Most Over-rated Composers

[quirky]

This has probably been done before, but I'll go ahead anyway...

Who is in your opinion overrated as a composer and why?

I personally think that Elgar is severely overrated. All of his music is too sentimental and cliched! 

[neardn]

chopin

someone should bore a hole in him and let all the sap run out

[indutrial]

Along with Chopin, I'd have to nominate Rachmaninoff. His works are massively appealing to pianists due to their technical difficulty, but his compositional limitations make his music boring as hell to my ears. Later Romantic music generally holds no appeal to me, coming across as top-heavy, over-dramatic, and conservative to a fault.

[cloches_de_geneve]

chopin
someone should bore a hole in him and let all the sap run out

Take Chopin out of the history of music, and you have a true "hole" in there:

No Liszt
No Rachmaninoff
No Scriabin
No Faure
No Debussy
Thus, no Ravel
... And dozens of composers, they, in turn, influenced.

I think the above ones were pretty good. What do you think?

[cloches_de_geneve]

Verdi.

[neardn]

Take Chopin out of the history of music, and you have a true "hole" in there:

No Liszt
No Rachmaninoff
No Scriabin
No Faure
No Debussy
Thus, no Ravel
... And dozens of composers, they, in turn, influenced.

I think the above ones were pretty good. What do you think?

i don't care for any of those composers. and i think you misunderstood the joke

[weissenberg2]

Along with Chopin, I'd have to nominate Rachmaninoff. His works are massively appealing to pianists due to their technical difficulty, but his compositional limitations make his music boring as hell to my ears. Later Romantic music generally holds no appeal to me, coming across as top-heavy, over-dramatic, and conservative to a fault.

Well just because you don't like his music does not mean it is over-rated

anyway, I think Mozart is the most over-rated since his music is so well known among the general public.

[thalbergmad]

Schumann.

The music world would have been a better place if he had been shot, run over by a horse or contracted a fatal disease before he first ever put pen to paper. If this had happened, we would have been spared his mindless, stodgy, uniteresting Teutonic Trash. If I had a time machine, the first thing i would do is go back to about 1818 and put hemlock in the bastards tea.

Sorabji.

Random garbage that a cat could play if chained to a keyboard with a firework inserted into it's ass. If you fill up your mouth with notes and throw up over a blank sheet, you have created a Sorabji work that nobody could distinguish from an original composition.

Sorry, but i cannot take these threads seriously any more.

Thal

[gep]

Random garbage that a cat could play if chained to a keyboard with a firework inserted into it's ass.

They say you can get an idea about someone's personality by way of what they fantasise about. I'd say you're making things pretty clear that way..

If you fill up your mouth with notes and throw up over a blank sheet, you have created a Sorabji work that nobody could distinguish from an original composition.

The fact that you are apparently deaf to his music (no problem in itself) doesn't mean everybody else is too, you know. That you haven't got the highest musical IQ has become pretty clear by now, no need to show it off THAT much. You sound very much like your average critic, who like to write along the lines of "If I don't like it, or am unable to understand it first go, than it must be crap, no matter how many people disagree". And the average critic has been compared with the average eunuch, who knows how it's done, sees it being done every day but is utterly and forever unable to do it himself.

Sorry, but i cannot take these threads seriously any more.

Which explains the 10,000+ messages, I guess...
You remind me a lot of those people who write streams of letters-to-all-editors about just about everything, exposing there near-lethal narrow-mindedness for everybody who couldn't care less.

Thal

You could almost change that to NeanderThal, if it weren't for the fact that the Neanderthal actually had a bigger brain than present day Man.

