The Eternal Debate: Bach vs Rach

[the89thkey]

This is a debate that has been going on with myself and a few other users in certain forums lately.

[iansinclair]

You have absolutely got to be kidding.

That's the same question as "do you prefer Thursday or roast beef?".

IMHO you can't say one is better than the other; both men composed music of outstanding merit (one might add that both also composed music which is pedestrian, or worse).  But under radically different circumstances, for different purposes, in different cultures, for different instruments...

[patrickd]

You have absolutely got to be kidding.

That's the same question as "do you prefer Thursday or roast beef?".

IMHO you can't say one is better than the other; both men composed music of outstanding merit (one might add that both also composed music which is pedestrian, or worse).  But under radically different circumstances, for different purposes, in different cultures, for different instruments...

  Bach!!!!!!!!!

  And I prefer roast beef to Thursday.

[the89thkey]

You have absolutely got to be kidding.

That's the same question as "do you prefer Thursday or roast beef?".

IMHO you can't say one is better than the other; both men composed music of outstanding merit (one might add that both also composed music which is pedestrian, or worse).  But under radically different circumstances, for different purposes, in different cultures, for different instruments...

Hm. My preference would be roast beef.

[thesuineg]

Yes but Bach had more talent for his writing, more passion(his purpose was for god), and simply luck to stumble upon a time when music was simply not developed enough for his genius, so he kind of filled in those holes. Meaning alltogether his contribution to music was larger, and actually Rachmaninoff is kind of lazy, maybe not with the preludes, but his other pieces really just aren't the greatest. Of course he is still a genius, just didn't influence music development as much.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Yes but Bach had more talent for his writing, more passion(his purpose was for god), and simply luck to stumble upon a time when music was simply not developed enough for his genius, so he kind of filled in those holes. Meaning alltogether his contribution to music was larger, and actually Rachmaninoff is kind of lazy, maybe not with the preludes, but his other pieces really just aren't the greatest. Of course he is still a genius, just didn't influence music development as much.

I greatly disagree.  Bach HAD to write music for the church.  Like Mozart and Hayden, he would just whip up a couple bars real quick for other people.  That is not passionate.  If you REALLY wanna see a passionate composer, look at Beethoven.  He was the first composer who only wrote for himself.  During his time, people thought his way of writing music was crazy, but he didn't care.  Writing for yourself is passionate, writing for someone else isn't.

Secondly, Rachmaninoff WAS NOT lazy.   He had severe depression disorder.  And quantity of pieces doesn't make one composer better than another.

Thirdly, wanna know why Bach was more influential than Rachmaninoff?  Because he came two hundred years before Rachmaninoff!  And like you said, music wasn't as developed as it was when Rachmaninoff was around, so it was WAY easier for Bach to make a large impact on music than Rachmaninoff.  Using influence to discern which composer is better is ridiculous. 

[perprocrastinate]

How about we call it a tie and end this ridiculous question?

[j_menz]

I want roast beef on Thursday.

[thesuineg]

realization that the guy arguing against me is rachmaninoff forever....
Yo i love rachmaninoff don't get me wrong.
Bach might have been doing it for the church, but he most certainly did not "whip up a couple bars real quick for other people." He did it for God, and his greatest concern in life was his love for God. If that's not passionate I don't know what is. I know all about Rachmaninoff's depression, but thats the fault of the public, and I never mentioned quantity, though Bach does in fact have a great quantity of works with great quality.
Rachmaninoff shows obvious influence from Tchaikovsky and Chopin. I love every piece by him, but in no way could I argue that he was never lazy, he reuses textures often, themes, pretty much everything. Yah thats what I meant when I said that bach was more influencial, and that it was because he was born way earlier, though I find that a perfectly good reason to make a larger impact on music therefore making him a better composer.
Actually I shouldn't even be writing all this, Bach's last 2 BWV's show a genius that has pretty much never been repeated in history except maybe like...da vinci or einstein, i doubt einstein even.....

I wholeheartedly agree with you about Beethoven. His personality and passion is always evident in his music, and his devotion to God and music itself allowed him to write for himself only, ignoring others. Now if you asked to compare Beethoven and Bach I could never. But Rachaminoff is just the kind of guy who has alot of pieces you absolutely love or relate to, while Beethoven and Bach really have Transcendental qualities in there music.

Good day to you all.

[zezhyrule]

Um... Yeah, Bach.

Without Bach there would be no Rach. And the latter's entire existence does not affect the former's genius in any way so

[outin]

Without Bach there would be no Rach.

Interesting logic....does this mean that because without my father I would not exist he must be a better/more important person than I am? 

[hfmadopter]

You have absolutely got to be kidding.

That's the same question as "do you prefer Thursday or roast beef?".

IMHO you can't say one is better than the other; both men composed music of outstanding merit (one might add that both also composed music which is pedestrian, or worse).  But under radically different circumstances, for different purposes, in different cultures, for different instruments...

Last night we discovered something new to us, Turkey and Pot Roast shepherd's pie ! I do believe I ate three helpings of this stuff and it beat Thursday to death. My wife just put the weeks left overs in this and made a recipe out of it, scrumptious !

You guys can keep Rach, if I must work hard and be driven crazy learning new works to me, I'll do that with Bach. Otherwise I'll work with someone else. Neither is my first pick to just sit down and play, Bach makes for a great study though and working even in his two part inventions always improves other pieces for me. Rach upsets my stomach when I work on his music.

[blazekenny]

For me, Bach all the way.
For some, he may not be considered the greatest of the baroque era, because he didnt compose any operas, which were very important at the time.
I am also pretty sure that Bach´s music is harmonically much more complex.

Also Rach´s favorite composer was Bach lol

[the89thkey]

You say Bach's music is harmonically more complex.

You have to be kidding me. Have you never heard the finale of Rach 2, or anything in Rach 3? The harmonies are unbelievably brilliant and beautiful-better than Bach and his fugues could ever do.

[zezhyrule]

Interesting logic....does this mean that because without my father I would not exist he must be a better/more important person than I am? 

My logic is very interesting, yes... It made more sense in my head okay!

[the89thkey]

My logic is very interesting, yes... It made more sense in my head okay!

Learn to think from somebody else's perspective.

[thesuineg]

You say Bach's music is harmonically more complex.

You have to be kidding me. Have you never heard the finale of Rach 2, or anything in Rach 3? The harmonies are unbelievably brilliant and beautiful-better than Bach and his fugues could ever do.

ok yah i love rachmaninoff and all but....
you're an idiot

[rachmaninoff_forever]

realization that the guy arguing against me is rachmaninoff forever....
Yo i love rachmaninoff don't get me wrong.
Bach might have been doing it for the church, but he most certainly did not "whip up a couple bars real quick for other people." He did it for God, and his greatest concern in life was his love for God. If that's not passionate I don't know what is.

