Limiting this to American-born composers who primarily composed "concert music" (i.e. excluding Broadway / Pop / Jazz composers who also occasionally wrote classical pieces):

Pre-WWII: Charles Ives (mostly for his attitude and historical significance)

Post-WWI: Samuel Barber

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630872)

It did produce a few (Purcell, Elgar, Britten, etc.), but it's definitely one of the weakest facets of their otherwise strong cultural achievement and there are long periods of history where there is no major native-born figure of importance that they can even pretend to brag about, so it's a good question.

The "popular" academic answer is that the combined effects of Handel + Mendelssohn (both of whom spent a tremendous amount of their respective careers in Britain and were very popular with the royals and thus exerted an overpowering influence on the island to a degree that no single composer ever did across mainland Europe) + the extremely hierarchical class and social system of the country (which allegedly helped to amplify this effect) combined to turn British musical culture into a musically stagnant knockoff factory for ~250 years. I'm not sure I entirely buy that explanation; it could also be that Brits are just fucking faggots who lack souls.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630886)

you study vibrations

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630851)

what are your favorite vibrations?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631724)

Off the top of my head: Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Messaien, Britten were all still active at that time, and I would say Britten's War Requiem (1962) and Shostakovich's 13th Symphony (same) were the strongest works that had recently been produced by that quartet which immediately come to mind.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630918)

It wasn't, it was just different (except unironically).

Bach is the epitome of the Baroque and there is absolutely nothing "classical" about his style.

Mahler was one of the greatest conductors of all time and a first rank composer, but he is nevertheless grossly overrated today (he's a more popular symphonist than Brahms lmao) because we live in a sick and morally deranged society run by evil Jews for their own benefit and self-aggrandizement.

Messiaen is 173.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630928)

Messian also extends beyond 1975.

I don't know Grisey well.

Messiaen was a bit of a modern-day Berlioz, and there are some substantial weaknesses in his fundamental compositional technique (just like Berlioz) which he partially but not entirely offsets with his incredible ear for color / sonority and phenomenal creativity (just like Berlioz).

Please elaborate on the ways that Bach was "an early influence on Classical" (whatever you think that means). The Rococo Style -- which was a direct precursor to the Classical Style and a temporally intermediate link between the Baroque period and the Classical period -- shares almost nothing in common with Baroque Style, and the early Classical Style was built out of the Rococo Style. It was actually only much later in the Classical period that Mozart etc. began to really rediscovered Bach / Handel and systematically explore their music and incorporate notable elements of purposeful structured counterpoint etc. into their own music. But that would make Bach an influence on later Classical period music, not on the Classical Style as a whole, and certainly not as an "early" influence on the development of Classical Style.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630998)

Check out CPE Bach.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631019)

I would not.

Baroque: Vivaldi, Handel, Bach.

Classical: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven.

I think the classical period holds up just fine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630931)

Bach is God, but Beethoven arguably produced the single greatest and most stylistically wide-ranging collection of musical masterpieces ever created by a single human and he is also arguably the single most historically important cultural figure in the direct development of Western music.

It's pretty much common consensus that Mozart was the single greatest all-around musical genius in recorded history, taking into account all facets of his gifts. Mozart also died at just 36 and Bach lived to 65, so it's impossible to say what Mozart would have produced if he was given Bach's time on earth. The counterpoint at the end of the final movement of the Jupiter Symphony rivals pretty much anything that Bach ever wrote, and I don't say that lightly.

Finally, even if Bach > Mozart and Beethoven (debatable but possible), Mozart + Beethoven + Haydn are collectively definitely > Bach + Handel + Vivaldi are collectively.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631027)

Tyft

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630933)

Different answer for hardest piece?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630878)

I'm gay

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630935)

Also vote for me in MpM today bro pls

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630880)

They're all immortal geniuses but Bach is God.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43630939)

In the realm of classical music?

The best are probably Chevalier de Saint-Georges, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor ("The Black Mahler"), William Grant Still ("The Dean of African American Composers"), and George Walker. None of them deserve to be discussed alongside the truly great white classical composers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631013)

Theremin and Ondes Martenot are both very difficult instruments that sound amazing when played well.

The Hurdy-gurdy is cool but I wouldn't choose to listen to it for very long. The Zither is an awesome instrument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631072)

Because classical music after 1975 has mostly been a bunch of comparatively talentless neurotic kikes and homosexual faggots prancing around in the ivory tower jacking off for music theorists, and I don't want to waste my time rating Thomas Ades or whatever just because some pretentious pumo wants to name drop him in this thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631079)

(Helicopter pilot)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631087)

Physically or spiritually?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631088)

Life is too short for Elliott Carter (except ironically for his)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631093)

It never ended in my heart / anus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631111)

Do you still have your foreskin?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631116)

(Open-minded liberal Jewish Democrat lawyer shaking his head judgingly at this "blue humor" as he also simultaneously closet-shames a suspected homosexual man)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631253)

This is certainly a new angle -- let's see where he goes with this, folx!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631276)

Underrated: Scriabin, Albeniz, Enescu

Overrated: John Williams, Vivaldi, all of the Minimalists

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631404)

Early Scriabin is *very* different from late Scriabin. Bear that in mind as you explore. You can tell that it comes from the same mind, on some level, but the musical language is like night and day. Early Scriabin sounds kind of like Russified Chopin. Late Scriabin sounds like nothing else.

