Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
No composer only wrote masterpieces. Not even Bach, Mozart or Beethoven.
I guess category 1 composers are those with a few duds among plenty of masterpieces. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven; but also Haydn, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Tschaikowsky, Shostakovich. And possibly others. Chopin seems to be popular among some piano players.
Category 2 composers would be those with a few masterpieces among plenty of duds. I guess there are plenty of "Classical One Hit Wonders" that would fit the bill. Boccherini, Pachelbel, Bruch come to mind. Possibly Orff as well. But maybe also some opera composers like Bizet, Weber or Rossini, who wrote a few outstanding operas and other pieces, and plenty of music that is, well, not on any classical evergreens hitlist.
Category 3 composers are not known because nobody plays their music. That's why I can't nominate one. Maybe the composers that Ivan Sollertinski named when trying to find someone to compare Scriabin to.
Well, I guess maybe I was exaggerating a bit when I said they "only" wrote masterpieces. But it seemed like they only wrote masterpieces. For example, the only Beethoven pieces I dislike are the majority of his non-opus numbered pieces.
Originally Posted by wr
Originally Posted by iaintagreatpianist
Alkan is the final person I'll put in Category Two for now... I feel like his shorter pieces are excellent (his 49 Esquisses as well as the Allegro Barbaro), but his longer pieces (like his Sonata) are too much for me...
So writing pieces you can't handle means the composer is deficient?
I couldn't handle Elliott Carter's Piano Concerto for about 30 years after I first heard it, and then I could. I suppose Carter should have dumbed it down for me.....but of course, that would have made it a different piece of music.
Not necessarily no. For example, I can't handle listening to Rachmaninoff's fourth concerto, but no one disputes it's great music.
Alkan however seemed to write music very hard to understand, and I judge music not by the composer who wrote it, but rather by three standards:
1. Overall Quality of the Piece 2. Musical Relatability 3. Structural Understandability
I feel as Alkan achieves #1 and in some cases #3, but doesn't achieve #2 all the time. Where as Liszt achieved all three quite often.
Originally Posted by chopinetto
Nice thread. Most composers are tier 2. I think the only ones that truly occupy 1 are... none, but maybe Chopin. Let me be clear that this is not me being a mere fanboy. I believe that Chopin's inspired:unspired ratio is the highest of all composers, without debate. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all composed so much music that it simply can't all be necessary. Inspirational 'duds' so to speak. Just my opinion. Chopin only produced 65 opuses, and almost none of them beyond his point of maturity are gratuitous. I believe this is due to his nature as a composer, who strived for absolute perfect beauty all the time, at the expense of his own mental health. See below:
His music was spontaneous, miraculous. He found it without seeking it, without previous intimation of it. It came upon his piano sudden, complete, sublime, or it sang in his head during a walk, and he was impatient to hear it himself with the help of the instrument. But then began the most desperate labor that I have ever witnessed. It was a succession of efforts, hesitations and moments of impatience to recapture certain details of the theme he could hear; what he had conceived as one piece, he analyzed too much in trying to write it down, and his dismay at his inability to rediscover it in what he thought was its original purity threw him into a kind of despair. He would lock himself up in his room for whole days, weeping, pacing back and forth, breaking his pens, repeating or changing one bar a hundred times, writing and erasing it as many times, and beginning again the next day with an infinite and desperate perseverance. He sometimes spent six weeks on one page, only in the end to write it exactly as he had sketched at the first draft - George Sand
As for the question posed in the original post, I don't think I can offer much as, again, I believe most composers belong to the second category. I think a more interesting way to frame this discussion would be to categorize composers by their inspired:uninspired ratios.
Chopin was indeed a great composer, and I definitely think he'd belong in Category One. And yes, maybe we should reframe the topic to inspired:uninspired ratios.
