I think it is false because once a niche has been filled it is a composer's role to find fresh things to do with their music. I don't base my listening on whether or not a composer is great, I base it on what I feel like listening to. Often what I feel like listening to coincides with composers widely regarded as great. I think this is because composers that are regarded that way are so for good reasons, and I often find that music very rewarding in ways I don't find other music. I do think some composers are under rated and some of the time I feel like listening to pop or rock music, soundtrack stuff, or works by lesser known composers. I think this latter stuff is often excellent and I appreciate it as well.

Any composer that has something to say, essentially are their own niche.

 

But the composers role was also to write great music, not new music! That means at least one later niche wrote even greater music and maybe we just get numb their similarities: all the competing composers, and were unable to agree on whose best? Hence many get selectively scattered in the Top 30 instead of everyone agreeing on one best one for the Top 3. The common rankings of composers are essentially impossible to verify!

For example, Schubert could be the greatest composer ever! Just, nobody thinks that because all the other composers sound close enough to him that it numbs him. There are so many possibilities here we can't know who actually did things better. Like you say, we just move on to whoever sounds fresh, and the rest we numb ourselves to.

We can never know, if they're top 3, because we get tired of listening before we can even decide! We go back to the Big 3 for their different voice.

Well I'm not sure. I actually did a related test months back on which composer connects the most to other composers, and Schubert was the most 'prime' suspect, based on online listening data. But this is all hypothetical.

 

For example, Schubert could be the greatest composer ever! Just, nobody thinks that because all the other composers sound close enough to him that it numbs him. There are so many possibilities here we can't know who actually did things better..

I see what you mean. For example, what are things that make Mozart sound "good"? His Classical concision and "mercurial" qualities? Is it possible there are other composers who share these traits to an extent?

 

I think I have a solution. I'm going to make a new thread and poll, and then afterwards draw a trend from that poll to the common rankings of composers on TC. Then we may perhaps see which composers might be being somewhat numbed and overshadowed by all the others copying them, we just don't notice (scientific hypothesis.)

 

The Top ___ are considered so because they wrote the highest percentage of "great" music. That's not to say others didn't write some great pieces. But between , say, Humperdinck, who wrote one great Opera, and Verdi, who wrote a dozen, Verdi takes the comparative prize. 30-to-50% of Beethoven's output is "Great." Not so with Ries or Clementi or Boccherini. Probably 80% of Bach vs who-knows-what of the similarly prolific Telemann. The repertoire has been combed for years (with new swipes every couple of decades) and there aren't a lot of undiscovered gems out there, regardless of niche.

 

I think it's important to have the eagerness to find out how composers are unique in their "ways of doing stuff", rather than indulging in the mindset "because we're told [X] is great; we all must consider him great; no questions asked".

Also look at F.I.v. Beecke:
https://www.talkclassical.com/72295-franz-ignaz-von-beecke.html#post2127425

I. Holzbauer, in his fluent use of counterpoint and major/minor mode shifts, is a bit underrated imv. He belongs in the generation of the composers, C.P.E. Bach, J.A. Hasse, F.X. Richter, etc, whose life-spans are long enough to encompass both the late-Baroque and Classical, and composed post-Baroque style orchestral works in their formative years.

 

I am interested in how composers did stuff, but when it comes to pieces I want to live with, "great" wins hands down.

 

Perhaps the way that classical listeners treat composers could use a shake-up? Think about a non-classical piece of music that you like. Are you suddenly consumed with a desire to hear everything that the composer of that piece ever wrote? Bear with me and have a listen to the following:

In isolation, the video might convince you that Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield are fine composers whose work needs exploration. I'm sure if you listen to "Battery" you'll quickly realize that is probably not the case.

It strikes me that when I'm asked for classical recommendations by people who normally listen to music from other genres, I supply details of specific pieces, rather than suggesting that the person explores music by composer. I'd suggest the niches have plenty of room for multiple composers (and performers) if there's a degree of sharing? The "symphony" niche? Sure, Beethoven fills it admirably, but chuck a couple of his symphonies out and replace them with Mozart's. There are still a lot of people out there, of quite advanced age, for whom classical music is a closed book. Looking at the way they write about what they listen to, with comments like "First three albums were good, then they lost it" or "Shaky start, but when they threw the singer out and replaced him, they took off" indicates a different way of looking at music.

Just a thought. Hopefully, I've conveyed what I'm thinking.