If you're doing it for someone else, that's not passionate.  Your priority is to please someone else.  Passionate is doing it for yourself and not caring who does or doesn't like it.  And yes, he did have to whip up a couple bars real quick.  That's how he made his living.  The church would demand music and he would have to make something soon or else he would have been out of the job.  He just happened to know what he was doing so it didn't sound like garbage.

Rachmaninoff shows obvious influence from Tchaikovsky and Chopin. I love every piece by him, but in no way could I argue that he was never lazy, he reuses textures often, themes, pretty much everything. Yah thats what I meant when I said that bach was more influencial, and that it was because he was born way earlier, though I find that a perfectly good reason to make a larger impact on music therefore making him a better composer.

It doesn't matter if you recycle your music. If it works, then that's all that matters.

Being born 200 years earlier doesn't make you a better composer.  According to your logic, since Lang Lang is the most influential pianist of today, he is also the best pianist.  What about those unknown composers whose music was torn and ripped to shreds?  Alexi Stanchinsky is a pretty kickass composer; Prokofiev was influenced by him at the time, but he was crazy and ripped up most of his music and died at a pretty young age so he didn't have as big of an impact on music compared to everyone else.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about Beethoven. His personality and passion is always evident in his music, and his devotion to God and music itself allowed him to write for himself only, ignoring others. Now if you asked to compare Beethoven and Bach I could never. But Rachaminoff is just the kind of guy who has alot of pieces you absolutely love or relate to, while Beethoven and Bach really have Transcendental qualities in there music.

Devoting your music to a god and writing only for yourself at the same time is mutually exclusive.


ANYWAYS, you can't compare them because they composed different genres of music...

[49410enrique]

[lostinidlewonder]

Some random ideas that pop into mind:

In terms of innovation I think Rach is better his sound is very unique, Bach did a lot yes but was at the end of a period and there are other composers who can sound like him and no worse (eg: Buxtehude).

In terms of learning overall general keyboard fingering I would have to say Bach is better, learning to sight read his part writing is many times more useful than Rach although Rach has material for more advanced technique the foundation that Bach's music builds is just much stronger here.

Rach's use of syncopation and rhythm of course tops Bach also his use of chords, scales, arpeggio patterns etc they are much more various.

In terms of spiritual playing I find Bach wins easily, I can feel closer to a higher power with a Bach piece than with Rach. Playing Bach on pipe organ on full volume defeats anything.

[cmg]

You say Bach's music is harmonically more complex.

You have to be kidding me. Have you never heard the finale of Rach 2, or anything in Rach 3? The harmonies are unbelievably brilliant and beautiful-better than Bach and his fugues could ever do.

I really don't think you should be saying this in public.  Unless you WANT to be laughed at. 

Don't get me wrong, I love Rachmaninov, but his compositional goals were entirely different from Bach and his harmonic palette was infused with post-Romantic devices that simply make his "harmonies" APPEAR to be more complex.

Try writing counterpoint with the genius and abundance of Bach:  it's a practice that's packed with "rules" that Bach obeyed and transformed to create some of the greatest music ever written.  NOTHING is more complex.  Rach himself would be embarrassed at the idea that he out-composed Bach.  Any composer, dead or alive, would.

And someone above also wrote that Bach wrote at a time when "music was not developed enough" for his genius.  WHAT??  Are you kidding me? 

Bach was a conservative who willfully WENT BACK to the masters of his time -- Schutz, Schein, Buxtehude -- who were all considered "old farts" by then, and ramped up their ancient styles with his own inimitable contrapuntal complexities.  Bach wrote in the old style, which is not a step backward into "undeveloped" music, but a step back to a style of ordered complexity on a grand order!  His own sons rebelled against his conservatism and complexity and ushered in the first music that we know as the "classical" style, later perfected by Mozart and Haydn.  Plus, Bach's tunes!!  Many are immortal and as beautiful as music gets.

Rach would be rolling in his grave to hear himself declared a greater genius than Bach. 

Furthermore, this debate is anything but "Eternal."  In fact, I never heard any serious musician propose this "debate" before in my entire life. 

[danielbraga]

Who was the most important one?Without Bach, everything from late eighteenth century  onwards would be badly harmed.He laid the foundations. Rach, while I love his compositions, we could have lived without him.Not without Bach.Many Bach works are considered to be the greatest archivements of music, something that is simply not truth for Rach.He did some great things , but nothing on the level of the Well Tempered Clavier, or Mass in B minor.

Overally, both great composers, but Bach was far more important to music and was a brighter genious.

[hoohah2]

I really don't think you should be saying this in public.  Unless you WANT to be laughed at. 

Don't get me wrong, I love Rachmaninov, but his compositional goals were entirely different from Bach and his harmonic palette was infused with post-Romantic devices that simply make his "harmonies" APPEAR to be more complex.

Try writing counterpoint with the genius and abundance of Bach:  it's a practice that's packed with "rules" that Bach obeyed and transformed to create some of the greatest music ever written.  NOTHING is more complex.  Rach himself would be embarrassed at the idea that he out-composed Bach.  Any composer, dead or alive, would.

And someone above also wrote that Bach wrote at a time when "music was not developed enough" for his genius.  WHAT??  Are you kidding me? 

Bach was a conservative who willfully WENT BACK to the masters of his time -- Schutz, Schein, Buxtehude -- who were all considered "old farts" by then, and ramped up their ancient styles with his own inimitable contrapuntal complexities.  Bach wrote in the old style, which is not a step backward into "undeveloped" music, but a step back to a style of ordered complexity on a grand order!  His own sons rebelled against his conservatism and complexity and ushered in the first music that we know as the "classical" style, later perfected by Mozart and Haydn.  Plus, Bach's tunes!!  Many are immortal and as beautiful as music gets.

Rach would be rolling in his grave to hear himself declared a greater genius than Bach. 

Furthermore, this debate is anything but "Eternal."  In fact, I never heard any serious musician propose this "debate" before in my entire life. 

This.

[perprocrastinate]

Furthermore, this debate is anything but "Eternal."  In fact, I never heard any serious musician propose this "debate" before in my entire life. 

Someone probably has a bone to pick.

[cmg]

Someone probably has a bone to pick.

Yeah, I suppose you're referring to me?  And "the bone?"  Alexander Pope said it for me, "A little learning is a dangerous thing."  There's your bone.

[perprocrastinate]

Yeah, I suppose you're referring to me?  And "the bone?"  Alexander Pope said it for me, "A little learning is a dangerous thing."  There's your bone.

I really have to stop with the vague comments, haha.

I was referring to the OP.

[j_menz]

Me too, except I wear pants. 

[the89thkey]

I really don't think you should be saying this in public.  Unless you WANT to be laughed at. 

