# The 15 Greatest Composers Ranked by a Website



## peeyaj

Listverse, a favorite site of mine, who like to rank things, published this list almost a year ago. The author of this list, a classical music devotee himself, had an interesting take on what he considered the greatest composer s in history. The writing is fresh, spontaneous and quirky. I just wanted to share it.

I don't want to stir debate again by creating this thread. I just wanted to share a fresh take on what other people consider the best. And, I agree with the author mostly with a few caveats.

Here is the ranking:

*15. Franz Joseph Haydn

14. George Fredrick Handel

13. Sergie Rachmaninov

12. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky

11. Gustav Mahler

10. Giussepi Verdi

9. Johannes Brahms

8. Franz Liszt

7. Frederic Chopin

6. Robert Schumann

5. Franz Schubert

4. Richard Wagner

3. Ludwig van Beethoven

2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

1. Johann Sebastian Bach*

Read it here:



> http://listverse.com/2009/12/17/top-15-greatest-composers-of-all-time/


My beef with the ranking is the placing of Schumann above Brahms. Mr. Schumann, at his best, is average in my book. The lack of 20th century representation ( aside from Rachmaninov) might put out some people. The placing of Haydn at the bottom is also questionable at some. But, I'm glad that my favorite, Schubert, placed at the top five. You really can't argue at the 1-5 placings.

Here's my favorite part:

On Haydn:

''His symphonies though, leave a lot to be desired, as he himself said on his deathbed, ' I have just figure out how to use the woodwinds'. *They are more like 1 symphony with 103 variations"*

What's your take about the list?


----------



## Ravellian

No way does J.S. Bach deserve No. 1. He was an excellent composer of thousands of works, yes, but he was a conservative, never innovated or worked in any new forms, and half of the time he didn't write the whole piece he's credited for (the cantatas are based on pre-existing melodies, for example, and the B Minor Mass is largely based on previously written material). He's No. 4 on my list.

The No. 1 spot belongs to Beethoven or Wagner, both of which forever changed the course of music history. Mozart deserves No. 2 primarily for his outstanding progressive contributions to opera and the concerto.


----------



## Art Rock

Very biased against anyone more modern than late romantic - at least Debussy should be there.

Schumann - should not be in the top 15, neither should Rachmaninov or Liszt. And that is trying to be objective without taking my own taste into account (don't get me started on Verdi and Handel).

Dvorak and Mendelssohn are glaring omissions.

Although Bach at #1 is at least in line with my own taste.


----------



## Argus

WTF!

No John Cage or Roger Waters.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Such lists are always going to be controversial and actually reveal more about the compiler of the list than any useful information about the composers. The person who compiled this list obviously only listens to music written between 1710 and 1910 (with Rakhmaninov being an ultra-conservative exception).

There are some very important and great (the two are not always the same thing) composers missing from the list. I would suggest that the following composers, without whose influence music would have taken very different directions (and perhaps have taken longer to do so) really MUST be on a list of the 15 greatest composers:

Béla Bartók
Claude Debussy (I agree with Art Rock)
Guillaume de Machaut
Claudio Monteverdi
Igor Stravinsky

Others who might also argue a place on the list might be:

Olivier Messiaen
Arnold Schoenberg (Like him or not!)
Jan Sibelius
Antonio Vivaldi (such an influence on JS Bach)

Who to remove from the original list? In order of ease (for me, at least):

Sergei Rakhmaninov - I enjoy his music, but by no stretch of the imagination could he be counted among the '15 greatest composers'.
Pyotr' Tchaikovsky - Popular, yes. Well-loved, certainly. A truly GREAT composer? Well, not in the first 15, I'm afraid - his technique and mastery of musical architecture was far too wobbly.
Franz Liszt - Now, come on! Liszt was admittedly a very important figure in the history of piano music and the piano virtuoso. But a great composer? If one judged this criterion purely on the number of notes on the page, perhaps. Otherwise, of course not!
Joseph Haydn - I am one of Haydn's greatest advocates, but I don't think he can be on this list (in a 'Top 20' maybe). The criticism of '1 symphony with 103 variations' simply goes to show how little the coiner of this phrase knows or understands of Haydn.
Giuseppe Verdi - Nice operas ( a bit 'rum-ti-tum' for me) and I'm sure many fans of his would shoot me down, but he's not on the list for me.
There! I've made way for my 5 crucially missing additions to the list.

I would have to take issue with Ravellian about JS Bach. While I agree that he was no innovator or inventor of new forms (a right old fuddy-duddy for his times, in fact), one only has to look at the number of composers who have studied Bach's music to learn about melody, harmony, voice writing and counterpoint (that's just about ALL composers since 1750!), to realise that the staggering quality of his skill and invention - old fashionjed or not - was simply astounding. Leave him at No 1!


----------



## Genoveva

peeyaj said:


> What's your take about the list?


Lists like the one you quote are two-a-penny. What's special about your one, other than possibly it being one in which you have a vested interest?

As far as I can see, the list is simply an anonymous contributor's favourites. There is nothing of any interest in it, as the justifications for the rankings are pathetically weak. It rather looks as if that member may have cobbled his list together based on two much better known lists, namely that by Phil Goulding and another which virtually apes it published on the "digital dream door" website.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Hey, I love Rachmaninov. There isn't much of his music that I don't like (actually, I really can't recall such a thing.) But top 15 composer...eeeehhhhhh...that's stretching it. Liszt...I'm not buying that one either. Ahead of Brahms...that's just absurd in my opinion. I love Tchaikovsky's music too, but I wouldn't put him in the top 15 either. I actually would put Rachmaninov over Tchaikovsky because Rachmaninov modernized his music (especially his large scale works) which makes him better in my opinion.

Definitely feel like there should be more variety in the list. I agree with adding the likes of Debussy. Not so keen on adding Bartok. I would consider adding Webern (even though I don't particularly like his music) mostly because of the influence he had on most 20th century composers. I'd 100% put Webern over Schoenberg though, any day of the week. While Schoenberg "invented" serialism, Webern mastered it. (Exact reason I believe Beethoven should be #1)

I would have really liked to see Josquin on there as well.

