Jonathan Knapp wrote:

>1) The Golden Age of choral music is the Rennaisance.  Palestrina is
>unquestionably the finest composer of modal, polyphonic works, especially
>his Stabat Mater, Missa Papae Marchelli, and motets.
>
>2) J.S.  Bach is the master of fugal composition and counterpoint.  His
>works have become the standards by which all others are judged.  Having
>said that, Handel wrote more dramatic and involving music but without the
>same level of technical complexity.  I think between those two it boils
>down to who you like.
>
>3) In the Classical and Romantic periods there were a multitude of
>composers who wrote monumental choral works without being a "choral"
>composer.

I must say I agree with Jonathan.  Asking who the greatest writer of
choral music is immeasurably harder than asking who the greatest symphonist
is because the choral tradition is more deeply rooted in the very soul and
essence of the Western European tradition than the symphonic tradition,
which by comparison is very young.  There was a time when the answer to the
question as to who the greatest writer of choral music was much easier when
in Haydn's day The Academy of Ancient Music played Handel.  So if Handel
was 'ancient' then Palestrina was positively prehistoric and barely worth
consideration as far as the average music lover was concerned (except
amongst a small number of academics and within the church where the
Palestrina tradition never died).  Ignorance was bliss and it was easy to
narrow the field down to Handel and Bach.  The late 19th century loved to
have these petty Handel vs.  Bach arguments just as it loved to argue over
the Wagner vs.  Brahms issue.

Even amongst those who did have an appreciation of so called Renaissance
polyphony (I dislike this pigeon hole as it often lumps music from about
two to three centuries together) in the 19th century naively believed that
Palestrina towered over all the rest of the other 'Renaissance' composers.
Here again ignorance was bliss.  Today we have rediscovered the deep
reverence that the mighty Josquin once commanded and who, in an age where
it was unusual for a composer to be remembered at all after their death,
was not only just remembered, but for a whole century after his death but
was hailed the Michelangelo of music.  How extraordinary those older 15th
century contemporaries of Josquin and other composers who formed a
Franco-Flemish school around the figure of Ockegehm are!  The horribly
neglected Heinrich Isaac (on whom Anton Webern wrote his PhD) whose dates
correspond almost exactly to Leonardo da Vinci and who was appointed to the
most important musical position in Europe ahead of Josquin, wrote music
with a visionary intensity which at least matches anything written by
the likes of Palestrina, Bach or Handel after him.  With this has come
a rediscovery of many of Palestrina's near contemporaries of the 16th
century such as Victoria, Morales, Lassus, Byrd, Tallis, not to mention
Palestrina's antithesis Gesualdo (I regard them as the pope and anti-pope
of 16th century music).  I scarcely see how it could possibly be even
conceivable to argue that these other contemporaries in any way paled in
comparison to Palestrina.

And yes what of the late 19th century? Is it really fair to miss out
Brahms, Bruckner, in addition to Mahler? Then the wondrous 20th century to
those who are game enough to listen to this music, much of which Haydn's
age would have now regarded 'ancient' is so full of many gems.
Schoenberg's Jakobsleiter is extraordinary, as are Webern's Das Augenlicht
and Cantatas.  Stravinsky's Requiem Canticles is also worthy of mention.

So yes in conclusion I am going to refuse to allow to this thread to
degenerate into a petty Bach vs.  Handel contest.  I will no more have
anything to do with this as I will with a Wagner vs.  Brahms argument.
I love both - and so much more!

Satoshi Akima
Sydney, Australia
[log in to unmask]