In order: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Debussy, Stravinsky, Brahms, Verdi, Wagner and Bartók. Here is my list:
- J. S. Bach (of course)
- Mozart
- Beethoven
- Schubert
- Debussy
- Shostakovich
- Stravinsky
- Steve Reich
- Prokofiev (or Rameau)
- Bartók (or Couperin)
Except for Mozart and Shostakovich, no opera composers (and yes, I do know Beethoven struggled to write an opera). I really wanted to get Rameau and Couperin in there without sacrificing Debussy and considered replacing Prokofiev or Bartók with either or both of them. Heck, Monteverdi and Josquin would be serious choices as well. I could give some reasons for why Mozart over Beethoven (mainly he was an outstanding opera composer even though Beethoven wrote more weighty string quartets, but also he wrote the best symphonic finale ever). The reasons I put Shostakovich over Stravinsky would take a Taruskin-sized volume to successfully defend so I will just let you guys argue over that one. Steve Reich needs no defence, I think? But, given my proclivities, why no Joseph Haydn? I struggled over that one. The thing is that he had the great misfortune to live at the same time as Mozart. But, man, did he ever write some truly great symphonies...
So my Christmas present to all you readers and commentators is something to argue about. In a civilized manner, of course.
Afterword: Apart from Mozart, I have not included any opera composers in my list because it seems to me that the composing of operas is so utterly different from composition pur et simple that there really need to be two lists, one of composers in general and one of opera composers. There would only be one name on both lists: Mozart.
9 comments:
Good list! But Reich? I enjoy the guy as much as anyone, but current AGIs can produce music that would pass the Reich-Turing test. In other words, you couldn't tell if the latest Reich was actually AGI-produced. So my broader question is this: Why has the English-speaking world failed to produce a truly great composer (or painter, for that matter)? Lots of "greats" (like Reich or Turner) but no Mozart or van Gogh? Why?
Oh yes, the English-speaking world has, arguably done very well at novels, short stories and poetry, but not terribly well at music. I have, here and there, ventured some guesses at why there are no great Canadian composers, as I know that milieu pretty well. But the English-speaking world in general? It might just be the case that the topsoil is too shallow. Since Purcell, there were no decent English composers until Elgar, so they simply have not caught up. In Italy, France and Germany, the roots are very deep. Bach came from a family of musicians and composers stretching back 300 years.
The argument you make regarding Steve Reich might apply to his early works up to, say, Eight Lines or the Music for 18 Musicians, but from then on, works like Different Trains, Tehillim, The Desert Music and lots of other pieces show a considerable range and originality. And who would we replace him with? Ligeti? Schoenberg?
Third from left on second row is Brahms, not Liszt.
Oh I wouldn't say the lists for composers vs. opera composers would be so utterly different. Among those composers you mention, the following wrote great operas: Mozart, Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Rameau (I've never heard one of his myself, but I believe they are very fine), Bartok, and Monteverdi. Off the top of my head, other great composers who also wrote great operas include Berg, Purcell, Handel, Britten, Berlioz, Janacek, and Messiaen.
I like Reich, but if we are to replace him I'd say Messiaen.
English music seemed to decline rapidly around the time of the 1688 revolution. Perhaps the cultures with the best music are not generally the liberal, moderate and stable ones? (This thought gives me some hope for the future of music, if nothing else!) Even in the 20th century, the best English composers seem to miss greatness 'by a hair' (as Mencken said of Mendelssohn). Yes, Vaughan Williams, Britten and Lutyens, say, are all great, but they aren't quite Great in the same way as Schoenberg, Messiaen or Stravinsky.
However, we certainly had truly great composers before c. 1688: Dunstaple, Fayrfax, Tallis, Byrd, Dowland, Purcell. And though I know a lot of people would disagree, I believe America found its truly great composer in Charles Ives.
Thanks, Anonymous! Yes, your are absolutely correct, that is a young Brahms, not Liszt. I corrected in the text.
Steven, also thanks. I'm just a tad reluctant to call someone an "opera composer" if they only wrote one opera in their career--Debussy, for example, or Shostakovich. Though of course the latter might have had a fine career writing operas were it not for the denunciation in Pravda. Yes, Stravinsky wrote two, as did Berg. But Purcell? Britten had a fair go, as did Janacek.
Yes, if we are to replace Steve Reich, then Messiaen would be a good choice.
England did indeed have a golden age in composition prior to Purcell with the ones you mention. And Spain had a golden age in the 16th century.
America is a bit of a tricky case as one has the feeling that they haven't quite hit their stride. Yes, Ives got the ball rolling, but then there was quite an efflorescence with Cage, Partch, Elliot Carter, Adams (both of them), Reich, Glass and a bunch of recent ones like Caroline Shaw. The problem there is that they are too close to us to evaluate.
But I suspect we can all agree that Switzerland, despite being wedged in between two enormously musical nations, Austria and Italy, does not produce much in the way of great composers. (Who is going to be the first to jump in with Frank Martin?)
Ah, Frank Martin is another superb composer who only wrote one opera. I've not heard it though. I think if the one opera a composer wrote is a massive masterpiece (Messiaen's St Francis), or an essential part of the repertoire (Debussy's Pelleas), then I'm fine with listing them alongside composers like Puccini. Shostakovich also wrote The Nose. Purcell wrote three great operas -- the best English opera composer, possibly alongside Sullivan and Britten (we could also add Benjamin, but as you say living composers are to close to us to properly evaluate).
American classical music almost seems to be in its own category, separate from European. There is something incongruous about seeing Reich listed next to the others. I feel the same about Ives, Cage, or Glass. It's not about the quality of the music (which I often love dearly); they just don't quite seem to fit.
I tend to be reluctant to do the list things. But since we're doing that ... in non-numbered order and without respect for sticking to ten:
J. S. Bach, Joseph Haydn, William Byrd, Thelonious Monk, Edward Kennedy Ellington, Stevie Wonder, Dmitri Shostakovich, Bela Bartok, Ludwig van Beethoven, Scott Joplin, Charles Ives, Olivier Messiaen, Toru Takemitsu, Thomas Tallis, Josquin des Prez, Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, Angelo Gilardino, Dusan Bogdanovic, Atanas Ourkuozounov, and Joseph F Lamb.
Honorable mentions go to Mozart (;-) ), Brahms, Mendelssohn (I like his string quartets and he was better at choral music than many), Berg (one of the only dodecaphonic composers I kinda like), Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Xenakis (small doses), Britten (he has to get an honorable mention just for "Nocturnal"), Wenzel Matiegka, Mississippi John Hurt, Blind Willie Johnson, Robert Johnson, and Nikolai Kapustin
And the funny thing is that, apart from a couple of obscure guitar composers that I don't know, I wouldn't argue about anyone on your list even though I may not be really fond of their music. These are all composers one can respect and enjoy.
Agree heartily with nearly all your list Wenatchee. I love Mendelssohn too, including the stuff that people often consider kitsch like Elijah. And yes the string quarters are amazing; no. 6 is a thrilling, intense work that should be played to all those who usually find Mendelssohn mawkish.
I'm really starting to appreciate Ellington too, by way of Black, Brown and Beige.
Post a Comment