My list would look something like this (and this is not based off of personal tastes, because my top 15 is way different! )


1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Wagner
6. Schubert
7. Debussy
8. Webern
9. Josquin des Prez
10. Stravinsky
11. Haydn
12. Verdi
13. Mahler
14. Chopin (putting him down here because he basically only wrote for piano...in essence, he's top 5 material)
15. Schumann


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*15. Franz Joseph Haydn Too low
14. George Fredrick Handel Too low
13. Sergei Rachmaninov Much too high*
12. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky Too low
11. Gustav Mahler About right
10. Giuseppe Verdi Somewhat too high
9. Johannes Brahms Just a little low
8. Franz Liszt Too high
7. Frederic Chopin A little too high
6. Robert Schumann About right
5. Franz Schubert About right
4. Richard Wagner Spot on
3. Ludwig van Beethoven 
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
1. Johann Sebastian Bach Everybody has these 1-2-3: it's just a matter of order...*

*One thing to remember is that Phil Goulding omitted Rachmaninoff from his list- and _his_ list went 50-deep. 
(It wasn't an oversight... and it was done [so he reported] over the strenuous objections of his wife.) 
That's a little weird... but putting him in the top bakers-dozen seems a little overboard, too.


----------



## peeyaj

I think the list is fair other than my caveats posted above.

Some of you complained about the misrepresentation of 20th century composers. *The problem is, even though the list is quite conservative, this is a good starting point on classical music beginners.* Probably some of you listened thousands of hours to various composer. Some of you listed obscure composers, do we have anytime to listen to them?

This list was made for popular opinion.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Taking into account the Baroque/Classical/Romantic parameters I'd say Schumann is too high but probably would still remain in top 15. Rachmaninov to go (he's good but not THAT good) and be replaced by either Dvorak or Berlioz.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Just another person's list that I partly agree with but for the most part reject. Besides, I found the descriptions of the composers and their music to be shallow and uninteresting.


----------



## Delicious Manager

peeyaj said:


> Some of you complained about the misrepresentation of 20th century composers. *The problem is, even though the list is quite conservative, this is a good starting point on classical music beginners.* Probably some of you listened thousands of hours to various composer. Some of you listed obscure composers, do we have anytime to listen to them?
> 
> This list was made for popular opinion.


But that wasn't the question! The title was GREATEST composers, not 'best known', 'most famous' or 'best composers to start-out with'.

Just because some people haven't heard the music of some composers, that is no reason to exclude it. Had this question been asked in 1810, hardly anyone would have heard of Bach at all, let alone listened to any of his music (until Mendelssohn started the 'Bach revolution' in the 1830s). Does that mean he wasn't a great composer, just because he wasn't well known at the time?

I have an insatiable appetite to discover new music and yet I know that, even with my obsessive penchant for delving into the unknown, I will NEVER be able to do more than scratch the surface - there has just been SO much wonderful music written by thousands of composers over the last thousand years or so.


----------



## Nix

Blah... lists like this annoy me, especially when they say opinions like they're fact. Instead of calling it the "greatest violin concerto" can't they just say "one of the greatest." Anyways, Haydn and Brahms are too low, Schumann too high, Liszt and Rachmaninov shouldn't even be on there. And as said before it's in serious need of some 20th century composers- the glaring omission being Stravinsky, followed by Debussy and Bartok. 

Oh, and anyone who says one of Tchaikovsky's greatest pieces is the 1812 overture has no credibility to my ears. Although unlike some others I do think Tchaikovsky should be in the top 15... he inspired countless composers after him, revolutionized ballet, was an excellent orchestrator and created strong works in just about every genera... he's easy to dislike because he has a very specific and forward sound that really has to do with personal taste (and personally I can't handle that much Tchaikovsky), but to not include him in the list would be foolish.


----------



## World Violist

How can anyone take a list like this seriously? The compiler hasn't listened to every composer who has ever lived enough to make a viable and objective judgment on each one.

And what the heck is so "fresh" about this anyway? It's just re-presenting a fossilized museum concept that isn't even capable of being true!


----------



## Guest

Delicious Manager said:


> Such lists... reveal more about the compiler of the list than any useful information about the composers.


QTF!



Delicious Manager said:


> Who to remove from the original list?


Here's where the lists show their inherent silliness the best, I think. The list is too short. Why not keep everyone on the list and just add to it? But then we'd just end up, eventually, with a list of every composer ever. Mmmm, probably not, but so what?

Here's my antidote to list making (and to ranking--don't even get me started!): go listen to some music. And don't think for a second that the fifteen on this list are the best place to start. Best for whom? We all do have different tastes. My oldest son (who's 31) started with Varese. (And nothing to do with me, either. He was living with his mom at the time, who wasn't big on music, and found Varese through Zappa.)

Ignore all lists. Ignore all ranking. Listen to music.


----------



## Webernite

Ravellian said:


> No way does J.S. Bach deserve No. 1. He was an excellent composer of thousands of works, yes, but he was a conservative, never innovated or worked in any new forms, and half of the time he didn't write the whole piece he's credited for (the cantatas are based on pre-existing melodies, for example, and the B Minor Mass is largely based on previously written material).


Whether or not Bach deserves first place, I think your post shows a degree of misunderstanding. It's true that many of his cantatas and chorale preludes are based on pre-existing chorale melodies. But to hold this against him is to completely misunderstand the nature of his achievement.

If you are under the impression that an average Bach cantata is little more than the chorale melody on which it is based, you are making an almost comic error. The whole point is that he was able to take short, unremarkable little hymn tunes and develop _masses of the most unbelievable music from them_, in a manner more sophisticated and exhaustive than any composer who ever lived. That is why what he did with those tunes still forms the basis of music teaching today.

As for the Mass in B Minor: yes, it is based on previously written material. Previously written by Bach himself!


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I don't agree*

I couldn't find Rimsky-Korsakov, the great...we have a minor composer instead (with huge hands) Rachmaninov. Bela Bartok, Alban Berg, Arnold Schönberg, Alexander Zemlinsky, Franz Schreker...too many forgotten...I don't like Bach but I have to recognize he was among the great so Beethoven.

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Ravellian

"The most unbelievable music"? :lol::lol:
You, my friend, are one of millions who listens to Bach and assumes that, because it's written by Bach, it must be magnificent, right? This is why contemporary composers will never be rated very highly in these lists, because people have more respect for the legend than the actual music.

I'm not saying he's not a great composer. I'm just saying that we should reserve the top three spots for people who changed the course of music history. And people pretty much ignored Bach for about 100 years..


