Well, at the risk of further hijacking my own thread, I don't think it's difficult to argue that about Beethoven at all; with the Romantic cult of the artist-individual and the breakdown of stylistic norms, both of which were obviously only heightened in the twentieth century, it's hard for me to see how one can directly compare Beethoven to Wagner, most obviously, or Mahler, or even Liszt or Schumann.  I could countenance an argument that Beethoven was "greater" than Brahms in some relatively concrete sense, since they were plowing relatively common furrows - but I still find Brahms more interesting and sympathetic.

Anyway.  Stravinsky.  I think it's a little too simple to say that he "pulled back" from the Rite.  Even given what we know now in retrospect about Stravinsky's mercenary and careerist instincts, as a composer I am inclined to see whatever aesthetic shifts he underwent under the aegis of retroactive necessity.  Would he have written Pulcinella or the Symphony in C or the Octet, let alone the Symphonies of Wind Instruments, without the Rite?  Could he have?  Does the one not imply the others?  I think saying "no, it doesn't" is too simple, and that we should give the evolution of Stravinsky's creative instincts the benefit of the doubt, and instead look for ways in which the "neoclassical" works, and the serial ones as well, continued the spirit of the Rite rather than abandoning it.

Where could he go after Le Sacre? To all intents and purposes, isn't it it's own destination? Breaking one mould doesn't of itself create another.

In the years that followed it S himself had problems with what to do with works: Le Rossignol (1914) underwent a midlife change of direction, and Svadebka/Les Noces found itself mutating from a piece with a Sacre-sized orchestra (apart from single strings) though a halfway house with cembalom and player piano before settling down in the final four pianos and percussion battery version that we know today. All this was happening during and immediately after WW1 (when economic circumstances were very suddenly much harder and also the time when he had turned his back on his much-loved homeland).

 L'Histoire du Soldat (1918) is a direct result of the need to find a new medium for performance: something that can be done more economically and in many more locations than the big theatres of Monaco, London and Paris. There may be internal reasons for the change his outlook and style, but they're balanced by the effect of external pressures, too.

What I'm saying, though, is that such "Romantic cult(s) of the artist-individual" seem to be the true face of what we're discussing as "greatness"–and Beethoven has the biggest cult.  Although it seems fair to say that "the breakdown of stylistic norms" eroded this good-better-best concept, I don't agree that the Romantic mythologizing that surrounds figures like Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt, Wagner, etc. is the same phenomenon as, for instance, Boulez's claim that Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern were the "father, son, and holy spirit."  (I'm not 100% sure this is what Evan was arguing.)  In the 20th century, advocating Stravinsky's greatness over Schoenberg's or Bartok's has much less to do with the cult of personality than with privileging one "true path" of music over others.  Of course, this isn't unique to the last hundred years:  Spats between Artusi and Monteverdi over the Seconda Prattica and between Hanslick and the Wagnerians come immediately to mind.  However, as I said, these strike me as distinct from the comparisons of "personal greatness" characteristic of the 19th century.  In any case, I certainly don't think we do this now, and I don't know of a similar pedestal for Stravinsky (except maybe Craft's).

A reluctance to tackle the question of the "greatest composer" is widespread among Members we find. It reminds us of Bertie Russell and his disreputable cronies; their method too, when a difficult metaphysical question was put to them, was to question the question rather than attempt an answer. Let us say that we are always very suspicious of those who say "the question is meaningless!"

Which gives us the idea for a new thread . . .

Not an expert , but Peter Eötvös with the Gothenberg Orchestra on Bmc kicks mine.

& it's coupled with Mavra, which is nice.

The Rite of Spring is with the Junge Deutsche Philharmonie. 

Mavra Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra. Maria Fontosh - soprano (Parasha), Ludmila Schemtschuk - mezzo-soprano (Mother), Lilli Paasikivi - mezzo-soprano (The Neighbour), Valerij Serkin - tenor (Hussaren).

Googling (motto: you surf, we spy) I see that Rob Cowan chose Eötvös for 'Building a Library'. I also see that David Hurwitz on Classics Today doesn't rate it. Ahem.

Perhaps I just like non arse-kicking Rite of Springs. I've also get Haitink with the BPO (picked up in an HMV Oxford Street Sale) and admire that, too. Mackerras is meant to be good.

http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2014049/Mexican_donkey_jailed_for_kicking_and_biting.html

Almost a prerequisite for a fine recording in my book.