Don't get me wrong, I love Rachmaninov, but his compositional goals were entirely different from Bach and his harmonic palette was infused with post-Romantic devices that simply make his "harmonies" APPEAR to be more complex.

Try writing counterpoint with the genius and abundance of Bach:  it's a practice that's packed with "rules" that Bach obeyed and transformed to create some of the greatest music ever written.  NOTHING is more complex.  Rach himself would be embarrassed at the idea that he out-composed Bach.  Any composer, dead or alive, would.

And someone above also wrote that Bach wrote at a time when "music was not developed enough" for his genius.  WHAT??  Are you kidding me? 

Bach was a conservative who willfully WENT BACK to the masters of his time -- Schutz, Schein, Buxtehude -- who were all considered "old farts" by then, and ramped up their ancient styles with his own inimitable contrapuntal complexities.  Bach wrote in the old style, which is not a step backward into "undeveloped" music, but a step back to a style of ordered complexity on a grand order!  His own sons rebelled against his conservatism and complexity and ushered in the first music that we know as the "classical" style, later perfected by Mozart and Haydn.  Plus, Bach's tunes!!  Many are immortal and as beautiful as music gets.

Rach would be rolling in his grave to hear himself declared a greater genius than Bach. 

Furthermore, this debate is anything but "Eternal."  In fact, I never heard any serious musician propose this "debate" before in my entire life. 

It's funny how you never mention your own experience in any of this. Are you quoting a webpage?

[outin]

Me too, except I wear pants. 

It seems he doesn't really need them 

[blazekenny]

You say Bach's music is harmonically more complex.

You have to be kidding me. Have you never heard the finale of Rach 2, or anything in Rach 3? The harmonies are unbelievably brilliant and beautiful-better than Bach and his fugues could ever do.

Brilliant ? Beautiful ? Thats obviously not my point, as alot of harmonic solutions were disallowed (or more like "feared" than "disallowed")back in Bach´s time. Take any Bach PF, every single one is an intense work (of course, so are the concertos) where the harmony doesnt stay the same for one bar.

[the89thkey]

Voting closed with Bach ahead by 3...disappointing. What composer do you think would match evenly with Rach in a poll? Mozart maybe?

[ceosteos]

Heh. Interesting comparing two totally different composers from two totally different times, who both accomplished totally different things!

Of course, Bach has more influence on the majority of (today's) piano repertoire, and has been cherished, studied, analyzed, performed, etc., etc., longer than anything Rach has done.

Of course, not looking down upon the big R in any way

They're both wonderful and beautiful composers who opened the ears of millions in their time, and will continue doing so after all of our deaths.

[the89thkey]

Heh. Interesting comparing two totally different composers from two totally different times, who both accomplished totally different things!

Of course, Bach has more influence on the majority of (today's) piano repertoire, and has been cherished, studied, analyzed, performed, etc., etc., longer than anything Rach has done.

Of course, not looking down upon the big R in any way

They're both wonderful and beautiful composers who opened the ears of millions in their time, and will continue doing so after all of our deaths.

Well said. The debate is with the music, not Bach's obvious greater influence based on his birth date, which was not anything he or Rachmaninov could control. Maybe a better question would be to assume those composers were the only two in history...

[stoudemirestat]

Voting closed with Bach ahead by 3...disappointing. What composer do you think would match evenly with Rach in a poll? Mozart maybe?

I think you're fighting a losing battle here. It's great that you're passionate about Rachmaninoff's music (as many are), but Bach is considered to be the greatest composer of all time, almost unanimously by professional musicians, and Mozart part of the 'big three' with Beethoven and Bach.

That being said, I feel that Rachmaninoff is a very underrated composer. I have found, however, that he tends to not appeal to almost as many people as he does, and typically those who spend a very great period of time with classical music and give everyone a long, hard look typically tend to favour many of the others over Rachmaninoff. I've seen so many that consider his music to be saccharine, often too similar/rehashed (when you look over his entire output), and lacking subtlety. Personally i'm a Rachmaninoff fan. I think his music is tremendously well written, beautifully melodic, richly harmonic and full of skillful counterpoint, as well as being masterfully orchestrated. I think he also wrote great music that doesn't conform to the denigrating stereotypes people have about him (the Isle of the Dead (my favourite Rach work), Symphonic Dances, and perhaps his masterpiece, Vespers).

However, I think that overall you don't seem to comprehend the greatness of some other composers.

First of all, Rachmaninoff was a conservative. He hardly broke any new ground and, while I agree it was because of choice and his music is brilliant, I think that there has to be a certain nod to those who were the innovators, the ones who did things that hadn't been done before, who pushed the boundaries of music.

Secondly...his output simply isn't varied enough and doesn't have as large an amount of great music. It's a bit too difficult to compare him to Bach, so I will try Mozart. If you look at their respective outputs it really isn't much of a comparison. The only categories in which Rachmaninoff seems to win out is solo piano music and lieder, the latter of which Mozart wasn't involved in.

Solo piano:

Rach > Mozart.

Lieder.

Rach >>> Mozart (although I don't think Rachmaninoff is one of the great composers of lieder).

Piano and Orchestra.

I personally think that Rachmaninoff's second and third piano concerti are the peaks of the genre - they built on what had been done before in the Romantic era and put it all together. That being said, it is Mozart who is generally considered to be the victor here (and probably the greatest writer of piano concerti ever), and I think that until one can fully appreciate a certain composers work as what they are considered to be in the eyes of those who have done the most study on the matter (always accounting for personal taste and varied opinion), we should withold judgement and continuously study until we get it. I don't think any of Mozart's piano concerti are better than Rach's second or third, but i'm not sure the opposite is the case either. In the end, Mozart simply wrote more brilliant works in the genre and I feel that after the second and third, Rachmaninoff's drop off considerably and don't match Mozart's. Mozart, however, wrote at least ten masterpieces in the genre.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

Choral.

Rachmaninoff's Vespers is a masterwork, but I feel one that is easily matched and probably surpassed by Mozart's great Requiem, not to mention some of his great Mass settings (see: C Minor) and shorter works. Rachmaninoff drops off considerably after Vespers.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

Rachmaninoff was an active and terrific composer of Chamber music, with works like the two Trio élégiaque's, and the Cello Sonata, and he also wrote some wonderful music for piano four hands, but again Mozart's music here is both at least as distinguished and far more numerous.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

Orchestra.

Symphonic.

All of Rachmaninoff's 4 symphonies (including The Bells) are very good works, and i'd say the second is a masterpiece, but Mozart clearly wins here, again, for matching in quality (and surpassing with the late ones), and surpassing in quantity of high quality works.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

Other Orchestral.

Rachmaninoff wrote two great works here in the Isle of the Dead and the Symphonic Dances (and some works of lesser quality), but, again, Mozart wrote works that are equal (or better) in quality (like the Gran Partita and the other Serenades) and greater in quantity.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

After this Rachmaninoff is simply no match for Mozart.

