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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

Good morning ~

I have only a half-penny worth of opinion this morning, but here it is:

I don't find the premise correct. I cannot see why Beethoven should hold court over Haydn or why anyone must like Mozart better than Schubert or they may jolly well hit the highway. Is Mahler better than Hugo Wolf, is Duparc inferior to Cantaloube or Obradors, is Purcell greater than Pachelbel? I don't think such a judgment is possible. I think it is a matter of opinion and personal taste. While I agree that "a kindergartener has a right to his or her own opinion", I think it is only fair that opinion is recognized as just that, and that no one has the right to force opinion upon us as if it were fact.

Classical music has a whole sub-culture of thou-shalt-nots that is repressive and prejudiced. I personally am glad that I have managed to shake it off. For years I felt the necessity to love Beethoven, lest I be judged iconoclastic and missing a piece of soft ware. Note the word "necessity"! In other words, to be considered a person of culture, it was necessary to conform to standardly held opionions of what is acceptable and what is not. The identity of the arbiter had been left to obscurity, a well-deserved position.

May I be forgiven in stone if I am wrong, but I suspect one of the reasons we "love" one composer over another is that the composer himself orders it. Naughty me. For example, I feel it is acceptable to overlook Verdi, but not Beethoven. It makes me wonder if Beethoven, wherever he is right now, is not pushing us in that direction, and Verdi is off in some elysian pasture herding sheep and not giving a hoot.

Try as I might to avoid it, I find Beethoven heavy-handed, thuddingly boring and self-important and a very unwelcome guest for tea. I am sure his clothes need a going over and that there are dishes in his sink. I have tried for years to like Beethoven. Of course there are pieces I do like. I would be a fool to overlook his Triple Concerto, Opus 56 for Violin, Cello and Piano, or the Kreutzer Sonata for Violin & Piano, Op 9.

However, given a choice of music to listen to whilst dusting off the tables and freshening up vases of flowers in the morning, I will take my latest favorite Haydn Symphonies (Der Morgen, Der Mittag und Der Abend),

rather than slog through Beethoven which is not living-room friendly, I find.

It is not for nothing that he was called "Papa Haydn" and we have no such warm appellation for Beethoven.

To me the worth of a composer is not that someone somewhere considers him great, but that he is listenable.

That in itself is a matter of mood and personal need, of where one is with oneself, or the needs of the moment of even time of day. While, for example, I can not at the moment listen to Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini, I am now quite into Tchaikovsky and Wagner. I am not saying that those three opera composers are not great, I am saying that I am suffering right now from over-exposure and toxicity. I am not advising anyone to follow suit, I am not saying anyone must think and feel as I do. You may do as you wish. Isn't that the idea?

Speaking of Tchaikovsky, I was quite astonished to come across an opinion of a music critic asserting that Tchaikovsky was at best a twelfth-rate composer. I was absolutely astonished, caught between wondering if the gentleman seriously thought that, or if he was trying to generate a little activity in his mail box. As for me, I could not compose a single phrase that would compare to anything he wrote. You could not dance to my music, I don't know the violin or the piano that well, goodness knows my skills at orchestration are un-discussable, and I don't write good operas. Twelfth-rate? Huff!

So, here we are, pitting one composer against another, Beethoven outclassing Bach who outstrips Brahms in spades, and all three top Mozart who overshadows Chopin and Ravel, Rameau and Couperin, and Rachmaninoff who is not quite the equal of Tchaikovsky, that naughty 12th rate fellow......where does it all end. One insult after the other, and lofted by just whom, may I ask. If any of these judges, these arbiters of taste, these cognicenti could hold a candle to the creative artists, we might be able to respect them, but so far all I see, speaking for myself, is a group of people who just snarl, uproot, and create a general chaos of what was never intended to be that way in the first place.

Who made all these decisions? Some bored little musicologist, sitting at his desk, deciding to bandy about "The Three B's"? That sounds catchy, does it not. Ahh....let's see if we can play a game of "one upmanship" with all those little people down there. (pardon me the anachronism; "one upmanship" is a late 20th century indoor / outdoor sport, hardly contemporary with the origins of aforementioned phrase) Just because an opinion is written or published does not give reason to go "straight-a-capering" after that opinion, as someone once said.

My half-penny time is up. Please observe that I have started all my sentences with a capital letter, ended with a period, hit the space bar two times between sentences, after semi-colons and colons, and done my best with the layout. Given the assumption that my opionions are supportable, I hope you find that they are well supported.

Love,

Lakshmi

Dear Glinzek, here is an excellent essay that deals with just that subject. I hope you enjoy it.

http://www.musicweb.uk.net/Greatcomposers/Greatcom...

Musician,composer,teacher.