Classical Music Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven

18K views 48 replies 23 participants last post by  Chi_townPhilly 
#1 ·
I was just reading an interview of Michael Tilson Thomas which prompted me to do a quick search of him on the internet. I came across a quotation attributed to him with which he expressed a much (too) familiar sentiment when asked about his favourite composers:

Thomas said:
You can't have Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as your favourite composers. They simply define what music is!
Whatever each of our individual tastes may be, I think it's fairly undeniable that these three composers have achieved a certain, untouchable, God-like status. My question is not why them, but rather, why only them?

This idea quite clearly suggests that nobody since Beethoven has ever reached the same heights as these three Titans. We know of a tremendous number of masterpieces by later composers; we call them geniuses and we listen to their works with the same feeling of awe, but does no one else qualify to be uttered in the same breath as being truly on par with these giants?

It seems to me that these three composers, deserving as they may be of the esteem in which they are held, have been somewhat removed from their works and idolised as entities of their own. Even if one could make the academic argument that a later composer was just as good (if not better), it almost feels like blasphemy to voice such an opinion.

Why? I get the impression that it's just too soon. What these three composers have on their side is a temporal distance - they stand as looming figures in history that we cannot reasonably challenge. Later composers are perhaps just a bit too close. Maybe in the next century we'll comfortably tack on a fourth or fifth name to this mightily exclusive list...
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I think part of the reason is that not only is their work of a very high quality, but there's also so much of it. That's also true for most of the other composers that usually end up in the top 6-8. - Schubert, Haydn and Handel. You can spend a lifetime listening to the music of any of those guys and still discover some jewel that you haven't heard before. Later composers usually have ended up with a much lower opus number. Some of them were arguably just as great, but they were less productive. Of course not every work from those baroque or classical greats is a masterpiece, but even if you only count what's really good it's still more than most romantic or modern greats' entire body of work.
 
#5 · (Edited)
My question is not why them, but rather, why only them?
...
Much or all of what Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart etc. composed are accessible to us modern folks, as were to their audiences (with the possible exception of some of Bach's "musical science" pieces). There is nothing elitist, bombastic, "hey, look at me", type of approach in their music. They didn't get out of their beds each day thinking "what shall I compose today that will be completely revolutionary for posterity, given that Mr. X composed a particular piece of such quality before me", but they usually wrote a piece for a scheduled evening's entertainment or for commission to get paid to pay bills, or as a CV piece as a job application; pragmatic considerations along the way, and they just happened to be geniuses too, which helped! There is also a consistency of quality in their works.

With many of the Romantic and beyond composers, you often read of them tearing up/destroying their own works because it wasn't good enough in their own minds. Many wanted to write an equivalent to Beethoven's ninth, or a piano concerto that was better than Mr X's. Or let's do away with recitatives and write a 15 hour long series of operas. Such thinking probably made the music less accessible, as a means of seeking new originality. Handel did not break new grounds in terms of developing a new genre or form, but wrote music of great uplifting quality based on existing styles and forms of his day; he basically "got on with composing".
 
#8 ·
With many of the Romantic and beyond composers, you often read of them tearing up/destroying their own works because it wasn't good enough in their own minds.
let us remember that in each successive periods the composers composed less. I believe this was in a large part due to the body of work they had to study and master.
Bach wrote thousands of works, Mozart comes in at 626, Beethoven at 132 plus some Wo0, Brahms 120 only published.

Mozart basically had to master Handel and Bach. Haydn the same thing. Beethoven had to master Handel, Bach, Mozart, Haydn and Salieri. Mendelssohn had to master Handel, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Salieri and Beethoven. Brahms had to master Handel, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Salieri, and Beethoven etc.

Of course Raff was an exception.
 
#6 ·
I know there is an amount of lionization that takes place, but I also know I can hear a Beethoven work I'm not very familiar with come up in my random playlist, and not knowing it's Beethoven still be moved by it's undeniable appeal, as if some universal aspect of the human condition were made into sound. Or maybe I am just responding to the Beethovenian gestures of the unfamiliar piece. Who can say?

Many other composers do that, but not as consistently for me.

If I had to pick another candidate for untouchable I'd bet on a Russian composer, but I am torn between Stravinsky and Shostakovich. Stravinsky is the more ground breaking, but maybe a little inconsistent. Shosty is consistently rewarding and might have been more ground breaking if he had been allowed. I'm sure other names will come to mind as soon as I hit the Post button.
 