[pk]

Sorabji,
I agree with Thalbergmad
a weirdo like Sorabji doesnt deserve any attention

[thalbergmad]

They say you can get an idea about someone's personality by way of what they fantasise about. I'd say you're making things pretty clear that way..
The fact that you are apparently deaf to his music (no problem in itself) doesn't mean everybody else is too, you know. That you haven't got the highest musical IQ has become pretty clear by now, no need to show it off THAT much. You sound very much like your average critic, who like to write along the lines of "If I don't like it, or am unable to understand it first go, than it must be crap, no matter how many people disagree". And the average critic has been compared with the average eunuch, who knows how it's done, sees it being done every day but is utterly and forever unable to do it himself.
Which explains the 10,000+ messages, I guess...
You remind me a lot of those people who write streams of letters-to-all-editors about just about everything, exposing there near-lethal narrow-mindedness for everybody who couldn't care less.
You could almost change that to NeanderThal, if it weren't for the fact that the Neanderthal actually had a bigger brain than present day Man.

The only reason i posted what i did, is so i can laugh at the responses from acne ridden little dweebs, intellectual snobs and students who think it impresses girls to carry Sorabji scores around campus.

I have no idea which category you fit into and i care even less.

As i said, i cannot take these threads seriousy. There have been dozens of them and they achieve nothing.

Thal

[richard black]

students who think it impresses girls to carry Sorabji scores around campus.

'Is that Opus Clavicembalisticum in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?'

[pies]

a

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't see how Sorabji is over rated given that he is under appreciated to start with. I am shocked to see big names written in here, even those who changed the face of keyboard music as well knew it! I think that some are over rated by only minority groups, like someone might devote their life to Sorabji because they think it is the best music in the world, that is up to them to think this way, but I think it is over rating the composer then.

I don't think any musician is over rated by mainstream society. I certainly don't think that Bach, Chopin or Mozart are over-rated, any student who looks into how these people changed piano music will admit they are certainly not over rated and deserve the honors that they get.

[argerichfan]

As i said, i cannot take these threads seriousy. There have been dozens of them and they achieve nothing.

Thal, I agree... which is why I won't waste even a minute of my time to respond to the OP's mention of Elgar. 

[ahinton]

The only reason i posted what i did, is so i can laugh at the responses from acne ridden little dweebs, intellectual snobs and students who think it impresses girls to carry Sorabji scores around campus.

Which doesn't therefore help anyone taking this thread seriously, does it? Richard Black has provided the best answer to this one, anyway and I cannot imagine his response being bettered.

I have no idea which category you fit into and i care even less.

"gep" does at least belong to one; what you write here appears to demonstrate very clearly that you do not...

As i said, i cannot take these threads seriousy. There have been dozens of them and they achieve nothing.

What's "seriousy"? If you mean "seriously", you seem to be taking the thread at least seriously enough to feel motivated to respond to it more than once, irrespective of the value or otherwise of your responses...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

"gep" dpoes

Really, i did not know that. Thanks.

Now back to the subject:

Mozart
Richard Strauss

Thal

[indutrial]

Well just because you don't like his music does not mean it is over-rated

anyway, I think Mozart is the most over-rated since his music is so well known among the general public.

The general public should never mean anything in a classical musician's appraisal of the genre's ups and downs. They would rate the movie score to The Dark Knight as being better than most piano concertos by legendary composers. Their opinion became defunct when they turned their backs on the medium and started worshipping a bunch of drugheads who dress flashy and play pentatonic scales. F**k em.

My reason for picking Rachmaninoff is grounded in the idea (of which I'm not the only believer) that his composing did next to nothing to push classical music forward, backwards, or in any direction beyond where it already was. Beyond my personal distaste in his work (certainly a conflicted distaste, since I've spent plenty of time listening to the dozen or more Rachmaninov discs in my collection), it's pretty obvious that he's overrated in a more objective state. I think it's certainly fair to say that his works are recorded way too frequently, especially the beloved piano concertos. Similarly, his symphonies are over-recorded. There's something like thirty recordings available of the first Rach symphony, a piece which attracts most of its popularity based on the work's importance in Rachmaninov's biography (nervous breakdown, etc...) rather than it's worth as a musical work. Instead of remaining a curiosity, this work receives more than double the aggregated attention granted to far better works by far better composers like Sibelius or Szymanowski (whose 3rd symphony is downright phenomenal).

