Just for fun, I've come up with some duels of composers with complementary names: Byrd / Cage Bull / Scheidt Britten / Ireland Franck / Zappa Barber / Chavez ("shaves", geddit?) Ravel / Tye Suk / Blow
And the winners are: Bach (21:5), Scarlatti (15:3), Mozart (17:7), Dvorak (17:9), Mahler (17:9), Debussy (16:9), Chopin (14:11), Sibelius (17:6), Wagner (18:8), Stravinsky (18:5). I tried to count in the comments every clearly stated preference for the specific matches. I think it is fair to conclude that Dave still has some convincing to do with regard to his picks of Handel, Haydn, and Verdi. I'm looking forward to it!
What a great idea! I hope that we will see more of these composer duels in the future. Here are my choices: 1. Bach vs Haendel - I am not too much into Baroque music, but I will probably go with Bach on this one, the big choral works, like the B minor mass, are very enjoyable and his works for solo instruments, like the violin sonatas and partitas and the two Well tempered klavier books, are such an example of great writing! For me though both composers can be great if the performance is, I can't stand the period instrument approach, but give me a Klemperer or Milstein recording any day of the week! 2. Scarlatti vs Couperin - As I said I am not too found of Baroque, and I prefer orchestral music over keyboard, so I don't know enough about both of them in order too make the choice. 3. Haydn vs Mozart - For me it's Haydn. When it comes to enjoyableness I don't find Mozart to be that attractive. His late symphonies are ok (41 is a masterpiece tough), the requiem is nice and the late piano concertos are great, but the rest is pretty boring for me. Haydn on the other hand is fabulous! The symphonies are magnificent, the oratorios too, all of the chamber music is great! So for me there is just more of the enjoyable music with Haydn. Maybe it's because I don't like opera as much, and Mozart was mainly an operatic composer. 4. Brahms vs Dvorak - Probably the most difficult choice for me. They are some of my favorite composers and always go hand to hand. Dvorak has more symphonies and the 4 extraordinary tone poems, but maybe I will still go for Brahms. I haven't heard a single piece of him, that I don't adore. His German requiem is probably my favorite requiem ever (Believe it or not, my favorite performance is the 1964 Karajan one, it is the one that made me love the piece and is one of the rare cases in which we disagree so strongly on a recording!) and the symphonies are so rich and powerful, that they always just blow me away! So, a very difficult choice, but probably will have to go with Brahms. 5. Bruckner vs Mahler - A very easy choice for me - Mahler. He is probably my second favorite composer after Shostakovich. His symphonies really do contain the world - they are some of the most powerful, rich and beautiful music ever! I like Bruckner too, but if I have to choose it is a super easy decision. 6. Debbusy vs Ravel - not a very difficult choice, for me it's Ravel. And it's not because I like his compositions as much as I just never really liked Debussy. For some reason he never impressed me, however many chances I gave his music. La mer is kinda ok, but other then that I just don't get his whole aesthetic. For me the great french composers are Roussel and Poulenc, but Ravel is fine too. 7. Chopin vs Schumann - a difficult one, both of them are very good. When it comes to piano music I definitely prefer Chopin, but Schumann's symphonies are terrific (4 is one of my favorite symphonies ever!). For that reason I can't really compare them - it's like comparing piano music to symphonic one for me. 8. Sibelius vs Nielsen - again a difficult choice, but I will go for Sibelius for the same reasons as you - there is just more great music to enjoy. 9. Verdi vs Wagner - I will go for Wagner any day of the week! It's similar to the Debbusy vs Ravel one for me. With the exception of the Requiem (which is a masterpiece!), there is not a single piece by Verdi that I enjoy. Wagner on the other hand is quite enjoyable. As I said, I am not too big of an opera fan, but I have to admit, that out of all operatic composers I like Wagner the most. His operas really do have a very symphonic nature! 10. Schoenberg vs Stravinsky - another very easy choice for me - I will take Schoenberg any time of the week! People talk how difficult his music is, but for me Stravinsky is far more difficult. There are some nice stuff - Rite of spring, Petrushka and the Firerbird are nice, but other then that I don't enjoy his music, as much as I appreciate it. Schoenberg on the other hand is very nice! Verklaerte Nacht is one of the most beautiful pieces ever, Gurrelieder is such a great masterpiece, the chamber symphonies are nice, the piano concerto is fabulous as well! Most of his stuff is quite fine. So for me it is a very, very easy choice. 11. Palestrina vs Victoria - I have heard of them, but never listened to their music, I will have to check them out! So that is my list, I hope you find it entertaining to read!
Dave, I will do my best to keep in the spirit of the challenge. Handel v Bach is not easy at all, especially when Opus 6 is up against the achievement of the B Minor Mass. Haydn was an uber-genius but he is up against "the miracle that God brought forth in Salzburg." Ludwig Wittgenstein, ruthlessly critical of metaphysical language, stated quite bluntly: “I don’t believe a note of Gustav Mahler. I believe every note of Anton Bruckner.” That is how I see it too. Thanks as always for the fun with thought in train.
I think Terry Teachout did a similar list a while back, though it included other arts and forms of music as well. Let me weigh in on three of your rivalries. In each case, the “losing” composer is among my 20 or so favorites of all time. But the “winner” in each case is on my personal musical Mount Rushmore - and don’t no one threaten to blow it up! Bach > Handel. From my first encounter as a youngster with the Brandenburgs to the present day, Bach’s music engages me in mind, body and spirit like none other. I’ve sung both in choirs, and while I’ll concede that Handel is technically the superior writer for voices -- such as actually allowing the singers to breathe -- singing Bach is uniquely rewarding. While I’ve attended several splendid Handel performances in my day, my greatest live music experience remains the 1985 New England Bach Festival St. Matthew Passion at Marlboro College with Arleen Auger, Jan DeGaetani, Sanford Sylvan (among others) conducted by the legendary Blanche Honegger Moyse. Heck, I even have “BWV 988” as my license plate! So, for me, Bach is tops. Mozart > Haydn. The latter was a boundlessly creative genius. The former, in his greatest works, reaches the sublime. Haydn’s Quartets, just to cite one genre, are endlessly rewarding. Remind me to start listening to them all one per day, now that I can just dial them up in excellent sound. But Mozart’s “Haydn” Quartets (let’s add K. 515, 516 and 581 to the mix) put me in a spell. Is such beauty really within our grasp, however fleetingly? Brahms > Dvořák. This one really tears at me, since I love Dvořák so, especially his chamber music. But when I’m in need of deep consolation, Brahms is one of my first call composers, along with Bach, Schubert and a few others, depending on my mood. And while I’ve been getting to know some of Dvořák’s choral works of late, in part on your recommendation, none approaches the German Requiem, perhaps my favorite choral work as either singer or listener. Brahms is one of the composers who make time stand still for me. Sounds corny, I know, but that’s how I respond. Ellington > Basie. Oh wait, that was on Teachout’s list. Thanks, Dave - you’ve helped stimulate my perhaps flagging zest for musical exploration.
I will take this tempting bait. Bach v. Handel: The easiest of the bunch. Bach v. Anybody would go the same way. Endless invention, dazzling playfulness, inexhaustible enjoyment. Sure, Handel wrote "Messiah", for which I am grateful, but set beside the B Minor Mass, the Passions, the motets, the Well-Tempered Clavier, the Art of Fugue, the Musical Offering, the Passacaglia and Fugue (582), the English Suites, the GOLDBERGs, the sonatas and partitas for violin, the cello suites -- well, it's no contest. Scarlatti v. Couperin: No strong opinion on this one, as neither means much to me. Probably Scarlatti, just to spite the French. Haydn v. Mozart: For his operas alone I have to pick Mozart. Then there are the Requiem, and "Laudate Dominum", certain piano concertos, and the string quintets, and the clarinet concerto. Although I like and enjoy Haydn's music a great deal, I don't think I love anything of his as much as I love Mozart's finest. Dvorak v. Brahms: A tough one, but I'll go with Brahms, if only for the late piano and clarinet works, which are the Brahms I love most. In orchestral music Dvorak has the edge with his wonderful tone poems, but it's not enough for me to give him the palm. Schumann v. Chopin. Chopin. Schumann makes me anxious and unhappy. Sibelius v. Nielsen: Well, Nielsen's music leaves me cold, so it's not a fair fight. Sibelius, hands down. Violin concerto, late symphonies, tone poems. Bruckner v. Mahler: Both great symphonists, and there are times when I think Bruckner is God's greatest gift to the nineteenth century, but pushed to choose I pick Mahler, whose marvellous symphonic landscapes have given me so much joy, and who wrote my favourite symphony (No.2). Ravel v. Debussy: An easy one for me: Debussy. The mysterious and evocative piano music, La Mer, the Nocturnes, the greatest mood opera of all time in "Pelleas et Melisande". Apart from "Gaspard" I can't say that I love anything of Ravel's, and I have a marked dislike for his piano concertos. Verdi v. Wagner: The biggest, baddest composer duel of them all! Verdi has the good tunes, which counts for something, I guess, but for sheer luxurious sound there's nothing like Wagner, and I can't cast my vote against the man who gave us "Tristan" and "Parsifal". Stravinsky v. Schoenberg: Who-berg? Stravinsky is such a sunny, witty composer -- Haydn for the twentieth century -- that he wins easily for me. Even his serial music, however regrettable it may be in the grand scheme of things, nonetheless beat Schoenberg at his own game. I don't know if the Palestrina v. Victoria duel was meant in jest, but after many years of listening to both, I'm going to cast my lot with Victoria. Less perfect, perhaps, but more characterful, and so wonderful to sing. He has definitely had more persuasive advocates on disc. Thanks for suggesting this fun exercise!
I'm afraid I go for Wagner, though I don't want to knock Verdi off his deserved pedestal. My doctor might want to up my medication for saying that. Another duel I like was the friendly one between Max Steiner and Erich Korngold at Warner Bros. In the 40s when Korngold wasn't getting good movies to comppse for Steiner apparently asked him "Hey, Korngold. How come your scores are getting worse and mine are getting better?" to which Korngold replied "because I'm stealing from you and you're stealing from me."
1. Bach - Easy. I disagree 100% on that! His music is full of surprises, especially the cantatas. I like Handel very much, but I can't live without Bach. 3. Mozart of course. I love Haydn too, but Mozart's operas, sacred music, piano concertos (and Mozart's late symphonies are as great as Haydn's) 4. Brahms vs Bruckner - I choose Bruckner :) 5. I don't see them as the correct duel partners! Mahler vs Strauss surely? The heirs to Wagner! (And I take Mahler.) 6. Debussy, the pathbreaker. I agree with you, there is something very deep in works like Pelleas and Jeux. 7. That's a tricky one. Chopin only wrote piano music! But yeah, I choose Chopin too 8. Sibelius, and of course he was the greater symphonist! 9. Wagner, let's be serious. I love Verdi too. This made me laugh. 10. Stravinsky 100%
1. Bach (Although I find Handel Opera great if you suffer from insomnia) 2. Scarlatti (Same reasons as David) 3. Mozart (tough but the Operas, Piano Concertos, String Quintets & Late Symphonies clinch it for me) 4. Brahms (Toughest choice on here, but Brahms has more pieces that I "love" than Dvorak so I will go with Brahms) 5. Mahler (without Question, possibly the greatest composer outside of Beethoven, I wouldn't be surprised if entire universe's were created each time his music is played) 6. Debussy (Same reasons as David) 7. Chopin (Same reasons as David) 8. Sibelius (Same reasons as David) 9. Wagner (Verdi may have more depth of emotion but a good deal of it is a snoozefest which basically pits maybe 2 Operas and the Requiem against The Ring in which case the Ring wins out for me) 10. Stravinsky (Same reasons as David)
Wagner, despite being a rather odious individual, was vastly superior to Verdi, and almost every composer after him (or even alongside him --- e.g., early Dvorak symphonies) went through a Wagnerian phase. Far more influential, at any rate than Mean Joe Green... Brindisi vs. The Entrance of the Gods into Valhalla; the latter stirs the blood, but while the former may be catchy, it is very lame in comparison.
I hasten to add here is another differential between Bruckner and Mahler. I quote "Sir Isaiah Berlin’s best-known essays include 'The Hedgehog and the Fox', which takes its title from a maxim by an obscure ancient Greek called Archilochus, who wrote: “'The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.'”
Would be good to have some more 20th Century duels. You could have three-way national fights between Rachmaninov, Shostakovich and Prokofiev, Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Britten + any number of Americans (Copland, Barber, Harris?).
It's interesting that in some pairings I may *love* individual pieces by one, but the weight of numbers is with the other, particularly where I play keyboard pieces. 1. Bach 2. Scarlatti 3. Mozart 4. Dvorak - This is the hardest choice for me and I may flip-flop on it ( Brahms' Deutsche Requiem ,Violin Concerto & Piano Concertos will now hate me) 5. Bruckner 6. Debussy 7. Chopin 8. Sibelius 9. Verdi 10. Stravinsky Bonus: probably Palestrina
”Isn‘t it great that we don’t have to choose?“ Indeed! That said, I am with you on Debussy (even though I do love Ravel very much), Sibelius and Strawinsky. With virtually all other couples, my feeling is that I am extremely grateful to have them both. Only exception would be Nielsen, whose symphonies I find challenging to sit through (even though having fiddled the Temperaments once, which usually helps, but in this case not so much). I briefly considered taking deep personal umbrage at your Händel and Dvorák decisions, but then the respective alternatives are so compelling that I just won’t. Thanks for this one!
Sibelius vs. Nielsen: I choose Nielsen, because despite his output be a lot shorter than Sibelius's one, the emotional energy contained in his cycle of symphonies is incomparable and surpases all contained in Sibelius works. (I have a Nielsen's portrait in my bedroom, just for you know how I love this guy and I'm so grateful for his music!). Now about Sibelius: I also have a preference that I rarely find shared by others: my favorite Sibelius's symphony is the sixth!!! I can't explain why everytime I listen to it, it gives me goosebumps and I start to cry in same passages... I MEAN EVERYTIME, seriously! Mr. Hurwitz, who would you choose???: 1. Janáček vs Bártok 2. Boulez vs Dutilleux 3. Honneger vs Poulenc 4. Szymanowski vs Martinů 5. Shostakovich vs Prokofiev 6. Gershiwn vs Ives 7. Villa-Lobos vs Berg 8. De Falla vs Freitas Branco 9. Paganini vs Vieuxtemps 10. Palestrina vs Victoria (P.S.: I still wanna hear your thoughts on Reger's piano concerto. Maybe in a video about the most awful concertos for piano? I keep on listening to your delightful reviews!)
1. Janáček vs Bártok: Janatok--simply the greatest. 2. Boulez vs Dutilleux: Dutilleux, because he was a human being. 3. Honneger vs Poulenc: Poulenc, because he was gay. 4. Szymanowski vs Martinů: Martinu, because he wasn't gay. 5. Shostakovich vs Prokofiev: Shostakovich, because he thought death was the end. 6. Gershiwn vs Ives: Ives, because he went to my high school and bought auto parts from my grandfather in Danbury. 7. Villa-Lobos vs Berg: Villa-Lobos, because the population of Brazil is much larger than the population of Austria. 8. De Falla vs Freitas Branco: Falla, because of his relentless perfectionism. 9. Paganini vs Vieuxtemps: Paganini, because Vieuxtemps had no sense of fun. 10. Palestrina vs Victoria: Oh, well, since you insist: Dufay.
@@eliaseiffert2207 Mr. Hurwitz said in a video about Gielen edition that "Reger's piano concerto is one of the most horrible things ever written for the piano". I was shocked by this opinion and since then I'm asking him to explain it. Reger is one of my favorite composers and I like his piano concerto, specially 1st and 2nd movements.
@@rodrigoroderico3213 Why should I have to explain an opinion--did you explain yours? I do like the Serkin recording--it makes me enjoy the work, but I've heard so many that I think sound horrible.
Pettersson vs Sjostakovitch. Pettersson for me. Pettersson's music embodies a world of deep emotions, so personal and intense. His style is hyper individualistic.
1. Bach. I surprised myself here. In theory, I should prefer Handel; but in practice (i.e., based on numbers of recordings I own) I prefer Bach. But primarily his solo keyboard, violin, and cello music, not his choral works! 2. Scarlatti. Almost by default, as I scarcely know Couperin's music at all, but I enjoy Scarlatti on the piano. He never outlives his welcome. Great pianists have recorded Scarlatti sonatas; who has recorded Couperin's keyboard music? 3. Haydn. If you'd asked me 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, I'd have answered Mozart. I still love Mozart's piano concertos especially, and some of his operas of course; but now Haydn strikes me as a healthier, happier, more well-balanced sort of fellow-qualities I need more of in my life. 4. Brahms vs. Dvorak? That's not fair. I need both of 'em! 5. Bruckner! Just because! (You don't want me to write an essay, do you?) 6. Ravel. Don't ask me why-I don't know. I do love La Mer; but not much else, Debussy-wise. That said, I'm not crazy about Ravel, I just enjoy more of his pieces, in a passive, non-committal sort of way. 7. Schumann. This is sacrilegious, but I've just never really liked Chopin, and tolerate him only in very small doses. Schumann, on the other hand: not just solo piano pieces, but symphonies, concertos, choral works, songs, chamber music, love, friendships, musical networking, and the asylum... It doesn't get much better than that. 8. Sibelius. We go way back together, whereas it's taken me quite a long time to embark my Nielsen journey. 9. Theoretically, because of my part-German ancestry and my Bruckner mania, I should choose Wagner; but actually, because of my part-German ancestry and my Bruckner mania, I choose Verdi. We need some sunlight; and besides, Verdi is much more fun. Lunga vita all'Italia! 10. What kind of choice is this? Neither! ~ J.D.
Very funny video. 1. Bach - The most difficult choice for me - I love Handel for the reasons you gave - but I return more often to Bach. The Partitas, the solo violin and cello works, etc etc have no equal in Handel 2. Haydn - easy (I love the way he surprises us - well if Mozart has lived 30 more years it would be a different result) 3. Scarllati - easy (and Soler ???) 4. Dvorak - for the same reasons you gave - but Brahms lost just because wrote less - some few works have no equal in Dvorak 5. Mahler - was also almost around one idea - death and the return to the paradise of the childhood - but he developed much more this central idea, and the "colour" of his orchestration has no equal 6. Ravel - Debussy is more important but Ravel is more fun (like Handel to Bach) 7. Chopin - but Schumann has symphonies, a much better concerto etc. No a fair duel 8. Sibelius and Nielsen - dont care - boring both (ok Sibelius - easy) 9. Verdi 10. Stravinsky One of my favourite composers - poor Schubert - the best chamber music, the best lieder, two wonderful symphonies. but always on the shadow of Beethoven - who would beat him in a duel :)
- Bach v. Handel: Bach, but only because I really don't know Handel that much. In fact, I have the feel that Bach might be a bit overrated. Maybe in some years I will come back and change the vote, who knows :-) - Scarlatti v. Couperin: again, there's one I know very well and one I barely know. I have to vote Scarlatti, but this time at least I can say I love him. - Haydn v. Mozart: Haydn, but more because I have huge problems with Mozart. - Dvorak v. Brahms: Dvorak. They are both great, but according to my feelings this is a no brainer. - Schumann v. Chopin. Chopin, he's really one of my favourites. - Sibelius v. Nielsen: I love Sibelius and I vote him, but I promise to deepen my knowledge of Nielsen. - Bruckner v. Mahler: Bruckner, because I loved his sacred music. Mahler just doesn't speak to me, I can't find any appealing tune in his symphonies. Everybody talks about him being a great melodist, but I can't understand why, his melodies sound incomplete and randomic to me. - Ravel v. Debussy: Ravel BY FAR, simply because his music is so much fun! I can't honestly understand how anyone who looks for fun in music can prefer Debussy to Ravel. - Verdi v. Wagner: Verdi, simply because I can't stand Wagner and his 30 hours long operas. - Stravinsky v. Schoenberg: Stravinsky is just much more complete. - Palestrina v. Victoria: ouch! I love Palestrina, but I have to abstain from voting, because I never listened to Victoria.