#9 ·
I'd guess Tchaikovsky is most likely 4th on any such list.

Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Handel would all certainly precede Tchaikovsky... after that...? All bets are off.
 
#17 ·
Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Haydn, Handel would all certainly precede Tchaikovsky... after that...? All bets are off.
Certainly???

My wife (Hot_townPhilly) would strenuously disagree with the sentiment that the above-mentioned quintet of composers are somehow obviously better than Tchaikovsky. And you know what? Except for Wagner:)p), I'm not inclined to argue with her.:)
 
#10 ·
I don't think it's so much about mastering the previous generations styles...it's more so a "of the times" situation. In the Baroque period, composers were seen more as having a skill-set just as a wig maker had his, productivity was what was cherished, same for the classical period...the Romantic period is where people started taking notice of the greats and music became something people could readily cherish as it became more accessible.

I think Bach Beethoven Mozart will always be untouchable because - they're popular, they're mythical, and they made some amazing music that still has it's place in todays mainstream culture (judge judy theme song anybody?).
 
#11 ·
I find this a relevant topic to me because even though I have many favorites, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, Schubert, and Brahms have and will always remain "the greats" for me.

Why are they so famous? Is it because they are the most accessible to the public? Or is it just that not enough listeners have pushed the boundaries to try anything else beyond these "trite cliches"?

Let me make it clear that Bach and Mozart are by no means accessible. Most beginners will prefer a Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, or Johann Strauss to the boring music of Mozart or purely intellectual fugues of Bach.

But what I discover, and this is just my personal speculation, is that as tastes mature, instead of starting from the "greats" and moving outwards, people do the exact opposite. Mozart and Bach have only become greater, Schubert, Brahms, and Wagner too. I will admit, though, that personally, I still have exploring Haydn to look forward to.

Saint-Saens, on the other hand, I rarely listen to now. Why is that if he engaged me so much when I first started listening to classical music?

It's simply because I have moved on from my starting point and have discovered new things, that I don't have time to bother with such composers much anymore.

It simply tires me when people think that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are cliches. They say that there are so many composers out there that are greater, for whatever reason. Let me remind you that any musicologist will consider these composers as great as they are claimed to be. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart's rise to fame has nothing to do with the mere opinion of the public, as the public seems to prefer their Johann Strauss's, Tchaikovsky's and such. In addition, do not assume that the musically educated do not know their Tubin's, Raff's, and Nogard's, because they probably do. They have heard many obscure composers, yet the greats continue to remain the greats. Maybe not favorites... but simply... and may I add indisputably... great.
 
#12 ·
I also agree that these three composers deserve all the recognition they receive.

But what of other composers who are equally deserving?
Haydn certainly is. His music is the perfect example of classicism and he was a major innovator. Many students start with Haydn rather than Mozart.

Spohr was considered the equal of mozart during his life and today not many people have heard of him let alone consider him a great composer. Unfair I say...
 
#13 ·
I also agree that these three composers deserve all the recognition they receive.

But what of other composers who are equally deserving?
Haydn certainly is. His music is the perfect example of classicism and he was a major innovator. Many students start with Haydn rather than Mozart.

Spohr was considered the equal of mozart during his life and today not many people have heard of him let alone consider him a great composer. Unfair I say...
Well, Haydn is usually ranked halfway through the top 10 of all time greats, so he's getting a lot of (fully deserved) recognition already. I have some cd's from Spohr and while I think he was a very talented composer I think he misses that little bit extra to consider him the equal of a Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. I agree that he deserves more attention than he's getting though.
 
#16 ·
How many other composers would I utter in the same breath? Oh dear me. Could I try it with three breaths?

Albeniz
Tchaikovsky
Haydn
Handel
Scriabin
Poulenc
Honneger
Grieg
Wagner
Alkan
Mussorgsky
Smetana
Janacek
Sibelius
Bruckner
Feinberg
Schoenberg
Gershwin
Joplin
Medtner
Mendelssohn
Brahms
Froberger
Sammartini....

I really don't see the difference. There aren't just a few Greats; There are many of them.
 
#19 ·
It's just kind of common sense or such things.You can have your own greatest composers regardless of whether they are accepted as greatest by the general public.As to why they are widely high-valued,I think it must be the amount of their masterpieces.One could probably compose great compositions such as Pachelbel's canon in d , but their other compositons may be meaningless.
 