I generally find it hard to heap adulation on composers who are, for the most part, piano-composers. The most notable exception for me would have to be Scriabin, whose highly individual tonal approach and aestheticism really takes me to new places as a listener and confounds me as a student.

[indutrial]

I found this article from the Times pretty entertaining.
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/22/arts/music-judging-composers-high-notes-and-low.html

It's interesting how many musicians cited Ives as overrated.

[argerichfan]

I found this article from the Times pretty entertaining.

What a silly article, a total waste of time.  Alas, this is such a perfect example of the inanity of the US media.  This stuff is fed to Americans on a daily basis, and since the NY Times bothers to print rubbish like that, can one only imagine the quality of their international news coverage.  Who would ever trust it. 

I certainly don't, and I NEVER read any US media. 

[indutrial]

What a silly article, a total waste of time.  Alas, this is such a perfect example of the inanity of the US media.

I'm not for or against making a case for the article's transcendental value in the history of musical/intellectual debate, but it's still more valuable than yet another outpouring of haughty British pissing-and-moaning about the US media. Nor was it fed to me. This thread got be curious to do a simple Google search on "overrated composers." These days, no one should read anything with the expectation of taking the words at face value. Even the majority of articles in good music periodicals are oftentimes loads of waffling bullcrap. And, yes, non-American authors are just as talented at producing this horseshit as we are.

While the article is certainly somewhat of a puff piece, who knows, maybe it will make someone who's out of the loop take a bit more interest in a composer like Reger or Hindemith. Maybe not. Lest we forget that not everyone who walks the street is lurking in the Pianostreet forums for our divine wisdom. Though I'll always profess that the public are not trustworthy as a barometer for good taste, I don't find any reason to complain about an article that might make a few unaccustomed music fans scratch their heads about Busoni, Berg, or Frank Martin.

[berniano]

Mahler can be overrated in my opinion.

I think it's certainly fair to say that his works are recorded way too frequently, especially the beloved piano concertos. Similarly, his symphonies are over-recorded. There's something like thirty recordings available of the first Rach symphony, a piece which attracts most of its popularity based on the work's importance in Rachmaninov's biography (nervous breakdown, etc...) rather than it's worth as a musical work.

Rachmaninov is recorded frequently because he is so well-loved by most of us, atleast pianists. I've listened to his third piano concerto probably nearing fifty times on a single recording (Martha Argerich's) because it never grows old for me. Many other pieces do, but there's always something new to be heard each time I listen to the Rach 3. Same with many of his other pieces. We love Rachmaninov because his emotion is relatable and healing.

One could compare this same sort of rationale to that of ice cream fans. Because thousands of people enjoy ice cream, do we consider it overrated? I don't think so. Most of us like it because it simply tastes good. But then, there are the few that just don't care for the stuff, just as there are some who don't care for Rachmaninov. It all comes down to a matter of personal preference. Oh, and I don't mean to compare Rachmaninov to ice cream... more like something from the fine cuisine line would be a bit more fitting.

Anyway, my schpeel for the day. May Rachmaninov (and Chopin) live on in the hearts of many!

Berniano

[indutrial]

One could compare this same sort of rationale to that of ice cream fans. Because thousands of people enjoy ice cream, do we consider it overrated? I don't think so. Most of us like it because it simply tastes good. But then, there are the few that just don't care for the stuff, just as there are some who don't care for Rachmaninov. It all comes down to a matter of personal preference. Oh, and I don't mean to compare Rachmaninov to ice cream... more like something from the fine cuisine line would be a bit more fitting.

Anyway, my schpeel for the day. May Rachmaninov (and Chopin) live on in the hearts of many!