----------



## Romantic Geek

Ravellian said:


> "The most unbelievable music"? :lol::lol:
> You, my friend, are one of millions who listens to Bach and assumes that, because it's written by Bach, it must be magnificent, right? This is why contemporary composers will never be rated very highly in these lists, because people have more respect for the legend than the actual music.
> 
> I'm not saying he's not a great composer. I'm just saying that we should reserve the top three spots for people who changed the course of music history. And people pretty much ignored Bach for about 100 years..


The fact that people went back to Bach is a change on music history. We can thank the likes of Mendelssohn for rediscovering Bach. He revolutionized how we shaped music history. Think about it...the Baroque era ends because of him now. He is the quintessential Baroque composer. I believe this puts him in the same league as Beethoven and Wagner (or in my opinion, Brahms)


----------



## World Violist

Ravellian said:


> "The most unbelievable music"? :lol::lol:
> You, my friend, are one of millions who listens to Bach and assumes that, because it's written by Bach, it must be magnificent, right? This is why contemporary composers will never be rated very highly in these lists, because people have more respect for the legend than the actual music.
> 
> I'm not saying he's not a great composer. I'm just saying that we should reserve the top three spots for people who changed the course of music history. And people pretty much ignored Bach for about 100 years..


I'm not one of those who assumes that everything Bach wrote is magnificent and I do agree with Webernite.

And besides, who cares about changing the course of music history? Good music is good music. So what if Bach's music was ignored for a hundred years? Point is, it's not ignored anymore. There are tons of instances of composers being ignored for long stretches of time, but what does this have to do with quality? It's an independent factor.


----------



## Webernite

Ravellian said:


> "The most unbelievable music"? :lol::lol:
> You, my friend, are one of millions who listens to Bach and assumes that, because it's written by Bach, it must be magnificent, right? This is why contemporary composers will never be rated very highly in these lists, because people have more respect for the legend than the actual music.
> 
> I'm not saying he's not a great composer. I'm just saying that we should reserve the top three spots for people who changed the course of music history. And people pretty much ignored Bach for about 100 years..


I'm not going to get into an argument about whether Bach "changed the course of music history." It seems blatantly obvious that he did, but that doesn't matter. All I wish to point out is that discrediting Bach's cantatas (and, above all, the chorale preludes) on the grounds that he did not write the hymn tunes on which they are based, is like discrediting Beethoven's Fifth on the grounds that Beethoven was not the first to use the famous four-note "Fate" motif, or discrediting Bartok on the grounds that he used some pre-existing Hungarian folk melodies.


----------



## Nix

Ravellian said:


> I'm not saying he's not a great composer. I'm just saying that we should reserve the top three spots for people who changed the course of music history. And people pretty much ignored Bach for about 100 years..


Bach not changing the course of music history? Imagine a world without Bach... every composer studies the chorales, every pianist studies the Well Tempered Clavier, every cellist studies the Cello Suites, every violinist and flutist the Partitas/Sonatas. Bach has (probably) more then any other composer informed subsequent musicians the power of voice leading and counterpoint. And you say people ignored Bach for 100 years... Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, all around within 50 years of Bachs death studied his music. I think if Bach had not lived, we would not have much (if any) of the music written today.


----------



## Sid James

I looked at that website, and it also has *"Top 10 composers you don't know."*

http://listverse.com/2007/09/07/top-10-composers-you-dont-know/

1. Schnittke
2. Ives
3. Stockhausen
4. Crumb
5. Gubaidulina
6. Xenakis
7. Berg
8. Copland
9. Cage
10. Webern

It says that unless you are a music student or a classical music fanatic, you are unlikely to have heard the music of these guys. I think that's nonsense. I am a musical illiterate (wouldn't know a sharp from a flat), and I am highly interested in classical, but not a fanatic (just go over to a rival classical forum where many of the members - at least claim - they have 5000+ recordings. Now that's much more "fanatical" if you want to say that.) I have only about 400 recordings in my collection, but all of these composers are there. But it's true that this list is as good place to start if you want to get your head around some of the most well known classical music of the past 100 years. Even though I agree with some guy, you don't need lists to begin to explore classical or any other type of music, just a set of ears...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

No way does J.S. Bach deserve No. 1. He was an excellent composer of thousands of works, yes, but he was a conservative, never innovated or worked in any new forms, and half of the time he didn't write the whole piece he's credited for (the cantatas are based on pre-existing melodies, for example, and the B Minor Mass is largely based on previously written material). He's No. 4 on my list.

Nonsense. While Bach may have worked in existing forms he commonly took them to a ultimate rarely surpassed level. And you use the example of Bach employing a melody of a given hymn within as proof that "half of the time" he didn't even compose the whole work. Let me get this strait... you assume that employing a borrowed element such as a tune greatly reduces the whole achievement? So every time Brahms or Beethoven employed a folk tune or Stravinsky or Bartok built a piece upon the rhythmic structures of a folk music source that amounts to cheating? Honestly, how much of classical music do you imagine does not employ borrowed elements... a snippet of a melody, a rhythm, etc... Of course the whole purpose of the cantatas was for use in religious services. The composer intentionally built the cantata as a whole around a hymn that would have been familiar to the audience. Somehow I doubt that constructing an original work of music around a known motif inherently lessens the originality of the any more than Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ or _Julius Caesar_ are lesser literary achievements because they were structured upon pre-existing narratives.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

*15. Franz Joseph Haydn

14. George Fredrick Handel

13. Sergie Rachmaninov

12. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky

11. Gustav Mahler

10. Giussepi Verdi

9. Johannes Brahms

8. Franz Liszt

7. Frederic Chopin

6. Robert Schumann

5. Franz Schubert

4. Richard Wagner

3. Ludwig van Beethoven

2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

1. Johann Sebastian Bach
*

Personally, I can find no fault with the first five. After that, I'd certainly place Brahms, Handel, and Haydn before Schumann. As for the complaints of the glaringly missing Modernists, I don't know who could be replaced... and by whom? Perhaps Chopin by Debussy? Rachmaninoff by Stravinsky? Or Richard Strauss (my preference)? Or let's get rid of Liszt as well and replace him with Monteverdi. Clearly all of the composers on this list are deserving of great recognition and we could debate their merits and ranking forever and who else should be added to the list forever... but I agree with someguy (gasp!!:lol It probably makes more sense to just listen to some music... and maybe discuss what we like (and dislike) about it rather than to debate whether X is better than Y or Z.

