who do you think is a betta composer beethoven or mozart

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Shane,
I have been thinking about this post for a while, and I must say, I simply can't agree with you. Don't confuse greatness with influence. Chopin was a great composer for the piano (I'll give you that because I semi-agree with you, as I stated in that other thread), but really, he was not influential in the sense that he created new pathways that others followed. The fact that 2 of our mutually agreed-upon (even by Steppenwolf!) composers followed in his footsteps, and that he wrote a huge amount of great music for all possible combinations of instruments, that he virtually invented the modern concept of symphony and string quartet (2 of the most popular genres ever since both with the public and with musicians) and that I like him for this role (I put that in there for Urtextmeister and King Stephen ) all say that he is the man for that crucial fourth position.

How about Handel? Aside from being a master in all the Baroque genres, his emphasis on melody and harmony rather than the strict contrapuntal style of Bach links him with the progressive elements of his time. His deliberate appeal to a middle class audience in the oratorios was one of the first manifestations of a social change.
I do agree Chopin does not belong in the top 4, but then we don't have to limit it to just 4!


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited March 09, 2004).]

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Steppenwolf,
Well, I am sure that you put Wagner in there because yuo felt as though you were committed to him from your previous postings, but you can be more realistic in the sense of establishing this baseline. We at least agree on 3 of them, but the fourth must be Haydn, without whose efforts the subsequent works of Mozart, Beethoven, and the whole Romantic generation would have been entirely different. Not to say better or worse, but different. That is a pillar, no? Yes, I think so.

I put Wagner in there simply because he belongs in there. If I was going to be subjective I would put him at the very top, but since I am being objective I will put him on par with the other three giants of music. I'm afraid this is not an opinion but a fact - to say otherwise to me, someone who has experienced his greatness, is like someone saying to you, someone who has experienced Beethoven's greatness, that Beethoven was mediocre and his music third-rate. You would simply laugh at them.

Wagner is one of the greatest geniuses to ever live, but unfortunately your prejudice against him blinds you to that fact - you have this image in your mind of a meglomaniac monster with loud, violent bombastic music and nothing will budge that prejudice, so I don't suppose you have ever explored his music with an open mind. But don't worry - I am not singling you out, there are many others like you, you are not alone in this. I think it might take another two million years of human evolution before people are able to realise how great and significant Wagner's art really was.



[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited March 09, 2004).]

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Peter:
How about Handel? Aside from being a master in all the Baroque genres, his emphasis on melody and harmony rather than the strict contrapuntal style of Bach links him with the progressive elements of his time. His deliberate appeal to a middle class audience in the oratorios was one of the first manifestations of a social change.
I do agree Chopin does not belong in the top 4, but then we don't have to limit it to just 4!

After the first divine four, it is interesting to consider who comes next. Among the remaining mere mortals I would place either Handel or Haydn as supreme. It is difficult to choose between them. I think Haydn had more influence on the music which came after him (whereas Handel's music did not, largely because his baroque style suddenly went out of fashion around the time of his death), but Handel certainly was a master of form, and a master of expression. As Rod keeps reminding us, Beethoven ranked him higher than anyone - that does say a lot. There is another story about Haydn, in old age, attending a concert of the Messiah - when the Halleluja chorus started he burst into tears, looked up as if into the heavens, and exlaimed in wonder, "He is the master of us all!" Was he here perhaps acknowledging Handel's superiority, or is this just another example of Haydn's renowned modesty?

So, who is the better? (someone answer, apart from Rod!)

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
I put Wagner in there simply because he belongs in there. If I was going to be subjective I would put him at the very top, but since I am being objective I will put him on par with the other three giants of music. I'm afraid this is not an opinion but a fact - to say otherwise to me, someone who has experienced his greatness, is like someone saying to you, someone who has experienced Beethoven's greatness, that Beethoven was mediocre and his music third-rate. You would simply laugh at them.

Wagner is one of the greatest geniuses to ever live, but unfortunately your prejudice against him blinds you to that fact - you have this image in your mind of a meglomaniac monster with loud, violent bombastic music and nothing will budge that prejudice, so I don't suppose you have ever explored his music with an open mind. But don't worry - I am not singling you out, there are many others like you, you are not alone in this. I think it might take another two million years of human evolution before people are able to realise how great and significant Wagner's art really was.

Steppenwolf,
Ah, I am so delighted that this turned so instantly into an attack on my failure to have any inkling of taste or intelligence. Since we are generalizing already, I can jump right in here and say "all you Wagnerites are the same, so bloody minded with anyone who disagrees with you". However, since I did take the trouble to briefly spell out why I feel that Haydn was more influential on his successors, perhaps you would care to name any of the people who carried on the Wagner tradition for the next 100 years after his death? Or what idiom he devised which revolutionized music? Leitmotif will only carry a man so far, it may have served well to make Wagner famous, but it did little or nothing for music beyond his. But sonata-allegro form, conversational string quartets, the modern symphony, the concept of Scherzo, all of thse things are Haydn's legacy, and his disciples managed to carry on for a long time with them. As I recall the main legacy of the Wagner faction was to deconstruct music, scarcely a legacy to be proud of.


