Just how good is Shakespeare?

[Charles Darnay]

Well, if we are talking about composers here I'll have to have my say...

Although I like a lot of works of Bach and Mozart, I also believe that a lot of them are serial work. Both Bach and Mozart were employed to write music to suit the purpose of something. Mozart was encouraged by his father to write music. The more the merrier so to say. Beethoven became a composer because his father had the desire to make him a second Mozart. Unfortunately Beethoven was too modern, unconventional and too wild to be employed, so he became a composer in his own right. He did write requests, but was still unconventional. That's why I think he is brilliant and that's why he is on my avatar. The pieces he wrote were written by the man Beethoven because they were needed by the man Beethoven, not because they were needed by his mecenas. When he wrote the adagio of his Moonlight Sonate, he was deeply sad because his marriage proposal to the contessa Giuglietta Giucardi had been rejected. You can feel that so much. I never had that feeling with Bach nor Mozart. Some things they wrote can make me feel happy, but it stops there. Beethoven has been the only one, together with Albinoni, who was able to make me feel sadness with a piece of music, and even made me cry when there was no reason apart from music.
Both Mozart and Bach are sometimes predictable, whereas Beethoven seems to add something new. Beethoven was deaf when he composed most of his music and for me that adds to the magic. Although 'the greatest' is not really findable because it is a question of taste.
Debussy I don't care for, although I have tried. I just don't like impressionist music, like I like impressionist painting. No hard word about him or people who like that music, it is just not my thing, like my recorder teacher noticed at the first impressionist piece she tried with me.

Now to Shakespeare, I believe he wrote about the universal human being. And his pieces are a very good mix of exciting plot and deep meaning and therefore they are appeling to everyone without dissapointing either party.
I don't think he was a machine, because he doesn't become really predictable, although he does use deceit, the bad guy etc. etc. But probably that's how people are... And a lot of his ideas have been taken over since, as some of his vocabulary. I woudln't call him 'the greatest ever' because a lot of great ones came after him and before, but even in world literature he taught other writers something.

If you want to draw out the Shakespeare/Beethoven comparison (not that you were drawing that out you were just commenting on the two (quaquaquaqua)...you can say that the bear in III.iii of "The Winter's Tale" is to Shakespeare as the timpani solo in the ninth symphony is to Beethoven. They both enjoyed stirring things up a bit for (I cannot presume to know).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Very interesting to read people's thoughts on the matter, and with the music too, thanks.

[MorpheusSandman]

(Of course I say this as I listen to Mozart's clarinet concerto, one of the best pieces ever written (clarinet player's bias))

Was just listening to that yesterday, and yes, it very much is - and I'm not a clarinet player! What do you think of his Clarinet Quintet? It's equally sublime IMO.

He has more essential works to his name than Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert combined.

That entirely depends on what one defines as essential. Essential in terms of inherent quality? Influence? Originality? Some mixture? And how does one compare essential works in one era to those in a latter? The strides Mozart and Beethoven made (let's not forget Haydn!) were surely standing on the shoulders of Bach, but they were also stretching into forms that even though many were born in Baroque times took on a different shape later on.

and arguably the piano concerto.

He pushed the limits of piano's capability to stack up with an orchestra, certainly. But in terms of quality I think his piano concertos fall well below Mozart's tremendously wondrous output. I'm not denying their quality, it's just they've never grabbed me as most of Beethoven's work does.

Mozart... and maybe even Schubert might have equaled him had they not died so young

What strikes me so much about Mozart especially is how he is regularly compared on quality with both Bach and Beethoven yet he lived 20 years less than Beethoven and 30 years less than Bach. Take away that much music from either's last years and how much are you missing? It boggles the mind. Also, you really have to include Mozart in terms of the concerto's development (really, has any composer composed better concertos across so many instruments?) and opera - which is the one area neither Bach or Beethoven can touch him and only Verdi and Wagner best him.

Stravinsky had a point when he noted that he only wrote the same concerto over and over and over.

The AC/DC of classical music. I do love Vivaldi, even though there's a bit of a "heard one, heard all". However, his gift for textures and really fun melodies are superb.

