Is this guy even rated as a composer? His stuff is positively painful to listen to.
John Williams? Hope he is outed for the thief he is.
Chopin had a mixed reception in his time. I recall one critic calling his music “noise”. Likewise, Berg (the 4th B?) suffered from critics misunderstanding his works. However, preeminent composers wrote arguments for his genius. I suppose a similar things could be said of most avant-garde composers… Have you ever heard of Conlon Nancarrow? He gives Ligeti a run for his money.
I find that surprising. If there’s a criticism my 21st century ears have against Chopin (and he is one of my favorite composers), it’s that’s he’s too melodic and harmonious. What a difference a hundred fifty or so years makes.
Bartok’s Romanian Folk Dances are very listenable. But in general I agree with you.
Didn’t Nietzsche eventually abandon his friendship with Wagner because Wagner was so disgustingly bigoted, including towards Jews? Wagner may have written beautiful music, but he was apparently quite an asshole.
Chopin took significant liberties with what was considered proper harmony at the time. This is what displeased some critics, but it’s also one of the things that make him an important composer nowadays. He really helped expand the musical language of his time.
Most composers who were active before the romantic period fell into obscurity at one time. Vivaldi was a composer of some renoun in his time, but after his death, it wasn’t until the 20th century that his Four Seasons was discovered and became part of the canon.
Speaking of canon, Pachelbel was one of the most famous composers in his lifetime. He wrote vast amounts of music, in various forms. Fell into obscurity. In the 1970s, his canon became a huge hit, and now he’s a one hit wonder.
Josquin Desprez was the most famous composer of the Renaissance. His was a household name. He’s still highly regarded by those who know his work, but how many are we? The same holds for all the other Renaissance masters: Ockeghem, Palestrina, Lassus…
Between the Baroque and Classical periods, there was something called galante music. The main structural difference between Baroque and Classical music is that Baroque music has one texture while Classical music has more than one in a piece. For example, you don’t have a development section in a Baroque piece. Galante music is a stepping stone between the two and is pretty much the worst of both worlds. It lacks the counterpoint of Baroque, indeed, explicitly rejects it but doesn’t have the structural interest of Classical. Composers like Johann Stamitz were considered awesome in their day but complete crap now. The music just drones on and on–it seems like it’s about to do something but doesn’t. But there are proto-Classical composers like Vanhal and C.P.E. Bach (J.S. Bach’s son) who have awesome stuff: Try this C.P.E. Bach symphony on for size:
It’s arguably galante, but it’s awful cool. Notice the lack of counterpoint. It uses a very simple bass.
CalMeacham mentioned the effect of Amadeus on Salieri’s reputation, but I think it had a bigger effect on Mozart’s. Mozart was of course popular before the play and movie, but they raised his brand to new heights and created a dumbed down image of the composer for the masses. Namely, that he only wrote perfect, ingenious music from the age of 6. It just isn’t true. Mozart is not (by experts) thought of writing much great music until later in life, and he’s probably one of the more uneven “big” composers. For example, experts typically think that only his last 9 (out of 41) symphonies are really any good. He’s in my top three composers, but I do find him inconsistent, and he has weaknesses.
If we want to get into subtleties, I have two. I think Haydn’s star has risen just a bit. He’s more seen for who he really was now–a stone genius who wrote all types of music–rather than a kindly, jolly old man who wrote the Surprise Symphony. If you want to experience Haydn as badass, try his dark and gloomy Symphony No. 44:
Another subtlety is that Elliott Carter has gradually but now firmly been recognized as one of the great string quartet composers (and a great composer overall). The dude is going on 104 and is still writing music! He writes atonally but is not a serialist, and he came up with some striking ideas for putting together a quartet. For example, in his second quartet, all of the players play in different styles and do battle with each other:
A couple of other thoughts based on comments here… I think Brahms is still thought of as a giant among the giants. Justifiably. I am also into his chamber works more than anything.
I have heard of Conlon Nancarrow. I have a CD of his string quartets. Good stuff, but I need to listen more. He did crazy work with player pianos that you can find on YouTube.
