Another list of the top ten classical composers

[Al M.]

Mahler's 5th is his worst. I think the start itself is off tune trying to just create loud sounds.

On the contrary, I find the beginning of Mahler's Fifth one of the most striking moments in all of symphonic repertoire. In a good way.

If you listen to Mahler and Beethoven, Mahler is good in parts and tunes. He doesn't have the continuity to hold you through all movements and entire symphonies like Beethoven.

The continuity of Beethoven's symphonies is given by the inexorable and unwavering forward momentum of the music through, and despite of, all the frequent and extreme contrasts in musical motion. This combination of continuous forward momentum and constant variation of motion can grab the listener with ease like little other complex music, and seems to me an important reason why Beethoven's symphonies are so universally loved. It's not just about Beethoven's humanistic message or his gift for powerful themes and melodies, it seems to be about a fortunate accord with basic human listening psychology.

Haydn and Mozart have foreshadowed this (the latter especially strongly in his magnificent Linz Symphony, symphony #36), but Beethoven has driven it to an extreme and culmination in a consistent manner like no other (it might be argued that Dvorak has approached such Beethoven-type forward momentum in his also very much beloved New World Symphony; of course, like with Beethoven, his gift for themes and melodies helps too).

This does not mean that music which does not do that to this extent is of any lesser quality. Beethoven's string quartets, especially the late ones, often do not have such sweeping momentum combined with constant contrast, and the thematic/melodic language may be less accessible. Yet much of Beethoven's string quartet repertoire is viewed as among the best, it just requires a different kind of listening. Beethoven himself supposedly considered his string quartet op. 131, written after the Ninth Symphony, his "greatest work". But guess what, Beethoven's string quartets are not anywhere near as popular as his symphonies.

In a similar manner, Mahler's symphonies just require different listening than Beethoven's symphonies. Once listeners are open to this, whole worlds may unfold before them.

The quality of music is not directly related to its accessibility. That these two things combine to such an extent in Beethoven's symphonies is simply fortunate.

 

[MadFloyd]

Brahms? Seriously?

 

[PeterA]

Brahms? Seriously?

Yes Ian. I love Brahms. The three Bs: Bach Beethoven Brahms Here are two of the great ones:

 

[Al M.]

Brahms? Seriously?

I find the music of Brahms to be of extraordinarily high quality.

The issue that I have with his inclusion in the list is that a composer should be innovative on his own, rather than carrying forward tradition, which Brahms is reputed to have done -- in his own time he certainly was dismissed as a "traditionalist", compared to a contemporary figure like Wagner, for example.

There are counterpoints to this widespread opinion; famously, Schoenberg wrote an essay "Brahms the Progressive".

 

[marty]

All can say is that Mahler's omission is a fatal flaw that limits my enthusiasm for the list in the OP. Put another way, if Mahler is good enough for Bernstein's inclusion in the pantheon of GOAT composers, he's good enough for me. Part of the tremendous affinity Bernstein has for Mahler can be found in his writings. The following are excepts from an article Bernstein wrote in 1981:

“Basically, of course, all of Mahler's music is about Mahler – which means simply that it is about conflict. Think of it: Mahler the creator vs. Mahler the performer; the Jew vs. the Christian; the Believer vs. the Doubter; the Naïf vs. the Sophisticate; the provincial Bohemian vs. the Viennese homme du monde; the Faustian Philosopher vs. the Oriental Mystic; the operatic symphonist who never wrote an opera. But mainly the battle rages between Western Man at the turn of the century and the life of the spirit. Out of this opposition proceeds the endless list of antitheses – the whole roster of Yang and Yin – that inhabit Mahler's music. This dual vision of Mahler's, which tore him apart all his life, is the vision we have finally come to perceive in his music.”

“For the doubleness of the music is the doubleness of the man. Mahler was split right down the middle, with the curious result that whatever quality is perceptible and definable in his music, the diametrically opposite quality is equally so. Of what other composer can this be said? Can we think of Beethoven as both roughhewn and epicene? Is Debussy both subtle and blatant? Mozart both refined and raw? Stravinsky both objective and maudlin? Unthinkable. But Mahler, uniquely, is all of these – roughhewn and epicene, subtle and blatant, refined, raw, objective, maudlin, brash, shy, grandiose, self-annihilating, confident, insecure, adjective, opposite, adjective, opposite.“

“He took all (all!) the basic elements of German music, including the clichés, and drove them to their ultimate limits. He turned rests into shuddering silences; upbeats into volcanic preparations as for a death blow. Luftpausen became gasps of shock or terrified suspense; accents grew into titanic stresses to be achieved by every conceivable means, both sonic and tonic. Ritardandi were stretched into near-motionlessness; accelerandi became tornadoes; dynamics were refined and exaggerated to a point of neurasthenic sensibility. Mahler's marches are like heart attacks, his chorales like all Christendom gone mad. The old conventional four-bar phrases are delineated in steel; his most traditional cadences bless like the moment of remission from pain. Mahler is German music multiplied by n. “