 

The thesis is false in general.
Composers or works can occasionally "screen off" others but there is no hard and fast rule for this. Although it took a few decades for some pieces and more than a century in the case of the piano sonatas, Schubert "got in" several works despite Beethoven dominating early 19th century symphonies, chamber music and piano sonatas. And although Schubert had lieder of sufficient quantity and quality, this hardly hurt Schumann, Brahms, Wolf or Mahler because there was still "space left".

 

The thesis is false in general.
Composers or works can occasionally "screen off" others but there is no hard and fast rule for this.

Yes, but how would we know! That's what I'm really trying to say. Especially since we're biased to start our journey with the Big 3 and adopt those preferences first.

There are too many similar composers, that we may enjoy definitely, but we could never agree on the best one of them. So, they're scattered voted around the Top 100. Whereas Bach is both great and unique, so voted in the Top 3, because we simply know we want to return to his own niche often, as he's the only one in it. In a more crowded niche, the incredible greatness of one may get fully numbed by others doing the same, that voting for one just won't happen.

So you don't think it's true then?

The poll I did set up might be a little to biased towards single greatest, that's fine. But another solution is to have Talk Classical vote on the best niches or eras of music, then choose the greatest composers within them.

Or, we take the frequent greatest list, and then decide whose less unique and thus getting half-voted due to other composers being more-chosen (as they fulfill that style for them). The poll I set up should technically work though, I just don't know if people are making the best final decisions, because people never think about this. They might be voting with their pride and heart.

 

What is a niche composer?

 

They are not completely restricted but plausible examples for me would be Danzi, Reicha, Baermann... for woodwind chamber music and concertos. Or Widor and others for organ. A borderline more famous case could be Hugo Wolf

 

To be fair, since we call it "classical" music, perhaps I should celebrate that we don't restrain ourselves to the period from Haydn to Beethoven.
Probably more of us should say we enjoy "romantic and early modern music plus a few guys from the 1700s."

I can see your point, but I think this thread is more appropriate for discussion on it.
I also want to know why the 20-year old Mozart praised Adlgasser as a master of counterpoint, and Aumann's Catholic music was a major model for Bruckner at St. Florian, or how Leopold Mozart's use of counterpoint influenced his son, Albrechtsberger's influenced Beethoven, Sechter's influenced Bruckner. I also read that the Salzburg Haydn was prolific with German songs, and Schubert wept after a visit to his grave. I wish I could find out more about these things, but I can't because much of their output still hasn't been recorded.

 

Think of some of your favorite niches and categories of Classical music. Once your satisfaction has been fulfilled by some amazing composers in an otherwise overcrowded niche, how likely are you to go cling to a totally different composer like Bach or Beethoven rather than more who do your first niche justice?

And:

But how many composers are really just as good, we just run out of patience for their niche because others already fulfill it?

Lurking behind your question is that recurring debate between subjective and objective assessment in music (assertions that Bach/Mozart are greater than Telemann/Haydn are purely subjective vs. Bach/Mozart are objectively greater composers than Telemann/Haydn). Your question strikes me as a subtly different way of asking that. Since I'm firmly in the great-composers-are-objectively-better-than-other-composers-and-it's-not-a-matter-of-taste camp, I guess I have to reject the premise of your question.

 

Re-explaining the Thread OP much better

I did a really really poor job explaining the OP and this thread. It's generally explaining how many people copied composers like the Late Romantic symphonists and other late categories more than they copied the Big 3, but so many people here prefer this 'Contemporary music' that they just don't agree on whose the best, while they can agree the Big 3 sound more unique, therefore most of the genres they love they're unable to come together to place some of these composers in the Top 5, while they can place a Big 3 because there's no on else to consider for that genre. They still like the later genres more. In fact I said there's too many of these composers for multiple people to equally back: So often I see one as the number 1 composer for someone, while another says it's someone related. That never adds up to a accurate Top composer list, because it becomes automatically assumed that the 'uniques' ie. Big 3 are actually better. A self-perpetuating truth perhaps we can't escape? But there's even more to it:

I implied that most of the great composers preferred writing music of their peers (in a large sense.) Nobody seemed to care that much to emulate the Big 3, in fact truly avoiding it in place of stylings they considered better taste or worth writing. When I compose I incorporate some stylings of Mozart simply because I like him, and I don't always, but the majority of composers don't really do that either aside from select works earlier on.