Berniano

The way I see things, the ice cream metaphor should play out a different way. If composers could be ice cream flavors, then Rachmaninov is the extra-super-creamy chocolate triple scoop with chocolate sprinkles and hot fudge. Surely it's an awesome dish, but it's also somewhat of a go-to to ice cream fans who are more interested in the other 30 flavors that never get as much attention as good old chocolate. Someone like Busoni ends up being as well known as a flavor like spumoni or black raspberry, often glanced at good and long but not often purchased. True fans will savor them, but it's hard to convert someone who's been a chocoholic for years.

I'm definitely not saying that guys like Chopin, Liszt, or Rachmaninov are in any way bad. They're all obviously excellent composers. I just sense no small level of indulgent fandom in the way people keep going back to their work again and again and again. It's the same as when you meet some film student whose top films are the same cult film namedrops you always hear (Godfather I, Citizen Kane, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Usual Suspects, etc...).

[argerichfan]

indutrial,

If I distrust the US media, don't assume I think much better of their British counterparts.

I have to agree with Babbitt (whose music is impenetrable to me) about the Schubert lieder, having suffered through my share of those wearisome accompaniments.

Interesting that Mahler is mentioned several times as being overrated.  I couldn't agree more, but I've learned to keep quiet about that, it upsets too many people.  No other composer inspires such Messianic devotion, and to respond to Mahler with anything but rapture is to invite the meanest critical assault one could imagine.  Also interesting that the article dates from 1987, back when it was still possible to have some kind of reasonable dialogue about Mahler.

[lelle]

Interesting that Mahler is mentioned several times as being overrated.  I couldn't agree more, but I've learned to keep quiet about that, it upsets too many people.  No other composer inspires such Messianic devotion, and to respond to Mahler with anything but rapture is to invite the meanest critical assault one could imagine.

well when people can't take any critique on artists they like and zealously defend them it's just funny to watch

While I wouldnt exactly expect this kind of response from a classical music fan, here is a great example:

Who ever the *** on here says Relapse is not a good album can go suck a ***ing dick, Relapse is one of the greatest albums out and Eminem is the best artist, so if you dont like it, go *** yourself because you can't do what he does, so if you bad mouth it, your a peice of sh*t garbage mouth ***hole prick.

hahaha

[ahinton]

The way I see things, the ice cream metaphor should play out a different way. If composers could be ice cream flavors, then Rachmaninov is the extra-super-creamy chocolate triple scoop with chocolate sprinkles and hot fudge. Surely it's an awesome dish, but it's also somewhat of a go-to to ice cream fans who are more interested in the other 30 flavors that never get as much attention as good old chocolate.

It's surely just as well that they can't be ice cream flavours, then, since the descriptor that you would under such circumstances ascribe to Rakhmaninov would seem a mightily strange one for the composer of the first symphony, the Isle of the Dead, The Bells, the Francesca da Rimini music...

I suppose my own would have to be malt whisky and raspberry flavoured, since these two wondrous foodstuffs are major exports from my country...

Best,

Alistair

[Petter]

I watched a program last night on TV about the french pianist Aimard and I thought the program idea for his concert was really great. He wanted to highlight polyphony in the western music culture and played pieces from Bachs Kunst der fuge and Beethovens opus 110 and some piece by Carter, all very different music but still with shared traits thus giving the audience some of the old classics and introducing more modern music. You don't have to chose either or...

[gep]

It's surely just as well that they can't be ice cream flavours, then, since the descriptor that you would under such circumstances ascribe to Rakhmaninov would seem a mightily strange one for the composer of the first symphony, the Isle of the Dead, The Bells, the Francesca da Rimini music...

I suppose my own would have to be malt whisky and raspberry flavoured, since these two wondrous foodstuffs are major exports from my country...

Best,

Alistair

Weird country, rasping berries first and then exporting them...
I know for a fact they export some good music too!

[thalbergmad]

I know for a fact they export some good music too!

Scotland exports some good music??

Please enlighten me.

