Thread: Bach, Mozart and Beethoven

If you use ArkivMusic's number of recordings as a yardstick for the popularity of the composer:

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (6,545)
Bach, Johann Sebastian (5,849)
Beethoven, Ludwig van (4,884)

Brahms, Johannes (3,389)
Schubert, Franz (3,373)
Verdi, Giuseppe (3,202)
Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilyich (2,957)
Handel, George Frideric (2,582)
Schumann, Robert (2,328)
Mendelssohn, Felix (2,279)
Wagner, Richard (2,150)
Debussy, Claude (2,084)
Chopin, Frédéric (2,066)
Puccini, Giacomo (2,041)
Haydn, Franz Joseph (1,998)
Vivaldi, Antonio (1,757)
Ravel, Maurice (1,705)
Dvorák, Antonín (1,703)
Rossini, Gioachino (1,663)
Strauss, Richard (1,639)
Rachmaninov, Sergei (1,607)

Like it or not, it's impossible to deny that the big 3 are more popular than the other composers by a more than significant margin. Popularity =/= quality, so all we are talking about is the popularity and not the quality of the composers.

Originally Posted by kmisho

This brings up another question of why the heck are the top three guys selected from such a small range in time, c.1650 to c.1750.

Say what??

J.S. Bach: 1685-1750
W.A. Mozart: 1756-1791
L. van Beethoven: 1770-1828

The span of time from Bach's birth to Beethoven death is 143 years. For some perspective, the analogous period of time from Beethoven's birth (to compare like to like) to 143 years forward would take us to 1913-- at this time, Gustav Mahler had already been dead two years. Your 'Classical Greatest Hits' of 1913 include Debussy's Jeux and- most comprehensively well-known- Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps.

Originally Posted by scytheavatar

If you use ArkivMusic's number of recordings as a yardstick for the popularity of the composer:

Not surprised by that list at all, except I expected to see the highly popular Handel in there.

Originally Posted by Il Seraglio

Not surprised by that list at all, except I expected to see the highly popular Handel in there.

Oops, I left him out. Added him to the list.

The thing I find most curious is the question of popularity with the general public vs. 'more refined' listeners.

To take the latter group first (and lumping all of us into it), I think we can all quite easily reach the consensus that there is not much sense in ranking any composers. After all, when we comment on 'Bach', 'Mozart' or 'Beethoven', what we really mean is 'Bach/Mozart/Beethoven's oeuvre' - and it doesn't take much to be aware of the simple fact that the quality of art cannot be objectively assessed. In other words, the 'best' composers are relative and individual, making the troublesome trio irrelevant.

Thus, the giants' place in history seems to owe more to a general perception of listeners whose tastes only really dip into the classical world; people who have heard Eine Kleine Nachtmusik but have never heard of Mahler. I could understand their ensuing popularity, then, if they were the most accessible composers - but are they? It seems to me that the style and attitudes of the mid-late Romantic period are much more accessible to 'easy listeners'. Tchaikovsky easily ranks at the top for writing the music that most people would actually recognise, and I'd imagine that most people would prefer to listen to an unknown but incredibly melodic Rachmaninoff symphony than an academic Bach fugue.

So, perhaps all this business about them being at the top is less to do with listeners, and more to do with the subsequent composers themselves. Looking back at the creative influences of many later geniuses, there are few who didn't revere Beethoven and/or Mozart and/or Bach, and may have felt that they were composing in their shadow. These three - albeit perhaps arbitrarily - were the benchmark that 19th century composers chose to measure themselves by, and we just seem to be stuck with it because the geniuses thought it was a good idea.

If Schubert had lived longer he may have been seen as being up there with the other 3?

Originally Posted by scytheavatar

If you use ArkivMusic's number of recordings as a yardstick for the popularity of the composer:

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (6,545)
Bach, Johann Sebastian (5,849)
Beethoven, Ludwig van (4,884)

etc

Don't you realise that these ArkivMusik figures need to be treated with a big pinch of salt?

For a start, they include recordings where the named composer is only one of several whose works appear on the CD. Take Beethoven as an example. He is listed as having 18 recordings for organ works, but if you look at the detail you will see that most of these CDs mostly contain works by other composers (as is obvious since Beethoven hardly composed anything for organ). The same applies to "arias from operas" and "choral works". It may affect other categories too.