1. Easy - Bach 2. Really hard choice - I’d have to say Scarlatti just because of the reasons you mentioned 3. Again, really hard choice - I’d have to pick Mozart (but just barely) 4. Completely agree with you on Dvorak 5. Easy - Bruckner (I rarely listen to both but I much prefer Bruckner’s music) 6. Easy - Debussy (very original music) 7. Easy - Schumann. As much as I like Chopin I love Schumann’s personal style and he remains one of my favourite composers ever. 8. Easy - Sibelius (I love the way he handles structure) 9. Holy cow this is a no brainer - Verdi a genius for all the reasons you mentioned 10. Really tough - I’d have to say Schoenberg just because he in my opinion had a much more ‘consistent style’
My picks are: Bach (and I adore Handel and find myself endlessly defending him with great ardor), Scarlatti, Mozart (love Haydn, but those operas), Dvorak (easy), Mahler (even easier), Debussy (in a squeaker), Chopin (easiest of all), Sibelius, Verdi (although it's close), and Stravinsky. Of course, we have no parameters here and are setting our own.
Victoria every time. That was the easiest one. The others were more difficult, and I probably disagreed with you half the time. But I based my choices entirely on which composer’s sound I preferred. I reality, I enjoy all of them and don’t have to choose, except which one do I want to listen to at the moment?
A real spat was between the followers of Rameau and Lully. I'd go for Rameau. Has Britten versus Tippett been mentioned? (My choice: Britten) Or Berlioz versus Liszt? (My choice: Berlioz) As for Palestrina versus Victoria, I'd definitely go for VIctoria. Palestrina is so buttoned up, I think. Victoria communicates oodles of passion, be it wonder or grief or joy. Byrd versus Tallis? (My choice: Byrd) Great to see such a positive case made for Haydn and Dvorak, even if I'd definitely pump for Mozart and Brahms. Thanks so much, David, for such fascinating videos. Really great!
Thank you. I didn't do Lully and Rameau because of the generational difference. Rameau is so much more sophisticated orchestrally that I thought the comparison wasn't fair. A more apt one might be Gluck and PIccini.
The only duel I can’t choose one side or another is Debussy - Ravel. Most would choose Debussy, yet Ravel’s greatness lie in the paradox of an outer technicolor sheen which hides an inner heart. The opera that brings the most tears to my eyes is L’Enfant et les Sortileges. Maybe I’m just weird😀
Strauss versus who? Bartok perhaps? I was also trying to figure out with whom Berlioz might be compared, but he seems sui generis, like Beethoven. I agree with all your picks, David, except I’d have to go with Brahms. I might pick Schumann as well because he is one of those composers who seemed to have an influence on 1930s and 40s film music - and I don’t listen to a lot of solo piano pieces, which are the Chopin calling card. But, objectively, I acknowledge Chopin as a more significant composer. Great fun for classical fans, this idea! Thanks, David!
1. Handel (Bach is amazing as well) 2. Scarlatti 3. Haydn (but Mozart is also amazing) 4. Brahms 5. Mahler 6. Debussy 7. Schuman 8. Sibelius 9. Verdi (by very very very far) 10. Stravinsky
Don't hate me, but I put Wagner barely above Verdi. Among many reasons, the orchestra has a more prominent role in Wagner's operas. Almost equal in status to the singers on stage. In Verdi's operas, the orchestra generally is more of an accompanying role, secondary to the singers (Save for Otello and Falstaff). But it's so close, I'm sure I might change my mind next week.
Ten years ago, I would have placed Bach over Handel without a second thought. But once I could stream, I started exploring the other oratorios and operas, trios etc. At this point, I could entertain myself with Handel for weeks on end--but the answer is still Bach.
The story/legend of Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli demonstrates why it has to be Victoria. Palestrina's great achievement was to write a mass sufficiently uninteresting that the devoted could concentrate on the words. Mission accomplished. If it wasn't routinely coupled with the wonderful Allegri Miserere no one would care about it. Victoria, with his more varied harmonic palate and sense of timing routinely creates genuinely transcendent 'musical' moments that make one forget the words entirely.
The weirdest standard pairing on disc (for me) is Schubert and Schumann symphonies. What do they have in common beside the first syllable of their names? I guess the problem is, who else do you pair Schubert with? Berlioz?
Maybe Schubert with Dvorak? With some of Haydn's music? Or alternatively with something further away, like, I don't know, Schnittke. Rachmaninov. Tomkins. Kodály.
Fun times! So many excellent responses, and of course they'll be longer than usual. But I like the idea, its like a psychology test, or Tinder swiping or whatever, with the proviso that of course we mostly love and listen to all of these people. While listening to you, I think I guessed 9/10 of your choices, plainly I've read too many of your reviews.. So... I use the Desert Island criterion - which one would you rather be stuck with forever? (and perhaps you can do a Desert Island Discs format at some point as there's a reason its still going after so long on BBC Radio 4 ) Bach/ Handel - I get what you're saying but despite having a lot of Handel around here, I must listen to Bach keyboard music more than almost anything else, so from experience, my mind is more interested in him. Scarlatti/ Couperin - tricky as I don't listen to either that much but I think I'd be inclined to agree with you, despite the excessive number of binary sonatas involved. Brahms/ Dvorak - I actually (I'm British, so I use 'actually' too much, see Felix Leitner's comment in Live and Let Die) consider Brahms' music superior but I wouldn't want to be stuck with him on a desert island as there's a morbidity going on that needs to be taken in small doses. So Dvorak for sure. Bruckner/ Mahler - this is so difficult and agree with another commentator that pitching Mahler against Strauss would make more sense. I never really got the pairing that went on with these two, apart from some passages in the Bruckner 9. I love Mahler but I'd go for Bruckner as there is there, despite the flaws, something that simply feels more extraordinarily emotional, with less fancy orchestral experimentation than in Mahler. Plus there are, and I think we have to admit this, some rather boring elements in the Mahler symphonies to set alongside the greater bits. The 5th Symphony Scherzo? Dear me, I always zone out. But I think this is the most artificial comparison of the set. Debussy/ Ravel - I have thought about this one before and while I love both, I'd take Ravel. Maybe he didn't write so much, but it is more varied and there is still quite a lot of it. I think the surface perfection is part of the appeal, and Debussy got a bit lazy about completing things, getting others to orchestrate and so on, that Ravel didn't succumb to. Chopin/ Schumann - Schumann definitely, the oddities, the whimsy, the greater range. Some of the songs are operating at a level of hallucinatory imagination that for all the beauties of Chopin would be decisive in this case. Sibelius/ Nielsen - As you were in two minds here yourself, I don't think you'll be fazed if I felt I'd rather be with Nielsen permanently (see Brahms above for a reason why I can't do too much Sibelius). Music as the life force, rather than as a sort of impersonal process, whats not to prefer? Verdi/ Wagner - I'd take Wagner, not for every day, but he was simply the more innovative composer and although I totally agree with you on personality/ politics etc, he's one of the most important effects of the 19th Century along with Marx and others, for better or worse. Schoenberg/ Stravinsky - I agree with you, for your reasons. Palestrina/ Victoria - Victoria, no question! I like to listen to renaissance polyphony sometimes, but for whatever reason, Victoria is my favourite composer in the vein (well, maybe after Josquin, but thats earlier). Less "cool", more expressive and as this is religious stuff, ok, maybe more "spiritual", whatever that is.
Some hard ones! Sometimes the "better composer" or the "more important for music history" is not our favorite. Let me think: What if X or Y had not existed? I would not miss Couperin, but I woul surely miss Scarlatti. (Leave Bach or Handel for later). Haydn is more important, but I could live without him (I would miss The Creation), while I would not bear without Le Nozze di Figaro, the piano concertos and the horn (yes) and the clarinet concertos. Chopin may be more important for pianism, but I would much more miss Papillons, Carnaval and Op 17 Fantasy. Verdi was a "better person" and a better composer, but Parsifal is closer to my heart. Brahms is also a better composer, but I hear much more music by Dvorak. Debussy is surely better and more important, but I wouldn't like a world without La Valse, Daphnis et Chloe and L'Enfant et les Sortileges. I would miss Gurre-lieder but I would not live without Petrouchka or Le Sacre du Printemps. I love Nielsen symphonies, but I need the Sibelius ones. The same applies to Bruckner and Mahler, I need Mahler symphonies and Das Lied. I almost cannot choose between Bach and Handel, but if my life depended on choosing between The Messiah and the Mass in B minor... I would go for Bach... Perhaps tomorrow I will feel the other way...
I will try to answer these duels: Handel vs. Bach-- I would choose Bach. Bach is emotionally "deeper" IMO and his counterpoint plus steady tempos can create a soothing impression of "order" even if I don't try to follow the music. Scarletti vs. Couperin: Have barely listened to them at all so far Haydn vs. Mozart: Haydn-- his style is more accessible to me, he is more consistent. But as you said, their skills are complementary. Haydn is better at string quartets, symphonies, and arguably piano and sacred music. Mozart is better for chamber music for other ensembles, concertos, and operas. Haydn is my preference largely because I listen to the genres he was best at more than I do the genres that Mozart most excelled at. Brahms vs. Dvorak: I NEED both. Dvorak gets an edge in orchestral music thanks to better orchestration and greater scope and quantity. Brahms is (even) better at chamber music than Dvorak (IMO). I haven't listened to Brahms' choral works other than the German Requiem, so I don't know if he can even *compete* with Dvorak in this category. Almost certainly not. Piano music: Brahms. I listen to both a lot. Verdi vs. Wagner: I have the attention span to watch a video of a Verdi opera, but not Wagner's long slow orchestral dramas. So Verdi! Chopin vs. Schumann: Chopin. I like his style more, but cannot explain why. Bruckner vs. Mahler: Initially, I found Mahler ugly and crazy and Bruckner a prophet of God, but I had to concede Mahler was a more creative orchestrator. And his range was broader. And wow, the second movement of Mahler's Ninth! The Andante Moderato of the Sixth, DLVDE, the Resurrection Symphony...I now prefer Mahler but only because I gave Mahler more chances. Debussy vs. Ravel: Debussy composed more pieces that I like Stravinsky vs. Schoenberg: I find Neoclassical Stravinsky too restrained (though I still enjoy them), and Late Stravinsky less interesting than Schoenberg's serial works. So I prefer Schoenberg for all of his periods other than the Gurrelieder one. Nielsen vs. Sibelius: I find Nielsen more interesting as a symphonist, and even Sibelius' Violin Concerto cannot outweigh that. Nielsen!
1) Bach vs. Händel: I love both. I like Händel best in vocal music and Bach for the piano. 2) Scarlatti vs. Couperin: Scarlatti. At first I thought this was a bit unfair, because I think of Couperin as early baroque and Scarlatti as late, but they did not live that far apart in years. 3) Haydn vs. Mozart: Mozart - although his music would be different without Haydn. 4) Brahms vs. Dvorak: Dvorak. But would he have made it without Brahms? 5) Bruckner vs. Mahler: I love both. But Mahler is both deeper and broader. 6) Debussy vs. Ravel: Debussy. 7) Chopin vs. Shumann: Chopin for the solo piano. Otherwise Schumann. 8) Sibelius vs. Nielsen: As a dane I should probably say Nielsen. But Sibelius just enchants me in his orchestral works. However Nielsen is better in chamber works. 9) Verdi vs. Wagner. When I was young I did not care for any of them. Nowadays I can manage to listen to a bit of Wagner, so he wins. 10) Schoenberg vs. Stravinsky. Stravinsky, please. 11) Prokofiev vs. Shostakovith?
1. Bach 2. (no choice) 3. Haydn 4. Brahms vs. Dvorák (tie) 5. Mahler (I apologize Bruckner, but Gustav is like a God for me) 6. Debussy (Ravel is also great, but...) 7. Schumann 8. Nielsen 9. Wagner (I don't like Verdi too much) 10. Schönberg vs. Stravinsky (tie: two great geniuses) .... and Tomás Luis de Victoria. Other possible 'duels' Beethoven vs. Schubert (I choose Beethoven, but I love Schubert) Prokofiev vs. Shostakovich (tie) Webern vs. Berg (Webern) Ligeti vs. Boulez (Ligeti, sure)
1. I got seriously into Händel recently, and as much as I love the Dixit/Nisi Dominus, Messiah, Israel, Utrecht Te Deum, Concerti Grossi, his Keyboard Suites which are easily on par with Bach, not to mention the operas, the b-minor Mass is one of my favourite compositions of all time (Top 3), in any era, so I have to give the edge to J.S. Bach. 2. Scarlatti, I’m not really familiar with F. Couperin apart from the Rondeaus. 3. I’m going to be boring, but Mozart, just because of the 30 minutes of Requiem he composed. Haydn’s music is slightly more heavy-handed to me at times and less outrageously ingenious, but to each their own. 4. Brahms - I’ve yet to find a lacklustre piece by him (if we don’t count the early keyboard sonatas in C major and F sharp major) 5. I would say neither, but I actually like some Bruckner choral stuff while I pretty much hate all Mahler. 6. Debussy, his musical language speaks to me infinitely more in terms of emotional content. As sublime as the Daphnis is, Ravel’s oeuvre is really hit or miss for me, but more miss than hit. I get the artificial feeling from Ravel too. The 2nd movement of his String Quartet sounds like background music for a cellphone commercial. 7. I’ve never heard about this comparison! Chopin vs. Schumann? I would choose Schumann (although by a very small margin) because his symphonies got me out of depression a few years ago. I can’t for the life of me listen to Chopin if he’s played by your bog-standard modern recording artist. They just water his music down with cheap sentimentalism and cautiousness, and I got tired of him because of over-exposure. 8. Neither, because I couldn’t possibly have a preference. I’m an uncultured swine, I’ve never heard any Nielsen (and barely any Sibelius) so it would be an unfair comparison. 9. Wagner, I have a bias towards German romanticism as a style. Nothing against Verdi though. 10. Another comparison I’ve never heard. I can’t stand dodecaphony and I’m not the biggest fan of Gurre Lieder, so Stravinsky, just because of his first 3 ballets.
@@gregstanton7321 What can I say? Your loss. Or you've been listening to the wrong recording (I'm looking at you, Klemperer/Karajan/Richter and disciples).
@@Kris9kris No, I have two very fine period instrument recordings and have attended a number of performances of this work. It simply does not engage me in the same way a mass by Zelenka does. And it is far too long for practical liturgical use.
@@gregstanton7321 I was in the same boat as you in terms of length - it was not until I’ve seriously become interested in Baroque counterpoint and the style in general that I realised what a crowning achievement it was even for JS Bach’s standards. Maybe it is too long, and a good argument can be made that it was not conceived to be used in a liturgical setting. But if I judge the individual sections by themselves, it’s a whole different story. It’s a pastiche anyway, with repurposed music from cantatas and other minor masses by Bach (Wikipedia has a good article it) so I think it isn’t meant to be judged as a whole. I have to give it to you though, Zelenka’s masses *are* awesome, and they should be heard more often.
Bach, Scarlatti, Mozart, Dvorak, Mahler, Debussy, Chopin, Sibelius, Verdi, Stravinsky Not too much hesitation on my choices (certainly for Bach, it's a no brainer for me), except between Ravel/Debussy. Your arguments prevail for Debussy. I grew up with a Ravel solo piano record that my mother listened to all the time (Vlado perlemuter). So I am emotionally connected to Ravel. Perhaps in the Take Away to a Deserted Island game, Ravel would win for me .
I think this can lead to great musictalk. We are very different, some are listening (Bach, Mozart), others are hearings (Handel, Beethoven). Most of us do both, it depends on the listening mode for now. I am a listener, so Bach and Mozart for me, but not without most of the others. If you only have one composer in your life, which will you choose? I can live with either Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and maybe Schubert. But no others. I am not a great opera fan, so for me Mozart and Verdi is enough. I try to love Wagner, but I hear jingles in stead of Leitmotif. My loss. Have fun.
I am surprised that I agree with all your choices except the first one.Neither Bach nor Handel would come up in my 10 best ever composers list but at least I find I get back to the cantatas much more often than I muster courage enough to listen to handel's one and only opera with 40 different titles.The sibelius Nielsen duel is a no brainer. Sibelius wins hands down - it's the same kind of comparison as that between Dvorak and Brahms. I am for Victoria over Palestrina but Lassus is the real deal.
1. Bach. 2. Scarlatti is a lot of fun. 3. Two of the greatest composers. It has to be Mozart. 4. Gut reaction was Brahms, but you may just have convinced me to change it to Dvorak. 5. I have really tried to get into Mahler but with mixed results, so Bruckner. 6. Debussy. Interesting that you mention what seems to be a consensus opinion that Ravel sounds more superficial. 7. Purely based on piano music it probably is Chopin, but all things considered it is Schumann. 8. Tough choice. Sibelius. 9. Not my kind of music. I did have a short Wagner phase, while I never had a Verdi phase, so it has to be Wagner. 10. Stravinsky. Bonus: I have no clue. I find Palestrina dull as dishwater, so I have to choose Victoria purely because he hasn't bored me (yet).
1. Bach (easy) 2. Scarlatti 3. Mozart 4. Brahms 5. Bruckner 6. Ravel 7. Chopin (that was a difficult one) 8. Sibelius 9. Wagner (easy) 10. Stravinsky (easy) It seems we are wired quite differently - but I still enjoy your talks!