Thal

[indutrial]

I watched a program last night on TV about the french pianist Aimard and I thought the program idea for his concert was really great. He wanted to highlight polyphony in the western music culture and played pieces from Bachs Kunst der fuge and Beethovens opus 110 and some piece by Carter, all very different music but still with shared traits thus giving the audience some of the old classics and introducing more modern music. You don't have to chose either or...

Most, if not all, modern composers, including ones like Babbitt and Carter (whose music is incredibly difficult to understand) display the sincerest devotion to the classics and earlier music. It's often the audience members (not to mention students who have no clue how to approach music history with any maturity) that feel the need to divide the periods up intellectually.

Regarding mindlessly devoted fans, worse even than Mahler's or Rachmaninov's supporters are artsy-fartsy poseurs who unbiasedly defend composers like John Cage, Christian Wolff, or even Philip Glass, all of whom seem more like merit badges for the post-modern intellectual music lover (though loving the actual music often doesn't play a part). With them, the importance of ideas and notions beyond the realm of the actual music seems to lend a morbid amount of credibility and nobility to work that often brings little to the ears and looks like a cop-out on the printed page. Beyond that, I think the idea of breaking down every facet of discipline and tradition in music is a vastly overrated practice.

[retrouvailles]

Scotland exports some good music??

Please enlighten me.

Thal

James MacMillan is a great Scottish composer who writes in a sort of neo-romantic idiom. You might like him. Or maybe not.

[thalbergmad]

Strange that you should mention that name as i have recently found his piano concerto in a 2nd hand shop. It had a wierd name that i cannot remember.

I will give it a look when it arrives.

Ta

Thal

[ahinton]

Most, if not all, modern composers, including ones like Babbitt and Carter (whose music is incredibly difficult to understand) display the sincerest devotion to the classics and earlier music. It's often the audience members (not to mention students who have no clue how to approach music history with any maturity) that feel the need to divide the periods up intellectually.

Regarding mindlessly devoted fans, worse even than Mahler's or Rachmaninov's supporters are artsy-fartsy poseurs who unbiasedly defend composers like John Cage, Christian Wolff, or even Philip Glass, all of whom seem more like merit badges for the post-modern intellectual music lover (though loving the actual music often doesn't play a part). With them, the importance of ideas and notions beyond the realm of the actual music seems to lend a morbid amount of credibility and nobility to work that often brings little to the ears and looks like a cop-out on the printed page. Beyond that, I think the idea of breaking down every facet of discipline and tradition in music is a vastly overrated practice.

Many good points here - Carter, for example, has spoken of the importance to him of singing in performances of Bach Cantatas in the 1930s as a major formative influence (as no doubt you already know) - and, for that matter, how could it not have been so for a composer possessed of Carter's intelligence and sensitivity?! Mahler and Rakhmaninov may have their mindless supporters as well as their genuine ones, but that says less than nothing about the quality of the best of their work, which has stood and will continue to stand the test of as much time as anyone might care to throw at it.

Best,

Alistair

[weissenberg2]

My reason for picking Rachmaninoff is grounded in the idea (of which I'm not the only believer) that his composing did next to nothing to push classical music forward, backwards, or in any direction beyond where it already was. Beyond my personal distaste in his work (certainly a conflicted distaste, since I've spent plenty of time listening to the dozen or more Rachmaninov discs in my collection), it's pretty obvious that he's overrated in a more objective state. I think it's certainly fair to say that his works are recorded way too frequently, especially the beloved piano concertos. Similarly, his symphonies are over-recorded. There's something like thirty recordings available of the first Rach symphony, a piece which attracts most of its popularity based on the work's importance in Rachmaninov's biography (nervous breakdown, etc...) rather than it's worth as a musical work. Instead of remaining a curiosity, this work receives more than double the aggregated attention granted to far better works by far better composers like Sibelius or Szymanowski (whose 3rd symphony is downright phenomenal).