Another problem is that they count SACD recordings and CD versions of the same thing twice over.

Third, there are often anomolies between the number of recordings listed in the summary table and the numbers given in detailed tables.

Fourth, they sometimes double count the same recording if it is on more than one label (eg Bohm's recording of the Pastoral Sympony is shown twice, once on DG and again on EMI).

In other words, the figures are indicative only and need a lot of adjustment to derive more useful net results.

Originally Posted by Chi_townPhilly

Say what??

J.S. Bach: 1685-1750
W.A. Mozart: 1756-1791
L. van Beethoven: 1770-1828

This one was well spotted. Quite definitely accident prone if you ask for my opinion. Needs to be watched. Some are hilarious, eg Beethoven's Waldstein sonata is not "classical period".

Originally Posted by Polednice

It seems to me that the style and attitudes of the mid-late Romantic period are much more accessible to 'easy listeners'. Tchaikovsky easily ranks at the top for writing the music that most people would actually recognise, and I'd imagine that most people would prefer to listen to an unknown but incredibly melodic Rachmaninoff symphony than an academic Bach fugue.

So, perhaps all this business about them being at the top is less to do with listeners, and more to do with the subsequent composers themselves. Looking back at the creative influences of many later geniuses, there are few who didn't revere Beethoven and/or Mozart and/or Bach, and may have felt that they were composing in their shadow. These three - albeit perhaps arbitrarily - were the benchmark that 19th century composers chose to measure themselves by, and we just seem to be stuck with it because the geniuses thought it was a good idea.

Well maybe Tchaikovsky might have more great tunes than Rachmaninov. But I do think that in terms of general popularity Beethoven and Mozart probably rank in general above JS Bach. The further back you go maybe the harder it can be for some people to fully relate to the music. Baroque music if anything may have slightly too much quantity in some cases as well, maybe the ideal balance in work created with brilliance but with still some generosity of output was potentially in the classical period (up to Schubert's death). This period was when composers started to not just write for an employer but also went freelance as well. But it wasn't at the point were they had yet become so critical that they threw away alot of their work or just didn't need to write as much.

I think the point made earlier (which I myself have made on this board) than quality WITH quantity is hard to beat is still the main point. Of course the continued high reputation of composers is likely to gain them an entrenched position at the top. It doesn't mean other composers haven't done good music as well though and anyone who starts looking at classical music would find that out soon enough.

Originally Posted by Polednice

....

So, perhaps all this business about them being at the top is less to do with listeners, and more to do with the subsequent composers themselves. Looking back at the creative influences of many later geniuses, there are few who didn't revere Beethoven and/or Mozart and/or Bach, and may have felt that they were composing in their shadow. These three - albeit perhaps arbitrarily - were the benchmark that 19th century composers chose to measure themselves by, and we just seem to be stuck with it because the geniuses thought it was a good idea.

I find your last paragraph, as quoted above, very curious.

Despite your first two words “So, perhaps …”, I cannot see how you consider that your assertion in this paragraph follows on from anything you have argued in your previous three. The point you are making here seems to be a completely new point without any prior justification from what you said earlier. This being the case, it's difficult to work out which of the two alternative theories you are actually advancing as your favoured one (the one in the final paragraph or the earlier one concerning the view that mass market opinion allegedly swamps that of true classical music fans).

As for your argument that mass market opinion swamps that of true classical music fans, this must be false as it's a "tail wagging the dog" type of argument. It's so silly that it doesn't deserve any further discussion.

Your assertion in the last paragraph is that Beethoven/Mozart/Bach are revered as the top 3 composers by today’s classical music fans purely because generations of other composers have revered them as being the supreme three. This must be highly questionable.

First and most obviously, you appear to be suggesting that people can’t form an independent opinion of which composers they like based on their own tastes and preferences. Instead, you assume that our tastes are based heavily on what various composers may have thought about their predecessors. Surely, this does modern classical music fancs a great injustice to suggest that we are all slavishly basing our preferences on what a handful of people may have thought about their own musical idols.

Secondly, not all composers from since the time of Beethoven have revered Beethoven/Mozart/Bach as the "top dogs" in the composing game. Sure, this was prevalent for a number of decades but in terms of compositional style new ideas emerged and new sets of “master” composers became the models upon which those in a lower league of genius began to fashion their work. For example, the likes of Liszt and especially Wagner invented a new style of music, and much more drastic changes were to take place later with the arrival of Debussy and Schoenberg.

