Baris Kilicbay wrote:

>The greatness of a composer is not measured with his "revolutionary"
>compositions.  If that would be the criterion, most of the composers
>that we praise above all would be qualified as "minor".  Purcell is not a
>revolutionary but he is a genius; he left great melodies, great harmonies
>and great dissonances...

I couldn't agree more.  Bach wasn't exactly a "revolutionary" composer,
was he? It's a 19th century criterion.  I very much like Purcell.  For me,
he is in the same league - as far as the baroque period is concerned - as
Monteverdi, Schutz and Bach.  One of the characteristics is that - like
Bach - he was able to write great music on texts which are below par - at
least to our ears (like the Welcome and Birthday Odes).  His anthems are
magnificent.  And take the Funeral Music for Queen Mary: I don't know any
music which is more moving (especially 'Thou knowest, Lord').  His dramatic
works: everyone thinks of Dido and Aeneas, but what about his incidental
music (Don Quixote for instance) and his semi-operas.  And could there be
a more dramatic piece of about 3 minutes than 'In guilty night'? Then there
is the consort-music.  And so on ....  Purcell is definitely one of the
greatest of all time.

Johan van Veen
Utrecht (Netherlands)
[log in to unmask]