I see where you are getting at with that his music is not progressive (But I do not necessarily agree with that). But some of his music seems pretty progressive to me (E.G. Isle of the Dead). I think some of his piano music is over recorded and some of it under-recorded (his Chopin variations and 1st piano sonata are very under-recorded). The piano concerti may be over-recorded in reference to the 100s of other underplayed romantic concerti.

Am I mis-understanding you or are you saying Sibelius and Szymanowski are better than Rachmaninoff?

[argerichfan]

There's something like thirty recordings available of the first Rach symphony, a piece which attracts most of its popularity based on the work's importance in Rachmaninov's biography (nervous breakdown, etc...) rather than it's worth as a musical work. Instead of remaining a curiosity, this work receives more than double the aggregated attention granted to far better works by far better composers like Sibelius or Szymanowski (whose 3rd symphony is downright phenomenal).

I certainly prefer the Szymanowski and Sibelius symphonies (all of them are in my collection, not to mention numerous recordings of the Elgar symphonies, IMO greater than R and equal to S & S) to any of those by Rachmaninov, but I would challenge your statement that R's 1st symphony is only a 'curiosity'. 

Modern critical thought no longer makes a big issue of that (liner notes to the CDs notwithstanding), and indeed some feel that R's 1st is the best of the lot.  Perhaps I wouldn't go that far, but it is my favourite of the three. 

As for the 2nd and 3rd concertos, there is certainly no argument that they are excessively recorded - I'm currently rather tired of the 3rd- but they do make money for the recording companies.  With Richter, Kissin and Katchen in the 2nd, and Argerich and Horowitz in the 3rd, I see no need to collect any other recordings.  Yet a recent video of Andsnes playing the 3rd was enjoyable to watch.   He is one of the greatest pianists of his generation.   

Another member mentioned R's vocal works.  I have several recordings of the Vespers and a complete CD set of the songs.  Really terrific stuff, and if the Vespers don't lack for recordings (even King's College have had a go), I find the songs strangely absent from vocal recitals.  Some of R's best music will be found in the songs, particularly the later opus numbers.   

[gep]

Strange that you should mention that name as i have recently found his piano concerto in a 2nd hand shop. It had a wierd name that i cannot remember.

I will give it a look when it arrives.

Ta

Thal

If it's his 1st Piano Concerto, that's called "The Berserking".
Judging from the title, you should like it..

[lelle]

I see where you are getting at with that [Rachmaninoff's] music is not progressive (But I do not necessarily agree with that). But some of his music seems pretty progressive to me (E.G. Isle of the Dead). I think some of his piano music is over recorded and some of it under-recorded (his Chopin variations and 1st piano sonata are very under-recorded).

The reason for that is that his 1st sonata is a 35minute-ish heavy work that almost never lightens up the mood but is tons and tons of notes spewed at the listener every second. Granted, I like this work, but it took quite some time to grow on me and the first times I tried to listen to it and understand it it actually gave me a headache!

And that is just the first movement. The third is even harder to digest than that! 

[retrouvailles]

If it's his 1st Piano Concerto, that's called "The Berserking".
Judging from the title, you should like it..

I don't know, it is a pretty strong, heavy, and loud work, and Thal is not really used to that. I could be wrong though. I would kill to see the sheet music though. The piano writing in it seems very unique, especially because MacMillan is also a very accomplished pianist.

[indutrial]

Am I mis-understanding you or are you saying Sibelius and Szymanowski are better than Rachmaninoff?

To my ears, personally, Szymanowski's work is more gripping than Rachmaninov's stuff. There's nothing quite like Szymanowski's 3rd Symphony or two string quartets in Rachmaninov's repertoire. While his piano output is possibly less resonant than Rachmaninov's, I think works like the Masques, the Mazurkas, the op. 33 Etudes, and the 3rd piano sonata are more to my liking.