I think the rep of Schoenberg/Berg/Webern is as high as ever. It’s not music to please the masses, however (I am sure you will find Verklarte Nacht on programs though, occasionally). For another side of Schoenberg, try his D major string quartet. It happy-sounding–and great–music:
I have nothing to add to this thread other than to say I find it really fascinating. Keep the anecdotes coming!
I went and read up on Mendelssohn’s revival of Bach via St. Matthew’s Passion. Great story - I had no idea that it was such a big production or considered super-difficult to do - so not only was FM reviving Bach, but picking a big, complex piece (which apparently he edited at points for his revival performance) to really showcase what Bach was capable of. Really cool.
I agree. However, I think this may vary depending on where you live. Unfortunately I can only find performance statistics for operas, but in Austria, Berg is the 4th most-performed composer. Schoenberg is 6th.
Modern and contemporary classical music tends to appeal to a different audience than romantic or classical fare. However, since at least the late 90s, this audience has shown itself to be very enthusiastic. See this article, from the Guardian:
See also this article from 1997 that talks about orchestras successfully reaching out to younger audience by programming modern composers.
Well that only gives us Wozzeck (which is probably my favorite opera, though I don’t know very many) and Moses und Aron. I guess they could do Lulu too. I’ve never listened to these latter two. And even then they have such a high rank?!
It’s cool about modern composers appealing to younger audiences. Maybe 50-80 years after this music was written, young people will finally catch on? 
Warning: Extreme nitpicking
I took a music history class with an historian who wrote several books on music from this period. One of the most important aspects of Galante is the melodic language. Much like bebop, there were common cliches that would reappear throughout the period. The reason for this was very simple: Pretty much everyone studied the same literature. There was literally a book (at one point I had photocopies, but sadly tossed them when I moved) that exhibited the different cliches and named them. One such cliche was the outer voices from Pachelbel’s Canon (it had some silly name like all of the motifs). Most scores were just these different puzzle pieces mashed together.
However, this C.P.E. Bach is just a little bit too modern sounding for Galante IMHO (nitpicking, remember?). The main theme is very much in a Galante Style, but everything else strays away. It doesn’t utilize the puzzle pieces like other Galante composers. Instead he, uh… composes… yeah… Well, he’s basically too original in the piece.
Try this on for size, maybe on a sunny morning drive. Telemann makes good use of the puzzle pieces. Each double bar line is a new motif, straight out of the Galante handbook (with the master’s own ornamentation bringing it to life). Oh, and there’s a bonus movement to enjoy:
Galante music is also known as that boring stuff they play on the Classical station at 10:00am on Sundays. You know… the ones that you can sing along to after you hear the first note because they’re so predictable and boring.
Back when I was a music student at McGill, there were certain composers who were popular and unpopular among my fellow students, but that’s probably not what the OP was looking for.
Back on topic, Schubert was quite obscure in his day, but during the years following his death, other 19th-century composers discovered his music and discovered how good it was.
That is just not funny any more!
Somewhere I have an old book of mini-biographies of “the great composers.” Dvorak is not included, but Lully is. I suspect the former has substantially risen in repute in the last few decades, while the latter has fallen.
It seems that the only thing Lully is famous for these days is how he died.
I’m not that knowledgeable about classical music, but recently I was reading about the use of music in Jane Austen adaptations and came across a reference to Johann Hummel. No cite, but the website I was reading said that in Jane Austen’s time Hummel was more popular and highly regarded than Mozart’s. He was at the very least a popular and respected composer in the early 19th century, but soon fell out of favor and is largely forgotten today.
Anton Bruckner comes to mind, for the reason that he was most famous in his lifetime for his improvisations at the organ. There was no way to record sound at the time, so all we have are the contemporary reports of how impressed his listeners were.
Now, his reputation stands or falls on his symphonies. Opinion is sharply divided between those who find them loud and repetitive, and those who find them sublime. I am firmly in the latter camp, but I am frequently reminded that he is not without his detractors.
Cool information, thanks! Yeah, I think the CPE Bach stuff is pretty neat. I’ll give your tune a listen too.
C.P.E Bach is my favourite S.O.B.
(S.O.B. = son of Bach)