Here's my take: Bach is universal. Handel also has strokes of genius, but Bach has everything, including music that's very fun. If late Bach is too grand, impervious and unapproachable, there's early Bach. I barely know anything by Couperin, but I love me some Scarlatti, on a good harpsichord or even better (in Scarlatti) a good fortepiano. I have got to side with Mozart, for similar reasons than with Bach. I love the Creation and the Seasons mir than anything, but I have to say that they have many loose threads and rough edges in terms of compositional craft. Mozart is always well-rounded and leaves nothing to be desired. Brahms can be cerebral, which shows especially in his choral works (not to mention his organ works, which for good reason don't carry actual opus numbers). But the piano works, the symphonies, op. 104 and others are simply perfect. -Dvorak is a little less perfect, but more creative and more loveable. It's impossible to choose. I think it's unfair to pit Bruckner against Mahler, because I agree with Brahms's assessment that Bruckner was the victim of an extremely narrow-minded, even toxic environment and education. Still, I have to pick Mahler. His spirituality is equally deep as Bruckner's, I think, and he combines a uniquely powerful, yet sensitive artistic vision with as perfect craftsmanship as any. I would pick Ravel over Debussy out of pure personal preference. I agree that he has hidden depths, which can be wonderfully seen in his three a capella choral songs: beneath the fairytale surface there are tremendous uncomfortable truths. When comparing Chopin and Schumann, I would note that Schumann has much more versatility. Chopin has his thing, which is beautiful, and his contribution to pianism is invaluable, but so is Schumann's, and from Schumann we get so many great Lieder, and those peculiar choral works, and symphonies etc... I know little of Sibelius, and nothing of Nielsen (yet). That's a world still to explore for me… I oppose everything Wagner stood for as an artist, but I am very grateful for the harmonic inspiration he gave to basically everybody, from Franck via Mahler and Elgar to Debussy. Just as Wagner tends to be bloated and vague, I tend to find Verdi a bit blunt (have to conform to some German stereotypes, after all), but the Requiem and Te deum firmly win me over. Schönberg and Stravinsky are both impeccable by their craftsmanship, of course. I resent Stravinsky’s hateful modernist ideology, but generally his music can thrive despite that, if one doesn't try to out-Stravinsky Stravinsky. (By that I mean, play his music like music and not like an engineering task) Palestrina always seems a bit ‘white’ to me, lacking in colour. I'm more prone to Lassus or Tallis, and don't know Victoria well enough to judge.
Just watched this again. My favorite Schumann is the Konzertstuck for Four Horns and Orchestra, Opus 86. It's a wonderful sadly neglected piece. I really don't care much for Schoenberg. I think the best thing Arnie ever did was orchestrating the Brahms First Piano Quartet, Opus 25. Guess we all have our own opinions. Hi Dave !!!
I fully share your preference for Handel over Bach. Bach is superior in terms of abstraction and complexity, but the sense of drama and the sensuality of Handel are absolutely unequalled. Handel is also, to my point of view, the best melodist ever (even above Mozart). That is not well known, because few people indeed have explored in detail Handel's operas and oratorios. NB : in this case, we could have exceptionally a "trio" instead of a duel, adding Vivaldi who is the third major composer of the late baroque ; and my order of preference would be Handel / Vivaldi / Bach.
Mahler built worlds. His symphonies sound and feel different. Bruckner built cathedrals, all movements in a single symphony. Both were impressed with themselves, equally justified.
On the Shostakovich and Prokofiev question--Shostakovich because of the quartets. I don't have enough Victoria to judge, but all the Palestrina I have I love. Does Pictures at an Exhibition count as Ravel, because that could shift the scales?
1. Bach, because I like counterpoint 2. Scarlatti is more to the point 3. Haydn, because his humour is better 4. Brahms, but I heard not very much stuff by Dvorak 5. Mahler had more humour 6. Debussy, although I like Ravel's string quartet better. And 'La Valse' & the sonata for violin and cello I like very much, too. So I don't know. 7. Schumann, who didn't always wrote just for the piano (and I like Schumann for being irritating) 8. Don't still know much of Sibelius or Nielsen 9. Wagner, but I heard more stuff by him 10. Schoenberg, he is my favourite composer in general Bonus ?
So much fun, and I agree with all your choices, although I'd ever-so-slightly hedge towards Nielsen, not just as a symphonist, but for his chamber music and his underrated songs. I'd be curious to hear your takes on Cage vs. Feldman, Reich vs. Glass, Prokofiev vs. Shostakovich, Boulez vs. Stockhausen, Byrd vs. Gibbons, and, if I may be provocative: either Gershwin vs. Ellington or Gershwin vs. Bernstein!
Agree with Haydn over Mozart. But are they really that similar? I mean, how many conductors perform them equally well? Mackarras, Szell, maybe C. Davis. That's all I can think of. A few years ago, I heard Meistersinger and then Falstaff within a few weeks. While listening to the latter, it really hit me that Toscanini was right when he said that "what Wagner accomplishes in a few minutes, Verdi does with a few notes." So Verdi for me!
1. Bach over Handel, but Handel is so fantastic that's tough. I don't know if any composer can start a piece like Handel where you are just instantly wrapped up into the piece in two measures. And Handel, I believe, actually dueled Scarlatti in person! Definitely Handel over Scarlatti. 2. Big props to Couperin (who I refer to as "Coop") for writing program music in the Baroque era and the Mysterious Barricades is nice, but Scarlatti, it's just like every piece is magnificent. I've played both on guitar and Scarlatti is more fun for me. 3. Pass 4. Dvorak is more listenable and tuneful and I love him, and Brahms can be technical and harder to listen to, but when Brahms has his moments, of either just massive genius (Piano Quartet 4th), lyricism (3rd of 3rd sym), or what not, it is just so titanic. So, I go with Brahms, but closer than people might think. 5. Feels like picking Mahler gives you some of Bruckner's best along w it. I remember the story of the Bruckner symphony premiere where everyone hated it and left in the performance and even the musicians were packing up as soon as their parts ended, so that Bruckner is there at the end, alone on the stage, head in hands, and one lone figure is applauding in the back of the hall: a young Gustav Mahler. 6. Debussy and it is not even close. I consider him one of the all-time greatest, S tier composers. 7. Two of my favs, and Schumann has that lieder which is so gorgeous, and even his chamber music has some really good stuff and off course Scenes from Childhood and Piano Concerto, but, yeah, Chopin imitating Bellini on the piano all day is my choice. 8. Sibelius. 9. Verdi is the better opera composer by far. If I am going to an opera, I want to go to a Verdi opera. If I am going to a symphony to hear symphonic extracts and appreciate the complexity of the music, sure Wagner, but at least in Verdi operas people don't just stand there most of the time not doing anything. 10. Early Stravinsky, yes. Schoenberg is tough to listen to and its more appreciation of what he did. Of course, I would take either of Schoenberg's two famous pupils over Stravinsky. Bonus. Well, I actually listen to Palestrina more than Victoria or most other Ren choral composers, but Victoria has some gorgeous, gorgeous stuff that is intricate too, but I'll take Palestrina, if anything for being hassled by the Church back in the day, Palestrina has that. My Bonus Question: Famous guitar 19th century guitar rivalry between Fernando Sor and Mauro Guiliani, which one?
1. Bach -- has a certain complexity that Handel does not quite reach, makes it a deeper experience at its best. 2. Scarlatti I think, although I am not a keyboard player. 3. Mozart -- at his best sublime beyond belief, at a level that Haydn did not reach. Also could do counterpoint as well as Bach when needed. 4. Brahms/Dvorak tie--Dvorak a better melodist but Brahms full of imagination and profundity. 5. Mahler -- although Bruckner is more abstract so could win if you value that aspect highly. 6. Debussy -- is generally more interesting and provocative a listen, although both composers fantastic. 7. Chopin -- Romantic piano music a unique achievement. 8. Not sure, do not know Nielsen well enough to make a call. 9. Wagner / Verdi -- tie. To me they are impossible to compare, Wagner is the brilliant visionary whereas Verdi is the master craftsman. 10. Stravinsky -- better at incorporating visionary musical thinking into appealing artistic creations. 11. Palestrina / Victoria -- no idea.
1. Bach. I've never been a lover of Baroque music in general, and while I respect Handel's genius it's never been enough for me to overcome my lack of taste for the style. Bach is an exception for me however since there's so much richness in harmony/counterpoint/motivic invention that keeps me engaged despite the style (though he admittedly took a number of years to grow on me). Perhaps if I learn to appreciate Baroque music more generally I'll manage to appreciate Handel a lot more. 2. Scarlatti. I agree, he's more fun. 3. Mozart. I also adore Haydn, but Mozart has the edge for his greater emotional range and ambition. 4. Brahms. Dvorak is also great and a better tune smith, but Brahms wins for his capacity for greater dramatic power and forward momentum (as an aside though, I seem to stand alone among Brahms lovers in thinking the German Requiem is dull as dirt). 5. Mahler. I never found love for Bruckner, who seems to me extremely static and lacking in forward momentum. Mahler is wonderful, except for his 8th symphony. 6. Debussy. But I agree, it's extremely close. I enjoy them equally, so will choose Debussy for his greater importance. 7. Chopin. Schumann is more fun and radical, but Chopin's craftsmanship and consistency in his mature years was unparalleled in the 19th century (barely wrote a bad piece after turning 20, while Schumann wrote tons of crap). 8. Sibelius. Also a near coin-flip. 9. Verdi. I'll confess that Wagner was the more important composer, but Verdi is so much more enjoyable. Wagner is a chore to listen to if you're not in the perfect mood for it, which comes to me about once every 2 years or so (OTOH I will always enjoy a listening of Aida or Otello). 10. Stravinsky. I cannot stand Schoenberg, and it's not because I hate atonal music (I love Berg and Messiaen for instance), I don't quite know why. I think it's because I find Schoenberg colouristically monotone, though that may just be due to my lack of appreciation in the first place. But I love almost all Stravinsky, even his late works. BONUS - who cares, the correct question is Gesualdo or Monteverdi? Correct answer: Monteverdi!
My choice is Bach too, however if you sit with a score of Handel's OP 6 Concertos and a good recording of them and follow along I think your perspective of him will change and you will see why he was viewed as a genius by composers of his time including Bach and later composers including Haydn. I think the reason for that is his inventiveness. In Bach's music I feel there is an inevitability, there was a perfect solution to everything and only he always had access to this perfection. In Handel's music I feel he always makes choices that simply no body else would have come up with, little twists and turns that anybody else would have just done the more expected thing, always guided by inventiveness and good taste and he also wrote many a mighty mighty fugue.
1) Bach 2) Couperin 3) Haydn 4) Brahms 5) Mahler 6) Debussy 7) Schumann (Mendelssohn would have won if it were Schumann versus Mendelssohn) 8) Nielsen 9) Verdi 10) Stravinsky 11) Palestrina (Beethoven versus Schubert? Schubert)
Victoria, hands down! Palestrina always sounded too well-behaved for me, especially since I listened to Josquin (who for me is the most marvelous composer of all the Renaissance, much freer and more varied in expression, I think).
If you think of a composer who lived in the same period as Palestrina and Victoria, my choice would be Orlando di Lasso (Lassus). His Lagime di San Pietro is a profound masterpiece
For me the Haydn-Mozart duel is impossible to decide... the rest of your duels are spot on except Debussy - Ravel; Ravel all the way!!!! I find his music so much more colorful and interesting, while Debussy just puts me to sleep; Absolute YESSES on Dvorak, Chopin, Mahler, Verdi and Stravinsky... I truly believe the one thing they all have in common is a sense of spontaneity and gusto - they are of this earth, they connect with humanity - its beauty, its ugliness, flesh and bone, warts and all; while Bach, Brahms, Bruckner, Schumann and Schoenberg operate on a different emotional, intellectual and spiritual plane (sp?). Luckily humans are so varied and complex we have the ability to connect with all of these and other composers at any given time. Funny you didn't match Beethoven with anyone, since he would be the clear winner, no matter the musical era. Palestrina-Victoria... the loser of that duel would be me, because I'd walk right into the line of fire and end it right there.
I managed to select most of the ones you chose. However, I like Wagner more than Verdi, because the music is more kind of meaty than Verdi’s. Pure and simple. I gathered you have the view of Wagner, for obvious reasons.
@@DavesClassicalGuide not being offensive, or anything, when you talked about Nazi stomping, etc. Which I think probably comes from your background. Which is fair enough. Yes, Verdi had more variety of style with his music, but sometimes that made me cringe, like in his more delicate moments. It’s my lifelong love if music that’s rather meaty in sound. Now though I can appreciate more of what Verdi composed.
@@Plantagenet1956 My judgments are solely based on my feeling for the music, and not on the fact that I am Jewish. I just wanted to be clear about that. I know you were not trying to offend. Everyone agrees that Wagner was a vile person. That's a given, and if it mattered no one would listen to him at all.
My picks: Bach > Handel: I think Bach has simply written more masterpieces, across genres, and his music is more innovative. Handel's music can sometimes be more fun, but it doesn't feel like it carries the same weight as Bach's. Scarlatti > Couperin: My knowledge here isn't so great, I've only listened to a handful of each composer's works; I think Couperin at his peak may have been better, but Scarlatti was more consistent in churning out enjoyable music. Mozart > Haydn: I guess I'm taking the safe pick here, and don't feel the need to explain Mozart's greatness and genius across genres, but I also am just not a huge fan of Haydn stylistically. I'll listen to it, but I wouldn't go out of my way for him. I haven't yet heard a piece of his which struck me as a masterpiece - his symphonies & string quartets are enjoyable, but not outstanding, in my honest opinion. Dvorak > Brahms: This is more of a stylistic choice, but Dvorak's music is just consistently entertaining and refreshing to listen to. Brahms is much more hit-or-miss for me, although I will say that his piano music is competitive, if not better than Dvorak's. Mahler > Bruckner: I think Mahler's music is much more exciting, while Bruckner's music is often more dull to me. Too much brass, haha. Mahler's music is much more free-flowing, and his orchestration is significantly better. Ravel > Debussy: Generally not a fan of French "impressionistic" music for whatever reason, but Ravel wrote more memorable music to me. Debussy was more influential, and was probably a more versatile composer, but his music just isn't for me. Chopin > Schumann: Chopin is the legend of piano music, and for that alone, he wins this duel for me. There has never been a "Chopin" before or after him - the music is uniquely his own, and he was a master of both harmony & melody. Schumann was no slouch when it came to piano music himself, but it just isn't at the same level. Sibelius > Nielsen: I think Nielsen's music is very fun and intriguing, but he lacks the power and mastery that Sibelius had. The orchestration & form of Sibelius's music is just pure perfection, and I could listen to it all day. Verdi > Wagner: Not a big opera guy, so I'm just basing this off overtures & their limited non-operatic oeuvre. Similar to Bruckner, I think Wagner is just not my style with so much brass, it's too in-your-face. Verdi is just a fun time. Stravinsky > Schoenberg: Much respect to Schoenberg - I don't think he's respected enough, but Stravinsky is simply my jam, I think he's the greatest composer of the 20th century. His music is just so unique and riveting. Palestrina > Victoria: I will leave this one to others as well. I think I've heard no more than one piece by either composer.
Didn't Ned Rorem say Palestrina only had the reputation as a great composer but wasn't really one? Something like that. What about the other duel? Puccini vs. Strauss. I'd love to hear your take on that one.
Bach vs. Handel: Bach for the consummate craftsmanship, monuments like the B Minor Mass, and great trumpet writing Haydn vs. Mozart: Mozart for the melody and dramatic wit, and especially for the piano concertos Brahms vs. Dvorak: have to agree that Dvorak is as good and is more fun Bruckner vs. Mahler: Mahler, as I tend to agree that Bruckner kept writing the same symphony over and over... Mahler has a much wider expressive range Debussy vs. Ravel: Debussy, for my preferred handling of early Modernism, “the liberation of consonance,” a Modernism that’s as forward looking as Schoenberg but also enjoyable Chopin vs. Schumann: Chopin for me too, he made the piano sound like it was invented for his music, and together with Berlioz you hear that the French sensibility did much better things with early Romanticism than the Germans did, it’s more forward-looking and adventurous Verdi vs. Wagner: Wagner, not because I like the man, but for the revolutionary nature of the music and the immense scale of his vision Schoenberg vs. Stravinsky: Stravinsky... I still think that Schoenberg’s serialism, at least as he employed it to Expressionist ends, was a mistake and mostly unlistenable
Here’s another: Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich? Even though I know Tchaikovsky was more skillful, and even though Shostakovich wrote more than his share of mediocre pieces, I’d have to take Shostakovich. His best work has a violent edge to it that does a lot more for me than Tchaikovsky’s pretty melodies.
What fun! 10 musical boyfriends to keep and 10 to dump! Bach…you can blame Cecilia Bartoli for that one. The image of her Cleopatra, straddling that toy rocket, barely wearing some pole dancer’s discarded spandex, is still, after much time, keeping my therapist quite busy. Scarlatti…though I shall deeply lament the loss of the “troisieme leçon de tenêbre”…but will be very happy to be free of the worry over whether my accents and squiggles were correctly placed when I wrote said work. Can I take option C, Salieri? Too tough to choose…and I’m English - we do like to take pity on the underdog. Mahler….I like to have the occasional wallow, but dear lord…Bruckner!…I can wallow with Mahler…but he also has cow bells, so they give Mahler the edge. Debussy. If only for Pelleas et Melisande…and I like a man with a beard. Chopin…his musical language was infinitely more unique and sophisticated…but I will miss Schumann …bits of him…small bits…though good riddance to that f#%!ing Toccata. Sibelius…ashamed to admit that I’m familiar with just a handful of Nielsen’s works…so through ignorance, I don’t have anything amusing to say about him. So Sibelius get the win by default. Verdi…much as Wagner’s music transports me, he’s really a very difficult person to like… it’s too exhausting, trying to block the repugnant waves of sanctimony that accompany Parsifal, in order to enjoy the music…and of course, the beard secures the win for Verdi. Stravinsky…I just this morning had an existential crisis during a lengthy phone call with my elderly mother…no more phone calls for me, for a while. Palestrina…unfortunately, everyone called Victoria inevitably seems to be disturbingly frumpy…
Next, how about requiem duels? Brahms vs. Mozart, Berlioz vs. Verdi, Faure vs. Dvorak. My all time favorite is the Faure because it's the most seductive and ravishing to the ear, particularly in the finale. It's also the most concise. As magnificent as the Verdi is, it does get a bit tiresome. I wish it were about fifteen minutes shorter. Thoughts?
Much as I love a great deal of Schubert's music, Beethoven hands -down wins for me. Then again, Beethoven wins 'every' such contest, no matter the competition. If asked, "Which composer who died young do you wish had lived a long, musically productive life?", Schubert wins. His output steadily 'matured' throughout his too-short life. His 'late' works are, on the whole, markedly superior to his early output. Had he survived another 30-40 years, who knows what he might have accomplished! Much as I love Mendelssohn and wish he too had survived another few decades, his work is consistently good from early on until the end. We'd likely have gotten many more masterworks from him, but not in the sense of a Beethoven who often changed course and broke new ground. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just seems to me that Schubert might have been Beethoven's natural successor had he survived long enough.
No contest. Schubert could reach otherworldly sublimity at times, easily, but Beethoven's oeuvre is much more complete in every respect. Schubert wrote much more music for sure, but with that comes a ton of lacklustre output. Schubert is at times especially puzzling to me as a creative artist, I mean he could go from writing the masterpieces that are the 3 late sonatas to utter, unadulterated garbage like the Mirjam's Siegesgesang.
Dvorak over Brahms for me because of all the great Dvorak tone poems, and I do love his Symphonies 8 and 9. Plus Brahms can put me on the verge of snoozing. Mahler over Bruckner every day of the week, BUT - I love Bruckner and I’ll never get people who don’t.