Opera.

Mozart >>>>>> Rachmaninoff.

Other Concerti.

Mozart >>>>>>> Rachmaninoff.

Lastly, Mozart was a far more innovative, original, and important composer.

Of course all of this is quite subjective, but overall I think it is pretty clear that Mozart wrote far more great works than Rachmaninoff did as well as many more good ones. I don't think it's wise to say Rachmaninoff is greater than any of the big three (Bach's output is at least as impressive as Mozart's, as is Beethoven's). In my list in the other thread that you took issue with, I think that you might have a case with most of the composers between 23 and 10 (it's all quite close), but I think that you are overrating Rach by quite a lot.

[the89thkey]

I think you're fighting a losing battle here. It's great that you're passionate about Rachmaninoff's music (as many are), but Bach is considered to be the greatest composer of all time, almost unanimously by professional musicians, and Mozart part of the 'big three' with Beethoven and Bach.

That being said, I feel that Rachmaninoff is a very underrated composer. I have found, however, that he tends to not appeal to many people. I've seen so many that consider his music to be saccharine, often too similar/rehashed (when you look over his entire output), and lacking subtlety. Personally i'm a Rachmaninoff fan. I think his music is tremendously well written, beautifully melodic, richly harmonic and full of skillful counterpoint, as well as being masterfully orchestrated. I think he also wrote great music that doesn't conform to the denigrating stereotypes people have about him (the Isle of the Dead (my favourite Rach work), Symphonic Dances, and perhaps his masterpiece, Vespers).

However, I think that overall you don't seem to comprehend the greatness of some other composers.

First of all, Rachmaninoff was a conservative. He hardly broke any new ground and, while I agree it was because of choice and his music is brilliant, I think that there has to be a certain nod to those who were the innovators, the ones who did things that hadn't been done before, who pushed the boundaries of music.

Secondly...his output simply isn't varied enough and doesn't have as large an amount of great music. It's a bit too difficult to compare him to Bach, so I will try Mozart. If you look at their respective outputs it really isn't much of a comparison. The only categories in which Rachmaninoff seems to win out is solo piano music and lieder, the latter of which Mozart wasn't involved in.

Solo piano:

Rach > Mozart.

Lieder.

Rach >>> Mozart (although I don't think Rachmaninoff is one of the great composers of lieder).

Piano and Orchestra.

I personally think that Rachmaninoff's second and third piano concerti are the peaks of the genre - they built on what had been done before in the Romantic era and put it all together. That being said, it is Mozart who is generally considered to be the victor here (and probably the greatest writer of piano concerti ever), and I think that until one can fully appreciate a certain composers work as what they are considered to be in the eyes of those who have done the most study on the matter (always accounting for personal taste and varied opinion), we should withold judgement and continuously study until we get it. I don't think any of Mozart's piano concerti are better than Rach's second or third, but i'm not sure the opposite is the case either. In the end, Mozart simply wrote more brilliant works in the genre and I feel that after the second and third, Rachmaninoff's drop off considerably and don't match Mozart's. Mozart, however, wrote at least ten masterpieces in the genre.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

Choral.

Rachmaninoff's Vespers is a masterwork, but I feel one that is easily matched and probably surpassed by Mozart's great Requiem, not to mention some of his great Mass settings (see: C Minor) and shorter works. Rachmaninoff drops off considerably after Vespers.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

Rachmaninoff was an active and terrific composer of Chamber music, with works like the two Trio élégiaque's, and the Cello Sonata, and he also wrote some wonderful music for piano four hands, but again Mozart's music here is both at least as distinguished and far more numerous.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

Orchestra.

Symphonic.

All of Rachmaninoff's 4 symphonies (including The Bells) are very good works, and i'd say the second is a masterpiece, but Mozart clearly wins here, again, for matching in quality (and surpassing with the late ones), and surpassing in quantity of high quality works.

Mozart > Rachmaninoff.

Other Orchestral.

Rachmaninoff wrote two great works here in the Isle of the Dead and the Symphonic Dances (and some works of lesser quality), but, again, Mozart wrote works that are equal (or better) in quality (like the Gran Partita and the other Serenades) and greater in quantity.

After this Rachmaninoff is simply no match for Mozart.

Opera.

Mozart >>>>>> Rachmaninoff.

Other Concerti.

Mozart >>>>>>> Rachmaninoff.

Lastly, Mozart was a far more innovative, original, and important composer.

Of course all of this is quite subjective, but overall I think it is pretty clear that Mozart wrote far more great works than Rachmaninoff did as well as many more good ones. I don't think it's wise to say Rachmaninoff is greater than any of the big three. In my list in the other thread that you took issue with, I think that you might have a case with most of the composers between 23 and 10 (it's all quite close), but I think that you are overrating Rach by quite a lot.

I disagree with a lot of this. For example, you really think Mozart's stash of mediocre concertos can match Rach's brilliantly written four? And the notion that Mozart's symphonies, except Jupiter, were groundbreaking, is laughable. Plus, I have said OVER and OVER that I don't care about the quantity of works, I care about the quality. Suppose you took Rach's ten best works against Mozart's. Who would win there?
There is no competition. Rach 2 and 3 are much more powerful works than anything Mozart ever wrote. Mozart was prolific, but Rachmaninov was more.

[zezhyrule]

I disagree with a lot of this.

Exactly. That is your opinion. There's no way to prove which one is better, it all comes down to preference. There's not a scale to determine which is the greater composer. Different music means different things to different people, you can't rate it.

Suppose you took Rach's ten best works against Mozart's. Who would win there?
There is no competition.

So you like Rach. We get it. Stop trying to shove your opinions down people's throats.  

I am sure there are plenty of people who would disagree with you.

[stoudemirestat]

I disagree with a lot of this. For example, you really think Mozart's stash of mediocre concertos can match Rach's brilliantly written four? And the notion that Mozart's symphonies, except Jupiter, were groundbreaking, is laughable. Plus, I have said OVER and OVER that I don't care about the quantity of works, I care about the quality. Suppose you took Rach's ten best works against Mozart's. Who would win there?
There is no competition. Rach 2 and 3 are much more powerful works than anything Mozart ever wrote. Mozart was prolific, but Rachmaninov was more.

More powerful in a certain sense, yes. Rachmaninoff was an ultra-romantic composer, Mozart a classical one. They are completely different types of expression and you seem to be saying that if it's not powerful in the romantic era sense then it's lesser. The classical and Baroque era's are just as respected and enjoyed amongst professionals as the Romantic, you know.

As for taking Rach's ten best works against Mozart's, I still think Mozart wins.