It's almost fruitless to compare and rank sets of composers that are so vastly different as Rachmaninov and Szymanowski....or even Rachmaninov and Sibelius (though, similarly, I would say Sibelius is more to my liking). The point I was making is that Rachmaninov's music, while not bad at all, seems to be bloated up by no small amount of trendiness amongst musicians and listeners. Szymanowski and Sibelius may not have been the best names for me to bring up. I'd be more interested to see if Rachmaninov performances are actually outstripping performances of works by composers like Debussy, Faure, or Bartok, all of whom I consider far more important composers.

[cloches_de_geneve]

The darwinistic theory of musical excellence. Any composers who remains ("survives") in the limelight for 100 years or more IS by definition a very important figure in the history of music. Alas, Spohr, Hummel, Albrechtsberger, Wagenseil, Tomasek, etc.. did not make it. Rachmaninoff will make it, but the chances that Szymanowski or Sibelius will are not sensational. Therefore Rachmaninoff MUST be musically superior to those.

[pies]

Therefore Rachmaninoff MUST be musically superior to those.

No

[retrouvailles]

The darwinistic theory of musical excellence. Any composers who remains ("survives") in the limelight for 100 years or more IS by definition a very important figure in the history of music. Alas, Spohr, Hummel, Albrechtsberger, Wagenseil, Tomasek, etc.. did not make it. Rachmaninoff will make it, but the chances that Szymanowski or Sibelius will are not sensational. Therefore Rachmaninoff MUST be musically superior to those.

I dearly hope you are being sarcastic. Give me Szymanowski's piano music and symphonies over Rachmaninoff's anyday. Well, that at least goes for a good bit of it. I still have a bit of a softspot for the 2nd sonata of Rachmaninoff.

[stucoy]

I remember Angela Hewitt criticising Rachmaninov's piano works by saying "They all go 'dum-diddle-dum' at the end". That's not true, of course. There's at least one or two that don't go 'dum-diddle-dum' at the end.

[edwardweiss]

 Most overrated composer-now let me see-would that be Benjamin Britten?

[indutrial]

The darwinistic theory of musical excellence. Any composers who remains ("survives") in the limelight for 100 years or more IS by definition a very important figure in the history of music. Alas, Spohr, Hummel, Albrechtsberger, Wagenseil, Tomasek, etc.. did not make it. Rachmaninoff will make it, but the chances that Szymanowski or Sibelius will are not sensational. Therefore Rachmaninoff MUST be musically superior to those.

If you're able to name these composers, how then have any of them not 'made it'? We can only hope that this is a joke, since at best it sounds no better than the myriad of other asinine reasons people on this forum have used to justify placing themselves on the safe side of what's essentially a popularity contest.

[weissenberg2]

If you're able to name these composers, how then have any of them not 'made it'? We can only hope that this is a joke, since at best it sounds no better than the myriad of other asinine reasons people on this forum have used to justify placing themselves on the safe side of what's essentially a popularity contest.

he may mean they are not immortalized unlike Handel, Haydn, Mendelssohn etc..

I certainly prefer the Szymanowski and Sibelius symphonies (all of them are in my collection, not to mention numerous recordings of the Elgar symphonies, IMO greater than R and equal to S & S) to any of those by Rachmaninov, but I would challenge your statement that R's 1st symphony is only a 'curiosity'. 

Modern critical thought no longer makes a big issue of that (liner notes to the CDs notwithstanding), and indeed some feel that R's 1st is the best of the lot.  Perhaps I wouldn't go that far, but it is my favourite of the three. 

As for the 2nd and 3rd concertos, there is certainly no argument that they are excessively recorded - I'm currently rather tired of the 3rd- but they do make money for the recording companies.  With Richter, Kissin and Katchen in the 2nd, and Argerich and Horowitz in the 3rd, I see no need to collect any other recordings.  Yet a recent video of Andsnes playing the 3rd was enjoyable to watch.   He is one of the greatest pianists of his generation.   

Another member mentioned R's vocal works.  I have several recordings of the Vespers and a complete CD set of the songs.  Really terrific stuff, and if the Vespers don't lack for recordings (even King's College have had a go), I find the songs strangely absent from vocal recitals.  Some of R's best music will be found in the songs, particularly the later opus numbers.   