Besides... Bach is still God!


----------



## Webernite

StlukesguildOhio said:


> No way does J.S. Bach deserve No. 1. He was an excellent composer of thousands of works, yes, but he was a conservative, never innovated or worked in any new forms, and half of the time he didn't write the whole piece he's credited for (the cantatas are based on pre-existing melodies, for example, and the B Minor Mass is largely based on previously written material). He's No. 4 on my list.
> 
> Nonsense. While Bach may have worked in existing forms he commonly took them to a ultimate rarely surpassed level. And you use the example of Bach employing a melody of a given hymn within as proof that "half of the time" he didn't even compose the whole work. Let me get this strait... you assume that employing a borrowed element such as a tune greatly reduces the whole achievement? So every time Brahms or Beethoven employed a folk tune or Stravinsky or Bartok built a piece upon the rhythmic structures of a folk music source that amounts to cheating? Honestly, how much of classical music do you imagine does not employ borrowed elements... a snippet of a melody, a rhythm, etc... Of course the whole purpose of the cantatas was for use in religious services. The composer intentionally built the cantata as a whole around a hymn that would have been familiar to the audience. Somehow I doubt that constructing an original work of music around a known motif inherently lessens the originality of the any more than Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ or _Julius Caesar_ are lesser literary achievements because they were structured upon pre-existing narratives.


Quite true. I think Ravellian also somewhat misinterprets what I mean by "the most unbelievable music." I am simply using "the most" to mean "extremely." Perhaps it's a rather old-fashioned usage. I'm not saying that other composers (Beethoven, say) did not write equally unbelievable music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Number one on that list should have been *Karlheinz Stockhausen*, followed by *Iannis Xenakis *and then *Gyorgy Ligeti*. Who cares about Bach and Handel. That list is utterly corrupt.


----------



## Webernite

Don't forget Rameau. People always forget Rameau. He deserves so much more attention.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You, my friend, are one of millions who listens to Bach and assumes that, because it's written by Bach, it must be magnificent, right? This is why contemporary composers will never be rated very highly in these lists, because people have more respect for the legend than the actual music.

And posts such as this, which take a patronizing air of superiority... looking down upon those who disagree with your opinion... those who just might happen to have listened to and know as much (or more) about music as you presume you know... are one of the reasons that we get the constant Modernism vs Old masters dichotomy: the presumption that if someone recognizes the genius in Bach or Haydn or Schubert and suggests that John Cage or Bartok or Schoenberg might fall a bit short of this... well then this is obvious proof of their ignorance, naivete, and philistine nature.


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Number one on that list should have been *Karlheinz Stockhausen*, followed by *Iannis Xenakis *and then *Gyorgy Ligeti*. Who cares about Bach and Handel. That list is utterly corrupt.


Well, if this would be my list, Xenakis would probably be at the top. One of the members here said he was like the Beethoven of the C20th, and having listened to a fairly good sampling of his music lately, I can't but not agree...


----------



## Falstaft

*Top 15 Nuts!*

15. Acorn
14. Brazil
13. Peanut
12. Macadamia
11. Walnut
10. Candle
9. Cashew
8. Hazelnut
7. Chestnut
6. Pine
5. Hickory
4. Coconut
3. Almond
2. Pistachio
1. Pecan

Now, some of you might object to my choices, especially the choice of pecan as #1 -- after all, while delicious, how have pecans really changed the history of cooking? The inclusion of peanut may also also potentially controversial, as some might not even consider it a proper nut but a legume. All I can say is my list is true, definitive, and to be taken with utmost seriousness by all.


----------



## Ravellian

I wait patiently for the day when Johann Sebastian Bach will cease to be so ridiculously overrated by classical enthusiasts.. 

All I can say is, it's amazing to observe how little they, and most listeners, actually listen to this music compared to the romantic and classical greats... and then they turn around and proclaim him the "best composer of all time." ah..


----------



## World Violist

Falstaft said:


> *Top 15 Nuts!*
> 
> 15. Acorn
> 14. Brazil
> 13. Peanut
> 12. Macadamia
> 11. Walnut
> 10. Candle
> 9. Cashew
> 8. Hazelnut
> 7. Chestnut
> 6. Pine
> 5. Hickory
> 4. Coconut
> 3. Almond
> 2. Pistachio
> 1. Pecan
> 
> Now, some of you might object to my choices, especially the choice of pecan as #1 -- after all, while delicious, how have pecans really changed the history of cooking? The inclusion of peanut may also also potentially controversial, as some might not even consider it a proper nut but a legume. All I can say is my list is true, definitive, and to be taken with utmost seriousness by all.


No, you've got it all wrong. Coconuts must be number 1 because of their extraneous uses that no other nut can approach, such as knee-pads, ear muffs, and the always popular horse-trot sound. After that, cashew must be higher than number 5. I mean, yes, pecan can be used in a very popular pie, but I'd take knee safety and proper radio mimicking over a nice, steamy, juicy, mouth-wateringly delicious... mmm... so good...


----------



## Falstaft

> He was an excellent composer of thousands of works, yes, but he was a conservative, never innovated or worked in any new forms, and half of the time he didn't write the whole piece he's credited for (the cantatas are based on pre-existing melodies, for example, and the B Minor Mass is largely based on previously written material).


Ok, I thought I could resist addressing this, but I'm too weak...

_Really_??!

Are we listening to the same composer? The cantatas are a STAGGERING accomplishment -- just one or two I think would cement JSB's reptutation as the preeminent aesthetic master of the late baroque, but the sheer volume of them, with all their heart-wrenching arias, the glorious instrumental highlights, and the riveting choruses above all -- this is a body of work I'm not sure any other composer even attempted much less accomplished, and the guy just cranked them out! And to criticize them for their dazzlingly ingenious incorporation of chorale melodies, as if that were a liability rather than a mark of Bach's unbelievable talent? Wha???

I mean, seriously.





I rest my case 

As for his influence, I will reiterate what some other members have said -- after the mid-19th century there has been nary another composer with such an irresistible effect on the world of classical music in the form of performance and pedagogy. I can certainly speak from one aspect of this -- learning basic music theory in the States means learning Bach. He can't be blamed for not creating a neo-Baroque compositional revival (even though I think you'll find in the large scale choral works from the Romantic composers that he is very much present), as musical trends had been travelling in a different directions for the better part of a century.