Rachmaninoff - Mozart.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Le Nozze di Figaro.
2. Vespers/Piano Concerto No. 20.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Symphony No. 41.
4. Symphony No. 2/Requiem.
5. Symphonic Dances/Don Giovanni.
6. The Bells/Symphony No. 40.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/String Quintet No. 4.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Clarinet Concerto in A.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Piano Concerto No. 23.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Great Mass in C minor.

I think that Mozart wins that battle and show a much greater scope of achievement. I think that most professional musicians and composers who have done adequate study of both and their place in music would agree with me. At some point you have to acknowledge that while one is the best for you, general, professional consensus doesn't agree with you (and your argument seems to look toward Rachmaninoff's two most popular works, which every critic knows). You can say why you feel more strongly about ones greatness, but I think to think your opinion has more weight than most others is silly.

[stoudemirestat]

I disagree with a lot of this. For example, you really think Mozart's stash of mediocre concertos can match Rach's brilliantly written four?

Mozart's stash of mediocre concertos? You mean the ones that are typically considered the greatest body of work in the piano concerto genre of classical music? I think your love for Rachmaninoff has made you tunnel-visioned.

[p2u_]

[...]There is no competition.[...]

That's right, some composers are just beyond competition, that's why they can't be compared with anyone. I also love Rachmaninov as a composer, but I would like you to know something. The twin Voyager (1977) had 27 musical extracts on board representing our culture as part of a message for other civilisations. Guess who were there? Bach, Beethoven and... Mozart. They were in the list for a reason.
P.S.: I decided not to vote.

Paul

[stoudemirestat]

Rachmaninoff - Mozart.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Le Nozze di Figaro.
2. Vespers/Piano Concerto No. 20.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Symphony No. 41.
4. Symphony No. 2/Requiem.
5. Symphonic Dances/Don Giovanni.
6. The Bells/Symphony No. 40.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/String Quintet No. 4.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Clarinet Concerto in A.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Piano Concerto No. 23.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Great Mass in C minor.

And if we're looking completely at quality over quantity (which I think is a flawed way to look at it considering some composers wrote large quantities of good - great music), as well as neglected the level of innovation/originality (another important aspect in evaluating composers) here are some other top 10's (of the ones I put in front of him) (I like lists and currently have a lot of time on my hands).

Bach.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Mass in B minor.
2. Vespers/The Well-Tempered Clavier.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/St. Matthew Passion.
4. Symphony No. 2/Die Kunst der Fuge.
5. Symphonic Dances/Goldberg Variations.
6. The Bells/Concerto for 2 Violins in D minor.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Cantata #82 “Ich habe genug.”
8. The Isle of the Dead/St. John Passion.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/A Musical Offering.

I think Bach wins here quite easily. Bach was also far more varied, prolific, and had a higher quality percentage (if we kept going Bach would eventually overwhelm), as well as being a far more important composer.

Beethoven.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony No. 9.
2. Vespers/String Quartet No. 14.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Missa Solemnis.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony No. 5.
5. Symphonic Dances/Symphony No. 3.
6. The Bells/Piano Sonata #29, “Hammerklavier."
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Piano Sonata #32.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Beethoven: Piano Sonata #30.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Diabelli Variations.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Sonata #23 "Appassionata."

Again, Beethoven, I think, wins. Beethoven also had a much higher percentage of good music, and he was one of the most revolutionary and original composers in the history of music.

Schubert.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Winterreise.
2. Vespers/String Quintet in C.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Piano Sonata #21.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony #9, “Great."
5. Symphonic Dances/String Quartet #14, “Death & the Maiden."
6. The Bells/Symphony #8, “Unfinished."
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Impromptus, D.899.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Piano Quintet "The Trout."
9. Preludes Op. 23/Die Schöne Müllerin.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Sonata #20.

I think this top 10 is getting closer in terms of quality (although i'd still give it to Schubert), and Schubert, again, was a much more important composer.

Brahms.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #4.
2. Vespers/Clarinet Quintet in B minor.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Piano Concerto #2.
4. Symphony No. 2/Ein deutsches Requiem.
5. Symphonic Dances/Piano Quintet Op. 34.
6. The Bells/Symphony #1.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Violin Concerto Op. 77.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Piano Concerto #1.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Symphony #3.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Trio #1.

Again, Brahms wins (IMO) by quite a bit, and wrote more great music.

Wagner.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Der Ring des Nibelungen.
2. Vespers/Parsifal.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Tristan und Isolde.
4. Symphony No. 2/Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg.
5. Symphonic Dances/Siegfried Idyll.
6. The Bells/Lohengrin.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Tannhauser.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Der fliegende Holländer.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Rienzi.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Wesendonck Lieder.

Wagner wins quite handily. He, like Beethoven, was also one of the most revolutionary composers. Rachmaninoff was more versatile.

Haydn.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #104, “London.”
2. Vespers/String Quartets op. 76.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/The Creation.
4. Symphony No. 2/Trumpet Concerto in E-flat.
5. Symphonic Dances/Mass #11, "“Lord Nelson Mass."
6. The Bells/The Seven Last Words of Christ.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Cello Concerto #1.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Symphony #101, "Clock."
9. Preludes Op. 23/Piano Sonata #62.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/String Quartets op. 64.

Getting closer, but I still think Haydn wins. He was also wrote more good works and was a far more important composer.

Mahler.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Das Lied von der Erde.
2. Vespers/Symphony #2, “Resurrection”
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Symphony #9.
4. Symphony No. 2/Kindertotenlieder.
5. Symphonic Dances/Symphony #4.
6. The Bells/Symphony #6, "Tragic."
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Rueckert Lieder.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Symphony #1, "Titan."
9. Preludes Op. 23/Symphony #5.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Symphony #3.

Mahler wins by quite a bit, Rachmaninoff was more versatile and wrote more high quality music. Mahler wrote a higher percentage of good works.

Handel.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Messiah.
2. Vespers/Giulio Cesare.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Water Music.
4. Symphony No. 2/Concerti Grossi, op. 6.
5. Symphonic Dances/Music for the Royal Fireworks.
6. The Bells/Coronation Anthems.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Dixit Dominus.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Solomon.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Israel in Egypt.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Ariodante.

Handel just edges him out, I say. Again, he also was more prolific in writing good music and was more important.

Stravinsky.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/The Rite of Spring.
2. Vespers/The Firebird.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Petrushka.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony of Psalms.
5. Symphonic Dances/Concerto, "Dumbarton Oaks."
6. The Bells/Mass.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Pulcinella.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Symphony in Three Movements.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Agon.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/L'histoire du soldat.

Could go either way, but Stravinsky was, again, far more important and innovative.

Tchaikovsky.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #6, "Pathetique."
2. Vespers/Violin concerto, Op. 35.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Piano Concerto #1.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony #4.
5. Symphonic Dances/Symphony #5.
6. The Bells/Swan Lake.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Romeo and Juliet Fantasy-Overture.
8. The Isle of the Dead/The Nutcracker.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Piano Trio, Op. 50.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Manfred Symphony.

