Bernard Chasan wondered:

>...is Chausson (no relation) a great composer or a minor composer? I don't
>know how to answer that question, but I do consider his Symphony in B minor
>(?) to be a wonderful piece of music.

I agree about the symphony (Bb, BTW), a much better work than the more
frequently recorded Franck, IMHO.

Interesting question as to what constitutes a great composer and a minor
composer, and I guess we need another category for the obscure composer,
ie one who is known to few or only to Grove or Baker's or neither of these
(presumably obscure composers who have their own web sites are less so).
I'm not trying to be definitive here, just tossing an idea or three into
the melting pot, and even as I type, I wonder about the advisability of the
exercise, especially as there's a high probability that MCML has done it to
death before.

It's tempting to regard a great composer as one who wrote (a) a lot of
music or (b) wrote a small body of music which is highly regarded (by
common consent) and (c) wrote innovative music.  I think if we were asked
to make a list of those composers we each considered great, there'd be
little trouble with Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, and so on, but it's the
peripherals who would be difficult.  Vivaldi, for example, qualifies under
(a) but not really (c).  But he's very popular.  Is that a valid criterion?
Probably not for the 900-odd listers, but for many people, it would be.
What about Saint-Saens (a) but not (c)? Or Weber? (a) and (c).  Or Webern?
(ditto).  How about national perceptions? A Hungarian, for example, would
include Bartok and Liszt (so would I) but possibly Kodaly as well.  Do we
limit our list to n composers? If the n+1th contender caused a fist fight,
probably not.  I'm beginning to wish I'd kept my nose out of this...

Is Chausson a great composer?  I don't think so, but he wrote some music
which appeals to me a lot, so I think he's a good composer, albeit a minor
one.

Richard Pennycuick (who wonders if anyone else has realised that MCML is
Roman numerals for 1950, a totally useless observation)
[log in to unmask]