All in all, I'm not impressed with any of your viewpoints.

Originally Posted by Andy Loochazee

Despite your first two words “So, perhaps …”, I cannot see how you consider that your assertion in this paragraph follows on from anything you have argued in your previous three. The point you are making here seems to be a completely new point without any prior justification from what you said earlier. This being the case, it's difficult to work out which of the two alternative theories you are actually advancing as your favoured one (the one in the final paragraph or the earlier one concerning the view that mass market opinion allegedly swamps that of true classical music fans).

etc. etc.

Please allow me a few moments to compose myself before I respond, for I am utterly brimming with shame at the recognition of my unimpressive ideas, and I must spend a few moments crying in a corner while I consider how I might be able to redeem myself after such tremendous humiliation.

...

In chronological order then:

First of all, I would point out the (very obvious) fact that this is a forum - a forum which is, like most fora, a vehicle for casual discussion. If I were submitting a thesis on this subject, indeed, I would have done very poorly if I were to have compiled all of my arguments on this thread into one, incredibly unsatisfactory theory. However, I made no pretence of coming to this discussion with an already formed answer. If you can recall my original post, you might recognise that this whole thread has been a question. In other words, that meant I didn't know. I had no idea. I didn't say I knew. I was unsure. I asked everybody else for their ideas. My mind, like any other mind filled with uncertainty, was open to change. Thus, the contradictory opinions that I have voiced in no way betrays any kind of intellectual inconsistency on my part, for I have not hidden my ignorance of the answer to this question, and I am still searching for my own, firm opinion.

Secondly, I can understand your frustration with the notion that "mass market opinion swamps that of true classical music fans." However, if I were you, I would be wary at jumping to the conclusion that this idea - voiced by multiple people on this thread - is to be immediately rejected. We could only accept this hypothesis as futile if we can definitively categorise listeners of classical music into just these two distinct groups. The fact of the matter is that 'mass market vs. classical music fans' is a gross over-simplification that was utilised for the sake of discussion - the reality is that 'fans' or 'listeners' of 'art music' are contained with a spectrum of preferences and tastes. It is too complex an issue to decide whether one side of the market has an undue effect on the other, but it certainly is not an irrational suggestion.

Thirdly, though this rather lengthy response is feeling increasingly pointless due to the more-than-evident fact that you dismissed all of the discussion on this thread without any justifications of your own, except a pretended intelligence and, apparently, a secret knowledge, I will not withdraw my suggestion that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven may be popular due to the awe they inspired in later composers until somebody adequately refutes the idea.

As for your penultimate point, where you accused me of suggesting that "people can’t form an independent opinion of which composers they like based on their own tastes and preferences," all I can say is that you should read people's posts rather carefully before you jump to such ridiculous conclusions. If you refer to my most recent post on this thread, you will in fact find that I stated the exact opposite of your accusation when I declared that we can all easily reach the consensus that tastes are highly individual, as art cannot be objectively assessed. You have essentially digressed from the original question, and you should rein yourself back in.

As for your last point, which would have more logically been placed earlier in your 'rebuttal' (I use the term extremely cautiously), I would point out the rather simple notion that reverence does not equal imitation; thus, the examples you cited as being different in style to Beethoven are largely irrelevant.

To conclude, I would have liked to return the feeling that I am unimpressed by your points, but I am afraid that this is impossible seeing as you didn't actually make any. Instead, all I can say is that your marvellous array of seemingly random words that were compiled into a rather grotesque mound of nonsense have had little effect, and I sincerely doubt that a reasoned debate will ever take place if you continue to force your vacuous opinions onto the discussion.

Originally Posted by Polednice

Please allow me a few moments to compose myself before I respond, for I am utterly brimming with shame at the recognition of my unimpressive ideas, and I must spend a few moments crying in a corner while I consider how I might be able to redeem myself after such tremendous humiliation.

That's nice of you but please don't feel too bad about it. It’s also generous of you to admit that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about on this subject and are simply looking for some advice. As I hope is clear, I am only too pleased to be able to enlighten you. As you say, this Forum is for learning about classical music. Sadly, though, there are some people who tend to use it to practise their pompous, half-baked semi-philosophical twaddle, as if we're all a bunch of foreign school kids who can't answer back. But enough about them; it's good to see which side you belong to.