And my winners are (you will hate me...) 1) Bach - Händel: My winner is Purcell, because he's even more fun than Händel. (Otherwise, it would be Händel.) 2) Scarlatti - Couperin: My winner is Rameau, because he's even more brillant than Scarlatti. (Otherwise it would be Scarlatti.) 3) Haydn - Mozart: Haydn, but under tears to lose Mozart... But to me, Haydn is the more experimental composer, more fun, more crazyness. I like this more than the sheer angelic perfection of Mozart. 4) Brahms - Dvorák: Dvorák. In my opinion one of the most underrated composers of the 19th centuries. 5) Bruckner - Mahler: That's hard. Ordinarily, the duel would be Bruckner - Brahms, and my winner would be Bruckner. But against Mahler, I fear for my good old Toni, even if he wrote this 5th and this 9th symphony. I must agree: Mahler. 6) Debussy - Ravel: Okay, Debussy, of course and without hesitation. BUT - I think, the duel is quite unfair. Debussy has the machine gun of Etudes, Faune, Mer, Pelléas, Saint Sebastien, Khamma, Nocturnes aso, nearly every work a masterpiece, and Ravel the polite pistols of Ma mère l'oye, Pavane et Daphnis. But to be serious for a moment: In my opinion, Debussy and Ravel have nothing to do one with the other. I guess that Ravel tends more to Satie, Roussel and Koechlin (in all duels Ravel would be defeated - no, he would win against Satie), whereas Debussy is a single figure with some followers like Caplet. But I like Ravel, I really do. Who would not...? Entreact of seriouseness ended. 7) Chopin - Schumann: And my winner is Alkan. Otherwise, I would prefer Chopin. But one must have in mind that neither Chopin's nor Alkan's orchestral music are of great eminence, wereas Schumann wrote his 4 symphonies, his piano concerto and much more. May I introduce Mendelssohn as my personal winner...? 8) Sibelius - Nielsen: That's tricky. It's a bit like Debussy-Ravel. They have not so much in common as one may think. But I would choose Sibelius, because his symphonic cycle convinces me more, and his tone poems with their ostinati and organ points are unequalled. 9) Wagner - Verdi: Without any hesitation - Wagner. Let me explain. I detest the man. He's the ugliest character of all composers, who are dear to me (maybe besides Britten and his love for young boys). I cannot forgive Wagner "Das Judenthum", and, yes, I think, it's a model for typing "the jew", which leads perhaps not strictly to the nazi antisemitism, but its a landmark. I confess that I detest Wagner so much that I tried to make a Wagner-autodafe and set Verdi at his place. But then, I heard again "Flying Dutchman", "Walküre", "Tristan", "Parsifal" - and I was done. I'm not even interested in Wagner's sujets (with exeption of the "Dutchman"), and I like much more Verdi's libretti. But I also like the dark glow of Wagners brass, I think, he's unsurpassed (in his time), when he drives a rhythm to the excess ("Rheingold", 2nd interlude, Ride of the Valkyries with that effect that at first the fog-motives are in the foreground and then, slowly the theme of the Valkyries becomes stronger). Meanwhile, my position is, like Leonard Bernstein said: "I hate Wagner, but I hate him on my knees." But I like Verdi, nevertheless, and if a Wagnerian (these guys I detest more than I detest Wagner) argues against Verdi, I become Verdi's advocate instantly. 10) Schönberg - Stravinsky: And my winner is Bartók. Otherwise it would be Stravinsky, of course. I like this games very much and play it often with frieds. My duel-pairing is always Schönberg - Berg and Stravinsky - Bartók. I am one of the few, who tends to Schönberg in this case, because Berg wrote so few, and I'm not really convinced that "Wozzeck" is better than "Erwartung" und "Die glückliche Hand". And the other duel would win Bartók. I like Stravinsky really, and, in my opinion, he wrote at least six of the 20th centuries greatest works ("Firebird", "Petrushka", "Sacre", "Svadebka", "Symphony of Psalms" and "Threni"), but I like the WHOLE Bartók from "Kossuth" to "Concerto for Orchestra". He's one of my favourite composers of all time. So, it's easy to choose for me.
Surely not Mahler versus Bruckner, but rather Mahler versus Richard Strauss. Most importantly, Bruckner and Mahler were not contempories - the best 'duels' (Mozart/Haydne, Brahms/ Dvorak, etc) were composing at the same time and influenced each other - but Bruckner was much older and diad before most of Mahler's work was composed, so Mahler had no real effect on Bruckner's work. Strauss and Mahler however were contemporaries and rivals. Both were superstar composer-conductors, both were supreme orchestrators, both wrote highly autobiograhical works, their long symphonic works tend to be programmatic, and together they are probably the 2 greatest composers of orchestral songs. Most importantly, they both had a big infleucne on each other's music.
I must say I’m quite surprised by the love for Dvorak sometime. He was a very good composer - not bad by any means - but not one of the greatest in my opinion, and certainly not with on a par with Brahms. Brahms was highly original and inventive, regenerating new spirit into old forms with unique melodic, harmonic and structural language, while Dvorak, accomplished as he was, only assimilated influences from the music of his time, adding to it little originality (again, in my opinion). I think that the same argument in favour of Debussy (who's music I absolutely adore) from the Debussy v.s. Ravel dual holds here as well. Moreover, I think that one can hardly find any weak compositions in Brahms’s oeuvre, which is something you can’t say about Dvorak. I can’t see anything in Dvorak that could compete with Brahms’s accomplishments in the same field. I mean, I know Dvorak composed some nice melodies, but never anything as profound as Brahms. I listen to classical music (and watch the wonderful videos on this channel) enthusiastically, but I must admit I could not bring myself to like Dvorak, and was never able to enjoy any of his music at the same level as that of Brahms’s (or quite frankly enjoy them at all). So for me, there's no question who's the best among them - Brahms, Brahms, and again - Brahms! But please help me see why I'm misjudging Dvorak, I’d be happy to re-discover his music :) (I've tried the Symphonies and the Cello Concerto but to no avail)
So, my picks (resisting the temptation to say "too close to call" on many of them): Bach vs. Handel: I vote for Bach (as those who saw my post in your Brandenburg review may have guessed). It's a vague way of putting it, but there's something in Bach that hit me on a deeper level than Handel. Scarlatti vs. Couperin: Tough call! I'll choose Couperin because I like his quirkiness (not that Scarlatti was lacking in this quality) and that element of French elegance that appeals to my taste. Haydn vs. Mozart: With you on this. And, a deep dark secret, I'm not a big opera fan, so as impressed as I am with Mozart's rare ability to write symphonies and operas that are part of the standard repertoire, Haydn's wondrous creativity and keen orchestral sense makes him my choice. Brahms vs. Dvorak: Another tough call. Here I'm leaning towards Brahms, because I love his symphonies so much. But this may be the 2nd toughest call (with the toughest yet to come)... Bruckner vs. Mahler: I agree with your choice. Although I do find Bruckner's music uplifting, Mahler hit the full range of musical emotions, from ecstasy to tragedy to transcendent resignation. It's more fully human and that appeals to me. But this is another toughy, as I love them both. Debussy vs. Ravel: Agree with you for pretty much the reasons you mentioned. And the "Nocturnes" rank among my favorite orchestral works. Chopin vs. Schumann: Another agreement. Although I like Schumann for his quirkiness (and sometimes outright weirdness), Chopin's ability to spin out beautiful melodies and his expert writing for the piano give him the edge, in my opinion. Sibelius vs Nielsen: THIS is the toughest! By a hair I'm siding with Nielsen, for the super subjective reason that he wrote the best ever (in my opinion) Wind Quintet, a genre I particularly like. But this is the closest to "too close to call" in your list. Verdi vs. Wagner: Not being an opera fan, I'm tempted to pass on this one. But that would be cheating, so, based more on overtures and orchestral exerts that the main event, I side with Wagner. His huge brass climaxes and colorful wind writing appeal to my more sensuous side. But I can see that a true opera buff would choose Verdi, if only because he wrote so well for the human voice and didn't drag his opera's out for interminable lengths. Schoenberg vs. Stravinsky: Easily Stravinsky. Truth to tell, I've never liked most of Schoenberg's music. Even his more accessible works, such as "Transfigured Night" strike my ear as so much over-dense sonic sludge. And Stravinsky just had an uncanny way of drawing the most unusual timbres from his works, which appeals to my love for orchestra color. And he wrote some potent music. Palestrina vs. Victoria: Okay, now I've got to hunt down more Victoria music. So, Palestrina for now, but this may change. A couple of suggestions for future duels: Rachmaninoff vs. Prokofiev, Monteverdi vs. Gesualdo, Vaughan Williams vs. Holst, Copland vs. Barber. Thanks for a stimulating chat!
Bach vs Händel. Very difficult. Two real titans. But I think I will go with Bach on the strength of his amazing skills in counterpoints. Scarlatti vs Couperin. Difficult. But David's arguments are compelling. So Scarlatti it is. Haydn vs Mozart. Easy. Haydn hands down. Kenneth Woods famously wrote once; "Haydn was a more creative, more talented and more skilled composer than Mozart." Good man. Brahms vs Dvorak. Very difficult. I have actually heard quite a lot of Dvorak's music, probably more than that of Brahms. They are both amazing. I choose Dvorak because he was most vrsatile. Bruckner vs Mahler. Easy. Bruckner hands down. These are also two amazing composers. However, for me Mahler occasionally becomes to theatrical, to autobiographic. And while Mahler is a more colourful orchestrator, I think that Bruckner is more interesting as a harmonist. Didn''t Harnoncourt once call him an antenna into the 20th century? Debussy vs Ravel. Easy. Debussy for reasons David mentioned. Chopin vs Schumann. Difficult. Chopin is a god on the piano and an interesting harmonist. But Schumann has fine works in most genres, and is also a progressive force in music. I go with Schumann. Sibelius vs Nielsen. Rather difficult. Both are splendid symphonists, but I think Nielsen has the upper hand. I love the Violin Concerto of both of them. I do however prefer Nielsen's operas and chamber music. So I go with Nielsen. Wagner vs Verdi. Difficult. Wagner was not a nazi and his musical dramas are extraordinary. So is however some of Verdi's and that Requiem.. Wagner with the slightest of margins. Schoenberg vs Stravinsky. Relatively easy. Stravinsky has composed many masterpieces, but Schoenberg at his best has few peers and his importance difficult to overestimate. Palestrina vs Victoria. Difficult. I actually prefer the somewhat earlier Cristobal de Morales to any of them... But enough about that. Victoria's music is a bit freer and more lively, but it is my iimpression that Palestrina have had a larger influence on later music theory, I seem to remember that his style was the foundation for Johann Joseph Fux' famous textbook which I to my eternal shame can't remember the name of. So for that I choose Palestrina. My own would be: Scheidt vs Frescobaldi
Handel, with great respect for Bach. Mozart, with ENORMOUS respect for Haydn, thanks to you, Dave. Dvorak!!! Bruckner, hands down! Mahler had some great themes, moving Adagios, and impressive climaxes. But he takes too long to develop, and he gets a little creepy. Ravel, if only for Daphnis and Chloe. Chopin. No contest. Sibelius. Not even close. No knock on Nielsen, a great symphonist. Verdi! Couldn’t care less about Shoenberg v. Stravinsky. Shoenberg, I guess. I’ll take Palestrina, only because Sibelius liked him. Why? I have no idea. I listened to Palestrina and it remained a mystery to me why. I’ll have to revisit that, maybe.
Of course Scarlatti is more brilliant than Couperin, the latter's style is not brilliant (Tic Tac Toe aside), but it is simple and poetic. He is a schumann of the baroque. I have a hard time choosing which one I prefer, it depends on the moment.
Shouldn't it be Chopin vs. Liszt (keyboard titans), Mendelssohn vs. Schumann (early romantic all-rounders) And for that matter: Bruckner vs. Brahms (giants of symphonic form), Dvorak vs. Tchaikovsky (all-around mid-romantic geniuses), Mahler vs. Strauss (late romantic orchestral gigantism),
1. Bach by default, as I've listened to almost no Handel outside the Water Music and the Music for Royal Fireworks, neither of which particularly grabbed me. And I do love the Brandenburgs. 2. Hard to pick because I've barely listened to either. Let's say Scarlatti because I have listened (as background music) to a couple of Scarlatti sonatas. In general, I'm not much of a lover of baroque music. 3. Also not an unqualified lover of either Mozart or Haydn, but I guess I'd pick Mozart because I know more of his music and love some of the Haydn quartets, the darker symphonies like 25 and 40, and the Requiem. I love the Haydn quartets I've heard, however. 4. Brahms: one of my first loves in classical music. His solo piano music, espeically the late works, are my favorite solo piano compositions (imprinted by Kovacevich's Philips Duo). Some of the intermezzi sound like drops of water down a 19th century woman's back in my imaginary boudoir from my likewise imaginary 19th century (aristocratic) life. 5. Mahler: I love Bruckner, but Mahler's symphonies took over Beethoven's in my personal pantheon--no mean feat when it was the opening of Beethoven's 5th that entranced me when I was 5 years old (though my music teacher never told me what it was, and being from the rural midwest, USA, where classic rock and country were king, it took me till I was 20 to "find" it and classical music again). I've had numerous near-transcendant aesthetic experiences listening to Mahler on headphones while walking through woods, especially the 2nd (Bernstein/LSO), 6th (Karajan/Bernstein DG), 7th (Rattle, amazingly enough), and 9th (Karajan studio: I'm a Karajan guy, not least because we have the same birthday, April 5th). 6. Debussy: I agree, it's a tough call, but I've had many more intense experiences to Debussy's work (the Nocturnes, the Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, The Martyrdome of St. Sebastian in Tilson Thomas's Sony recording, the Villon songs from Fischer-Dieskau, etc.)--real aesthetic arrest to use Joyce's phrase. 7. Schumann, mostly because I don't know enough Chopin, outside the Scherzi. The Fantasie is right up there with Brahms' late piano works for me. One summer I listened to Richter's EMI recording of it non-stop, while supplementing with Perahia's on Sony. 8. Sibelius by default just because I don't know Nielsen's work very well, though come to think of it, I don't know Sibelius' that well either. 9. Wagner is one of my favorite composers and comes up constantly in my writing (I'm a poet), especially Parsifal and Tristan. After discovering classical when I was 20, I spent an entire summer listening to bleeding chunks from both operas on cassette while deliverying bread and pastries for the bakery I worked at. Also, I've only listened to one Verdi opera (Un Ballo en Maschero (?)) and the beginning of the Requiem. 10. Schoenberg: I've never really warmed to Stravinsky, but then I never have to Schoenberg either, though I do love Verklarte Nacht and the 1st Chamber Symphony. Maybe I like the IDEA of Schoenberg more, with that famous expressionist self-portrait he did and the culture of modernist Vienna. If I dived into Stravinsky, he'd probably come out on top, but I've never much liked the Rite (though I do love Petroushka) and haven't got much farther with him. 11. Palestrina just because I've never listened to anything by Victoria, and I have listened to SOMETHING (though I forget what) by Palestrina.
For the face-off between Mahler and Bruckner, I definitely give the edge to Mahler. I love the music of both composers, but Mahler's creative imagination, melodic invention, and orchestration skills are wide ranging and varied compared to Bruckner. Additionally, Mahler takes more risks and is "edgier. "Really an apples and oranges comparison.
Very rarely do i disagree with Dave because my knowledge of music is nowhere in the same universe as his- but I am surprised at his assertion that Nielsen is the better symphonist than Sibelius. They both wrote distinctive and magnificent symphonies but the power of the Sibelius 2nd, the magnificence of the melodies of his 5th, the personal psychological power of the 4th, and the overall emotional nature and construction of his 7th seem to me to overshadow Nielsen. Bu then again, who am I?
Just heard this - you’re addictive! Palestrina vs Victoria EASY. The Spaniard wins hands down, there’s an intensity, depth, humanity in Victoria’s music that Palestrina seldom approaches for all his surface shine. Eg his Officium Defunctorum (Requiem), or Vidi Speciosam for sheer happy bliss. I sang a concert of music by both composers and it was almost embarrassing how much better Victoria’s music was. Palestrina very beautiful and ‘brilliant’ but didn’t touch the soul.
Just for fun, I've come up with some duels of composers with complementary names:
Byrd / Cage
Bull / Scheidt
Britten / Ireland
Franck / Zappa
Barber / Chavez ("shaves", geddit?)
Ravel / Tye
Suk / Blow
And of course -- Fine/D'Indy
@@johnmontanari6857 Excellent!
You're all geniuses.
Cute pun! Though I think the real duel is Britten/Tippett. (Britten easy winner manly because Tippett's libretti are so awful).
FRANCK ZAPPA? Love It !!!!!
And the winners are: Bach (21:5), Scarlatti (15:3), Mozart (17:7), Dvorak (17:9), Mahler (17:9), Debussy (16:9), Chopin (14:11), Sibelius (17:6), Wagner (18:8), Stravinsky (18:5).
I tried to count in the comments every clearly stated preference for the specific matches. I think it is fair to conclude that Dave still has some convincing to do with regard to his picks of Handel, Haydn, and Verdi. I'm looking forward to it!
What a great idea! I hope that we will see more of these composer duels in the future. Here are my choices:
1. Bach vs Haendel - I am not too much into Baroque music, but I will probably go with Bach on this one, the big choral works, like the B minor mass, are very enjoyable and his works for solo instruments, like the violin sonatas and partitas and the two Well tempered klavier books, are such an example of great writing! For me though both composers can be great if the performance is, I can't stand the period instrument approach, but give me a Klemperer or Milstein recording any day of the week!
2. Scarlatti vs Couperin - As I said I am not too found of Baroque, and I prefer orchestral music over keyboard, so I don't know enough about both of them in order too make the choice.
3. Haydn vs Mozart - For me it's Haydn. When it comes to enjoyableness I don't find Mozart to be that attractive. His late symphonies are ok (41 is a masterpiece tough), the requiem is nice and the late piano concertos are great, but the rest is pretty boring for me. Haydn on the other hand is fabulous! The symphonies are magnificent, the oratorios too, all of the chamber music is great! So for me there is just more of the enjoyable music with Haydn. Maybe it's because I don't like opera as much, and Mozart was mainly an operatic composer.
4. Brahms vs Dvorak - Probably the most difficult choice for me. They are some of my favorite composers and always go hand to hand. Dvorak has more symphonies and the 4 extraordinary tone poems, but maybe I will still go for Brahms. I haven't heard a single piece of him, that I don't adore. His German requiem is probably my favorite requiem ever (Believe it or not, my favorite performance is the 1964 Karajan one, it is the one that made me love the piece and is one of the rare cases in which we disagree so strongly on a recording!) and the symphonies are so rich and powerful, that they always just blow me away! So, a very difficult choice, but probably will have to go with Brahms.
5. Bruckner vs Mahler - A very easy choice for me - Mahler. He is probably my second favorite composer after Shostakovich. His symphonies really do contain the world - they are some of the most powerful, rich and beautiful music ever! I like Bruckner too, but if I have to choose it is a super easy decision.
6. Debbusy vs Ravel - not a very difficult choice, for me it's Ravel. And it's not because I like his compositions as much as I just never really liked Debussy. For some reason he never impressed me, however many chances I gave his music. La mer is kinda ok, but other then that I just don't get his whole aesthetic. For me the great french composers are Roussel and Poulenc, but Ravel is fine too.