#22 ·
I was just reading an interview of Michael Tilson Thomas which prompted me to do a quick search of him on the internet. I came across a quotation attributed to him with which he expressed a much (too) familiar sentiment when asked about his favourite composers:

Whatever each of our individual tastes may be, I think it's fairly undeniable that these three composers have achieved a certain, untouchable, God-like status. My question is not why them, but rather, why only them?

This idea quite clearly suggests that nobody since Beethoven has ever reached the same heights as these three Titans. We know of a tremendous number of masterpieces by later composers; we call them geniuses and we listen to their works with the same feeling of awe, but does no one else qualify to be uttered in the same breath as being truly on par with these giants?

It seems to me that these three composers, deserving as they may be of the esteem in which they are held, have been somewhat removed from their works and idolised as entities of their own. Even if one could make the academic argument that a later composer was just as good (if not better), it almost feels like blasphemy to voice such an opinion.

Why? I get the impression that it's just too soon. What these three composers have on their side is a temporal distance - they stand as looming figures in history that we cannot reasonably challenge. Later composers are perhaps just a bit too close. Maybe in the next century we'll comfortably tack on a fourth or fifth name to this mightily exclusive list...
I see what you are saying, but I honestly believe there hasn't been a composer since Van Beethoven who has been as good. Tchaikovsky, Mendelsohn, and a couple of others may come close but Beethoven's 5th, 3rd, 6th, and 9th symphonies, Für Elise, Moonlight.., and so on are the pinnacles of musical brilliance and have earned him a deserved legacy (even if he is a bit fortunate to be mentioned in the same breath as Bach and Mozart.)

As for the two I just mentioned, everything they put on paper was magic. They were like aliens from a different planet.

Personally, I would include Handel with these 3 masters.
 
#24 ·
Under hanks' inspiration, it strikes me that the list has the character of The One Big Guy for each era...but what's missing?: the post-Romantic (I'll call it).

Bach clearly is the winner of the baroque contest. No one else comes close. Indeed he approaches being the One Biggest Guy of All Time.

In the Classical arena I would be tempted to nominate Haydn over Mozart. Sorry.

Beethoven was the start of Romantic era (oversimplifying, of course). It would be rather sad if Romanticism never had a greater figure than the one who started it, as if Romanticism was a sort of one hit wonder of the age. But thinking about it, it is hard to come up with someone bigger. Mahler was influential and comes close, but was he really better than Beethoven? I don't know. Tchaikovsky comes close with a number of factors in his favor as an audience favorite and iconoclast with a sizable output.

Now to post-Romantic or Modern. Schoenberg was definitely an important figure and a major influence on several generations of composers. Stravinsky though might have an edge as a better composer. Just about anyone can listen to the Firebird or Petrouchka and understand and enjoy them. His output was huge and diverse, eveything from Pulcinella to the Rite of Spring. I can't say the same for Schoenberg.

So here's my list:
JS Bach, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky

And for best composer of all time: JS Bach
 
#25 ·
Beethoven was the start of Romantic era (oversimplifying, of course). It would be rather sad if Romanticism never had a greater figure than the one who started it, as if Romanticism was a sort of one hit wonder of the age. But thinking about it, it is hard to come up with someone bigger. Mahler was influential and comes close, but was he really better than Beethoven? I don't know. Tchaikovsky comes close with a number of factors in his favor as an audience favorite and iconoclast with a sizable output.
Beethoven certainly isn't Romantic enough to be champion of Romanticism. But, if we're going to assign somebody as the greatest figure of the Romantic period, then I'm afraid no one can argue with me, it simply has to be, without question, JOHANNES BRAHMS!
 
#28 ·
I may be mistaken but I thought the idea behind this thread was why are Bach, Beethoven and Mozart seen as being the 3 greatest composers in the conciousness of the general public. With that in mind I can't see how you can argue against that. People who have no interest in classical music will at least have heard of one of them 3. And I'll wager if you were to poll everyone who listened to classical music and asked them their favourite composers, about 90% of people will mention one of them three.

Maybe it's because Bach, Mozart and Beethoven transcend the divisions of the arts. They fit in nicely alongsided Shakespeare, da Vinci, Tolstoy, Michelangelo, Picasso and others of such magnitude. Do others attain this place?

As for composers that are almost on their level I'd say Brahms belongs up there to complete's the 3 Great B's. Tchaikovsky, Haydn, Handel, Wagner, Stravinsky are all excellent and are among the greatest composers but many people will not be familiar with a lot of their output.