Albeniz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R13GcRQSPxU

Enescu (written when he was 18): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfxC0j9mbwQ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632230)

Re-read the thread title nigger

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631649)

Not sure he really fits within the stated confines of this thread topic, but he's 180 for military marches, 158 for his other work, and 162 overall.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631653)

180 as a Broadway / Tin Pan Alley composer

172 as a natural musical talent

165 in terms of his actual accomplishments within the realm of concert music prior to his untimely death

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631681)

95% actual fraudlies, 3% amusing hokum, 2% genius (maybe)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631685)

None, that is the universal breakdown for every single one of his compositions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631784)

You are a nigger

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631787)

Prokofiev was the greater natural melodist. Stravinsky was the greater everything else. Both were very fine composers, of course.

Musicians love Stravinsky more than Prokofiev because they are trained to respond to craft, and Stravinsky kicked Prokofiev's ass in all of the "professional" metrics and was god-tier as a craftsman. Audiences generally love Prokofiev more than Stravinsky (except for Stravinsky's three early ballet scores) because audiences always have and always will love melody above almost everything else. That's also why they love Tchaikovsky over both of them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631800)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vcvH3VMdA4g

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631792)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631798)

I'm gay

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631821)

This is so broad that I won't even bother trying to respond, also stfu pumo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631880)

Yes but are you retarded

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631890)

also bernstein conducts gershwin

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631894)

(Guy who forgot about the Gould playing Goldberg and also the Richter recordings of the Prokofiev "War" Sonatas and also Rachmaninoff playing Rachmaninoff and Kreisler playing Kreisler and Josef Hofmann playing basically anything and also etc etc the list goes on)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631898)

Lots of people think that Arthur Rubinstein and Vladimir Horowitz etc. were "the greatest pianists of the 20th century". They're obviously very high level, but they're not even close to the top. The generation of pianists who came before them and sadly left relatively few recordings (Rosenthal, Lhevinne, Hofmann, etc.) far surpassed them in many ways and represented the true golden age of pianism.

Just listen to Lhevinne's recording of Chopin's etude in thirds or his own arrangement of Strauss's "Blue Danube" for a small taste of that vanished and little known musical world.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631996)

edit: i also love Kissin, if this helps you judge me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632014)

Rubinstein is a fine Chopin interpreter, but I'm not aware of anything in his recorded oeuvre that really matches this level of interpretation or execution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eU2k0VaMQo (Hofmann, recorded after he was already a serious alcoholic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYWPpBwTcXA (Lhevinne)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ECn-oe3bOQ (Rosenthal, recorded in old age -- the second one especially is incredible)

Etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632028)

This thread stops at 1975 so any recordings that post-date that are outside the scope and also QED Kirkpatrick automatically wins for purely historical reasons and also FUCK YOU NIGGE

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631915)

(septic queer)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631925)

(Marc-Andre Hamelin sightreading a Sorabji sonata from the original manuscript score and simultaneously transposing it into F# major on the spot as background musical accompaniment while Drury grunts and reluctantly backs up to accept the mount from the ghost of Charles Ives who smirks and calls him a lily-livered little tin-eared sissy boy)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631940)

i have an irrational hatred of nearly all Hamelin recordings

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631952)

Yes. For goys, that would be the wallpaper-tier subset of Baroque composers (Telemann etc) who they incorrectly think are "fancy". For Jews, that would be the Minimalists (Reich, Glass, Riley, etc.), who are also all wallpaper-tier, but whom posing kikes seem to incorrectly think are "deep".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631970)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ky01vC8sf4

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43642204)

“Theirs [the Beatles] is a happy, cocky, belligerently resourceless brand of harmonic primitivism... In the Liverpudlian repertoire, the indulged amateurishness of the musical material, though closely rivaled by the indifference of the performing style, is actually surpassed only by the ineptitude of the studio production method. 'Strawberry Fields' suggests a chance encounter at a mountain wedding between Claudio Monteverdi and a jug band.” -- Glenn Gould

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631958)

(Caroline Shaw)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43631973)

So did Penderecki

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632004)

That's a great movement libtard

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632062)

(Ghost of Julius Eastman giving panel of gay Jewish judges the finger before a cheering crowd of degenerate and mildly retarded New York "socialites" as he declines to accept the 2022 Pulitzer Prize in Music, which is being awarded for his new posthumous suite, "Fuck You Gay Niggerfaggots From Space WGWAG WGWAG PS: Anus (For Three Violins and Buttplug Vibrator)," while septic queer screams "Oh the modern musical culture!" from behind his four N95s and then immediately faints from lack of oxygen at the back of the socially-distanced-yet-still-crowded concert hall)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632082)

Rate me as an altered octatonic tone cluster in the tonality of Lydian natural minor hehe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632136)

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe go fuck yourself.

What do you like?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632240)

Beethoven Tchaikovsky Wagner, I have no depth on classical music.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632408)

Mendelssohn was probably the most naturally brilliant. Gershwin might have had the greatest purely melodic gift. Schoenberg is unquestionably the most historically important (for better or worse, I think most people would say for worse in 2021). Mahler is everyone's favorite now, but consider the state of modern society before you decide whether that makes him truly great or not. Johann Strauss was technically Jewish too, I guess, but his stuff -- while highly enjoyable -- is all unapologetically "light" in nature and was basically the pop / Broadway of his day and has no pretense to depth.

...and just like that, we have completed out tour of the great Jewish composers in Western classical music history (excluding Broadway composers) prior to 1975. Huh. Crazy how even though they dominate high level musically interpretive spheres like performance, and excel at churning out "popular" music, and have been deeply involved in European and American music for centuries, Jews clearly aren't actually some sort of all-mighty master race when it comes to actually creating original musical works at the very highest levels of intellectual, artistic, and spiritual achievement (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, etc.-level immortal masterpieces of depth and beauty). Strange! Wonder if there are any conclusions we could possibly draw from that!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43632259)

As one critic of the day put it regarding Korngold's violin concerto: "Ultimately, his serious work seems to be more corn than gold."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4987635&forum_id=2)#43634570)