I think Tchaikovsky wins here, and it also has to be said that Rachmaninoff wouldn't have been what he was if not for Tchaikovskies influence.

Verdi.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Otello.
2. Vespers/La Traviata.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Requiem.
4. Symphony No. 2/Rigoletto.
5. Symphonic Dances/Aïda.
6. The Bells/Il trovatore.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Falstaff.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Don Carlos.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Simon Boccanegra.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/La Forza del Destino.

Verdi by a fair margin, but Rachmaninoff was a more varied composer.

Schumann.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Piano Concerto.
2. Vespers/Fantasie, Op. 17.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Dichterliebe.
4. Symphony No. 2/Piano Quintet, Op. 44.
5. Symphonic Dances/Davidsbündlertänze.
6. The Bells/Symphony #4.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Kreisleriana.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Carnaval.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Symphony #2.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Symphonic Etudes.

A tie, but Schumann wrote more music of a high quality and was a more important composer.

Liszt.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Piano Sonata.
2. Vespers/Christus.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/A Faust Symphony.
4. Symphony No. 2/Années de pèlerinage. Deuxième année; Italie.
5. Symphonic Dances/Missa solennis zur Einweihung der Basilika in Gran.
6. The Bells/Douze études d'exécution transcendante.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Eine Symphonie zu Dante's Divina Commedia.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Années de pèlerinage. Première année; Suisse.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Harmonies Poétiques et Religieuses.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Fantasy and Fugue on the chorale Ad nos, ad salutarem undam.

A tie, but Liszt wrote more music of a high quality, was more versatile, and was also one of the most revolutionary composers (he was also a huge influence on Rachmaninoff, perhaps more than any excluding, perhaps, Tchaikovsky). Rachmaninoff has a higher percentage of good - great works, but there are many reasons for that as far as Liszt goes, mainly that often he wasn't writing for a purely aesthetic purpose.

Berlioz.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Les Troyens.
2. Vespers/Requiem Grande Messe des Morts.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Romeo et Juliette.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphonie Fantastique.
5. Symphonic Dances/La Damnation de Faust.
6. The Bells/Les Nuits d'été.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Harold en Italie.
8. The Isle of the Dead/L'Enfance du Christ.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Te Deum.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Roman Carnival Overture.

I think Berlioz wins here. Rachmaninoff was a more varied composer and wrote more high quality music. Berlioz was a far more important composer, perhaps the most original composer who ever lived.

Richard Strauss.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Vier letzte Lieder.
2. Vespers/Eine Alpensinfonie.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Der Rosenkavalier.
4. Symphony No. 2/Tod und Verklärung.
5. Symphonic Dances/Ein Heldenleben.
6. The Bells/Salome.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Metamorphosen.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Also Sprach Zarathustra.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Elektra.

Tie, Strauss was more innovative.

Chopin.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Ballade No. 4.
2. Vespers/Barcarolle.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Preludes.
4. Symphony No. 2/Etudes Op. 25.
5. Symphonic Dances/Polonaise-Fantaisie.
6. The Bells/Piano Sonata No. 3.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Piano Sonata No. 2.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Ballade No. 1.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Etudes Op. 10.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Fantaisie Op. 49.

Tie, if not a slight edge to Rach. Chopin was a far more original and important composer, wrote more high quality music and had a much greater percentage of good - great music. Rachmaninoff was far more versatile.

Debussy.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/La Mer.
2. Vespers/Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Preludes Book 1.
4. Symphony No. 2/Preludes Book 2.
5. Symphonic Dances/String quartet.
6. The Bells/Nocturnes.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Cello Sonata.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Images for Piano Book 1.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Images for Piano Book 2.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Jeux.

Tie, Debussy far more original and important.

Bartók.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Violin Concerto #2.
2. Vespers/Concerto for Orchestra.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/The Miraculous Mandarin.
4. Symphony No. 2/Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta.
5. Symphonic Dances/String Quartet #4.
6. The Bells/Piano Concerto #1.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Bluebeard's Castle.
8. The Isle of the Dead/String Quartet #5.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Sonatina.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Concerto #2.

Tie, Bartók more original and important, and wrote more good - great music.


Dvorak.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #9, "From the New World."
2. Vespers/Cello Concerto, Op. 104.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/String Quartet #12, "American."
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony #8.
5. Symphonic Dances/Symphony #7.
6. The Bells/Romantické kusy.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Piano Trio #4, "Dumky."
8. The Isle of the Dead/Serenade for Strings.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Romance in F minor for Violin and Orchestra.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Stabat Mater.

Tie. Dvorak slightly more important.

Mendelssohn.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Violin Concerto, Op. 64.
2. Vespers/Symphony #4, “Italian."
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Octet, Op. 29.
4. Symphony No. 2/Elijah.
5. Symphonic Dances/String Quartet #6.
6. The Bells/Symphony #3, "Scottish."
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Piano Concerto #1.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Piano Trio #1.
9. Preludes Op. 23/A Midsummer Night's Dream.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Hebrides Overture, “Fingal’s Cave."

Close.

Ravel.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Daphnis et Chloé.
2. Vespers/L'enfant et les sortilèges.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Gaspard de la nuit.
4. Symphony No. 2/Scheherazade.
5. Symphonic Dances/Piano Concerto in G.
6. The Bells/String Quartet in F.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Miroirs.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Pavane pour une infante défunte.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Piano Trio.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Concerto for the Left Hand.

Tie, although perhaps an edge to Ravel. Ravel far more innovative composer. Ravel higher percentage of good-great, Rachmaninoff more high quality works.

Bruckner.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #9.
2. Vespers/Symphony #8.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Symphony #7.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony #5.
5. Symphonic Dances/Te Deum.
6. The Bells/Symphony #3.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Symphony #6.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Symphony #4.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Mass No. 3.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Mass No. 2.

Bruckner wins here. Rachmaninoff far more varied and wrote more good - great music. Bruckner far more innovative.

Of course all of this is subjective (to an great extent), but I put in the effort to do all this because I think there are so many great composers that wrote so much great music, and I think that instead of worshipping Rachmaninoff seemingly at the expense of your appreciation of the other greats, maybe it would be prudent to put much effort into trying to appreciate these other composers and their music for what they are as well as Rachmaninoff. After all, many of these composers are generally considered to be greater by experts!

[outin]

Of course this is a pretty ridiculous discussion...

What difference does it make if the composer is great in his composition skills and if his works are groundbreaking if they do not appeal to a listener?