As to why those 3 are considered better than all others may be because they are better than all others.:)

I see what you are saying, but I honestly believe there hasn't been a composer since Van Beethoven who has been as good. Tchaikovsky, Mendelsohn, and a couple of others may come close but Beethoven's 5th, 3rd, 6th, and 9th symphonies, Für Elise, Moonlight.., and so on are the pinnacles of musical brilliance and have earned him a deserved legacy (even if he is a bit fortunate to be mentioned in the same breath as Bach and Mozart.)

As for the two I just mentioned, everything they put on paper was magic. They were like aliens from a different planet.
All I'm going to say is the best of old Ludwig van is better than the best of the other two, but the worst of Beethoven is worse than the worst of the other two. Therefore the main difference is consistency. I personally would rather listen to any Beethoven symphony over any of Mozart's. Some people like to traverse the Himalayas, whilst others like a summer stroll along the beach.

If Bach and Mozart were aliens, then Beethoven was deeply human. Bach was concerned with achieving the spiritual through his music and writing for God, whereas Beethoven, in my mind, wrote only for himself and the art.
 
#29 ·
A composer isn't good because he/she is obscure, well respected, wrote more works, was full of different sized ponds and different sized ducks (that's a rather old saying, isn't it?), made progress, perfected the current ideas, or wrote complex works.

A composer is great because he/she is a composer. Each contributes to something on a massive scope, and each has their respective part in it. As long as the composer earnestly contributes a set of good works, they deserve every bit as much credit as someone else who has done the same. You can't compare two entirely different things, and on a fundamental level (I don't mean to offend anyone) it is immoral to judge people on such a cold, calculating tier system.

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!:rolleyes:
 
#30 ·
polednice, lukecash and harpsichord make some great points. But still there is the presistence of the Big Three Bach, Mozart and Beethoven despite our more experienced and refined opinions.

There is always the interesting problem of whether to call Beethoven romantic or classical. 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. Whatever the answer, I think here lies the reason why we can use the term "classical music" to lump together composers as divergent as Buxtehude and Frank Zappa, which in just about any other arena would seem insane.

And, also, why all from such a small part of the world? Any less myopic view would have to discard the notion that Germany in 1700 was The Pinnacle of Western Music.
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#31 · (Edited)
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.
 
#35 ·
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.
 
#39 ·
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.
 
#44 ·
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. :D
 
#46 · (Edited)
Not quite right but you are nearly there. The correct answer is actually the reverse of what you said: they are the three greatest composers because they are regarded as such by the majority of people who are active participants as consumers of this kind of material (mainstream classical music).

By way of clarification, there is no suggestion that these three composers are liked by all classical music fans, as clearly that isn't the case. It is very unlikely that the three composers would be listed as their own top three favourites by many individual consumer in a random sample. It is also unlikely that all three composers would appear within, say, their top 10 favourites. But compared with any other composers these three three would in all probability come out top the polls if all the results were tallied up. The margin of preference over the next group of preferred composers would be significant, i.e. not likely to have been produced by pure chance alone. For this reason they are widely seen as "untouchable Gods", i.e. no other group of three composers could, in the current or forseeable future, topple these three as overall favourites of the majority.

Now this is quite a simple matter once one understands a few key things. Perception of quality by the relevant market of consumers, and the scarcity value of the material itself, is at the heart of the explanation. One only needs to understand the first principles of the "theory of value" in economics to understand it. This underlies the whole basis of why some things (whether goods, services, perception of the quality of different art forms and results, or whatever) are valued more highly than others, i.e. command a higher price or otherwise given higher priority. An early issue was the question of why diamonds are more valuable than water. Some previous theories concerning this matter were very fanciful but essentially invalid. In essence, it's all a question of marginal valuations by consumers and the relative scarcity of different resources. This gave strong impetus to the emerging study of economics as a behavioural social science.

There is no need to seek any further or alternative explanation. Seen in proper light, alternative arguments based on such silly things as what non-consumers of classical music thing of certain composers, or what a small number of deceased former composers thought about the prowess of certain antecedents, are very clearly a pile of irrelevant twaddle. But that's typical of the the low quality of opinion of many amateur philosophers who venture into areas outside their narrow sphere of useful knowledge.
 
#45 ·
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:

Thomas said:
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top