“The result of all this exaggeration is, of course, that neurotic intensity which for so many years was rejected as unendurable, and in which we now find ourselves mirrored. And there are concomitant results: an irony almost too bitter to comprehend; excesses of sentimentality that still make some listeners wince; moments of utter despair, often the despair of not being able to drive all this material even further, into some kind of paramusic that might at last cleanse us. But we are cleansed, when all is said and done; no person of sensibility can come away from the Ninth Symphony without being exhausted and purified. And that is the triumphant result of all this purgatory, justifying all excesses: we do ultimately encounter an apocalyptic radiance, a glimmer of what peace must be like.”

Regarding Ked's comments on M5, it's no accident that Leonard Bernstein chose to be buried with the score (in Queens, NY). Perhaps my favorite quote for M5 is by Von Karajan who considered it a transcendental piece and said "after you listen to it, you forget how old you were when you started!"!

Finally, the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam which opened in 1888 is one of the most famous halls (and orchestras) in the world. The names of the greatest composers are placed squarely on the fronts of the first tier boxes that ring the hall. Only one name is placed in the dead center middle box. It is not any of the 10 names on the list in the OP. It is Mahler. They put it there for a reason.

 

[bonzo75]

That doesn't change compared to others composers he hardly has any work other than symphonies. Early piano quartet and Das... Lied. There is much more to classical other than symphonies for everyone else, and the volumes of compositions.

 

[Al M.]

That doesn't change compared to others composers he hardly has any work other than symphonies. Early piano quartet and Das... Lied. There is much more to classical other than symphonies for everyone else, and the volumes of compositions.

Yes, along those lines was also my complaint about the inclusion of Wagner and Chopin in the list. Music of extraordinary quality and innovation for sure -- but with the composers too limited in output to almost exclusively opera and piano, respectively.

 

[the sound of Tao]

The best I can do is to get down to a top 18. This is a desert island I could survive on and is as pared back as I can get at Bach, Barber, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Chopin, Debussy, Dvorak, Handel, Mahler, Mozart, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Schubert, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky,

 

[tima]

If you listen to Mahler and Beethoven, Mahler is good in parts and tunes. He doesn't have the continuity to hold you through all movements and entire symphonies like Beethoven.

Part of your sense of Mahler vs Beethoven may derive from structural differences in their compositions. Beethoven (along with Haydn and Mozart) - particularly his symphonies - might be considered an archetype composer for the use of sonata form, and its use is prevalent in the Classical period. (This not the same thing as a sonata - simply a piece divided into sections.) Sonata form refers to the structure of movements.

A movement is divided into distinct sections: exposition, development, and recapitulation. A theme is introduced, then developed, then later returns to its initial form. The exposition develops the main musical ideas, patterns of rhythms and chord progressions. Often there is main theme and a contrasting second theme, the first being assertive, the second lyrical and reflective. The exposition is repeated start to finish. The development sees the themes and other musical elements put through a process of modification, while still recognizable they may be broken into parts, rearranged, etc. Then the recapitulation restates the exposition maybe with a few changes and often ends in a coda - an extension that brings the music to a satisfying close.

There are other aspects of sonata form having to do with the key of the music - the tonic harmony and changes to it across a movement and from there across movements. I won't go into this. With regard to themes, while there are changes within them, we can recognize them as themes throughout. This may be the continuity you notice.

While its use by composers is intentional, sonata form is not a strict set of rules and there are variations and exceptions. It is a 'common' aspect of composition in the 18th and 19th C. In a somewhat broad sense some musicologiists will claim Mahler made use of sonata form, however as a description it is not well suited to the more complex structures of his music. There is less thematic continuity. As musical compositions became more complex across the 19th - 20th C boundary the sonata form structure of Beethoven and his contemporaries becomes harder to recognize. But if you listen to enough Mahler you kinda start to understand he does have his themes but they get organized differently.

An outright break from sonata form comes with the likes of Stravinsky, Copland, Bartok, Prokofiev and Dimitri Shostakovich, etc. Music evolves across time. Looking at the past - listening to the past - time is compressed for us. Playing a Beethoven concerto back to back with a Bartok concerto can be a jarring experience.

 

[tima]

All can say is that Mahler's omission is a fatal flaw that limits my enthusiasm for the list in the OP.

Very nice post, Marty - thank you!