----------



## Falstaft

World Violist said:


> No, you've got it all wrong. Coconuts must be number 1 because of their extraneous uses that no other nut can approach, such as knee-pads, ear muffs, and the always popular horse-trot sound. After that, cashew must be higher than number 5. I mean, yes, pecan can be used in a very popular pie, but I'd take knee safety and proper radio mimicking over a nice, steamy, juicy, mouth-wateringly delicious... mmm... so good...


:lol:

Sir, I was judging by taste alone (the only trait by which we may evaluate a nut-in-itself). Why, if practical uses like ear muffs and radios were under consideration, peanuts would be at the top! But George Washington Carver is not the arbiter, it is the taste buds.


----------



## Ravellian

Again, why exactly are they such a staggering accomplishment? Because he's Bach? Oh my god, it's Bach, so everything written by him must be incredible, right? -_-

An irresistible effect on the world of 19th century classical music? Really? Then why do I hear almost no Baroque-style polyphony in anything written after 1830 besides Mendelssohn? He may be a good learning tool for teaching counterpoint, but as far as 95% of the music world is considered, his music is and always has been old-fashioned since his death.


----------



## peeyaj

You could argue over in over again on Bach's greatness and influence. But, the truth is, Ravellian is spreding FUD on the most influential composers board..


----------



## Nix

Ravellian said:


> I wait patiently for the day when Johann Sebastian Bach will cease to be so ridiculously overrated by classical enthusiasts..
> 
> All I can say is, it's amazing to observe how little they, and most listeners, actually listen to this music compared to the romantic and classical greats... and then they turn around and proclaim him the "best composer of all time." ah..


Not really... I listen to him just as much as Mozart and Beethoven, and I don't listen to many romantic composers exclusively. And I never called him the greatest composer of all time... I would never dare to rank Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. But to say that the man did not have a significant impact on western music is ridiculous.

What's even more ridiculous is that if you're going to include peanuts it has to be in at least the top 3 for it is by far the most versatile (and accessible!) nut... it's made into butter, candy, sauce, and works with nearly every seasoning... and the salty shell pretty much seals the deal.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Are we listening to the same composer? The cantatas are a STAGGERING accomplishment -- just one or two I think would cement JSB's reptutation as the preeminent aesthetic master of the late baroque, but the sheer volume of them, with all their heart-wrenching arias, the glorious instrumental highlights, and the riveting choruses above all -- this is a body of work I'm not sure any other composer even attempted much less accomplished, and the guy just cranked them out! And to criticize them for their dazzlingly ingenious incorporation of chorale melodies, as if that were a liability rather than a mark of Bach's unbelievable talent? 

That is simply not enough to assure Bach's position. Ravellian listens to more Romanticism and Post-Romanticism and only skims through Bach and the other baroque composers from time to time and since he doesn't hear any direct link between Bach and the music he prefers, Bach must inherently be a lesser composer. Of course that makes Monteverdi almost irrelevant, to say nothing of the whole of Renaissance and medieval music.

But then again... what of Mozart's finale from the _Jupiter Symphony_, Beethoven's fugue from the _Eroica_ and Diabelli Variations, Shostakovitch' Preludes and Fugues, Villa-Lobos's _Bachianas Brasileiras_, Brahm's Cello Sonata in E, Mendelssohn's choral works, to say nothing of a good deal of Minimalism... but that's all irrelevant, right?


----------



## Sid James

Funny how you all get on your high horses when someone dares to challenge the superiority of Bach, and yet if it was Schoenberg being challenged, everyone would jump on the bandwagon rubbishing him...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Andre, if Ravellian had merely stated that he didn't like Bach I might disagree... and leave it there... but he continues to air half-baked notions as fact (and I would assume that even you, who are not a Bach fan, would still acknowledge Bach's importance... just as I recognize Schoenberg's importance in spite of my dislike of his music.) But then we have the repeated assumptions that those of us who do love Bach's work haven't really listened to it all that much (hmm... 140+ CDs... does that suggest a casual listener?), don't listen much to other Baroque music (Handel, Rameau, Lully, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Biber, Seelinck, Buxtehude, Geminiani, Purcell, Pandolfi, Tartini, Zemlenka, Delalande, Modeville, etc... seems I've got that requirement covered in order to express an opinion without being told I don't know what I'm talking about) probably listen far more to Romanticism (I probably used to to listen to more Romanticism... but I probably listen to more Modern and Contemporary and more Baroque and early music than anything else), and simply revere Bach because we are little more than a pack of lemmings doing what is expected of us. Again, making such assumptions about the abilities and experiences of others here is rather insulting and one of the reasons we end with these divides between Modernism vs Romanticism vs everything else.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But then we have the repeated assumptions that those of us who do love Bach's work haven't really listened to it all that much (hmm... 140+ CDs... does that suggest a casual listener?), ...


Yes, that is a rather unfounded assumption. Utter nonsense. Like you, I have a few hundred J. S. Bach CDs. (Lost count of how many I have exactly). The man enriched every single genre known to his day (even though he did not compose an opera, sufficient clues of how a Bach opera might have been liked could easily be found in his large scale secular cantatas). Really, there were only a handful of composers in western music history who had a consistent level of quality in their music that transcend all cultures and time, and J.S. was certainly one of them.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ravellian, its kind of funny. i dont often hear too much of Beethoven in todays music. neither in terms of 'classical' homophonic harmony, nor in terms of structure. Arguably the defining characteristics of his time.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Andre. I can tell you I wouldnt. Arnold made the necessary steps in the advancement of this art and demonstrated his incredible grasp of all the dimensions needed to compose to a high standard in the romantic idiom.


----------



## Genoveva

The title of this thread is incorrect. It's not the 15 top composers ranked by a website but only by one contributor to that website. There's a big difference. 

I'm all for looking at lists of greatest composers, or their works whatever, but only if I can see the thought processes that have gone into producing such lists and the criteria for selection among a decent size sample of members. The one under discussion here falls well short of those desired characteristics.


----------



## peeyaj

Genoveva said:


> The title of this thread is incorrect. It's not the 15 top composers ranked by a website but only by one contributor to that website. There's a big difference.
> 
> I'm all for looking at lists of greatest composers, or their works whatever, but only if I can see the thought processes that have gone into producing such lists and the criteria for selection among a decent size sample of members. The one under discussion here falls well short of those desired characteristics.


Yup. It's true. Listverse publishes personal lists, but when your list is published, it sorta like becoming a part of the site.