7. Chopin vs Schumann - a difficult one, both of them are very good. When it comes to piano music I definitely prefer Chopin, but Schumann's symphonies are terrific (4 is one of my favorite symphonies ever!). For that reason I can't really compare them - it's like comparing piano music to symphonic one for me.
8. Sibelius vs Nielsen - again a difficult choice, but I will go for Sibelius for the same reasons as you - there is just more great music to enjoy.
9. Verdi vs Wagner - I will go for Wagner any day of the week! It's similar to the Debbusy vs Ravel one for me. With the exception of the Requiem (which is a masterpiece!), there is not a single piece by Verdi that I enjoy. Wagner on the other hand is quite enjoyable. As I said, I am not too big of an opera fan, but I have to admit, that out of all operatic composers I like Wagner the most. His operas really do have a very symphonic nature!
10. Schoenberg vs Stravinsky - another very easy choice for me - I will take Schoenberg any time of the week! People talk how difficult his music is, but for me Stravinsky is far more difficult. There are some nice stuff - Rite of spring, Petrushka and the Firerbird are nice, but other then that I don't enjoy his music, as much as I appreciate it. Schoenberg on the other hand is very nice! Verklaerte Nacht is one of the most beautiful pieces ever, Gurrelieder is such a great masterpiece, the chamber symphonies are nice, the piano concerto is fabulous as well! Most of his stuff is quite fine. So for me it is a very, very easy choice.
11. Palestrina vs Victoria - I have heard of them, but never listened to their music, I will have to check them out!
So that is my list, I hope you find it entertaining to read!
Dave, I will do my best to keep in the spirit of the challenge. Handel v Bach is not easy at all, especially when Opus 6 is up against the achievement of the B Minor Mass. Haydn was an uber-genius but he is up against "the miracle that God brought forth in Salzburg." Ludwig Wittgenstein, ruthlessly critical of metaphysical language, stated quite bluntly: “I don’t believe a note of Gustav Mahler. I believe every note of Anton Bruckner.” That is how I see it too. Thanks as always for the fun with thought in train.
I think Terry Teachout did a similar list a while back, though it included other arts and forms of music as well. Let me weigh in on three of your rivalries. In each case, the “losing” composer is among my 20 or so favorites of all time. But the “winner” in each case is on my personal musical Mount Rushmore - and don’t no one threaten to blow it up!
Bach > Handel. From my first encounter as a youngster with the Brandenburgs to the present day, Bach’s music engages me in mind, body and spirit like none other. I’ve sung both in choirs, and while I’ll concede that Handel is technically the superior writer for voices -- such as actually allowing the singers to breathe -- singing Bach is uniquely rewarding. While I’ve attended several splendid Handel performances in my day, my greatest live music experience remains the 1985 New England Bach Festival St. Matthew Passion at Marlboro College with Arleen Auger, Jan DeGaetani, Sanford Sylvan (among others) conducted by the legendary Blanche Honegger Moyse. Heck, I even have “BWV 988” as my license plate! So, for me, Bach is tops.
Mozart > Haydn. The latter was a boundlessly creative genius. The former, in his greatest works, reaches the sublime. Haydn’s Quartets, just to cite one genre, are endlessly rewarding. Remind me to start listening to them all one per day, now that I can just dial them up in excellent sound. But Mozart’s “Haydn” Quartets (let’s add K. 515, 516 and 581 to the mix) put me in a spell. Is such beauty really within our grasp, however fleetingly?
Brahms > Dvořák. This one really tears at me, since I love Dvořák so, especially his chamber music. But when I’m in need of deep consolation, Brahms is one of my first call composers, along with Bach, Schubert and a few others, depending on my mood. And while I’ve been getting to know some of Dvořák’s choral works of late, in part on your recommendation, none approaches the German Requiem, perhaps my favorite choral work as either singer or listener. Brahms is one of the composers who make time stand still for me. Sounds corny, I know, but that’s how I respond.
Ellington > Basie. Oh wait, that was on Teachout’s list. Thanks, Dave - you’ve helped stimulate my perhaps flagging zest for musical exploration.
I will take this tempting bait.
Bach v. Handel: The easiest of the bunch. Bach v. Anybody would go the same way. Endless invention, dazzling playfulness, inexhaustible enjoyment. Sure, Handel wrote "Messiah", for which I am grateful, but set beside the B Minor Mass, the Passions, the motets, the Well-Tempered Clavier, the Art of Fugue, the Musical Offering, the Passacaglia and Fugue (582), the English Suites, the GOLDBERGs, the sonatas and partitas for violin, the cello suites -- well, it's no contest.
Scarlatti v. Couperin: No strong opinion on this one, as neither means much to me. Probably Scarlatti, just to spite the French.
Haydn v. Mozart: For his operas alone I have to pick Mozart. Then there are the Requiem, and "Laudate Dominum", certain piano concertos, and the string quintets, and the clarinet concerto. Although I like and enjoy Haydn's music a great deal, I don't think I love anything of his as much as I love Mozart's finest.
Dvorak v. Brahms: A tough one, but I'll go with Brahms, if only for the late piano and clarinet works, which are the Brahms I love most. In orchestral music Dvorak has the edge with his wonderful tone poems, but it's not enough for me to give him the palm.
Schumann v. Chopin. Chopin. Schumann makes me anxious and unhappy.
Sibelius v. Nielsen: Well, Nielsen's music leaves me cold, so it's not a fair fight. Sibelius, hands down. Violin concerto, late symphonies, tone poems.
Bruckner v. Mahler: Both great symphonists, and there are times when I think Bruckner is God's greatest gift to the nineteenth century, but pushed to choose I pick Mahler, whose marvellous symphonic landscapes have given me so much joy, and who wrote my favourite symphony (No.2).
Ravel v. Debussy: An easy one for me: Debussy. The mysterious and evocative piano music, La Mer, the Nocturnes, the greatest mood opera of all time in "Pelleas et Melisande". Apart from "Gaspard" I can't say that I love anything of Ravel's, and I have a marked dislike for his piano concertos.
Verdi v. Wagner: The biggest, baddest composer duel of them all! Verdi has the good tunes, which counts for something, I guess, but for sheer luxurious sound there's nothing like Wagner, and I can't cast my vote against the man who gave us "Tristan" and "Parsifal".
Stravinsky v. Schoenberg: Who-berg? Stravinsky is such a sunny, witty composer -- Haydn for the twentieth century -- that he wins easily for me. Even his serial music, however regrettable it may be in the grand scheme of things, nonetheless beat Schoenberg at his own game.
I don't know if the Palestrina v. Victoria duel was meant in jest, but after many years of listening to both, I'm going to cast my lot with Victoria. Less perfect, perhaps, but more characterful, and so wonderful to sing. He has definitely had more persuasive advocates on disc.
Thanks for suggesting this fun exercise!
I'm afraid I go for Wagner, though I don't want to knock Verdi off his deserved pedestal. My doctor might want to up my medication for saying that. Another duel I like was the friendly one between Max Steiner and Erich Korngold at Warner Bros. In the 40s when Korngold wasn't getting good movies to comppse for Steiner apparently asked him "Hey, Korngold. How come your scores are getting worse and mine are getting better?" to which Korngold replied "because I'm stealing from you and you're stealing from me."
1. Bach - Easy. I disagree 100% on that! His music is full of surprises, especially the cantatas. I like Handel very much, but I can't live without Bach.
3. Mozart of course. I love Haydn too, but Mozart's operas, sacred music, piano concertos (and Mozart's late symphonies are as great as Haydn's)
4. Brahms vs Bruckner - I choose Bruckner :)
5. I don't see them as the correct duel partners! Mahler vs Strauss surely? The heirs to Wagner! (And I take Mahler.)
6. Debussy, the pathbreaker. I agree with you, there is something very deep in works like Pelleas and Jeux.
7. That's a tricky one. Chopin only wrote piano music! But yeah, I choose Chopin too
8. Sibelius, and of course he was the greater symphonist!
9. Wagner, let's be serious. I love Verdi too. This made me laugh.
10. Stravinsky 100%
1. Bach (Although I find Handel Opera great if you suffer from insomnia)
2. Scarlatti (Same reasons as David)
3. Mozart (tough but the Operas, Piano Concertos, String Quintets & Late Symphonies clinch it for me)
4. Brahms (Toughest choice on here, but Brahms has more pieces that I "love" than Dvorak so I will go with Brahms)
5. Mahler (without Question, possibly the greatest composer outside of Beethoven, I wouldn't be surprised if entire universe's were created each time his music is played)
6. Debussy (Same reasons as David)
7. Chopin (Same reasons as David)
8. Sibelius (Same reasons as David)
9. Wagner (Verdi may have more depth of emotion but a good deal of it is a snoozefest which basically pits maybe 2 Operas and the Requiem against The Ring in which case the Ring wins out for me)
10. Stravinsky (Same reasons as David)
Brahms yes_ Dvorak's piano music is pretty minor, whilst Brahms' is magical, especially the later pieces. But good to hear Dvorak being boosted.
What, no Prokofiev vs Shostakovich?
That's what I was going to ask! Shostakovich all the way.
That occurred to me as well - along with the less useful, but more entertaining Schubert vs Schobert, Gliere vs Glinka, and Stanford vs Stanchinsky
I like them both, and they sounded totally different from each other. No choice on that one.
That would be a very tough battle for me. Probably my two favorite composers.
Wagner, despite being a rather odious individual, was vastly superior to Verdi, and almost every composer after him (or even alongside him --- e.g., early Dvorak symphonies) went through a Wagnerian phase. Far more influential, at any rate than Mean Joe Green... Brindisi vs. The Entrance of the Gods into Valhalla; the latter stirs the blood, but while the former may be catchy, it is very lame in comparison.
I hasten to add here is another differential between Bruckner and Mahler. I quote "Sir Isaiah Berlin’s best-known essays include 'The Hedgehog and the Fox', which takes its title from a maxim by an obscure ancient Greek called Archilochus, who wrote: “'The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.'”
Exactly so! Mahler is Tolstoy; Bruckner is Dostoevsky.
Regards,
John Drexel
Agreed, Sibelius is more to Bruckner than Nielsen too;)
@@andreashelling3076 Yes, I agree with that, given the vastness that Bruckner and Sibelius both essay.
Would be good to have some more 20th Century duels. You could have three-way national fights between Rachmaninov, Shostakovich and Prokofiev, Elgar, Vaughan Williams and Britten + any number of Americans (Copland, Barber, Harris?).
I agree on the Debussy/Ravel choice, really tough! The hardest one for me. And still wrestling with myself!!
It's interesting that in some pairings I may *love* individual pieces by one, but the weight of numbers is with the other, particularly where I play keyboard pieces.
1. Bach 2. Scarlatti 3. Mozart
4. Dvorak - This is the hardest choice for me and I may flip-flop on it ( Brahms' Deutsche Requiem ,Violin Concerto & Piano Concertos will now hate me)
5. Bruckner 6. Debussy 7. Chopin 8. Sibelius 9. Verdi 10. Stravinsky
Bonus: probably Palestrina
”Isn‘t it great that we don’t have to choose?“ Indeed! That said, I am with you on Debussy (even though I do love Ravel very much), Sibelius and Strawinsky. With virtually all other couples, my feeling is that I am extremely grateful to have them both. Only exception would be Nielsen, whose symphonies I find challenging to sit through (even though having fiddled the Temperaments once, which usually helps, but in this case not so much). I briefly considered taking deep personal umbrage at your Händel and Dvorák decisions, but then the respective alternatives are so compelling that I just won’t. Thanks for this one!
Sibelius vs. Nielsen: I choose Nielsen, because despite his output be a lot shorter than Sibelius's one, the emotional energy contained in his cycle of symphonies is incomparable and surpases all contained in Sibelius works. (I have a Nielsen's portrait in my bedroom, just for you know how I love this guy and I'm so grateful for his music!). Now about Sibelius: I also have a preference that I rarely find shared by others: my favorite Sibelius's symphony is the sixth!!! I can't explain why everytime I listen to it, it gives me goosebumps and I start to cry in same passages... I MEAN EVERYTIME, seriously!
Mr. Hurwitz, who would you choose???:
1. Janáček vs Bártok
2. Boulez vs Dutilleux
3. Honneger vs Poulenc
4. Szymanowski vs Martinů
5. Shostakovich vs Prokofiev
6. Gershiwn vs Ives
7. Villa-Lobos vs Berg
8. De Falla vs Freitas Branco
9. Paganini vs Vieuxtemps
10. Palestrina vs Victoria
(P.S.: I still wanna hear your thoughts on Reger's piano concerto. Maybe in a video about the most awful concertos for piano? I keep on listening to your delightful reviews!)
1. Janáček vs Bártok: Janatok--simply the greatest.
2. Boulez vs Dutilleux: Dutilleux, because he was a human being.
3. Honneger vs Poulenc: Poulenc, because he was gay.
4. Szymanowski vs Martinů: Martinu, because he wasn't gay.
5. Shostakovich vs Prokofiev: Shostakovich, because he thought death was the end.
6. Gershiwn vs Ives: Ives, because he went to my high school and bought auto parts from my grandfather in Danbury.
7. Villa-Lobos vs Berg: Villa-Lobos, because the population of Brazil is much larger than the population of Austria.
8. De Falla vs Freitas Branco: Falla, because of his relentless perfectionism.
9. Paganini vs Vieuxtemps: Paganini, because Vieuxtemps had no sense of fun.
10. Palestrina vs Victoria: Oh, well, since you insist: Dufay.
sorry?? reger piano concerto most awful piano concerto??? one of the best in my opinion.
@@eliaseiffert2207 Mr. Hurwitz said in a video about Gielen edition that "Reger's piano concerto is one of the most horrible things ever written for the piano". I was shocked by this opinion and since then I'm asking him to explain it. Reger is one of my favorite composers and I like his piano concerto, specially 1st and 2nd movements.
@@DavesClassicalGuide "Dutilleux, because he was a human being." Epic!!!!!!!
@@rodrigoroderico3213 Why should I have to explain an opinion--did you explain yours? I do like the Serkin recording--it makes me enjoy the work, but I've heard so many that I think sound horrible.
Pettersson vs Sjostakovitch. Pettersson for me. Pettersson's music embodies a world of deep emotions, so personal and intense. His style is hyper individualistic.
im with you. (as much i love shostakovitch)
I prefer Shostakovich but that said I'm new to Pettersson and he's growing on me!
Lets go for the megaball Dave- the greatest duel of all- who is the better symphonist- Beethoven or Mahler?
1. Bach. I surprised myself here. In theory, I should prefer Handel; but in practice (i.e., based on numbers of recordings I own) I prefer Bach. But primarily his solo keyboard, violin, and cello music, not his choral works!
2. Scarlatti. Almost by default, as I scarcely know Couperin's music at all, but I enjoy Scarlatti on the piano. He never outlives his welcome. Great pianists have recorded Scarlatti sonatas; who has recorded Couperin's keyboard music?
3. Haydn. If you'd asked me 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, I'd have answered Mozart. I still love Mozart's piano concertos especially, and some of his operas of course; but now Haydn strikes me as a healthier, happier, more well-balanced sort of fellow-qualities I need more of in my life.
4. Brahms vs. Dvorak? That's not fair. I need both of 'em!
5. Bruckner! Just because! (You don't want me to write an essay, do you?)
6. Ravel. Don't ask me why-I don't know. I do love La Mer; but not much else, Debussy-wise. That said, I'm not crazy about Ravel, I just enjoy more of his pieces, in a passive, non-committal sort of way.
7. Schumann. This is sacrilegious, but I've just never really liked Chopin, and tolerate him only in very small doses. Schumann, on the other hand: not just solo piano pieces, but symphonies, concertos, choral works, songs, chamber music, love, friendships, musical networking, and the asylum...
It doesn't get much better than that.
8. Sibelius. We go way back together, whereas it's taken me quite a long time to embark my Nielsen journey.
9. Theoretically, because of my part-German ancestry and my Bruckner mania, I should choose Wagner; but actually, because of my part-German ancestry and my Bruckner mania, I choose Verdi. We need some sunlight; and besides, Verdi is much more fun. Lunga vita all'Italia!
10. What kind of choice is this? Neither!
~ J.D.
Very funny video.
1. Bach - The most difficult choice for me - I love Handel for the reasons you gave - but I return more often to Bach. The Partitas, the solo violin and cello works, etc etc have no equal in Handel
2. Haydn - easy (I love the way he surprises us - well if Mozart has lived 30 more years it would be a different result)
3. Scarllati - easy (and Soler ???)
4. Dvorak - for the same reasons you gave - but Brahms lost just because wrote less - some few works have no equal in Dvorak
5. Mahler - was also almost around one idea - death and the return to the paradise of the childhood - but he developed much more this central idea, and the "colour" of his orchestration has no equal
6. Ravel - Debussy is more important but Ravel is more fun (like Handel to Bach)
7. Chopin - but Schumann has symphonies, a much better concerto etc. No a fair duel
8. Sibelius and Nielsen - dont care - boring both (ok Sibelius - easy)
9. Verdi
10. Stravinsky
One of my favourite composers - poor Schubert - the best chamber music, the best lieder, two wonderful symphonies. but always on the shadow of Beethoven - who would beat him in a duel :)
- Bach v. Handel: Bach, but only because I really don't know Handel that much. In fact, I have the feel that Bach might be a bit overrated. Maybe in some years I will come back and change the vote, who knows :-)
- Scarlatti v. Couperin: again, there's one I know very well and one I barely know. I have to vote Scarlatti, but this time at least I can say I love him.
- Haydn v. Mozart: Haydn, but more because I have huge problems with Mozart.
- Dvorak v. Brahms: Dvorak. They are both great, but according to my feelings this is a no brainer.
- Schumann v. Chopin. Chopin, he's really one of my favourites.
- Sibelius v. Nielsen: I love Sibelius and I vote him, but I promise to deepen my knowledge of Nielsen.
- Bruckner v. Mahler: Bruckner, because I loved his sacred music. Mahler just doesn't speak to me, I can't find any appealing tune in his symphonies. Everybody talks about him being a great melodist, but I can't understand why, his melodies sound incomplete and randomic to me.
- Ravel v. Debussy: Ravel BY FAR, simply because his music is so much fun! I can't honestly understand how anyone who looks for fun in music can prefer Debussy to Ravel.
- Verdi v. Wagner: Verdi, simply because I can't stand Wagner and his 30 hours long operas.
- Stravinsky v. Schoenberg: Stravinsky is just much more complete.
- Palestrina v. Victoria: ouch! I love Palestrina, but I have to abstain from voting, because I never listened to Victoria.
1. Easy - Bach
2. Really hard choice - I’d have to say Scarlatti just because of the reasons you mentioned
3. Again, really hard choice - I’d have to pick Mozart (but just barely)
4. Completely agree with you on Dvorak
5. Easy - Bruckner (I rarely listen to both but I much prefer Bruckner’s music)
6. Easy - Debussy (very original music)
7. Easy - Schumann. As much as I like Chopin I love Schumann’s personal style and he remains one of my favourite composers ever.