 

[bonzo75]

Part of your sense of Mahler vs Beethoven may derive from structural differences in their compositions. Beethoven (along with Haydn and Mozart) - particularly his symphonies - might be considered an archetype composer for the use of sonata form, and its use is prevalent in the Classical period. (This not the same thing as a sonata - simply a piece divided into sections.) Sonata form refers to the structure of movements.

Not really, because I prefer Mahler's symphonies and Shostakovich's after Beethoven's. I find Beethoven's much more intricate than Mozart's. I was just giving an explanation for why he might not be on the top 10.

Personally I have a top 2 and then all equal depending on the piece and the performance.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, along those lines was also my complaint about the inclusion of Wagner and Chopin in the list. Music of extraordinary quality and innovation for sure -- but with the composers too limited in output to almost exclusively opera and piano, respectively.

Wagner's work in opera, his style of conducting, writing all the music of the Opera himself, inventing the tuba, building his opera house based on acoustics, etc is known to be pioneering and influencing a lot of modern music... Composers should also be rated if they did something new then at that time.

 

[tima]

Not really, because I prefer Mahler's symphonies and Shostakovich's after Beethoven's. I find Beethoven's much more intricate than Mozart's. I was just giving an explanation for why he might not be on the top 10.

Sure - I know you like their music, something we share. My post was not about what you like or dislike or why one list or another. I was commenting on your apparent perception or observation about Mahler: "He doesn't have the continuity to hold you through all movements and entire symphonies like Beethoven." Beethoven was a genius, composing so much while he was deaf. I love his music, but it is simpler, more easy to follow than Mahler's music. I tried to explain why.

 

[bonzo75]

Sure - I know you like their music, something we share. My post was not about what you like or dislike or why one list or another. I was commenting on your apparent perception or observation about Mahler: "He doesn't have the continuity to hold you through all movements and entire symphonies like Beethoven." Beethoven was a genius, composing so much while he was deaf. I love his music, but it is simpler, more easy to follow than Mahler's music. I tried to explain why.

Yes it is simpler in pieces, it is more complex if you consider that the whole symphony holds together. Mahler's is more complex in pieces, but I feel he cannot hold it together as well. That is just how I feel about all his symphonies. Do you listen all movements of his in his symphonies and sit through all of them through?

 

[tima]

Yes it is simpler in pieces, it is more complex if you consider that the whole symphony holds together. Mahler's is more complex in pieces, but I feel he cannot hold it together as well. That is just how I feel about all his symphonies.

Sure - that's you and how you react or feel - we each listen in the way that we do. I can understand listening to a single movement and that can be satisfying.

Do you listen all movements of his in his symphonies and sit through all of them through?

Yes, when I have the opportunity / time to do so in my audio room. And yes that can be a challenge, what's the 3rd, 90-100 minutes? For me the challenge is which symphony and which conductor.

A few days ago I put the 4th on an SD chip to play in the car. (Tilson-Thomas - maybe not the greatest but quite serviceable.) There, as a practicality I listen to a movement maybe two over the course or running an errand. It's all good.

 

[Al M.]

Wagner's work in opera, his style of conducting, writing all the music of the Opera himself, inventing the tuba, building his opera house based on acoustics, etc is known to be pioneering and influencing a lot of modern music...

Absolutely.

Composers should also be rated if they did something new then at that time.

That is also why I have an issue with the inclusion of a more conservative composer like Brahms in the list, even though his music is of extraordinary quality. Yet as I pointed out, there are different opinions about his conservatism or lack thereof.

 

[tima]

My favorites of Brahms are his choral pieces.
German Requiem
Rhapsody for Alto, Chorus and Orchestra
Shicksaislied (sp?)
Academic Festival Overture

There is a nice collection of these by Muti that I used to enjoy, but it is CD only. Muti covered his symphonies well. Brahams was so afraid of living in the shadow of Beethoven that he lived in the shadow of Beethoven.

 

[bonzo75]

In one of the Marvel TV series, I think Daredevil, the lady who heads the mafia does an analysis of how Brahms copies Beethoven

 

[MadFloyd]

The best I can do is to get down to a top 18. This is a desert island I could survive on and is as pared back as I can get at Bach, Barber, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Chopin, Debussy, Dvorak, Handel, Mahler, Mozart, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Schubert, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky,

Any list that doesn't include Ravel is just wrong. I love Debussy but I think Ravel is above him. Where is Bartok?

I have no use for Brahms, Handel. I agree with Al about Chopin.

I personally don't see greatness in Bruckner, Prokofiev, Schubert. And Barber, other than Adagio for Strings ....?

 

[PeterA]

Based on last Friday’s listening to The Passion of Christ according to Andrew Lloyd Webber, he’s on my list. I’m kidding, but only slightly.

A few years ago I listened to the BSO perform Bach’s Passion on good Friday and then Weber’s the next day. Both are very moving, in my opinion.