If we define greatness as having the above mentioned PLUS appealing to a large majority of listeners then we can name certain names pretty easily. But I don't think there is ANY music ever written that appeals to ANY possible listener so what difference would that greatness make to me personally? Nothing, since I do not believe that I have to force myself to pretend to like something to be able to belong to the large majority or feel like I am educated enough in music. I consider music and art an area where I am entitled to have my own opinion, no matter how different to the majority. What sucks to me is great for someone else and vise versa. I wonder why it is so difficult to accept by those who have grown up with classical music, while it is considered normal in any other areas of music? Maybe it's the long and heavy training in both playing and listening that dampens the ability to accept individuality of taste...

[hoohah2]

Through the course of all this, there have been plenty of cases presented to show why it would be arrogant and ignorant to call Rachmaninoff the greatest.

To the89thkey, I implore you to present a case, which you have failed to do, as to why you think this way.

And don't give me a:

You say Bach's music is harmonically more complex.

You have to be kidding me. Have you never heard the finale of Rach 2, or anything in Rach 3? The harmonies are unbelievably brilliant and beautiful-better than Bach and his fugues could ever do.

Two works neither sum up nor give a clear indication of the standard of quality of a composer's output.

[the89thkey]

And if we're looking completely at quality over quantity (which I think is a flawed way to look at it considering some composers wrote large quantities of good - great music), as well as neglected the level of innovation/originality (another important aspect in evaluating composers) here are some other top 10's (of the ones I put in front of him) (I like lists and currently have a lot of time on my hands).

Bach.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Mass in B minor.
2. Vespers/The Well-Tempered Clavier.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/St. Matthew Passion.
4. Symphony No. 2/Die Kunst der Fuge.
5. Symphonic Dances/Goldberg Variations.
6. The Bells/Concerto for 2 Violins in D minor.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Cantata #82 “Ich habe genug.”
8. The Isle of the Dead/St. John Passion.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/A Musical Offering.

I think Bach wins here quite easily. Bach was also far more varied, prolific, and had a higher quality percentage (if we kept going Bach would eventually overwhelm), as well as being a far more important composer.

Beethoven.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony No. 9.
2. Vespers/String Quartet No. 14.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Missa Solemnis.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony No. 5.
5. Symphonic Dances/Symphony No. 3.
6. The Bells/Piano Sonata #29, “Hammerklavier."
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Piano Sonata #32.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Beethoven: Piano Sonata #30.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Diabelli Variations.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Sonata #23 "Appassionata."

Again, Beethoven, I think, wins. Beethoven also had a much higher percentage of good music, and he was one of the most revolutionary and original composers in the history of music.

Schubert.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Winterreise.
2. Vespers/String Quintet in C.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Piano Sonata #21.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony #9, “Great."
5. Symphonic Dances/String Quartet #14, “Death & the Maiden."
6. The Bells/Symphony #8, “Unfinished."
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Impromptus, D.899.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Piano Quintet "The Trout."
9. Preludes Op. 23/Die Schöne Müllerin.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Sonata #20.

I think this top 10 is getting closer in terms of quality (although i'd still give it to Schubert), and Schubert, again, was a much more important composer.

Brahms.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #4.
2. Vespers/Clarinet Quintet in B minor.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Piano Concerto #2.
4. Symphony No. 2/Ein deutsches Requiem.
5. Symphonic Dances/Piano Quintet Op. 34.
6. The Bells/Symphony #1.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Violin Concerto Op. 77.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Piano Concerto #1.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Symphony #3.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Trio #1.

Again, Brahms wins (IMO) by quite a bit, and wrote more great music.

Wagner.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Der Ring des Nibelungen.
2. Vespers/Parsifal.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Tristan und Isolde.
4. Symphony No. 2/Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg.
5. Symphonic Dances/Siegfried Idyll.
6. The Bells/Lohengrin.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Tannhauser.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Der fliegende Holländer.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Rienzi.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Wesendonck Lieder.

Wagner wins quite handily. He, like Beethoven, was also one of the most revolutionary composers. Rachmaninoff was more versatile.

Haydn.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #104, “London.”
2. Vespers/String Quartets op. 76.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/The Creation.
4. Symphony No. 2/Trumpet Concerto in E-flat.
5. Symphonic Dances/Mass #11, "“Lord Nelson Mass."
6. The Bells/The Seven Last Words of Christ.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Cello Concerto #1.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Symphony #101, "Clock."
9. Preludes Op. 23/Piano Sonata #62.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/String Quartets op. 64.

Getting closer, but I still think Haydn wins. He was also wrote more good works and was a far more important composer.

Mahler.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Das Lied von der Erde.
2. Vespers/Symphony #2, “Resurrection”
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Symphony #9.
4. Symphony No. 2/Kindertotenlieder.
5. Symphonic Dances/Symphony #4.
6. The Bells/Symphony #6, "Tragic."
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Rueckert Lieder.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Symphony #1, "Titan."
9. Preludes Op. 23/Symphony #5.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Symphony #3.

Mahler wins by quite a bit, Rachmaninoff was more versatile and wrote more high quality music. Mahler wrote a higher percentage of good works.

Handel.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Messiah.
2. Vespers/Giulio Cesare.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Water Music.
4. Symphony No. 2/Concerti Grossi, op. 6.
5. Symphonic Dances/Music for the Royal Fireworks.
6. The Bells/Coronation Anthems.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Dixit Dominus.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Solomon.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Israel in Egypt.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Ariodante.

Handel just edges him out, I say. Again, he also was more prolific in writing good music and was more important.

Stravinsky.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/The Rite of Spring.
2. Vespers/The Firebird.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Petrushka.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony of Psalms.
5. Symphonic Dances/Concerto, "Dumbarton Oaks."
6. The Bells/Mass.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Pulcinella.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Symphony in Three Movements.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Agon.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/L'histoire du soldat.

Could go either way, but Stravinsky was, again, far more important and innovative.

Tchaikovsky.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #6, "Pathetique."
2. Vespers/Violin concerto, Op. 35.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Piano Concerto #1.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony #4.
5. Symphonic Dances/Symphony #5.
6. The Bells/Swan Lake.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Romeo and Juliet Fantasy-Overture.
8. The Isle of the Dead/The Nutcracker.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Piano Trio, Op. 50.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Manfred Symphony.

I think Tchaikovsky wins here, and it also has to be said that Rachmaninoff wouldn't have been what he was if not for Tchaikovskies influence.

Verdi.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Otello.
2. Vespers/La Traviata.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Requiem.
4. Symphony No. 2/Rigoletto.
5. Symphonic Dances/Aïda.
6. The Bells/Il trovatore.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Falstaff.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Don Carlos.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Simon Boccanegra.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/La Forza del Destino.

Verdi by a fair margin, but Rachmaninoff was a more varied composer.