Yet Bach is still God.

I might only add that the reason I mentioned Mozart is because he's still the only composer that can regularly make me feel like I'm listening to God.

[ballb]

"How good was Shakespeare?" is a broad question. I`d say that he was the best in the business at knowing what would work in the theatre. Indeed, his knowledge of what works on stage remains unrivalled hundred of years after his death. That is why most of his output of plays are still regularly performed, whilst those of contemporaries are often neglected. As a poet I would not rate him in my own top three or four. I`d certainly place Milton & Donne ahead of him. But that was not Shakespeare`s trade. He was writer of plays first & above all. And at that he has no equal.

[JCamilo]

True, but Shakespeare is one of the few playwritters that manages to use the language as well a romance/poetry writer in such higher level.
There is several writers who managed to write something better than him but only 2 managed to have such status, influence and work length - Virgil - who was the center of the canon until Shakespeare took it from him in the XVII and XVIII century and was and one that I think is a superior genius, that may have wrote the greatest thing ever, and that measured himself up with giants without even boucing (And I think the reason why he is less influential is that he is so perfect that few can even dare to do anything like him): Dante.
Joyce will probally be there one day as well.

[Charles Darnay]

As great as Joyce is (and there are thousands of debates about that on this site so let's not start one about him in particular) I don't think he will achieve Shakespeare status in the cannon (read in pretty much every high school English class) because he is nowhere near as accesable or universal as Shakespeare.

[JCamilo]

Took about 200 years for Shakespeare be universal. Plus, Joyce is the only writer that was able to write about everything like Shakespeare with a real ambitious aesthetic approach. He is the great bet. (I would say that one of the reasons why Finnegans is not accesible is exactly because it is universal. At once)

[Abdiel]

How can we gauge Shakespeare's greatness? Easy, we look at what other writers thought of him. John Milton, one of the greatest poets in history, called Shakespeare great and wrote a sonnet (a Shakespearean sonnet) on him; Ben Jonson said of him that "he was not of an age but for all time." T.S. Eliot admired him greatly and you can see so much of Shakespeare in The Waste Land. Shaw, who pretended to dislike Shakespeare in public, told his friends that he thought Shakespeare was one of the greatest writers of all time." George Gissing, Conan Doyle, Dickens, all admired him.

These are just a few examples (very few). So, when some of the greatest writers express the belief that Shakespeare was so great, I guess it means he was great.

[Etienne]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Who compares with Shakespeare... most favorably? Homer, perhaps Sophocles and Aeschylus would had more survived, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Chaucer, Milton, Montaigne... I'm tempted to say Victor Hugo, Virgil, the Bible, Proust, and of course Dante. Is it safe to say that the best writers/poets can be traced back to the ancient "classical" world? Certainly many of the best have roots in that heritage, but many of the best come from any number of cultures and eras; Blake, Keats, Holderlin, Baudelaire, Tolstoy, Dante, Cervantes, Proust, Whitman, Dickinson, Rilke, Ferdowsi, Li Po, Lady Murasaki, J.L. Borges, Samuel Beckett... can all hold their own with the finest of any time or place.

There is a grave omission which is especially disconcerting as you are an adept of a certain Laurence Sterne. Can you put your finger on it?

[Miss Darcy]

Oh, I love this place, I love this place. I love how everybody has intelligent avatars and intelligent signatures and intelligent comments. I love this place, I miss this place.

That said, I'm not actually here. I only stumbled back after doing a Google search on Beethoven and Shakespeare, because my thesis concerns the relationship of Beethoven and the Romantics to the Bard.

I wish I had time to participate in beautifully learned conversations. But these days, I just don't.

Miss you all - Scheherezade, Virgil, Mono, Jay, and you other old hands.
All the best.

[kelby_lake]

Shakespeare is probably the best playwright, certainly the most influential. The running theme of his plays is disguise- which is basically what acting is. The contrast between the public and private life.

When looking at whether he's a good writer, most people forget the medium that he's writing for and how well he writes for that medium. To be able to make interesting and useful criticism on him, you have to have some knowledge of theatre.