As JFrater (the site creator) said on his intro:

*''When FlameHorse sent this list in, I was rather surprised to find that after two and a half years, we have not features a list of greatest composers! We have had influential composers, composers you didn't know, and composers who died odd deaths. So, filling in the gap we now present the greatest composers ever.''*


----------



## Romantic Geek

Ravellian said:


> *Again, why exactly are they such a staggering accomplishment? Because he's ________? Oh my god, it's _______, so everything written by him must be incredible, right? -_-*


Wow! A statement that works for any composer! I mean...if you insert Wagner, you get my opinion!


----------



## Genoveva

peeyaj said:


> Yup. It's true. Listverse publishes personal lists, but when your list is published, it sorta like becoming a part of the site.
> 
> As JFrater (the site creator) said on his intro:
> 
> *''When FlameHorse sent this list in, I was rather surprised to find that after two and a half years, we have not features a list of greatest composers! We have had influential composers, composers you didn't know, and composers who died odd deaths. So, filling in the gap we now present the greatest composers ever.''*


I'm not questioning your previous choice of classical music website but I hope you won't mind me saying that the one to which you refer seems to be very small one. TC and a few others are very much larger. If anyone here had produced a list of top 15 composers like the one _Flamehorse_ did some time ago, it would have attracted immediate and extensive comment. Like I said previously, it looks to me as if Flamehorse cobbled together his list from the far better known lists to which I referred previously.

I share your view that lists like this can be very useful to a novice, but I stress that they only have any value if they're based on a demonstrable body of opinion and research, not just one person's opinions.

The notion that a newbie to classical music can be expected to work out for himself/herself what's best simply by listening is way too optimistic. Everyone needs guidance in the first instance.

I was fortunate in having two parents who are very keen on classical music, plus a very large CD library. They guided me initially. I have made further advances over the past 5 or so years from music appreciation classes at my school. I don't believe there is any major classical work say in top 1000 (if there is such a thing) that I haven't heard. And yet all the time my tastes are changing. In several cases, material I once liked I have now become somewhat lukewarm towards, and vice versa. Composer preferences change too. My parents and teachers tell me that it took them nigh on about 15-20 years for their tastes to settle down to anything like a reasonable plateau.


----------



## Ravellian

Ehh, I must apologize for my anti-Bach tirade last night, I was rather drunk if I recall. He is one of the greatest composers of all time without question.. his compositions are an excellent learning tool for keyboardists and composers especially. I guess I'm just sick of hearing his name thrown around for the past 20 years as one of the greatest ever when he doesn't seem to be listened to nearly as much as most of the other big names in classical music.


----------



## Webernite

Fair enough. Frankly, I would be OK with Beethoven getting first place any way. (Though I still think Bach would have to at least be second.) And I agree completely with your earlier remark about the lack of modern composers: after all, my username's Webernite.


----------



## Sid James

It really looks like lists like this tend to divide classical music fans rather than unite them. I think Ravellian's reaction to the inclusion of J.S. Bach & people's reactions to him is a case in point. I'd say that there is a certain core repertoire that is worth knowing for all listeners - especially to make up your mind what you do and don't like, what you want to hear more of & less of, etc. That's probably only the main use of lists like this, to kind of guide beginners who are just starting to listen to classical music. & it's logical because the top musicians did the same thing early in their lives. I remember reading about how the (late) Alicia de Larrocha was saying how she played the music of J.S. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. for many years before she could master the much more difficult Spanish repertoire (which was to become her specialty - Granados, Albeniz, Turina, etc.) Listening to classical music was the same with me. I first got to know the basics as child (my parents were both listeners), then later branched out. So maybe lists like this should be used as a guide rather than a point of endless debate as to who should be or not be on them, etc...


----------



## Webernite

You're right, Andre, but you mustn't overlook the fact that there is a great deal more to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart (and so on) than their contributions to the core repertoire. I love Bach, but that doesn't mean I spend all day listening to the _Brandenburg Concertos_ and the _Well-Tempered Clavier_. I'm sure Ravellian doesn't spend all day listening to the _Moonlight Sonata_ either. There is so much to these composers that it is perfectly possible to spend decades exploring their works, not to mention different recordings. "The basics" are only a small part of their output.


----------



## peeyaj

@ Andre & Webernite

QFT. You two have valid points. Why not just instead bicker on who is the greatest composer in the planet, we just appreciate these composers who gave us the joys of classical music?


----------



## Guest

Genoveva said:


> The notion that a newbie to classical music can be expected to work out for himself/herself what's best simply by listening is way too optimistic. Everyone needs guidance in the first instance.


I don't know about "expected" but that is exactly how I did it. I suppose that the recordings I had (inherited*) and the radio station I listened to could be considered "guidance" just in the selection that was offered me, but I took none of it for recommendation or guidance. I just devoured whatever I could.

I don't know about "best," either, but that's another topic for another day (and another poster, probably!). I certainly worked out for myself what I thought was good and enjoyable.



Genoveva said:


> My parents and teachers tell me that it took them nigh on about 15-20 years for their tastes to settle down to anything like a reasonable plateau.


And your colleague "some guy" on the Talk Classical forum is telling you now that in fifty years of listening to classical music, the only plateaus he reached (whether "reasonable" or not is another question!) were rather earlier than later. I reached a "late Romantic" plateau fairly quickly and an "electroacoustic like Poème électronique" plateau in the early seventies, but I didn't stay on either one. And for me at least, "maturing" has meant acquiring new tastes all the time. (My list of fifteen favorite nuts, for instance, would have 15,000 different varieties on it.)

*No one in my immediate family listened to any music really. Classical was right out! And I had been listening to it for five or six years before I ever found anyone else who listened to it, too, and could talk to about it. And then it was just a coupla guys swopping favorites. I think if I had grown up in the era of internet classical music forums, I'd probably have stopped listening entirely and gone into collecting shells or raising budgerigars.)


----------



## chromatic

My version:

15. Haydn
14. Handel
13. Tchaikovsky
12. Rachmaninov
11. Debussy
10. Stravinsky
9. Schumann
8. Mendelssohn
7. Brahms
6. Schubert
5. Wagner
4. Chopin
3. Beethoven
2. Mozart
1. Bach

This isn't "composers I like," because if it were, Wagner and others wouldn't have made the list. I do feel like I can say Wagner was a great composer, though, despite the fact I don't like him. I can't be as generous to Mahler or (especially) Liszt (from the original list).