If 99% of people often or just sometimes return to a genre, and that genre only as one composer in it, you bet they will be placed in the Top 3. Composer lists are like an inconsistent mechanism. Even if you hear some composers say Mozart is the best, where's their proof? Are they just mimicking what the herd says? I love their music, but hypocritically they're claiming someone's the best without proving it in their music, to where I don't really believe this whole tradition's consensus. The lovely Mahler's dying words were "Mozart," but that was his childhood rearing. How much of his "religion" was he actually being honest about with himself during his life? People try to explain it to make sense, 'oh they admired them' but I don't believe it. I don't see the real evidence, just a tradition's self-perpetuating false consensus centered around 3 composers who were simply different from the now norms.

Where's the logic in people's explanations that actually admits, "Composers got closer and closer to the truth, that's why their music sounds similar, and that's why we can't agree on whose better. In fact we get often get tired of many of them, that's just everyday life." "Returning to the Big 3 is always easy in some capacity, it's nice to refresh ourselves on this fair and collective standard of rococo and counterpoint."

 

Can the main questions being asked here be summarized briefly?

What I can glean is that we may get so used to taking composers' reputations for granted that our opinions and listening habits are partially governed by those traditional rankings, and we may not realize that we unfairly dismiss as "lesser" some composers who may deserve more respect and attention.

If that's the thrust, I agree somewhat. But I don't think a change in our perspective will bring about any major shakeups. Most of the classical music most of us listen to was written before the mid-20th century and has had long enough - and, importantly, enough recordings - to establish its credentials. People keep consuming Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Wagner in great quantities because they were greater composers than Zelenka, Kraus, Cherubini and Reyer, whatever the merits (often considerable) of those gentlemen's work.

 

People keep consuming Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Wagner in great quantities because they were greater composers than Zelenka, Kraus, Cherubini and Reyer, whatever the merits (often considerable) of those gentlemen's work.

This is exactly what I didn't claim, why (probably a majority of people if we account for beginner's bias) actually do prefer the Contemporary era the most, but still return to the Big 3. What was a large reason I implied that they don't simply go to more Contemporary music? Actually two reasons! The lesser reason from above is reilluminated here, while the primary you don't have to read in-between the lines for.

 

Both are mostly true, but I was referring to the former there. It can be surmised in polls using a statistical trend that many who vote for the "Classical period" because only their favorites are the Big 3, had simply misread the poll. It can additionally be surmised that some whose favorites are the Big 3 may be another induced bias from either a belief in standardization or childhood nurturing. Meaning that more open-minded (not for its own sake) and experienced perspectives on music are simply worth more to assessing objectivity. Putting these together with the fact that Contemporary music is largely a stated favorite of many many people here and especially in our forum's informational history, that period will be the clear winner. I also understand your first post above about actual time. But in some ways I don't see how the Classical era being the least favorite, is because we're too early. It could be Classicism will simply lose more and more favor in the long run, our forum's standardization not productive for our forum's success. We can clearly see how now only The Big 3 stick out from what used to be, it wasn't like this not long sgo. Remember, if you read the above it explains why the Big 3 shouldn't score as many 'points' as they do, and others should. I can't say 'by how much' this all adds up to, it could be way bigger than we realize, but all the standard biases are in place, cultural/informational, and statistical which is a subgenre of culture. I can also see how my love of Mozart is becoming less and less objective, regardless of the fact that Mozart is great and will probably always be considered in the Big 3 due to the cultural standardization biases explained above (ie. what is implied that polls prove etc.) It's more heresay than it is real data analysis: Edit: note that this doesn't imply a solid answer.

Sorry for my edits, I'm trying to be clear and clean.

 

Both are mostly true, but I was referring to the former there. It can be surmised in polls using a statistical trend that many who vote for the "Classical period" because only their favorites are the Big 3, had simply misread the poll. It can additionally be surmised that some whose favorites are the Big 3 may be another induced bias from either a belief in standardization or childhood nurturing. Meaning that more open-minded (not for its own sake) and experienced perspectives on music are simply worth more to assessing objectivity. Putting these together with the fact that Contemporary music is largely a stated favorite of many many people here and especially in our forum's informational history, that period will be the clear winner. By how much it's hard to say now, and if you read the above it explains why the Big 3 shouldn't score as many 'points' as they do, and others should. Again, I can't say 'by how much' this all adds up to, it could be way bigger than we realize, but all the standard biases are in place, cultural/informational, and statistical which is a subgenre of culture.