Going back to my example on Anton Rubinstein, I find that his Piano Concerto No. 4 in D minor and his Staccato Ètude in C major are his inspirational pieces. Rachmaninoff certainly enjoyed the former enough. But otherwise, can't think of much by Rubinstein (maybe his chamber music is better than his concerti, but I haven't heard much of it yet) that is worthwhile.
Ah, Anton Rubinstein! As well as the more lengthy works he wrote some small pieces that I'm forever grateful for. Apart from his 'Melody in F,' I give you:
Romance op44 no1 which I found in a piano anthology, here played on the violin:
And 'Reve Angelica' of which there is a piano version that doesn't really inspire me. (Found on a cheap CD along with Borodin's Steppes of Central Asia, another lovely piece)
As I get older I appreciate the shorter (and slower!) pieces more and more. I sometimes wonder how much beautiful music has been superceded and effectively lost, and how many of those category 3 composers really deserve to be there.
Bach is the only person in category one. Especially in light of the fact that everything handed down to us, was only half his output. It's really incredible if you think about it.
Rachmaninoff wrote clunkers, too. Ever heard his variations on Chopin’s C minor prelude? And Felix Mendelssohn? So his piano sonatas are incredible masterpieces, right?
In general, I think this is a very subjective thread.
Other than the Schoenberg-copycats (Note: Schoenberg himself would actually fit in Category Two due to his beautiful Nocturne for Harp and Strings), I can't think of many in category three.
Schoenberg wrote a lot of great music. What about Pierrot Lunaire, Transfigured Night, and the piano concerto?
Other serialists wrote great music too. Berg's violin concerto, Wozzeck, and Lulu come to mind.
Webern did not just copy Schoenberg but was a distinguished composer in his own right. Apparently Mendelssohn wrote a huge amount of worthless things. He worked on his great violin concerto for something like 4 yes. His piano concerto in G minor is probably the most successful ., The d minor is really a "student work now" Some of Chopin's Waltzes are a bore , others wonderfull. Schumann's piano pieces are very well worked but sometimes there is a craziness in the rhythm. His Symphonies are sometimes masterpieces but sometimes tragic failures. Of course his piano concerto in A minor and concert pieces for piano and orchestra are superb so are his lieder ( art songs) Mozarts piano sonatas I think are all wonderful except the 1st one .Some are written for students (still charming others for himself to perform. ( like k333 in Bflat, the A minor , the Fantasia and Sonata in C minor) I think all the concertos for all instruments are wonderful. The piano Concertos to me are special.It is difficult for me to judge Mozarts music though. There are a few things Beethoven wrote that I just do not like yet much to love. The worst Beethoven "sonata" is the easy one in G major op49. This is often used as an exam piece. ( sad to say )
... 1. Overall Quality of the Piece 2. Musical Relatability 3. Structural Understandability ....
It is very interesting to know what is the quality reference for any artistic form. what is the Musical relatability role in the music composition. I was always thinking if one artist can use multiple forms is a good artist. Why is "Structural Understandability" means better quality? some implicit structures seems usually very interesting.
1970s' Petrof 125 youtube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY5TdJHAB6HAYYgdgQliww recent added:Rachmaninoff Paganini variation 18 first day practice
By overall quality what does that mean ? The architecture of the form and how it relates to the other parameters of the music -- the harmony , counterpoint , melody and of course rhythm.
The how do these relate to what the music symbolizes. If it's an opera , moving through many modulations (harmonic rhythm) until the music enters a world of atonality, where everything floats ( losing rhythm , non functional harmony ) like Tristan und Isolde.( searching for a lost love)
Yet when we come to a Beethoven sonata , how do we say these aspects relate. Perhaps revolutionary times , the hero at the piano? A Mozart sonata sometimes "opera music ", the slow movements a beautiful Aria , sometimes touches from a concerto complete with a cadenza.Sometimes just a charming piece for a student.
Last edited by Lady Bird; 03/01/2103:43 AM. Reason: spelling
But maybe also some opera composers like Bizet, Weber or Rossini, who wrote a few outstanding operas and other pieces, and plenty of music that is, well, not on any classical evergreens hitlist.