8. Easy - Sibelius (I love the way he handles structure)
9. Holy cow this is a no brainer - Verdi a genius for all the reasons you mentioned
10. Really tough - I’d have to say Schoenberg just because he in my opinion had a much more ‘consistent style’
My picks are: Bach (and I adore Handel and find myself endlessly defending him with great ardor), Scarlatti, Mozart (love Haydn, but those operas), Dvorak (easy), Mahler (even easier), Debussy (in a squeaker), Chopin (easiest of all), Sibelius, Verdi (although it's close), and Stravinsky. Of course, we have no parameters here and are setting our own.
Victoria every time. That was the easiest one. The others were more difficult, and I probably disagreed with you half the time. But I based my choices entirely on which composer’s sound I preferred. I reality, I enjoy all of them and don’t have to choose, except which one do I want to listen to at the moment?
A real spat was between the followers of Rameau and Lully. I'd go for Rameau. Has Britten versus Tippett been mentioned? (My choice: Britten) Or Berlioz versus Liszt? (My choice: Berlioz) As for Palestrina versus Victoria, I'd definitely go for VIctoria. Palestrina is so buttoned up, I think. Victoria communicates oodles of passion, be it wonder or grief or joy. Byrd versus Tallis? (My choice: Byrd) Great to see such a positive case made for Haydn and Dvorak, even if I'd definitely pump for Mozart and Brahms. Thanks so much, David, for such fascinating videos. Really great!
Thank you. I didn't do Lully and Rameau because of the generational difference. Rameau is so much more sophisticated orchestrally that I thought the comparison wasn't fair. A more apt one might be Gluck and PIccini.
The only duel I can’t choose one side or another is Debussy - Ravel. Most would choose Debussy, yet Ravel’s greatness lie in the paradox of an outer technicolor sheen which hides an inner heart. The opera that brings the most tears to my eyes is L’Enfant et les Sortileges. Maybe I’m just weird😀
I feel absolutely the same about L'Enfant...
Exactly so! Better to be weird then.
Strauss versus who? Bartok perhaps? I was also trying to figure out with whom Berlioz might be compared, but he seems sui generis, like Beethoven.
I agree with all your picks, David, except I’d have to go with Brahms. I might pick Schumann as well because he is one of those composers who seemed to have an influence on 1930s and 40s film music - and I don’t listen to a lot of solo piano pieces, which are the Chopin calling card. But, objectively, I acknowledge Chopin as a more significant composer.
Great fun for classical fans, this idea! Thanks, David!
1. Handel (Bach is amazing as well)
2. Scarlatti
3. Haydn (but Mozart is also amazing)
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Debussy
7. Schuman
8. Sibelius
9. Verdi (by very very very far)
10. Stravinsky
Don't hate me, but I put Wagner barely above Verdi. Among many reasons, the orchestra has a more prominent role in Wagner's operas. Almost equal in status to the singers on stage. In Verdi's operas, the orchestra generally is more of an accompanying role, secondary to the singers (Save for Otello and Falstaff). But it's so close, I'm sure I might change my mind next week.
Good heavens! Hate you? I'll leave that to Wagner...;)
@@DavesClassicalGuide And Verdi also has an ace up his sleeves in the form of the Requiem!
Ten years ago, I would have placed Bach over Handel without a second thought. But once I could stream, I started exploring the other oratorios and operas, trios etc. At this point, I could entertain myself with Handel for weeks on end--but the answer is still Bach.
The story/legend of Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli demonstrates why it has to be Victoria. Palestrina's great achievement was to write a mass sufficiently uninteresting that the devoted could concentrate on the words. Mission accomplished. If it wasn't routinely coupled with the wonderful Allegri Miserere no one would care about it. Victoria, with his more varied harmonic palate and sense of timing routinely creates genuinely transcendent 'musical' moments that make one forget the words entirely.
Excellent reply!
The weirdest standard pairing on disc (for me) is Schubert and Schumann symphonies. What do they have in common beside the first syllable of their names? I guess the problem is, who else do you pair Schubert with? Berlioz?
Maybe Schubert with Dvorak? With some of Haydn's music? Or alternatively with something further away, like, I don't know, Schnittke. Rachmaninov. Tomkins. Kodály.
Fun times! So many excellent responses, and of course they'll be longer than usual. But I like the idea, its like a psychology test, or Tinder swiping or whatever, with the proviso that of course we mostly love and listen to all of these people. While listening to you, I think I guessed 9/10 of your choices, plainly I've read too many of your reviews.. So...
I use the Desert Island criterion - which one would you rather be stuck with forever? (and perhaps you can do a Desert Island Discs format at some point as there's a reason its still going after so long on BBC Radio 4 )
Bach/ Handel - I get what you're saying but despite having a lot of Handel around here, I must listen to Bach keyboard music more than almost anything else, so from experience, my mind is more interested in him.
Scarlatti/ Couperin - tricky as I don't listen to either that much but I think I'd be inclined to agree with you, despite the excessive number of binary sonatas involved.
Brahms/ Dvorak - I actually (I'm British, so I use 'actually' too much, see Felix Leitner's comment in Live and Let Die) consider Brahms' music superior but I wouldn't want to be stuck with him on a desert island as there's a morbidity going on that needs to be taken in small doses. So Dvorak for sure.
Bruckner/ Mahler - this is so difficult and agree with another commentator that pitching Mahler against Strauss would make more sense. I never really got the pairing that went on with these two, apart from some passages in the Bruckner 9. I love Mahler but I'd go for Bruckner as there is there, despite the flaws, something that simply feels more extraordinarily emotional, with less fancy orchestral experimentation than in Mahler. Plus there are, and I think we have to admit this, some rather boring elements in the Mahler symphonies to set alongside the greater bits. The 5th Symphony Scherzo? Dear me, I always zone out. But I think this is the most artificial comparison of the set.
Debussy/ Ravel - I have thought about this one before and while I love both, I'd take Ravel. Maybe he didn't write so much, but it is more varied and there is still quite a lot of it. I think the surface perfection is part of the appeal, and Debussy got a bit lazy about completing things, getting others to orchestrate and so on, that Ravel didn't succumb to.
Chopin/ Schumann - Schumann definitely, the oddities, the whimsy, the greater range. Some of the songs are operating at a level of hallucinatory imagination that for all the beauties of Chopin would be decisive in this case.
Sibelius/ Nielsen - As you were in two minds here yourself, I don't think you'll be fazed if I felt I'd rather be with Nielsen permanently (see Brahms above for a reason why I can't do too much Sibelius). Music as the life force, rather than as a sort of impersonal process, whats not to prefer?
Verdi/ Wagner - I'd take Wagner, not for every day, but he was simply the more innovative composer and although I totally agree with you on personality/ politics etc, he's one of the most important effects of the 19th Century along with Marx and others, for better or worse.
Schoenberg/ Stravinsky - I agree with you, for your reasons.
Palestrina/ Victoria - Victoria, no question! I like to listen to renaissance polyphony sometimes, but for whatever reason, Victoria is my favourite composer in the vein (well, maybe after Josquin, but thats earlier). Less "cool", more expressive and as this is religious stuff, ok, maybe more "spiritual", whatever that is.
I left out Haydn/ Mozart! I'd be Mozart.
Love your takes!
Handel; Scarlatti; Haydn; Dvorak; Mahler; Schumann (hands down!!); Nielsen (it's close); Wagner (sorry!); Stravinsky; Palestrina . . . Debussy vs. Ravel - absolute dead tie!
Some hard ones! Sometimes the "better composer" or the "more important for music history" is not our favorite. Let me think: What if X or Y had not existed?
I would not miss Couperin, but I woul surely miss Scarlatti. (Leave Bach or Handel for later).
Haydn is more important, but I could live without him (I would miss The Creation), while I would not bear without Le Nozze di Figaro, the piano concertos and the horn (yes) and the clarinet concertos.
Chopin may be more important for pianism, but I would much more miss Papillons, Carnaval and Op 17 Fantasy.
Verdi was a "better person" and a better composer, but Parsifal is closer to my heart.
Brahms is also a better composer, but I hear much more music by Dvorak.
Debussy is surely better and more important, but I wouldn't like a world without La Valse, Daphnis et Chloe and L'Enfant et les Sortileges.
I would miss Gurre-lieder but I would not live without Petrouchka or Le Sacre du Printemps.
I love Nielsen symphonies, but I need the Sibelius ones.
The same applies to Bruckner and Mahler, I need Mahler symphonies and Das Lied.
I almost cannot choose between Bach and Handel, but if my life depended on choosing between The Messiah and the Mass in B minor... I would go for Bach... Perhaps tomorrow I will feel the other way...
I will try to answer these duels:
Handel vs. Bach-- I would choose Bach. Bach is emotionally "deeper" IMO and his counterpoint plus steady tempos can create a soothing impression of "order" even if I don't try to follow the music.
Scarletti vs. Couperin: Have barely listened to them at all so far
Haydn vs. Mozart: Haydn-- his style is more accessible to me, he is more consistent. But as you said, their skills are complementary. Haydn is better at string quartets, symphonies, and arguably piano and sacred music. Mozart is better for chamber music for other ensembles, concertos, and operas. Haydn is my preference largely because I listen to the genres he was best at more than I do the genres that Mozart most excelled at.
Brahms vs. Dvorak: I NEED both. Dvorak gets an edge in orchestral music thanks to better orchestration and greater scope and quantity. Brahms is (even) better at chamber music than Dvorak (IMO). I haven't listened to Brahms' choral works other than the German Requiem, so I don't know if he can even *compete* with Dvorak in this category. Almost certainly not. Piano music: Brahms. I listen to both a lot.
Verdi vs. Wagner: I have the attention span to watch a video of a Verdi opera, but not Wagner's long slow orchestral dramas. So Verdi!
Chopin vs. Schumann: Chopin. I like his style more, but cannot explain why.
Bruckner vs. Mahler: Initially, I found Mahler ugly and crazy and Bruckner a prophet of God, but I had to concede Mahler was a more creative orchestrator. And his range was broader. And wow, the second movement of Mahler's Ninth! The Andante Moderato of the Sixth, DLVDE, the Resurrection Symphony...I now prefer Mahler but only because I gave Mahler more chances.
Debussy vs. Ravel: Debussy composed more pieces that I like
Stravinsky vs. Schoenberg: I find Neoclassical Stravinsky too restrained (though I still enjoy them), and Late Stravinsky less interesting than Schoenberg's serial works. So I prefer Schoenberg for all of his periods other than the Gurrelieder one.
Nielsen vs. Sibelius: I find Nielsen more interesting as a symphonist, and even Sibelius' Violin Concerto cannot outweigh that. Nielsen!
1) Handel 2) Scarlatti 3) Mozart ... the GOAT 4) Brahms 5) Mahler 6) Ravel 7) Schumann 8) Sibelius 9} Verdi 10) Stravinsky 11) Palestrina and now you know!
1) Bach vs. Händel: I love both. I like Händel best in vocal music and Bach for the piano.
2) Scarlatti vs. Couperin: Scarlatti. At first I thought this was a bit unfair, because I think of Couperin as early baroque and Scarlatti as late, but they did not live that far apart in years.
3) Haydn vs. Mozart: Mozart - although his music would be different without Haydn.
4) Brahms vs. Dvorak: Dvorak. But would he have made it without Brahms?
5) Bruckner vs. Mahler: I love both. But Mahler is both deeper and broader.
6) Debussy vs. Ravel: Debussy.
7) Chopin vs. Shumann: Chopin for the solo piano. Otherwise Schumann.
8) Sibelius vs. Nielsen: As a dane I should probably say Nielsen. But Sibelius just enchants me in his orchestral works. However Nielsen is better in chamber works.
9) Verdi vs. Wagner. When I was young I did not care for any of them. Nowadays I can manage to listen to a bit of Wagner, so he wins.
10) Schoenberg vs. Stravinsky. Stravinsky, please.
11) Prokofiev vs. Shostakovith?
1. Bach
2. (no choice)
3. Haydn
4. Brahms vs. Dvorák (tie)
5. Mahler (I apologize Bruckner, but Gustav is like a God for me)
6. Debussy (Ravel is also great, but...)
7. Schumann
8. Nielsen
9. Wagner (I don't like Verdi too much)
10. Schönberg vs. Stravinsky (tie: two great geniuses)
.... and Tomás Luis de Victoria.
Other possible 'duels'
Beethoven vs. Schubert (I choose Beethoven, but I love Schubert)
Prokofiev vs. Shostakovich (tie)
Webern vs. Berg (Webern)
Ligeti vs. Boulez (Ligeti, sure)
1. I got seriously into Händel recently, and as much as I love the Dixit/Nisi Dominus, Messiah, Israel, Utrecht Te Deum, Concerti Grossi, his Keyboard Suites which are easily on par with Bach, not to mention the operas, the b-minor Mass is one of my favourite compositions of all time (Top 3), in any era, so I have to give the edge to J.S. Bach.
2. Scarlatti, I’m not really familiar with F. Couperin apart from the Rondeaus.
3. I’m going to be boring, but Mozart, just because of the 30 minutes of Requiem he composed. Haydn’s music is slightly more heavy-handed to me at times and less outrageously ingenious, but to each their own.
4. Brahms - I’ve yet to find a lacklustre piece by him (if we don’t count the early keyboard sonatas in C major and F sharp major)
5. I would say neither, but I actually like some Bruckner choral stuff while I pretty much hate all Mahler.
6. Debussy, his musical language speaks to me infinitely more in terms of emotional content. As sublime as the Daphnis is, Ravel’s oeuvre is really hit or miss for me, but more miss than hit. I get the artificial feeling from Ravel too. The 2nd movement of his String Quartet sounds like background music for a cellphone commercial.
7. I’ve never heard about this comparison! Chopin vs. Schumann? I would choose Schumann (although by a very small margin) because his symphonies got me out of depression a few years ago. I can’t for the life of me listen to Chopin if he’s played by your bog-standard modern recording artist. They just water his music down with cheap sentimentalism and cautiousness, and I got tired of him because of over-exposure.
8. Neither, because I couldn’t possibly have a preference. I’m an uncultured swine, I’ve never heard any Nielsen (and barely any Sibelius) so it would be an unfair comparison.
9. Wagner, I have a bias towards German romanticism as a style. Nothing against Verdi though.
10. Another comparison I’ve never heard. I can’t stand dodecaphony and I’m not the biggest fan of Gurre Lieder, so Stravinsky, just because of his first 3 ballets.
I've never been able to make it through the B minor mass without sleeping at some point.
@@gregstanton7321 What can I say? Your loss. Or you've been listening to the wrong recording (I'm looking at you, Klemperer/Karajan/Richter and disciples).
@@Kris9kris No, I have two very fine period instrument recordings and have attended a number of performances of this work. It simply does not engage me in the same way a mass by Zelenka does. And it is far too long for practical liturgical use.
@@gregstanton7321 I was in the same boat as you in terms of length - it was not until I’ve seriously become interested in Baroque counterpoint and the style in general that I realised what a crowning achievement it was even for JS Bach’s standards. Maybe it is too long, and a good argument can be made that it was not conceived to be used in a liturgical setting. But if I judge the individual sections by themselves, it’s a whole different story. It’s a pastiche anyway, with repurposed music from cantatas and other minor masses by Bach (Wikipedia has a good article it) so I think it isn’t meant to be judged as a whole. I have to give it to you though, Zelenka’s masses *are* awesome, and they should be heard more often.
Bach, Scarlatti, Mozart, Dvorak, Mahler, Debussy, Chopin, Sibelius, Verdi, Stravinsky
Not too much hesitation on my choices (certainly for Bach, it's a no brainer for me), except between Ravel/Debussy. Your arguments prevail for Debussy.
I grew up with a Ravel solo piano record that my mother listened to all the time (Vlado perlemuter). So I am emotionally connected to Ravel.
Perhaps in the Take Away to a Deserted Island game, Ravel would win for me
.
I think this can lead to great musictalk. We are very different, some are listening (Bach, Mozart), others are hearings (Handel, Beethoven). Most of us do both, it depends on the listening mode for now. I am a listener, so Bach and Mozart for me, but not without most of the others.
If you only have one composer in your life, which will you choose? I can live with either Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and maybe Schubert. But no others.
I am not a great opera fan, so for me Mozart and Verdi is enough.
I try to love Wagner, but I hear jingles in stead of Leitmotif. My loss.
Have fun.
1. Bach
2. Scarlatti
3. Mozart
4. Dvorak
5. Mahler
6. Debussy
7. Chopin
8. Sibelius
9. Verdi
10. Stravinsky
Bach and Handel I understand, obviously. Between Bach, Handel and Telemann, I understand better. But to choose a pair from this trio, not easy.
Here's another Composer duel: Tchaikovsky vs. Rachmaninov. My choice between the two changes everyday.
I am surprised that I agree with all your choices except the first one.Neither Bach nor Handel would come up in my 10 best ever composers list but at least I find I get back to the cantatas much more often than I muster courage enough to listen to handel's one and only opera with 40 different titles.The sibelius Nielsen duel is a no brainer. Sibelius wins hands down - it's the same kind of comparison as that between Dvorak and Brahms. I am for Victoria over Palestrina but Lassus is the real deal.
1. Bach.
2. Scarlatti is a lot of fun.
3. Two of the greatest composers. It has to be Mozart.
4. Gut reaction was Brahms, but you may just have convinced me to change it to Dvorak.
5. I have really tried to get into Mahler but with mixed results, so Bruckner.
6. Debussy. Interesting that you mention what seems to be a consensus opinion that Ravel sounds more superficial.
7. Purely based on piano music it probably is Chopin, but all things considered it is Schumann.
8. Tough choice. Sibelius.
9. Not my kind of music. I did have a short Wagner phase, while I never had a Verdi phase, so it has to be Wagner.
10. Stravinsky.
Bonus: I have no clue. I find Palestrina dull as dishwater, so I have to choose Victoria purely because he hasn't bored me (yet).
1. Bach
(easy)
2. Scarlatti
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Bruckner
6. Ravel
7. Chopin (that was a difficult one)
8. Sibelius
9. Wagner
(easy)
10. Stravinsky (easy)
It seems we are wired quite differently - but I still enjoy your talks!
Here's my take:
Bach is universal. Handel also has strokes of genius, but Bach has everything, including music that's very fun. If late Bach is too grand, impervious and unapproachable, there's early Bach.
I barely know anything by Couperin, but I love me some Scarlatti, on a good harpsichord or even better (in Scarlatti) a good fortepiano.
I have got to side with Mozart, for similar reasons than with Bach. I love the Creation and the Seasons mir than anything, but I have to say that they have many loose threads and rough edges in terms of compositional craft. Mozart is always well-rounded and leaves nothing to be desired.
Brahms can be cerebral, which shows especially in his choral works (not to mention his organ works, which for good reason don't carry actual opus numbers). But the piano works, the symphonies, op. 104 and others are simply perfect. -Dvorak is a little less perfect, but more creative and more loveable. It's impossible to choose.
I think it's unfair to pit Bruckner against Mahler, because I agree with Brahms's assessment that Bruckner was the victim of an extremely narrow-minded, even toxic environment and education. Still, I have to pick Mahler. His spirituality is equally deep as Bruckner's, I think, and he combines a uniquely powerful, yet sensitive artistic vision with as perfect craftsmanship as any.