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Steppenwolf,
Ah, I am so delighted that this turned so instantly into an attack on my failure to have any inkling of taste or intelligence. Since we are generalizing already, I can jump right in here and say "all you Wagnerites are the same, so bloody minded with anyone who disagrees with you". However, since I did take the trouble to briefly spell out why I feel that Haydn was more influential on his successors, perhaps you would care to name any of the people who carried on the Wagner tradition for the next 100 years after his death? Or what idiom he devised which revolutionized music? Leitmotif will only carry a man so far, it may have served well to make Wagner famous, but it did little or nothing for music beyond his. But sonata-allegro form, conversational string quartets, the modern symphony, the concept of Scherzo, all of thse things are Haydn's legacy, and his disciples managed to carry on for a long time with them. As I recall the main legacy of the Wagner faction was to deconstruct music, scarcely a legacy to be proud of.

There are problems with this legacy argument - some of the most innovative composers who contributed greatly to the development of the classical style such as Sammartini, Monn and C.P.E.Bach are not 'great' composers. On the other hand Mozart (aside from the piano concerto) did little in the way of developing the classical forms and he had little influence on the Romantic movement.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
There are problems with this legacy argument - some of the most innovative composers who contributed greatly to the development of the classical style such as Sammartini, Monn and C.P.E.Bach are not 'great' composers. On the other hand Mozart (aside from the piano concerto) did little in the way of developing the classical forms and he had little influence on the Romantic movement.

Peter,
True enough, I was talking about Haydn though. Compared to Wagner he was left a huge legacy.



------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[sweet_blu3berry]

Not true about what u said about Mozart doing little amount of contribution to the world. His music will live on forever. ( I think ...) (eg. Tinkle tinkle little star)

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Peter,
True enough, I was talking about Haydn though. Compared to Wagner he was left a huge legacy.

Wagner did have an enormous influence on later composers - indeed few could escape it - Wolf, Mahler, Bruckner and Strauss being obvious examples. The harmonic developments from Bruckner to Schoenberg can be traced directly back to Tristan. Another area where Wagner was hugely prophetic is cinema, not only with film music but effects also - the Bayreuth theatre was quite revolutionary in this respect. However as I mentioned in the earlier post, I don't think greatness can be measured in legacy alone - his 'Gesamtkunstwerk' (universal art work), mastery of orchestral colour and technique of continuous music represent the summit of Romantic art and I think on these grounds alone he is one of the greats - but I have a longer list than just 4! I do agree Haydn belongs also on that list.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by sweet_blu3berry:
Not true about what u said about Mozart doing little amount of contribution to the world. His music will live on forever. ( I think ...) (eg. Tinkle tinkle little star)

Sorry I forgot about twinkle twinkle!

Seriously though, of course Mozart made a huge contribution to the world, but he had little influence on composers after Beethoven.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Pastorali]

Originally posted by Peter:
Wagner did have an enormous influence on later composers - indeed few could escape it - Wolf, Mahler, Bruckner and Strauss ....Schoenberg

As I'm absolutely NOT a close friend to Wagner's music, is it then a wonder, NON of these mentioned composers are warming my heart?



[This message has been edited by Pastorali (edited March 10, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Pastorali:
As I'm absolutely NOT a close friend to Wagner's music, is it then a wonder, NON of these mentioned composers are warming my heart?

[This message has been edited by Pastorali (edited March 10, 2004).]

This is not about liking, but recognising! Brahms was no fan of Wagner's music but he did recognise his greatness and achievements. My personal preference is for the classical era and earlier rather than the romantic, but I do appreciate later composers.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chaszz]

I think Peter is somewhat the voice of reason here, where people are tending to conflate their personal likes and dislikes, to some extent, with historical judgment.

Of course he has put on a very good defense of Wagner, otherwise I might not be quite so sanguine! Further in Wagner's case, I think the modern tendency to value primitive art and myth was given impetus by Wagner's early example, and also the related modern recognition of the unconscious and the dream life as being sources of meaning. Plus I think he had a direct influence on Impressionist music (Debussy criticized much about Wagner, but thought 'Parsifal' a great work), and a general influence on Impressionist painting and Symbolist poetry. Also a number of later modern writers, including Eliot, Mann and Joyce, were influenced by him. Although some of these things are not directly musical influences, what would we not give for someone in any art form to have these kinds of wide-ranging influences today, and to light some fires, so to speak?


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited March 10, 2004).]

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Peter:
Sorry I forgot about twinkle twinkle!

Seriously though, of course Mozart made a huge contribution to the world, but he had little influence on composers after Beethoven.

How about in the world of Opera? (Maybe not so much a worldwide influence, but a German-wide influence.)?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
How about in the world of Opera? (Maybe not so much a worldwide influence, but a German-wide influence.)?

No I think Weber was the greater influence in the 19th century, especially on Wagner -Beethoven was influenced in Fidelio by Cherubini.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Amalie]

One hears very little of Ditters von Dittersdorf and in some respects can be compared to his near contemporary Joseph Haydn.
It would be nice to know a little more about this interesting composer. Was he know to Beethoven for instance?
I can't say I have really heard much of his works and I would appreciate a little more information whether anyone has heard in particular his symphonies on Ovid's Metamorphosis, and chamber music.
Is he similar to Haydn?

Thankyou.

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 10, 2004).]