I cannot agree with you about Bizet, Weber and Rossini - specifically, about the word "few". Bizet and Weber died very young. "Carmen" and "Der Freischutz" are among the most outstanding operas ever written. If they had lived, I am sure that both these composers would have written more outstanding works.
Rossini wrote many outstanding operas: The Barber of Seville, La Cenerentola, William Tell, Semiramide, Ermione, Otello, La Donna del Lago, Zelmira, Le Siege de Corinthe, ... Rossini's comedies have great warmth and humanity, as well as wit. His serious operas are both exciting and intensely dramatic.
By overall quality what does that mean ? The architecture of the form and how it relates to the other parameters of the music -- the harmony , counterpoint , melody and of course rhythm.
The how do these relate to what the music symbolizes. If it's an opera , moving through many modulations (harmonic rhythm) until the music enters a world of atonality, where everything floats ( losing rhythm , non functional harmony ) like Tristan und Isolde.( searching for a lost love)
Yet when we come to a Beethoven sonata , how do we say these aspects relate. Perhaps revolutionary times , the hero at the piano? A Mozart sonata sometimes "opera music ", the slow movements a beautiful Aria , sometimes touches from a concerto complete with a cadenza.Sometimes just a charming piece for a student.
Lady Bird: Thank you for your reply, I am just wondering how we should consider which "harmony , counterpoint , melody and of course rhythm" is better than another. I can just imagine subjectively I like something better.
For me the music is not something functional, there is no way to build any functional test case. Otherwise if it is evaluated by the people acceptance (democratic way), the question would be which people we should take in considerations? the people in Bach's time? in Mozart's time? or the people of today? of which region? Another way for quality evaluation usually used today is the marketing. I believe rock music marketing is much bigger than the classic music, does it mean rock music has better quality? Do I forget anything?
Those are my trouble with the music quality question...
1970s' Petrof 125 youtube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrY5TdJHAB6HAYYgdgQliww recent added:Rachmaninoff Paganini variation 18 first day practice
But maybe also some opera composers like Bizet, Weber or Rossini, who wrote a few outstanding operas and other pieces, and plenty of music that is, well, not on any classical evergreens hitlist.
I cannot agree with you about Bizet, Weber and Rossini - specifically, about the word "few". Bizet and Weber died very young. "Carmen" and "Der Freischutz" are among the most outstanding operas ever written. If they had lived, I am sure that both these composers would have written more outstanding works.
Rossini wrote many outstanding operas: The Barber of Seville, La Cenerentola, William Tell, Semiramide, Ermione, Otello, La Donna del Lago, Zelmira, Le Siege de Corinthe, ... Rossini's comedies have great warmth and humanity, as well as wit. His serious operas are both exciting and intensely dramatic.
I love Rossini's music. And I'd include L'Italiana in Algeri. But not many of his operas are performed regularly today. Less than half of what he wrote. His Pechés de Vieillesse are cute and funny; but are they timeless masterpieces? I don't know.
My grand piano is a Yamaha C2 SG. My other Yamaha is an XMAX 300.
I have a rigid benchmark for the quality of music: if I can change even one note or one chord in a composer's music without making a significant difference; then this is not very good music. Bach's music fully corresponds to this standard!
I definitely don't agree Mozart was in category #1. He was one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, and wrote many works of otherworldly beauty. But I'd venture to say a great numnber of his pieces sound like they were simply pulled out of his ***. (Some of the sonata and concerto movements, the divertimentos, etc). Same with Haydn.
I have a rigid benchmark for the quality of music: if I can change even one note or one chord in a composer's music without making a significant difference; then this is not very good music. Bach's music fully corresponds to this standard!
By that standard, strict serialist music could pass the test, and Chopin and Liszt wrote plenty of not very good music.
It's a good thing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; or in this case, quality is in the ear.
My grand piano is a Yamaha C2 SG. My other Yamaha is an XMAX 300.
