My personal top 20:1. Beethoven2. Bach3. Brahms4. Mozart5. Wagner6. Mahler7. Schubert8. Schumann9. Bruckner10.Stravinsky11. Mendolssohn12. Dvorak13. Liszt14. Chopin15. Handel16. Verdi17. Berlioz18. Prokofiev19. Shostakovich20. R. strauss(I feel like I'm forgetting a composer)
Obviously the one who believes that Liszt should be put lower is thinking way too narrowly. This might be all subjective, but Liszt almost single-handedly helped recreate the piano into a much more versatile instrument, showing people the true capabilities, of it imitating the orchestra. On top of that, his later years harkened to impressionism, and even Ravel himself claimed that most composers (of his time) would not be here were it not for Liszt. Also, I would have put Dvorak and Tchaikovsky much lower. While they have pleasant music, they didn't contribute vastly. I'd shove Ravel a bit further up the list, and Bartok belongs WAY HIGHER in the list. What the hell is he doing all the way down there? Bartok is easily one of the most influential composers of the 20th century, even influencing modern composers directly today, such as the ever popular George Crumb.
Obviously the one who believes that Liszt should be put lower is thinking way too narrowly. This might be all subjective, but Liszt almost single-handedly helped recreate the piano into a much more versatile instrument, showing people the true capabilities, of it imitating the orchestra. On top of that, his later years harkened to impressionism, and even Ravel himself claimed that most composers (of his time) would not be here were it not for Liszt.
also balakirev - without him we might have never heard of mussorgski or rimski-korsakov!and what about enescu?
enescu was a great teacher but i don't think he's an important composer
That's fantastic, but he's not Top 15 material, in my view. Anybody who composes (efficiently) for only one instrument, regardless of how much he "revolutionized" it, and despite how great of a performer, transcriber, and one-instrument composer he was, does not get very far in my book. Don't get me wrong: Liszt composed some of my favorite piano works, but much of his orchestral works couldn't hold a candle to what he composed for the instrument about which he was most passionate. Of course, it's all subjective and whatnot. Personal opinion.
It is strange that Mozart is placed above Beethoven, or not? Never seen that before. Apart from that I guess we are not allowed to question the authority of the three Gods on the top of the list.
maybe not moscheles but viotti and locatelli are very very important in developing the violin techniques.locatelli caprices, which were cadenzas to a set of his concertos, influenced paganini which influenced the WHOLE classical composers
But...Liszt was quite innovative, for example in harmony. One of the leading figures of the radical music of the 19th century. Most of the 'innovations' of Wagner were learned from Liszt. He also has many expressionistic pieces which are almost atonal. I would place Liszt above Wagner, but then I don't really like Wagner that much (maybe because of his rasistic views).Then I would place Debussy above Liszt again, one composer who inspired most 20th century composers because of introducing the aspect of sound colours in composition.And where is Olivier Messiaen??Definitely one of the most important composers in the 20th c. He should be way up above Liszt, just like Bartok should.
thats a very superficial perception you havechopin revolutionised the musical world, and all with 1 instrumentthe instrument a piece of music is written for isnt important to any true deep musician
And what do you, lenny, know about being a "true deep musician?" I don't know how you find time to play the piano, considering you have 354 posts in 7 days (60 posts per day). And half of your posts are "" or ""... Just a thought...
are you really ingorant or do you just look like a small plant?
The former: I'm "ingorant [sic]," guilty as charged!
Lenny, I am extremely picky about the word "revolutionary." Chopin may have had a substantial influence on the romantic era, but his "revolutionzation" was easily dwarfed by that of Beethoven, for instance. I think your logic is seriously flawed; using Chopin as a defense to my argument is quite weak because not only did he write well for only one instrument, it is generally agreed that his attempts at writing for other instruments, especially orchestras, were failures. There is no way his piano concertos would exist in the repertory today if it weren't for the brilliance of the piano part, because frankly I could orchestrate them better than he did. Is your thinking always this cloudy, or is it because you've been sitting at the computer for the past three and a half hours?
oh yeah, i noticed mahler is at no17, he should be above mozart IMO, i just bought a DVD of the 2nd symphony as you mentioned, i skipped right to the end, and just that part alone moved me so much.it really HITS YOU physically, i was just left sittin still in shock and awe.
1.Rachmaninoff2.Chopin3.Liszt4.Ravel5.Barber6.Beethoven7.Dvorak8.Mendelssohn9.Beethoven10.Mahler11.Brahms12.Bach13.Franck14.Tchaikovsky15.Mozart16.Schubert17.Prokofiev18.Shostakovich19.Strauss20.Debussy21.Faure
Where the hell is Gershwin?
Yeah: HAYDN :-)
liszt was more innovative than wagner, yesbut wagner was a profound musical genius, liszt never wrote anything of his scale
Yeah.. where the hell IS Gershwin??
Wagner was the most influential musician/composer of all time.
where do you get that from?liszt influenced wagner more than anyone
Huh? Wagner influenced Liszt.