I also understand your first post above about actual time. But in some ways I don't see how the Classical era being the least favorite, is because we're too early. Sorry for my edits, I'm trying to be clear and clean.

It does seem reasonable and likely that some people may overstate their regard for the 18th century because Bach, Mozart and (young) Beethoven lived then, overvaluing those composers - and correspondingly undervaluing others - because of the huge reputation the BIg 3 carry with them. This would be one of a number of factors that make various polls somewhat misleading. As far as listening is concerned, I suspect that the vast majority of people listen most to the music they most enjoy, regardless of its reputation, and rarely think to themselves, "I feel like listening to Dutilleux, but I know I really ought to be listening to Mozart."

 

I don't think people say "I'd rather be listening to Dutilleux." I don't think people listen to Dutilleux. Or thousands of others, and that doesn't just represent what poll results will be. It perpetually informs our society and artists what music should sound like, when the better artists have known better and all the more experienced and open-minded listeners have disagreed with traditionalists and even preferred similar music to one another. "Great minds think alike", yet there's no one composer they could unanimously vote in the top 3: If great minds are alike, then great composers are. There's not 1. That's the issue and is the easiest point I made. We can't truly measure how bad this one bias alone is.

And it's easy to feel like this is too much, and you'll forget about these other perspectives. But these arguments will always be falling in the forest without someone watching. In any case, thanks for the response. "Word of mouth," ie. 'most named artists,' can't inform us that they're greater than those of other schools. I argue, bigger, better schools that composers admire more. The 174 composers favorite composers isn't a poll on the greatness of composers because of their best schools, it's another 'biggest names tabulation.' If someone stands out there it doesn't necessitate it's for good reasons. They may be their own, lesser school, people often return to because they get bored of the true greats and can't ever pin one composer or agree on a favorite. See how that effects the math of 'word of mouth' greats commonly named: how history might continue to misinterpret, even believing a Big 3 tradition is accurate? Adopting their music for cultural context, their childhood nurturing, or special privilege. Seriously, we can't objectively measure the possible extent and implication of these theories yet.

We can't disprove all of my rationale, though anyone can come to refute it in place of simpler thinking. Though the easy beginner's mindset is inevitable, it can't necessitate that even they truly believe there are pieces that will always be great. Maybe (just maybe) plenty of traditionalists will get bored, grow and become like the historical majority of the avid, like it's always really been. I can name thousands of avid alone, they composed music. There's too much similar music out there to agree on one piece, that could ever be tabulated as 'most named.' Now how do we know what's great? Look at the schools, especially look at the underrated schools. The traditionalists, they're also okay.

 

Unfortunately, the more you try to clarify what you mean, the less I get it. A significant percentage of CM listeners are motivated by quality, however you define it. There are lots of CM works throughout its history that demonstrate quality, much of the sorting has been done, and for those for whom that is paramount, the joy is largely in the discovery of what others have previewed for one. And discovering mostly contemporary works for which the jury is still out. If your view of "quality" is different file a personal list.

 

I understand: you just returned to my starting premise. Though I'm sorry you can't understand me, I'm even doing a sensible job compared to my usual ability to convey complex topics Trust me, I know... Thanks for the very polite response!

 

Well, I doubt that there are "thousands" of obscure composers who really merit the regret or indignation you may feel at their relative neglect. And I think it would be difficult to impossible to determine, without extensive and detailed surveys, exactly which composers are neglected to what extent, and impossible to get any sort of consensus on which of them "deserve" to be listened to more often.

For all practical purposes, time decides what music thrives and survives, despite our preferences or the opinions of "experts." Meanwhile the immense diversity of tastes and the innumerable "niches" characteristic of the modern world all but guarantee some audience for almost everything. I can't see any value in fretting over who is in the "Top 3." How can music get any better, by any reasonable measure, than the best of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? All three have stood the test of time remarkably well in the estimate of scholars, critics, musicians and the listening public, so we can recognize the "Top 3" as probably deserving their status while not taking the whole matter of rating and ranking too seriously. As I said, I think most serious listeners listen to what they like regardless of how anyone ranks it, and if we're impatient with the slowness with which people accept new music we have forums like this in which to spread the word about music we think should get more attention. If only a minority of listeners take us up on the invitation - well, that's human nature, annoying as it may be.

 

How can music get any better, by any reasonable measure, than the best of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven?