I would pick Ravel over Debussy out of pure personal preference. I agree that he has hidden depths, which can be wonderfully seen in his three a capella choral songs: beneath the fairytale surface there are tremendous uncomfortable truths.
When comparing Chopin and Schumann, I would note that Schumann has much more versatility. Chopin has his thing, which is beautiful, and his contribution to pianism is invaluable, but so is Schumann's, and from Schumann we get so many great Lieder, and those peculiar choral works, and symphonies etc...
I know little of Sibelius, and nothing of Nielsen (yet). That's a world still to explore for me…
I oppose everything Wagner stood for as an artist, but I am very grateful for the harmonic inspiration he gave to basically everybody, from Franck via Mahler and Elgar to Debussy. Just as Wagner tends to be bloated and vague, I tend to find Verdi a bit blunt (have to conform to some German stereotypes, after all), but the Requiem and Te deum firmly win me over.
Schönberg and Stravinsky are both impeccable by their craftsmanship, of course. I resent Stravinsky’s hateful modernist ideology, but generally his music can thrive despite that, if one doesn't try to out-Stravinsky Stravinsky. (By that I mean, play his music like music and not like an engineering task)
Palestrina always seems a bit ‘white’ to me, lacking in colour. I'm more prone to Lassus or Tallis, and don't know Victoria well enough to judge.
Just watched this again. My favorite Schumann is the Konzertstuck for Four Horns and Orchestra, Opus 86. It's a wonderful sadly neglected piece. I really don't care much for Schoenberg. I think the best thing Arnie ever did was orchestrating the Brahms First Piano Quartet, Opus 25. Guess we all have our own opinions. Hi Dave !!!
Apple and orange, which one is better? No need to argue, all personal taste.
Bach, Scarlatti, Mozart, Mahler, Debussy, Chopin, Sibelius, Verdi
Chopin vs. Lizst, not Schumann. They even played on pianos from competing companies: Pleyel (Chopin) and Erard (Lizst). The winner is still Chopin.
Handel. His lyricism reaches deeper into my soul.
I fully share your preference for Handel over Bach. Bach is superior in terms of abstraction and complexity, but the sense of drama and the sensuality of Handel are absolutely unequalled. Handel is also, to my point of view, the best melodist ever (even above Mozart). That is not well known, because few people indeed have explored in detail Handel's operas and oratorios. NB : in this case, we could have exceptionally a "trio" instead of a duel, adding Vivaldi who is the third major composer of the late baroque ; and my order of preference would be Handel / Vivaldi / Bach.
Mahler built worlds. His symphonies sound and feel different. Bruckner built cathedrals, all movements in a single symphony. Both were impressed with themselves, equally justified.
The eternal pessimist vs. optimist. Yin and yang. I could spend the rest of my days on a desert island just listening their works!
On the Shostakovich and Prokofiev question--Shostakovich because of the quartets. I don't have enough Victoria to judge, but all the Palestrina I have I love. Does Pictures at an Exhibition count as Ravel, because that could shift the scales?
Actually, Pictures at an Exhibition was written by Palestrina!
1. Bach, because I like counterpoint
2. Scarlatti is more to the point
3. Haydn, because his humour is better
4. Brahms, but I heard not very much stuff by Dvorak
5. Mahler had more humour
6. Debussy, although I like Ravel's string quartet better. And 'La Valse' & the sonata for violin and cello I like very much, too. So I don't know.
7. Schumann, who didn't always wrote just for the piano (and I like Schumann for being irritating)
8. Don't still know much of Sibelius or Nielsen
9. Wagner, but I heard more stuff by him
10. Schoenberg, he is my favourite composer in general
Bonus ?
So much fun, and I agree with all your choices, although I'd ever-so-slightly hedge towards Nielsen, not just as a symphonist, but for his chamber music and his underrated songs. I'd be curious to hear your takes on Cage vs. Feldman, Reich vs. Glass, Prokofiev vs. Shostakovich, Boulez vs. Stockhausen, Byrd vs. Gibbons, and, if I may be provocative: either Gershwin vs. Ellington or Gershwin vs. Bernstein!
Agree with Haydn over Mozart. But are they really that similar? I mean, how many conductors perform them equally well? Mackarras, Szell, maybe C. Davis. That's all I can think of. A few years ago, I heard Meistersinger and then Falstaff within a few weeks. While listening to the latter, it really hit me that Toscanini was right when he said that "what Wagner accomplishes in a few minutes, Verdi does with a few notes." So Verdi for me!
1. Bach over Handel, but Handel is so fantastic that's tough. I don't know if any composer can start a piece like Handel where you are just instantly wrapped up into the piece in two measures. And Handel, I believe, actually dueled Scarlatti in person! Definitely Handel over Scarlatti.
2. Big props to Couperin (who I refer to as "Coop") for writing program music in the Baroque era and the Mysterious Barricades is nice, but Scarlatti, it's just like every piece is magnificent. I've played both on guitar and Scarlatti is more fun for me.
3. Pass
4. Dvorak is more listenable and tuneful and I love him, and Brahms can be technical and harder to listen to, but when Brahms has his moments, of either just massive genius (Piano Quartet 4th), lyricism (3rd of 3rd sym), or what not, it is just so titanic. So, I go with Brahms, but closer than people might think.
5. Feels like picking Mahler gives you some of Bruckner's best along w it. I remember the story of the Bruckner symphony premiere where everyone hated it and left in the performance and even the musicians were packing up as soon as their parts ended, so that Bruckner is there at the end, alone on the stage, head in hands, and one lone figure is applauding in the back of the hall: a young Gustav Mahler.
6. Debussy and it is not even close. I consider him one of the all-time greatest, S tier composers.
7. Two of my favs, and Schumann has that lieder which is so gorgeous, and even his chamber music has some really good stuff and off course Scenes from Childhood and Piano Concerto, but, yeah, Chopin imitating Bellini on the piano all day is my choice.
8. Sibelius.
9. Verdi is the better opera composer by far. If I am going to an opera, I want to go to a Verdi opera. If I am going to a symphony to hear symphonic extracts and appreciate the complexity of the music, sure Wagner, but at least in Verdi operas people don't just stand there most of the time not doing anything.
10. Early Stravinsky, yes. Schoenberg is tough to listen to and its more appreciation of what he did. Of course, I would take either of Schoenberg's two famous pupils over Stravinsky.
Bonus. Well, I actually listen to Palestrina more than Victoria or most other Ren choral composers, but Victoria has some gorgeous, gorgeous stuff that is intricate too, but I'll take Palestrina, if anything for being hassled by the Church back in the day, Palestrina has that.
My Bonus Question: Famous guitar 19th century guitar rivalry between Fernando Sor and Mauro Guiliani, which one?
1. Bach -- has a certain complexity that Handel does not quite reach, makes it a deeper experience at its best.
2. Scarlatti I think, although I am not a keyboard player.
3. Mozart -- at his best sublime beyond belief, at a level that Haydn did not reach. Also could do counterpoint as well as Bach when needed.
4. Brahms/Dvorak tie--Dvorak a better melodist but Brahms full of imagination and profundity.
5. Mahler -- although Bruckner is more abstract so could win if you value that aspect highly.
6. Debussy -- is generally more interesting and provocative a listen, although both composers fantastic.
7. Chopin -- Romantic piano music a unique achievement.
8. Not sure, do not know Nielsen well enough to make a call.
9. Wagner / Verdi -- tie. To me they are impossible to compare, Wagner is the brilliant visionary whereas Verdi is the master craftsman.
10. Stravinsky -- better at incorporating visionary musical thinking into appealing artistic creations.
11. Palestrina / Victoria -- no idea.
Bruckner (1824-1896) vs Mahler (1860-1911) is slightly unfair, but has to be said some Bruckner rubbed off onto Mahler at times...
1. Bach. I've never been a lover of Baroque music in general, and while I respect Handel's genius it's never been enough for me to overcome my lack of taste for the style. Bach is an exception for me however since there's so much richness in harmony/counterpoint/motivic invention that keeps me engaged despite the style (though he admittedly took a number of years to grow on me). Perhaps if I learn to appreciate Baroque music more generally I'll manage to appreciate Handel a lot more.
2. Scarlatti. I agree, he's more fun.
3. Mozart. I also adore Haydn, but Mozart has the edge for his greater emotional range and ambition.
4. Brahms. Dvorak is also great and a better tune smith, but Brahms wins for his capacity for greater dramatic power and forward momentum (as an aside though, I seem to stand alone among Brahms lovers in thinking the German Requiem is dull as dirt).
5. Mahler. I never found love for Bruckner, who seems to me extremely static and lacking in forward momentum. Mahler is wonderful, except for his 8th symphony.
6. Debussy. But I agree, it's extremely close. I enjoy them equally, so will choose Debussy for his greater importance.
7. Chopin. Schumann is more fun and radical, but Chopin's craftsmanship and consistency in his mature years was unparalleled in the 19th century (barely wrote a bad piece after turning 20, while Schumann wrote tons of crap).
8. Sibelius. Also a near coin-flip.
9. Verdi. I'll confess that Wagner was the more important composer, but Verdi is so much more enjoyable. Wagner is a chore to listen to if you're not in the perfect mood for it, which comes to me about once every 2 years or so (OTOH I will always enjoy a listening of Aida or Otello).
10. Stravinsky. I cannot stand Schoenberg, and it's not because I hate atonal music (I love Berg and Messiaen for instance), I don't quite know why. I think it's because I find Schoenberg colouristically monotone, though that may just be due to my lack of appreciation in the first place. But I love almost all Stravinsky, even his late works.
BONUS - who cares, the correct question is Gesualdo or Monteverdi? Correct answer: Monteverdi!
My choice is Bach too, however if you sit with a score of Handel's OP 6 Concertos and a good recording of them and follow along I think your perspective of him will change and you will see why he was viewed as a genius by composers of his time including Bach and later composers including Haydn. I think the reason for that is his inventiveness. In Bach's music I feel there is an inevitability, there was a perfect solution to everything and only he always had access to this perfection. In Handel's music I feel he always makes choices that simply no body else would have come up with, little twists and turns that anybody else would have just done the more expected thing, always guided by inventiveness and good taste and he also wrote many a mighty mighty fugue.
1) Bach
2) Couperin
3) Haydn
4) Brahms
5) Mahler
6) Debussy
7) Schumann (Mendelssohn would have won if it were Schumann versus Mendelssohn)
8) Nielsen
9) Verdi
10) Stravinsky
11) Palestrina
(Beethoven versus Schubert? Schubert)
Victoria, hands down! Palestrina always sounded too well-behaved for me, especially since I listened to Josquin (who for me is the most marvelous composer of all the Renaissance, much freer and more varied in expression, I think).
Yes!! Josquin des Prez is my favorite Renaissance composer!! A marvelous genious!
If you think of a composer who lived in the same period as Palestrina and Victoria, my choice would be Orlando di Lasso (Lassus). His Lagime di San Pietro is a profound masterpiece
1) Bach, 2) Couperin, 3) Mozart, 4) Dvorak, 5) Mahler, 6) Debussy, 7) Chopin, 8) Sibelius, 9) Wagner, 10) Stravinsky. All choices, subject to change.
...without notice! Good to see a vote for Couperin.
For me the Haydn-Mozart duel is impossible to decide... the rest of your duels are spot on except Debussy - Ravel; Ravel all the way!!!! I find his music so much more colorful and interesting, while Debussy just puts me to sleep; Absolute YESSES on Dvorak, Chopin, Mahler, Verdi and Stravinsky... I truly believe the one thing they all have in common is a sense of spontaneity and gusto - they are of this earth, they connect with humanity - its beauty, its ugliness, flesh and bone, warts and all; while Bach, Brahms, Bruckner, Schumann and Schoenberg operate on a different emotional, intellectual and spiritual plane (sp?). Luckily humans are so varied and complex we have the ability to connect with all of these and other composers at any given time. Funny you didn't match Beethoven with anyone, since he would be the clear winner, no matter the musical era. Palestrina-Victoria... the loser of that duel would be me, because I'd walk right into the line of fire and end it right there.
I managed to select most of the ones you chose. However, I like Wagner more than Verdi, because the music is more kind of meaty than Verdi’s. Pure and simple. I gathered you have the view of Wagner, for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons?
@@DavesClassicalGuide not being offensive, or anything, when you talked about Nazi stomping, etc. Which I think probably comes from your background. Which is fair enough. Yes, Verdi had more variety of style with his music, but sometimes that made me cringe, like in his more delicate moments. It’s my lifelong love if music that’s rather meaty in sound. Now though I can appreciate more of what Verdi composed.
@@Plantagenet1956 My judgments are solely based on my feeling for the music, and not on the fact that I am Jewish. I just wanted to be clear about that. I know you were not trying to offend. Everyone agrees that Wagner was a vile person. That's a given, and if it mattered no one would listen to him at all.
@@DavesClassicalGuide mind you I heard,ly ever listen to his music
"Who do you like better as a person" composer duels might be fun (although I can't imagine Wagner winning very many of those).
My picks:
Bach > Handel: I think Bach has simply written more masterpieces, across genres, and his music is more innovative. Handel's music can sometimes be more fun, but it doesn't feel like it carries the same weight as Bach's.
Scarlatti > Couperin: My knowledge here isn't so great, I've only listened to a handful of each composer's works; I think Couperin at his peak may have been better, but Scarlatti was more consistent in churning out enjoyable music.
Mozart > Haydn: I guess I'm taking the safe pick here, and don't feel the need to explain Mozart's greatness and genius across genres, but I also am just not a huge fan of Haydn stylistically. I'll listen to it, but I wouldn't go out of my way for him. I haven't yet heard a piece of his which struck me as a masterpiece - his symphonies & string quartets are enjoyable, but not outstanding, in my honest opinion.
Dvorak > Brahms: This is more of a stylistic choice, but Dvorak's music is just consistently entertaining and refreshing to listen to. Brahms is much more hit-or-miss for me, although I will say that his piano music is competitive, if not better than Dvorak's.
Mahler > Bruckner: I think Mahler's music is much more exciting, while Bruckner's music is often more dull to me. Too much brass, haha. Mahler's music is much more free-flowing, and his orchestration is significantly better.
Ravel > Debussy: Generally not a fan of French "impressionistic" music for whatever reason, but Ravel wrote more memorable music to me. Debussy was more influential, and was probably a more versatile composer, but his music just isn't for me.
Chopin > Schumann: Chopin is the legend of piano music, and for that alone, he wins this duel for me. There has never been a "Chopin" before or after him - the music is uniquely his own, and he was a master of both harmony & melody. Schumann was no slouch when it came to piano music himself, but it just isn't at the same level.
Sibelius > Nielsen: I think Nielsen's music is very fun and intriguing, but he lacks the power and mastery that Sibelius had. The orchestration & form of Sibelius's music is just pure perfection, and I could listen to it all day.
Verdi > Wagner: Not a big opera guy, so I'm just basing this off overtures & their limited non-operatic oeuvre. Similar to Bruckner, I think Wagner is just not my style with so much brass, it's too in-your-face. Verdi is just a fun time.
Stravinsky > Schoenberg: Much respect to Schoenberg - I don't think he's respected enough, but Stravinsky is simply my jam, I think he's the greatest composer of the 20th century. His music is just so unique and riveting.
Palestrina > Victoria: I will leave this one to others as well. I think I've heard no more than one piece by either composer.
Handel, Couperin, Haydn, Chopin, Dvorak, Bruckner, Verdi, Debussy, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Victoria
Next on orchestras
Berlin/Vienna phil
Dresden statskapelle/Gewandhaus
Leningrad (Petersburg ) phil/ Czech philharmonique
Heslinki/Stockhol philharmonic
Chicago/Boston symphony
LSO/ Concertgebuw (maybe others;)
...and conductors: Furtwängler/Toscanini, Bernstein/Karajan etc
Didn't Ned Rorem say Palestrina only had the reputation as a great composer but wasn't really one? Something like that. What about the other duel? Puccini vs. Strauss. I'd love to hear your take on that one.
Puccini, and I love Strauss too.
Bach vs. Handel: Bach for the consummate craftsmanship, monuments like the B Minor Mass, and great trumpet writing
Haydn vs. Mozart: Mozart for the melody and dramatic wit, and especially for the piano concertos
Brahms vs. Dvorak: have to agree that Dvorak is as good and is more fun
Bruckner vs. Mahler: Mahler, as I tend to agree that Bruckner kept writing the same symphony over and over... Mahler has a much wider expressive range
Debussy vs. Ravel: Debussy, for my preferred handling of early Modernism, “the liberation of consonance,” a Modernism that’s as forward looking as Schoenberg but also enjoyable
Chopin vs. Schumann: Chopin for me too, he made the piano sound like it was invented for his music, and together with Berlioz you hear that the French sensibility did much better things with early Romanticism than the Germans did, it’s more forward-looking and adventurous
Verdi vs. Wagner: Wagner, not because I like the man, but for the revolutionary nature of the music and the immense scale of his vision
Schoenberg vs. Stravinsky: Stravinsky... I still think that Schoenberg’s serialism, at least as he employed it to Expressionist ends, was a mistake and mostly unlistenable
Here’s another: Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich? Even though I know Tchaikovsky was more skillful, and even though Shostakovich wrote more than his share of mediocre pieces, I’d have to take Shostakovich. His best work has a violent edge to it that does a lot more for me than Tchaikovsky’s pretty melodies.
I could suggest Stanford vs Parry.
.... I'll get my coat.
What fun! 10 musical boyfriends to keep and 10 to dump!
Bach…you can blame Cecilia Bartoli for that one. The image of her Cleopatra, straddling that toy rocket, barely wearing some pole dancer’s discarded spandex, is still, after much time, keeping my therapist quite busy.
Scarlatti…though I shall deeply lament the loss of the “troisieme leçon de tenêbre”…but will be very happy to be free of the worry over whether my accents and squiggles were correctly placed when I wrote said work.
Can I take option C, Salieri? Too tough to choose…and I’m English - we do like to take pity on the underdog.
Mahler….I like to have the occasional wallow, but dear lord…Bruckner!…I can wallow with Mahler…but he also has cow bells, so they give Mahler the edge.
Debussy. If only for Pelleas et Melisande…and I like a man with a beard.
Chopin…his musical language was infinitely more unique and sophisticated…but I will miss Schumann …bits of him…small bits…though good riddance to that f#%!ing Toccata.
Sibelius…ashamed to admit that I’m familiar with just a handful of Nielsen’s works…so through ignorance, I don’t have anything amusing to say about him. So Sibelius get the win by default.
Verdi…much as Wagner’s music transports me, he’s really a very difficult person to like… it’s too exhausting, trying to block the repugnant waves of sanctimony that accompany Parsifal, in order to enjoy the music…and of course, the beard secures the win for Verdi.
Stravinsky…I just this morning had an existential crisis during a lengthy phone call with my elderly mother…no more phone calls for me, for a while.
Palestrina…unfortunately, everyone called Victoria inevitably seems to be disturbingly frumpy…
Next, how about requiem duels? Brahms vs. Mozart, Berlioz vs. Verdi, Faure vs. Dvorak. My all time favorite is the Faure because it's the most seductive and ravishing to the ear, particularly in the finale. It's also the most concise. As magnificent as the Verdi is, it does get a bit tiresome. I wish it were about fifteen minutes shorter. Thoughts?