Sibelius's symphonies (even though I do not like them) may be better than those of Rachmaninoff (this is arguable but I have not heard much of Sibelius). Either way Rachmaninoff kills Sibelius in piano music. Some of Sibelius's miniatures are nice but they do not compare to Rachmaninoff's preludes, etude-tableaux, moment musicals etc..

Syzmanowski was undoubtedly a great composer. Him and Rachmaninoff are not similiar at all so it is hard to conclude which is better. I have not heard of Syzmanowski but what I have heard was very good.

I remember Angela Hewitt criticising Rachmaninov's piano works by saying "They all go 'dum-diddle-dum' at the end". That's not true, of course. There's at least one or two that don't go 'dum-diddle-dum' at the end.

all she likes is Bach and Beethoven

[neardn]

a lot of rachkmaninofnininofffhkas' music is very boring to me... the corelli variations are nice, and a few other pieces, but i've never cared to sit down and listen to any of his music, or go to any performances (and i've had many chances to!)

i don't think anyone can argue that one composer can be better than another... there will always be people that prefer clementi to mozart, or weber to chopin, widor to sweelinck etc.

why anyone is talking about composers being mentioned, or surviving, or whatever... how does that make one composer better than another? if somehow beethoven was forgotten, would that make him a lesser composer?

and i doubt any composer will be "forgotten" any time soon.

anyway, continue the assertions of tastes

[pianisten1989]

Lets say Beethoven because... None has mentioned him yet.
Tchaikovskij because of the same reason.
Brahms, because he had a big beard.
Chopin, because some of his nocturnes and preludes are hugely overplayed by ppl who sucks.
Haydn, because of too few notes
Liszt, because of too many notes
Dvorak, because it annoys me that I don't know anything about him.
Debussy, because of swedish television present spam of Clair du lune.
Mozart, because of the same reason, but 21st concerto.
Ravel, because he was french
Schubert, because he wrote too many lieds
Schumann because of his big hands
Rachmaninov because of his big hands, and for being russian
Saint-Saëns, because of the ¨ over the e.

I just want to say that I don't have anything agains neither frenshmen or russians, but I didn't come up with any other reason... :/

[cloches_de_geneve]

The darwinistic theory of musical excellence. Any composers who remains ("survives") in the limelight for 100 years or more IS by definition a very important figure in the history of music. Alas, Spohr, Hummel, Albrechtsberger, Wagenseil, Tomasek, etc.. did not make it. Rachmaninoff will make it, but the chances that Szymanowski or Sibelius will are not sensational. Therefore Rachmaninoff MUST be musically superior to those.

If you're able to name these composers, how then have any of them not 'made it'? We can only hope that this is a joke, since at best it sounds no better than the myriad of other asinine reasons people on this forum have used to justify placing themselves on the safe side of what's essentially a popularity contest.

You do not get the point. I am dead serious about the theory. It's not about you or me, or any music experts' opinion. If millions of people across decades, if not centuries, immortalize Haydn or Rachmaninoff, then they are great by definition. Your personal opinion does not count. No does it matter whether I like Haydn or Rach (I actually don't care particularly about both's music). And I said "in the limelight", which means they are constantly, frequently played in the major concert halls of the world. And that tons of recordings are being made of their music all the time. Is that the case for Wagenseil, or Hummel, Chabrier, or Tanayev? I think not. But it is certainly the case of Rachmaninoff and Haydn.

Any person who comes and says "Oh, that may well be, but all audiences across history were wrong" makes a fool out of himself.

[neardn]

If millions of people across decades, if not centuries, immortalize Haydn or Rachmaninoff, then they are great by definition. Your personal opinion does not count. No does it matter whether I like Haydn or Rach (I actually don't care particularly about both's music).

contradiction

by the way, have you ever read or studied darwin?