If it were easy to imagine, it would happen often. That it is difficult to imagine, doesn't mean that its not possible.

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven lived when way less people lived on earth, especially less with access to classical music. It is likely that much more talents like these live and compose today and some that are even better. But the status of the Top 3 is not in doubt. What is the reason? It seems like history is the reason. Maybe the time from Bach to Beethoven was better to get famous. Maybe because the attention of the relevant public was less divided than today. Maybe because classical music was younger back than, and less great music already existed. Maybe because this time is now long gone and there was a lot of time in the meanwhile to get famous.

Or maybe our time today has a style that is just not suitable to get famous. Maybe the style 200-300 years ago was more universal, so more people are able to like it. But composers today just don't want to write in that style (except Alma Deutscher). The time of universal geniuses like da Vinci or Leibnitz seems to be over too. The great people are more specialized today. And the problem of one-track specialists seems to get even worse today. Better start as a child with one specific thing or you have no chance later anyway. And classical composers seem to be much more specialized today than 200-300 years ago. The attention of the public is divided.

 

I can only imagine you don't understand my overall theory, which seems to be less and less a problem since most aren't. The funny part is I can't continue more clearly, so I'll have to rest my case for now unless someone comes in. I also dont underrate some value in over-time consensus that you brought up, but I did refute it objectively not subjectively. All of these things overall aren't correct or incorrect (that's why I didn't say you're wrong, just that you probably don't grasp the perspective yet) and anyone's entitled to think standardized traditionalism is correct. As you stated, it's a casual topic. Thanks for the cognitive input!

 

^^^ I think you've identified a number of reasons why composers today are not likely to challenge the status of their predecessors of a century and more ago. I'm sure that there's a genius born every minute, but conditions have to be right for genius to flower. I think the very diversity of input a composer is now subjected to, and the diverse nature of the listening public which has experienced an infinite variety of music, militates against the formation of a strongly defined and compelling art that can dominate and define a culture. As Stravinsky said, inspiration thrives on limits. There will be plenty of fine work done regardless, but the classical tradition and the culture that produced it is now reduced, with everything else, to a remnant occupying a minor niche in a global culture.

 

Firstly, everyone disregard the poorly written OP and read this later post. My apologies.

Nice thought Aries! (So not to offend Mahler-haters, feel free to insert another later composer in this example just the same) I think it's easier to say Mahler could be the greatest composer to experienced listeners and that polls and traditional notions are just set up mechanically wrong: splitting up the later composers too much due to their similarity, I reasoned how that works. It's harder on the other hand to say there's another Mahler out there now, but also possible following this premise: Now please forgive me for attempting repetitive objectivity. It's only inevitable, not fundamental. (a) Mahler has more likeable qualities than any composer overall, his mixed ranking just gets placed because of many similar composers, thus (b) lots of composers could easily copy Mahler in various ways, like they could've copied any composer. That's why it's a great thought, because who knows, Bach might never be more in style to avid classicists compared to a more Contemporary composer like Mahler, I think I gave some more rationale why that is, and people will and do copy him more than they do Bach. I've simulated some Bach too, Aries. A number of people here would place Mahler first, it's not wrong per se, but more right than it actually seems:

If someone places Mahler 5th or something, it's of course because they get enough of him through similar composers to satisfy. It says nothing about any 'perfection' inherent in Mahler regardless of them. (Again, feel free to insert Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich into this possibility too, etc.) We'd need to analyze the data more objectively before concluding who is the best, which involves looking at what genres of Classical people like most. Symphonies, for one. Of course Debussy was more influential, but that fails the premise again. We're not looking at uniqueness, but the best within the best: the obviously mistreated and underrated. Mahler's 2nd was also considered the 2nd best work of music on TC, when people submitted their favorites. That could easily be 1st if he gains more popularity, but Mahler fans might say the 6th is better.

Long story short, Who would you rather listen to? (The Big 3 definitely) is a different question than Who is the greatest? The greatests and their music get duplicated and split into other composers, highly proven by the symphonic tradition. I'd rather listen to both, because one is probably greater, while the other 3 are more unique. Not to push him to the top for sure, but for example, did Mahler copy Wagner in some ways? That's not really the question is it? If everyone copied Wagner, it might not show Wagner is the greatest, it would show that the genre is. So two greatest genres in which Mahler is avidly often considered best, ie. programmatic, and symphony, I do think those are the forum favorites.