However, I do feel like I have earned the right to put Bach at #1, because of all the pieces I enjoy the most, perhaps 70% are written by Bach.


----------



## jhar26

Delicious Manager said:


> Joseph Haydn - I am one of Haydn's greatest advocates, but I don't think he can be on this list.


Why not? In my modest opinion he's one of the most influential composers in history. He was crucial for the development of the symphony, string quartet, piano trio and so on. When he got started these genres were nothing more than innocent little divertimentos (if they existed at all) and by the time he was through with them they were mature genres that have dominated classical music ever since and they formed a solid basis for those that came after him to build on.


----------



## jhar26

Genoveva said:


> In several cases, material I once liked I have now become somewhat lukewarm towards, and vice versa. Composer preferences change too.


Interesting. I guess it only goes to show that everyone's experience is somewhat different. I very rarely (if ever) change my mind about anything I like, but I might change my mind about something I don't like.


----------



## Rasa

How very pretentious to publish a list of greatest composers.

I find this lists are highly irrelevant.


----------



## Genoveva

jhar26 said:


> Why not? In my modest opinion he's one of the most influential composers in history. He was crucial for the development of the symphony, string quartet, piano trio and so on. When he got started these genres were nothing more than innocent little divertimentos (if they existed at all) and by the time he was through with them they were mature genres that have dominated classical music ever since and they formed a solid basis for those that came after him to build on.


Are you suggesting that if Haydn hadn't made these advances then no-one else would?

Aren't you also overlooking the fact that Haydn's achievements in all of the areas he was ever involved in are overshadowed by the efforts of other composers, in the sense that there is nothing by Haydn which stands at the pinnacle of acclaim.


----------



## Genoveva

jhar26 said:


> Interesting. I guess it only goes to show that everyone's experience is somewhat different. I very rarely (if ever) change my mind about anything I like, but I might change my mind about something I don't like.


Everyone's musical preferences must be ranked somehow, so it seems inevitable that some things will go up and some down in their estimation relative to a former position. I wasn't suggesting that things that go down the list over time necessarily become disliked, although some may be.


----------



## jhar26

Genoveva said:


> Are you suggesting that if Haydn hadn't made these advances then no-one else would?


No, but one can say 'if he hadn't done it someone else would have' about virtually every other influential composer.


> Aren't you also overlooking the fact that Haydn's achievements in all of the areas he was ever involved in are overshadowed by the efforts of other composers, in the sense that there is nothing by Haydn which stands at the pinnacle of acclaim.


That's a matter of opinion. Many people rank Haydn among the best composers of symphonies, string quartets and most 'genres' of his day except maybe for opera.


----------



## peeyaj

It is interesting on what direction this thread would be going.

One of the commenters in the said list, struck me because his comment is penetrating or insightful. I've quoted and highlighted his comments regarding the 15 composers .

*On Haydn*, he said:



> Interesting how you dismiss his symphonies, when they more or less are what he is best known for. I do, however, agree that *his symphonies tend to sound redundant,* but then again, I think the same could be said of many composers. You can certainly tell when you are listening to Chopin, Mozart or Bach. I think it's more that his symphonies *lack that extra oomph* that would make them more worthwhile listens. The common sentiment seems to be *'' Why listen to Haydn when you could listen to Mozart?''*


My sentiments exactly.

*On Robert Schumann:*



> Now, THIS one truly caught me off guard as well. *Schumann's music isn't what you'd expect given his history of mental instability.* Perhaps, the edgier composers of High Romantic era spoiled me and I can't appreciate the subtler, more conservative of Schumann's style.


No comment.

*On Franz Schubert:*



> In the same way that Haydn strikes me as a less exciting predecessor to a more innovate Mozart, Schubert has always struck me as *less exciting to a more innovative Beethoven*.. Of course, *it is unfair to judge Schubert in the context of those who came after him, but what can you do - life is unfair.*
> 
> As I've probably made clear multiple times in the post, I don't care for vocal music, so I can't appreciate his lied.


Hell.. As if Schubert did not write any chamber works, symphonies, masses or piano music! *If Schubert would be given at least a couple of years to live, he could innovate more as Beethoven did.*

His comments are really interesting read.


----------



## Genoveva

jhar26 said:


> No, but one can say 'if he hadn't done it someone else would have' about virtually every other influential composer.
> 
> That's a matter of opinion. Many people rank Haydn among the best composers of symphonies, string quartets and most 'genres' of his day except maybe for opera.


I would say that Haydn deserves a position somewhere in the top 10, and that 15 is unfair.

I would say that his symphonies are not in the same class as the best of Mozart's or Beethoven's, and that Schubert's "Unfinished" and the "Great" C Major are far better.

On the whole I would argue that Haydn's best efforts were in String Quartets where there are one or two pretty good ones. But even here there are examples by other composers that tower above them.

I grant that his cello concertos are very good but doubt that they would win any wider contest as people's favourites.

His keyboard sonatas are generally outclassed by Mozart, let alone by Beethoven.

His piano trios are good in parts but not at the top of the class (Beethoven and Schubert win clearly here among those fairly close in time and broad style).

Haydn's Masses are pretty good but again outclassed by Mozart.

His opera is relatively weak.

His oratorios are very nice but outclassed by a mile by Handel's.

And so it goes on, in every genre you care to name.


----------



## Genoveva

some guy said:


> ...
> And your colleague "some guy" on the Talk Classical forum is telling you now that in fifty years of listening to classical music, the only plateaus he reached (whether "reasonable" or not is another question!) were rather earlier than later.
> 
> ...


I am very grateful to you for giving me this advice. However, I don't know how you can expect others to follow your accidental, hit/miss experience in becoming more familiar with classical music - which seems to have taken you a very long time - when there are some very good guides to advise the inquisitive listener on a more efficient path. There is far too much to listen of the type to which you refer, or even a fraction of it, without a filtering device of some description. So far I have been very pleased with the outcome of the ones I selected, which have been based to a large extent on advice from people I know and trust, and my endeavours.

I am aware of your modernist tastes as I have seen many of your contributions on this and other Boards, but I'm afraid to say that I do not share them and doubt that I ever will. Save for a few exceptions I don't think it unfair to suggest that you appear to have faced an uphill struggle wherever you have posted your thoughts.