I think one of these things was enough for now, but it WAS fun, and I appreciate the suggestions.
I take Duruflé's requiem against Fauré's anytime! Among others because of the latter last movement, I am afraid. We'll have to agree to disagree!
What about Beethoven vs. Schubert?
I thought that might have been #11. I would have to do a very scrupulous inventory to decide there
@@telephilia It depends on which parts of their oeuvre you care about
Much as I love a great deal of Schubert's music, Beethoven hands -down wins for me. Then again, Beethoven wins 'every' such contest, no matter the competition. If asked, "Which composer who died young do you wish had lived a long, musically productive life?", Schubert wins. His output steadily 'matured' throughout his too-short life. His 'late' works are, on the whole, markedly superior to his early output. Had he survived another 30-40 years, who knows what he might have accomplished! Much as I love Mendelssohn and wish he too had survived another few decades, his work is consistently good from early on until the end. We'd likely have gotten many more masterworks from him, but not in the sense of a Beethoven who often changed course and broke new ground. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just seems to me that Schubert might have been Beethoven's natural successor had he survived long enough.
No contest. Schubert could reach otherworldly sublimity at times, easily, but Beethoven's oeuvre is much more complete in every respect. Schubert wrote much more music for sure, but with that comes a ton of lacklustre output. Schubert is at times especially puzzling to me as a creative artist, I mean he could go from writing the masterpieces that are the 3 late sonatas to utter, unadulterated garbage like the Mirjam's Siegesgesang.
Dvorak over Brahms for me because of all the great Dvorak tone poems, and I do love his Symphonies 8 and 9. Plus Brahms can put me on the verge of snoozing. Mahler over Bruckner every day of the week, BUT - I love Bruckner and I’ll never get people who don’t.
And my winners are (you will hate me...)
1) Bach - Händel: My winner is Purcell, because he's even more fun than Händel. (Otherwise, it would be Händel.)
2) Scarlatti - Couperin: My winner is Rameau, because he's even more brillant than Scarlatti. (Otherwise it would be Scarlatti.)
3) Haydn - Mozart: Haydn, but under tears to lose Mozart... But to me, Haydn is the more experimental composer, more fun, more crazyness. I like this more than the sheer angelic perfection of Mozart.
4) Brahms - Dvorák: Dvorák. In my opinion one of the most underrated composers of the 19th centuries.
5) Bruckner - Mahler: That's hard. Ordinarily, the duel would be Bruckner - Brahms, and my winner would be Bruckner. But against Mahler, I fear for my good old Toni, even if he wrote this 5th and this 9th symphony. I must agree: Mahler.
6) Debussy - Ravel: Okay, Debussy, of course and without hesitation. BUT - I think, the duel is quite unfair. Debussy has the machine gun of Etudes, Faune, Mer, Pelléas, Saint Sebastien, Khamma, Nocturnes aso, nearly every work a masterpiece, and Ravel the polite pistols of Ma mère l'oye, Pavane et Daphnis. But to be serious for a moment: In my opinion, Debussy and Ravel have nothing to do one with the other. I guess that Ravel tends more to Satie, Roussel and Koechlin (in all duels Ravel would be defeated - no, he would win against Satie), whereas Debussy is a single figure with some followers like Caplet. But I like Ravel, I really do. Who would not...? Entreact of seriouseness ended.
7) Chopin - Schumann: And my winner is Alkan. Otherwise, I would prefer Chopin. But one must have in mind that neither Chopin's nor Alkan's orchestral music are of great eminence, wereas Schumann wrote his 4 symphonies, his piano concerto and much more. May I introduce Mendelssohn as my personal winner...?
8) Sibelius - Nielsen: That's tricky. It's a bit like Debussy-Ravel. They have not so much in common as one may think. But I would choose Sibelius, because his symphonic cycle convinces me more, and his tone poems with their ostinati and organ points are unequalled.
9) Wagner - Verdi: Without any hesitation - Wagner. Let me explain. I detest the man. He's the ugliest character of all composers, who are dear to me (maybe besides Britten and his love for young boys). I cannot forgive Wagner "Das Judenthum", and, yes, I think, it's a model for typing "the jew", which leads perhaps not strictly to the nazi antisemitism, but its a landmark. I confess that I detest Wagner so much that I tried to make a Wagner-autodafe and set Verdi at his place. But then, I heard again "Flying Dutchman", "Walküre", "Tristan", "Parsifal" - and I was done. I'm not even interested in Wagner's sujets (with exeption of the "Dutchman"), and I like much more Verdi's libretti. But I also like the dark glow of Wagners brass, I think, he's unsurpassed (in his time), when he drives a rhythm to the excess ("Rheingold", 2nd interlude, Ride of the Valkyries with that effect that at first the fog-motives are in the foreground and then, slowly the theme of the Valkyries becomes stronger). Meanwhile, my position is, like Leonard Bernstein said: "I hate Wagner, but I hate him on my knees." But I like Verdi, nevertheless, and if a Wagnerian (these guys I detest more than I detest Wagner) argues against Verdi, I become Verdi's advocate instantly.
10) Schönberg - Stravinsky: And my winner is Bartók. Otherwise it would be Stravinsky, of course. I like this games very much and play it often with frieds. My duel-pairing is always Schönberg - Berg and Stravinsky - Bartók. I am one of the few, who tends to Schönberg in this case, because Berg wrote so few, and I'm not really convinced that "Wozzeck" is better than "Erwartung" und "Die glückliche Hand". And the other duel would win Bartók. I like Stravinsky really, and, in my opinion, he wrote at least six of the 20th centuries greatest works ("Firebird", "Petrushka", "Sacre", "Svadebka", "Symphony of Psalms" and "Threni"), but I like the WHOLE Bartók from "Kossuth" to "Concerto for Orchestra". He's one of my favourite composers of all time. So, it's easy to choose for me.
Here are 2 worthy duels:
Bartok / Stravinsky
Or
Couperin / Rameau
Surely not Mahler versus Bruckner, but rather Mahler versus Richard Strauss. Most importantly, Bruckner and Mahler were not contempories - the best 'duels' (Mozart/Haydne, Brahms/ Dvorak, etc) were composing at the same time and influenced each other - but Bruckner was much older and diad before most of Mahler's work was composed, so Mahler had no real effect on Bruckner's work. Strauss and Mahler however were contemporaries and rivals. Both were superstar composer-conductors, both were supreme orchestrators, both wrote highly autobiograhical works, their long symphonic works tend to be programmatic, and together they are probably the 2 greatest composers of orchestral songs. Most importantly, they both had a big infleucne on each other's music.
I must say I’m quite surprised by the love for Dvorak sometime. He was a very good composer - not bad by any means - but not one of the greatest in my opinion, and certainly not with on a par with Brahms.
Brahms was highly original and inventive, regenerating new spirit into old forms with unique melodic, harmonic and structural language, while Dvorak, accomplished as he was, only assimilated influences from the music of his time, adding to it little originality (again, in my opinion). I think that the same argument in favour of Debussy (who's music I absolutely adore) from the Debussy v.s. Ravel dual holds here as well.
Moreover, I think that one can hardly find any weak compositions in Brahms’s oeuvre, which is something you can’t say about Dvorak. I can’t see anything in Dvorak that could compete with Brahms’s accomplishments in the same field. I mean, I know Dvorak composed some nice melodies, but never anything as profound as Brahms.
I listen to classical music (and watch the wonderful videos on this channel) enthusiastically, but I must admit I could not bring myself to like Dvorak, and was never able to enjoy any of his music at the same level as that of Brahms’s (or quite frankly enjoy them at all).
So for me, there's no question who's the best among them - Brahms, Brahms, and again - Brahms!
But please help me see why I'm misjudging Dvorak, I’d be happy to re-discover his music :) (I've tried the Symphonies and the Cello Concerto but to no avail)
George Bernard Shaw said that Brahms's Requiem could be borne only by the corpse.
@@morrigambist Well, he's dead by now so maybe he learned to appreciate it.
So, my picks (resisting the temptation to say "too close to call" on many of them):
Bach vs. Handel: I vote for Bach (as those who saw my post in your Brandenburg review may have guessed). It's a vague way of putting it, but there's something in Bach that hit me on a deeper level than Handel.
Scarlatti vs. Couperin: Tough call! I'll choose Couperin because I like his quirkiness (not that Scarlatti was lacking in this quality) and that element of French elegance that appeals to my taste.
Haydn vs. Mozart: With you on this. And, a deep dark secret, I'm not a big opera fan, so as impressed as I am with Mozart's rare ability to write symphonies and operas that are part of the standard repertoire, Haydn's wondrous creativity and keen orchestral sense makes him my choice.
Brahms vs. Dvorak: Another tough call. Here I'm leaning towards Brahms, because I love his symphonies so much. But this may be the 2nd toughest call (with the toughest yet to come)...
Bruckner vs. Mahler: I agree with your choice. Although I do find Bruckner's music uplifting, Mahler hit the full range of musical emotions, from ecstasy to tragedy to transcendent resignation. It's more fully human and that appeals to me. But this is another toughy, as I love them both.
Debussy vs. Ravel: Agree with you for pretty much the reasons you mentioned. And the "Nocturnes" rank among my favorite orchestral works.
Chopin vs. Schumann: Another agreement. Although I like Schumann for his quirkiness (and sometimes outright weirdness), Chopin's ability to spin out beautiful melodies and his expert writing for the piano give him the edge, in my opinion.
Sibelius vs Nielsen: THIS is the toughest! By a hair I'm siding with Nielsen, for the super subjective reason that he wrote the best ever (in my opinion) Wind Quintet, a genre I particularly like. But this is the closest to "too close to call" in your list.
Verdi vs. Wagner: Not being an opera fan, I'm tempted to pass on this one. But that would be cheating, so, based more on overtures and orchestral exerts that the main event, I side with Wagner. His huge brass climaxes and colorful wind writing appeal to my more sensuous side. But I can see that a true opera buff would choose Verdi, if only because he wrote so well for the human voice and didn't drag his opera's out for interminable lengths.
Schoenberg vs. Stravinsky: Easily Stravinsky. Truth to tell, I've never liked most of Schoenberg's music. Even his more accessible works, such as "Transfigured Night" strike my ear as so much over-dense sonic sludge. And Stravinsky just had an uncanny way of drawing the most unusual timbres from his works, which appeals to my love for orchestra color. And he wrote some potent music.
Palestrina vs. Victoria: Okay, now I've got to hunt down more Victoria music. So, Palestrina for now, but this may change.
A couple of suggestions for future duels: Rachmaninoff vs. Prokofiev, Monteverdi vs. Gesualdo, Vaughan Williams vs. Holst, Copland vs. Barber.
Thanks for a stimulating chat!
Debussy. He’s been ingrained in me since my piano lesson days.
Shostakovich-Prokofiev?
Bach vs Händel. Very difficult. Two real titans. But I think I will go with Bach on the strength of his amazing skills in counterpoints.
Scarlatti vs Couperin. Difficult. But David's arguments are compelling. So Scarlatti it is.
Haydn vs Mozart. Easy. Haydn hands down. Kenneth Woods famously wrote once; "Haydn was a more creative, more talented and more skilled composer than Mozart." Good man.
Brahms vs Dvorak. Very difficult. I have actually heard quite a lot of Dvorak's music, probably more than that of Brahms. They are both amazing. I choose Dvorak because he was most vrsatile.
Bruckner vs Mahler. Easy. Bruckner hands down. These are also two amazing composers. However, for me Mahler occasionally becomes to theatrical, to autobiographic. And while Mahler is a more colourful orchestrator, I think that Bruckner is more interesting as a harmonist. Didn''t Harnoncourt once call him an antenna into the 20th century?
Debussy vs Ravel. Easy. Debussy for reasons David mentioned.
Chopin vs Schumann. Difficult. Chopin is a god on the piano and an interesting harmonist. But Schumann has fine works in most genres, and is also a progressive force in music. I go with Schumann.
Sibelius vs Nielsen. Rather difficult. Both are splendid symphonists, but I think Nielsen has the upper hand. I love the Violin Concerto of both of them. I do however prefer Nielsen's operas and chamber music. So I go with Nielsen.
Wagner vs Verdi. Difficult. Wagner was not a nazi and his musical dramas are extraordinary. So is however some of Verdi's and that Requiem.. Wagner with the slightest of margins.
Schoenberg vs Stravinsky. Relatively easy. Stravinsky has composed many masterpieces, but Schoenberg at his best has few peers and his importance difficult to overestimate.
Palestrina vs Victoria. Difficult. I actually prefer the somewhat earlier Cristobal de Morales to any of them... But enough about that. Victoria's music is a bit freer and more lively, but it is my iimpression that Palestrina have had a larger influence on later music theory, I seem to remember that his style was the foundation for Johann Joseph Fux' famous textbook which I to my eternal shame can't remember the name of. So for that I choose Palestrina.
My own would be: Scheidt vs Frescobaldi
1. Bach
2. Scarlatti (I'm assuming you mean Domenico)
3. Mozart
4. Dvorak (but only by a slim wedge)
5. Mahler
6. Ravel
7. Chopin
8. Sibelius
9. Wagner
10. Stravinsky
11. Palestrina
Handel, with great respect for Bach. Mozart, with ENORMOUS respect for Haydn, thanks to you, Dave. Dvorak!!! Bruckner, hands down! Mahler had some great themes, moving Adagios, and impressive climaxes. But he takes too long to develop, and he gets a little creepy. Ravel, if only for Daphnis and Chloe. Chopin. No contest. Sibelius. Not even close. No knock on Nielsen, a great symphonist. Verdi! Couldn’t care less about Shoenberg v. Stravinsky. Shoenberg, I guess. I’ll take Palestrina, only because Sibelius liked him. Why? I have no idea. I listened to Palestrina and it remained a mystery to me why. I’ll have to revisit that, maybe.
Of course Scarlatti is more brilliant than Couperin, the latter's style is not brilliant (Tic Tac Toe aside), but it is simple and poetic.
He is a schumann of the baroque.
I have a hard time choosing which one I prefer, it depends on the moment.
1. Bach
2. Scarlatti
3. Haydn
4. Dvorak
5. BRUCKNER (greatest composer ever)
6. Debussy
7. Schumann
8. Nielsen
9. Wagner
10. Stravinsky
Shouldn't it be Chopin vs. Liszt (keyboard titans), Mendelssohn vs. Schumann (early romantic all-rounders)
And for that matter: Bruckner vs. Brahms (giants of symphonic form), Dvorak vs. Tchaikovsky (all-around mid-romantic geniuses),
Mahler vs. Strauss (late romantic orchestral gigantism),
Those work too, obviously, but I think you know that there's no "should be" here.
@@DavesClassicalGuide lolz. Understood.
1. Bach by default, as I've listened to almost no Handel outside the Water Music and the Music for Royal Fireworks, neither of which particularly grabbed me. And I do love the Brandenburgs.
2. Hard to pick because I've barely listened to either. Let's say Scarlatti because I have listened (as background music) to a couple of Scarlatti sonatas. In general, I'm not much of a lover of baroque music.
3. Also not an unqualified lover of either Mozart or Haydn, but I guess I'd pick Mozart because I know more of his music and love some of the Haydn quartets, the darker symphonies like 25 and 40, and the Requiem. I love the Haydn quartets I've heard, however.
4. Brahms: one of my first loves in classical music. His solo piano music, espeically the late works, are my favorite solo piano compositions (imprinted by Kovacevich's Philips Duo). Some of the intermezzi sound like drops of water down a 19th century woman's back in my imaginary boudoir from my likewise imaginary 19th century (aristocratic) life.
5. Mahler: I love Bruckner, but Mahler's symphonies took over Beethoven's in my personal pantheon--no mean feat when it was the opening of Beethoven's 5th that entranced me when I was 5 years old (though my music teacher never told me what it was, and being from the rural midwest, USA, where classic rock and country were king, it took me till I was 20 to "find" it and classical music again). I've had numerous near-transcendant aesthetic experiences listening to Mahler on headphones while walking through woods, especially the 2nd (Bernstein/LSO), 6th (Karajan/Bernstein DG), 7th (Rattle, amazingly enough), and 9th (Karajan studio: I'm a Karajan guy, not least because we have the same birthday, April 5th).
6. Debussy: I agree, it's a tough call, but I've had many more intense experiences to Debussy's work (the Nocturnes, the Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, The Martyrdome of St. Sebastian in Tilson Thomas's Sony recording, the Villon songs from Fischer-Dieskau, etc.)--real aesthetic arrest to use Joyce's phrase.
7. Schumann, mostly because I don't know enough Chopin, outside the Scherzi. The Fantasie is right up there with Brahms' late piano works for me. One summer I listened to Richter's EMI recording of it non-stop, while supplementing with Perahia's on Sony.
8. Sibelius by default just because I don't know Nielsen's work very well, though come to think of it, I don't know Sibelius' that well either.
9. Wagner is one of my favorite composers and comes up constantly in my writing (I'm a poet), especially Parsifal and Tristan. After discovering classical when I was 20, I spent an entire summer listening to bleeding chunks from both operas on cassette while deliverying bread and pastries for the bakery I worked at. Also, I've only listened to one Verdi opera (Un Ballo en Maschero (?)) and the beginning of the Requiem.
10. Schoenberg: I've never really warmed to Stravinsky, but then I never have to Schoenberg either, though I do love Verklarte Nacht and the 1st Chamber Symphony. Maybe I like the IDEA of Schoenberg more, with that famous expressionist self-portrait he did and the culture of modernist Vienna. If I dived into Stravinsky, he'd probably come out on top, but I've never much liked the Rite (though I do love Petroushka) and haven't got much farther with him.
11. Palestrina just because I've never listened to anything by Victoria, and I have listened to SOMETHING (though I forget what) by Palestrina.
Scriabin / Rachmaninov ?
Tough choice
Sibelius for his originality.
For the face-off between Mahler and Bruckner, I definitely give the edge to Mahler. I love the music of both composers, but Mahler's creative imagination, melodic invention, and orchestration skills are wide ranging and varied compared to Bruckner. Additionally, Mahler takes more risks and is "edgier. "Really an apples and oranges comparison.
Very rarely do i disagree with Dave because my knowledge of music is nowhere in the same universe as his- but I am surprised at his assertion that Nielsen is the better symphonist than Sibelius. They both wrote distinctive and magnificent symphonies but the power of the Sibelius 2nd, the magnificence of the melodies of his 5th, the personal psychological power of the 4th, and the overall emotional nature and construction of his 7th seem to me to overshadow Nielsen. Bu then again, who am I?
Just heard this - you’re addictive!
Palestrina vs Victoria EASY. The Spaniard wins hands down, there’s an intensity, depth, humanity in Victoria’s music that Palestrina seldom approaches for all his surface shine. Eg his Officium Defunctorum (Requiem), or Vidi Speciosam for sheer happy bliss. I sang a concert of music by both composers and it was almost embarrassing how much better Victoria’s music was. Palestrina very beautiful and ‘brilliant’ but didn’t touch the soul.