Nice thread. Most composers are tier 2. I think the only ones that truly occupy 1 are... none, but maybe Chopin. Let me be clear that this is not me being a mere fanboy. I believe that Chopin's inspired:unspired ratio is the highest of all composers, without debate. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all composed so much music that it simply can't all be necessary. Inspirational 'duds' so to speak. Just my opinion. Chopin only produced 65 opuses, and almost none of them beyond his point of maturity are gratuitous. I believe this is due to his nature as a composer, who strived for absolute perfect beauty all the time, at the expense of his own mental health. See below:
Even though you know I prefer Schumann over Chopin, I personally have to agree that Chopin is a much better example of category 1 than Schumann.
Chopin represents idealized beauty, divine beauty that humanity can only strive towards.
Schumann's music represents humanity in all of its flaws and its weaknesses.
I have a rigid benchmark for the quality of music: if I can change even one note or one chord in a composer's music without making a significant difference; then this is not very good music. Bach's music fully corresponds to this standard!
By that standard, strict serialist music could pass the test, and Chopin and Liszt wrote plenty of not very good music.
It's a good thing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; or in this case, quality is in the ear.
I agree. My own standard is that if I enjoy it, it's good music to me, and that's enough.
We should all focus on what music does for us and not worry about whether it is considered great or even good by others. I don't believe that music has any inherent value outside of subjective human perception.
Nice thread. Most composers are tier 2. I think the only ones that truly occupy 1 are... none, but maybe Chopin. Let me be clear that this is not me being a mere fanboy. I believe that Chopin's inspired:unspired ratio is the highest of all composers, without debate. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all composed so much music that it simply can't all be necessary. Inspirational 'duds' so to speak. Just my opinion. Chopin only produced 65 opuses, and almost none of them beyond his point of maturity are gratuitous. I believe this is due to his nature as a composer, who strived for absolute perfect beauty all the time, at the expense of his own mental health. See below:
Even though you know I prefer Schumann over Chopin, I personally have to agree that Chopin is a much better example of category 1 than Schumann.
Chopin represents idealized beauty, divine beauty that humanity can only strive towards.
Schumann's music represents humanity in all of its flaws and its weaknesses.
That is the big difference between the two.
I don't think what you think a composer's music represents is related to the quality of the music. But maybe if you explain a little more about this you can convince me.
But maybe also some opera composers like Bizet, Weber or Rossini, who wrote a few outstanding operas and other pieces, and plenty of music that is, well, not on any classical evergreens hitlist.
I cannot agree with you about Bizet, Weber and Rossini - specifically, about the word "few". Bizet and Weber died very young. "Carmen" and "Der Freischutz" are among the most outstanding operas ever written. If they had lived, I am sure that both these composers would have written more outstanding works.
Rossini wrote many outstanding operas: The Barber of Seville, La Cenerentola, William Tell, Semiramide, Ermione, Otello, La Donna del Lago, Zelmira, Le Siege de Corinthe, ... Rossini's comedies have great warmth and humanity, as well as wit. His serious operas are both exciting and intensely dramatic.
I love Rossini's music. And I'd include L'Italiana in Algeri. But not many of his operas are performed regularly today. Less than half of what he wrote. His Pechés de Vieillesse are cute and funny; but are they timeless masterpieces? I don't know.
I wouldn't say the Pechés de Vieillesse are timeless masterpieces. So, Rossini is not in Tier 1. But then, several of Mozart's early operas have some or many wonderful things in them, but are not exactly timeless masterpieces.
But then, for any composer, I feel that the quality of his/her masterpieces is much more interesting than the proportion of the total that those masterpieces represent.
I don't think what you think a composer's music represents is related to the quality of the music. But maybe if you explain a little more about this you can convince me.
I think Chopin's music is technically perfect in many ways that Schumann is not. He knew best how to create attractive sounds, emotional climaxes, pianistic phrasing, etc. This speaks to the nature of his music while also being an indicator of technical quality.