Schumann.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Piano Concerto.
2. Vespers/Fantasie, Op. 17.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Dichterliebe.
4. Symphony No. 2/Piano Quintet, Op. 44.
5. Symphonic Dances/Davidsbündlertänze.
6. The Bells/Symphony #4.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Kreisleriana.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Carnaval.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Symphony #2.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Symphonic Etudes.

A tie, but Schumann wrote more music of a high quality and was a more important composer.

Liszt.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Piano Sonata.
2. Vespers/Christus.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/A Faust Symphony.
4. Symphony No. 2/Années de pèlerinage. Deuxième année; Italie.
5. Symphonic Dances/Missa solennis zur Einweihung der Basilika in Gran.
6. The Bells/Douze études d'exécution transcendante.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Eine Symphonie zu Dante's Divina Commedia.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Années de pèlerinage. Première année; Suisse.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Harmonies Poétiques et Religieuses.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Fantasy and Fugue on the chorale Ad nos, ad salutarem undam.

A tie, but Liszt wrote more music of a high quality, was more versatile, and was also one of the most revolutionary composers (he was also a huge influence on Rachmaninoff, perhaps more than any excluding, perhaps, Tchaikovsky). Rachmaninoff has a higher percentage of good - great works, but there are many reasons for that as far as Liszt goes, mainly that often he wasn't writing for a purely aesthetic purpose.

Berlioz.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Les Troyens.
2. Vespers/Requiem Grande Messe des Morts.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Romeo et Juliette.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphonie Fantastique.
5. Symphonic Dances/La Damnation de Faust.
6. The Bells/Les Nuits d'été.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Harold en Italie.
8. The Isle of the Dead/L'Enfance du Christ.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Te Deum.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Roman Carnival Overture.

I think Berlioz wins here. Rachmaninoff was a more varied composer and wrote more high quality music. Berlioz was a far more important composer, perhaps the most original composer who ever lived.

Richard Strauss.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Vier letzte Lieder.
2. Vespers/Eine Alpensinfonie.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Der Rosenkavalier.
4. Symphony No. 2/Tod und Verklärung.
5. Symphonic Dances/Ein Heldenleben.
6. The Bells/Salome.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Metamorphosen.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Also Sprach Zarathustra.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Elektra.

Tie, Strauss was more innovative.

Chopin.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Ballade No. 4.
2. Vespers/Barcarolle.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Preludes.
4. Symphony No. 2/Etudes Op. 25.
5. Symphonic Dances/Polonaise-Fantaisie.
6. The Bells/Piano Sonata No. 3.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Piano Sonata No. 2.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Ballade No. 1.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Etudes Op. 10.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Fantaisie Op. 49.

Tie, if not a slight edge to Rach. Chopin was a far more original and important composer, wrote more high quality music and had a much greater percentage of good - great music. Rachmaninoff was far more versatile.

Debussy.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/La Mer.
2. Vespers/Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Preludes Book 1.
4. Symphony No. 2/Preludes Book 2.
5. Symphonic Dances/String quartet.
6. The Bells/Nocturnes.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Cello Sonata.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Images for Piano Book 1.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Images for Piano Book 2.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Jeux.

Tie, Debussy far more original and important.

Bartók.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Violin Concerto #2.
2. Vespers/Concerto for Orchestra.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/The Miraculous Mandarin.
4. Symphony No. 2/Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta.
5. Symphonic Dances/String Quartet #4.
6. The Bells/Piano Concerto #1.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Bluebeard's Castle.
8. The Isle of the Dead/String Quartet #5.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Sonatina.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Concerto #2.

Tie, Bartók more original and important, and wrote more good - great music.


Dvorak.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #9, "From the New World."
2. Vespers/Cello Concerto, Op. 104.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/String Quartet #12, "American."
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony #8.
5. Symphonic Dances/Symphony #7.
6. The Bells/Romantické kusy.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Piano Trio #4, "Dumky."
8. The Isle of the Dead/Serenade for Strings.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Romance in F minor for Violin and Orchestra.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Stabat Mater.

Tie. Dvorak slightly more important.

Mendelssohn.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Violin Concerto, Op. 64.
2. Vespers/Symphony #4, “Italian."
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Octet, Op. 29.
4. Symphony No. 2/Elijah.
5. Symphonic Dances/String Quartet #6.
6. The Bells/Symphony #3, "Scottish."
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Piano Concerto #1.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Piano Trio #1.
9. Preludes Op. 23/A Midsummer Night's Dream.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Hebrides Overture, “Fingal’s Cave."

Close.

Ravel.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Daphnis et Chloé.
2. Vespers/L'enfant et les sortilèges.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Gaspard de la nuit.
4. Symphony No. 2/Scheherazade.
5. Symphonic Dances/Piano Concerto in G.
6. The Bells/String Quartet in F.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Miroirs.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Pavane pour une infante défunte.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Piano Trio.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Piano Concerto for the Left Hand.

Tie, although perhaps an edge to Ravel. Ravel far more innovative composer. Ravel higher percentage of good-great, Rachmaninoff more high quality works.

Bruckner.

1. Piano Concerto No. 3/Symphony #9.
2. Vespers/Symphony #8.
3. Piano Concerto No. 2/Symphony #7.
4. Symphony No. 2/Symphony #5.
5. Symphonic Dances/Te Deum.
6. The Bells/Symphony #3.
7. Etudes Tableaux Op. 39/Symphony #6.
8. The Isle of the Dead/Symphony #4.
9. Preludes Op. 23/Mass No. 3.
10. Trio Élégiaque #2/Mass No. 2.

Bruckner wins here. Rachmaninoff far more varied and wrote more good - great music. Bruckner far more innovative.

Of course all of this is subjective (to an great extent), but I put in the effort to do all this because I think there are so many great composers that wrote so much great music, and I think that instead of worshipping Rachmaninoff seemingly at the expense of your appreciation of the other greats, maybe it would be prudent to put much effort into trying to appreciate these other composers and their music for what they are as well as Rachmaninoff. After all, many of these composers are generally considered to be greater by experts!

Awfully long thing you got yourself there...
Unbelievable that you think Mass in B minor can compare to Rach 3...

[stoudemirestat]

Awfully long thing you got yourself there...
Unbelievable that you think Mass in B minor can compare to Rach 3...

I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

[the89thkey]

I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

I'm dead serious.

[stoudemirestat]

I'm dead serious.

I think you'll find that most professional musicians put the B Minor Mass far above Rach 3.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I think you'll find that most professional musicians put the B Minor Mass far above Rach 3.

I think you'll find that most musicians won't compare them.

[the89thkey]

I think you'll find that most musicians won't compare them.

And when they do, you'll also find you're wrong...
Well, pianists anyway

[rachmaninoff_forever]

And when they do, you'll also find you're wrong...
Well, pianists anyway

Me or stoudemire?

[the89thkey]

Me or stoudemire?

Him...did you even make a claim?