Now to enlighten you slightly further, I would only add that you started out this whole discussion by asking a very silly question: why Beethoven/Mozart/Bach have achieved a certain, untouchable, God-like status. I say "silly" question because you didn't specify either what you meant by "untouchable", or "God-like", and nor did you specify the audience which you consider regards them in this way. Specifically, it isn’t clear whether you are referring to (i) fans of these composers in particular, or (ii) all classical music fans, or (iii) the general public at large? And clearly the answer depends crucially on definitions of terms, as I'm sure someone as philosophical as you must appreciate.

It's downright obvious that fans of these composers will be more likely to regard them in the fashion you describe than the generality of all classical music fans. If the former is the group of people you are referring to then you have your answer: they simply prefer them to all others. If however you are referring to the general public it is obvious that they don't regard Beethoven/Mozart/Bach as having "achieved a certain, untouchable, God-like status", as most of them give a hoot about classical music and few only would consider buying any of it. In that sense, it’s ridiculous to suggest that the “opinion” of the general public has any influence whatsoever on why Beethoven/Mozart/Bach are so highly esteemed.

I have already told you that it is also ridiculous to suggest that modern audiences of classical music have their preferences of the best composers shaped by the views of past composers about who they regarded as their distinguished role models. People generally choose the music they like, not because other people like it. But you still argue. What a shame.

So yet again, I rather conclude that, while you have shown yourself to be a willing learner showing some promise, you have a way to go yet. But don’t despair as there’s plenty of time yet.

Originally Posted by Andy Loochazee

That's nice of you but please don't feel too bad about it. It’s also generous of you to admit that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about on this subject and are simply looking for some advice. As I hope is clear, I am only too pleased to be able to enlighten you. As you say, this Forum is for learning about classical music. Sadly, though, there are some people who tend to use it to practise their pompous, half-baked semi-philosophical twaddle, as if we're all a bunch of foreign school kids who can't answer back. But enough about them; it's good to see which side you belong to.

etc. etc.

I'm going to make the slightly risky assumption that the pompous tone you used in your last post was nothing more than a poor exercise in sarcasm, rather than a demonstration of extremely bad character and hypocrisy (if it was in fact the latter, then 1) I am sorry for misunderstanding, 2) I am ashamed for having a higher estimation of you than you're worth, and 3) I pity you severely). I think it should be quite clear that I'm not going to waste any more time throwing logic at ears that cannot or won't understand, because your mouth wishes only to spout pseudo-intellectual, self-aggrandising, pretentious and unnecessarily unpleasant absurdities. I fail to see how you have landed yourself on a website for casual, public discussion with strangers when you so easily feel disdain for someone who you're not physically presented with, and someone that you are more than ready to make cringe after yet another descent into unjustified vitriol, as if anyone actually cared. I'm quite sure that you're amazed by your own existence enough as it is, so I needn't say any more, for it would be quite tragic should you ever stumble upon the bleak reality.

Here's a novel idea: Maybe they are regarded as the three greatest composers because they are the three greatest composers.

I already duck to avoid those mudpies I can see coming in my direction.

In order to stop the discussion getting completely jumbled, it might be good to approach the question from a fresh perspective by looking at a specific example.

So, take the quotation that prompted me to start the thread in the first place. Michael Tilson Thomas - currently the music director of the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra - responded as follows, when asked about his favourite composers:

Originally Posted by Thomas

You can't have Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as your favourite composers. They simply define what music is!

So, why would this particular man say the above? It utterly defies the notion that any 'serious' admirer of classical music would regard great composers as a matter of personal reflection and taste. Here, Thomas is suggesting that the three composers' extreme reputation is a matter of objectivity. They are the definition of music.

Now, I could easily say that about Brahms and/or Dvorak, because those two geniuses are my favourite composers. To me, they 'define' what music is (though I'm sure I would use that word in a very different way to Thomas). However, Thomas's words cannot simply be a confession that his favourite composers are Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, just as mine are Brahms and Dvorak, because he explicitly prefaces his comment with the statement that they are not and cannot be his favourites, because they transcend such boundaries. How could/why would he say that?