic control in Debussy; Brahms' formal and expressive experimentation in Schoenberg, and through him the entire second Viennese School; Bellini's motivic expressiveness and architecture in both Wagner and Liszt; Wagner's almost all pervasive impregnation of several generations that followed, on and on and on...

Once you care to do this 'flea-hopping' like I just did, at length, you will gradually see a cavalcade of greatnesses emerge that curiously coincides with what history has also flagged up as being possibly of such quality, though of course there are terrible omissions at times. There is, after all, no greatness that can be reflected if there is no one there to receive and recognise it. What greater recognition of any greatness, than to be reborn, time and again, within the fabric of the work of others who have recognised that greatness and unhesitatingly acted upon it of choice within the very fabric of what they themselves have wrought which, presumably, they hold dear above all?

That criterion will do me just fine......Show more

Truth be told, one cannot objectively claim superiority when it comes to art. However, in the academic world, more "respect" is given to those composers who are innovators. Bach is considered by many to be the greatest. Bach is also considered to be the most important and influential composer. Composers such as Hayden, Beethoven, and Mozart, attribute much of their success to Bach. He took all the musical knowledge up until that point and organized it into a comprehensive "music encyclopedia". Mozart is considered to be the one who perfected the classical form. Beethoven is very much responsible for bridging the gap between the classical and romantic period. The composers who are considered "below" the greatest, are no doubt great composers, however they lack a certain quality that the greats possess. They are not innovators in the same sense. Although some may prefer Chopin to Bach or Beethoven, does not make them wrong. In their minds they may view Chopin as the greatest...and one cannot prove them wrong. That being said, there is a consensus in the musically educated world that gives the most respect to the innovators and the most influential composers of each period of music.
I hope this helps...Show more

I haven't forgotten that you got me on a Ring Cycle kick. Nevertheless, I still see a few minus points: ■ Wagner could not express a wide enough range of moods. Maybe Der Meistersinger was supposed to be a comedy, but nobody ever laughs at the jokes. In Act II, the nightwatchman walks down the street and finds everything peaceful. A big fracas then takes place. After the fracas is over, the nightwatchman passes back the other way and again finds everything peaceful. That's supposed to be funny, but nobody laughs. In Act III, Beckmesser gives a poor rendition of his own song after he had been so critical of Walther's singing. That's supposed to be funny, but nobody laughs. When I was rummaging through the music library, I found a waltz and a polka composed by Wagner. They are a scream. Wagner apparently tried to play Johann Strauss but couldn't. ■ The pace is sometimes too slow. When the village people ask Lohengrin who he is and where he came from, it takes him several minutes to promise to answer the question. He could have answered the question in that time. Why does it take Siegfried 15 minutes to discover that the entity which he finds sleeping in the ring of fire is a woman? And once he wakes her up, why does their duet have to last 30 minutes? Confidential to Alberich: You got me beat. I've been a Puccini fanatic only since the age of 15. Confidential to Birdgirl: I haven't heard that quote before, but I've heard that Nadie Boulanger said that Richard Strauss's music had too many notes....Show more

The qualities of the "great" composers are somewhat complicated, but I will attempt to answer your question as simplistically as possible. 1) They were innovators who did something creative and new. Beethoven, for instance, wrote his symphonies to inspire images and stories rather then for the sake of writing alone. 2) People happened to like their music. Great composers are remembered namely because we continue to listen to their music today. Pop artists tend to last a very short time because their music applies only to "the now" and is relatively simple. Great works that mean something (like Beethoven's symphonies or Mozart's Requiem) can apply to generations, so they not only have timelessness, but they are magnificent pieces that inspire strong emotions and are wonderful to listen to. 3) Last, but not least, works are only considered better than others by opinion. Beethoven's concertos were NOT necessarily better than Hummel's, some people just enjoyed one piece over another (for instance the "weight" of a Beethoven piece). As far as the qualities that set symphonies apart: there are entire curriculems devoted to that. The qualities that set them apart are simply the quirks of the composers who wrote them. For Beethoven, it was the emotional way he wrote his pieces, for Mozart, elegance....Show more

It may just be the time period these composers were from. They were the inventors of the time period itself maybe. The other composers that weren't one of the "greats" maybe had Beethoven as a teacher or a role model. They followed in their foot steps. Some composers that aren't seen as great probably imitated some of Beethoven's work and then put their own style into it. But the "greats" pulled it from their genius brain and got it from no one else....Show more