I have spent the last five years refining my knowledge about music from the early Baroque through to about 1970. To name a few composers, in the 17th Century I like Monteverdi and Purcell. In the 18th C Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and in the 19th C Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Dvorak. (I rate Wagner very highly but to be honest don't like his works all that much, as I'm not a big fan of opera except the juicy best bits). In the 20th C I especially like Debussy, Stravinsky, Ravel, Holst, Elgar, Britten, Walton, and Vaughan Williams.

With plenty of material here, I don't feel any need to force myself to venture into late 20 th C developments in classical music, especially since from what I have heard this period doesn't generally appeal to me. If it comes to modern music (which remains of secondary interest only) I feel a lot happier with prog rock or outright electronica. All in all, I think I'll just muddle along guided mainly by teachers and my own instincts, plus the odd snippet I might pick up here.


----------



## Genoveva

double post deleted


----------



## peeyaj

Genoveva said:


> I would say that Haydn deserves a position somewhere in the top 10, and that 15 is unfair.
> 
> I would say that his symphonies are not in the same class as the best of Mozart's or Beethoven's, and that Schubert's "Unfinished" and the "Great" C Major are far better.
> 
> On the whole I would argue that Haydn's best efforts were in String Quartets where there are one or two pretty good ones. But even here there are examples by other composers that tower above them.
> 
> I grant that his cello concertos are very good but doubt that they would win any wider contest as people's favourites.
> 
> His keyboard sonatas are generally outclassed by Mozart, let alone by Beethoven.
> 
> His piano trios are good in parts but not at the top of the class (Beethoven and Schubert win clearly here among those fairly close in time and broad style).
> 
> Haydn's Masses are pretty good but again outclassed by Mozart.
> 
> His opera is relatively weak.
> 
> His oratorios are very nice but outclassed by a mile by Handel's.
> 
> And so it goes on, in every genre you care to name.


Ha, ha, ha. Agree. I'm not that enthused on Haydn's music. But let's give him credit in inventing the symphony and string quartet.


----------



## Ravellian

There seems to be an appalling lack of knowledge here regarding Haydn's accomplishments, particularly in regards to the symphony. I'm guessing most people here have only given them a casual listen.

First of all, Haydn was more responsible than any previous composer for standardizing sonata form. He didn't "invent" it, as it was more of a gradual evolution from previous symphonists: J.C. Bach, Sammartini, and Stamitz (the latter of which comes closest to Haydn's model, but is still comparatively weak in substance). By the time he reached old age, Haydn was widely considered the greatest composer in the world and responsible for popularizing the symphony and the string quartet. Mozart learned how to write symphonies from the example of Haydn.

If you simply compare the number of mature works, all of Haydn's 104 symphonies were written while he was more or less completely developed as a composer.. compared to Mozart, whose last 10-12 symphonies are the only ones from that came from the pen of a fully-developed composer.

Second, Haydn's method of going about sonata form was really quite different from Mozart's, so you really can't compare the two at the height of their powers. Haydn had a preference for short-term, witty musical effects (especially pertaining to the harmony), and musical humor. He also very often tended to base an entire sonata-form movement off of one or two musical motives, freely developing them as he went. Mozart, on the other hand, conceived of sonata-form in a 'tonal mass,' where every musical element in a section pretty much adheres to the standard harmony of the section. Therefore, there are much fewer harmonic musical 'jokes.' He was also very ADHD as far as themes went.. he loved to bring in one new melody after another with short or no break in between.

^Most of this information is from Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style._ So in summary, Haydn and Mozart's compositional styles were quite different, but Haydn clearly deserves a spot on this list due to the sheer volume of his mature works, and the consistent quality among them.. and again, because of the fact that he made the symphony a popular genre to compose in.


----------



## emiellucifuge

What about his development of the string quartet?


----------



## Webernite

Haydn definitely deserves to be in the top ten, and there are plenty of people, me included, who consider his piano sonatas to be much superior to Mozart's. Not to mention that unlike Mozart he was a very great writer of fugues. Whenever Beethoven uses a fugue in his work, people immediately say it must be influenced by Bach, but Haydn (and Handel) should be taking at least equal credit.

Edit: In fact, I really feel that there are only three genres where Mozart patently outdoes Haydn: opera, piano concerti and violin concerti.


----------



## Ravellian

..and the same thing can be sad about the string quartets. He standardized the 2 violin/viola/cello format (before that the trio sonata was the norm for instrumental chamber music) and made it popular for amateurs to play. He also was very gifted at making the lines very important in of themselves, almost never as mere "accompaniment" to the top voice. Haydn's only real rival in this category was Beethoven, and after Beethoven this genre really fades in importance.


----------



## jhar26

Genoveva said:


> I would say that Haydn deserves a position somewhere in the top 10, and that 15 is unfair.


Well, I guess we agree then.



> I would say that his symphonies are not in the same class as the best of Mozart's or Beethoven's, and that Schubert's "Unfinished" and the "Great" C Major are far better.
> 
> On the whole I would argue that Haydn's best efforts were in String Quartets where there are one or two pretty good ones. But even here there are examples by other composers that tower above them.
> 
> I grant that his cello concertos are very good but doubt that they would win any wider contest as people's favourites.
> 
> His keyboard sonatas are generally outclassed by Mozart, let alone by Beethoven.
> 
> His piano trios are good in parts but not at the top of the class (Beethoven and Schubert win clearly here among those fairly close in time and broad style).
> 
> Haydn's Masses are pretty good but again outclassed by Mozart.
> 
> His opera is relatively weak.
> 
> His oratorios are very nice but outclassed by a mile by Handel's.
> 
> And so it goes on, in every genre you care to name.


I never said that he was 'the best' (whatever that means) at anything, only that he's definitely AMONG the best and one of the most influential. And I don't agree that Haydn was outclassed by others by a mile (except maybe in opera). If others were better in some 'genres' they were marginally so. Besides, it's difficult to, say, pioneer and develop the symphony and almost 'invent' the string quartet and at the same time also create their crowning achievements. Beethoven wouldn't have composed the eroica, 9th symphony or those late string quartets if he had been an exact contemporary of Haydn, because first the building blocks that made such compositions possible had to be put in place. Haydn is just an earlier link in the chain of the development of music. He had to start from Stamitz, CPE Bach and those guys. Beethoven and Schubert could pick it up where Haydn and Mozart had left of - makes a big difference.


----------



## Genoveva

jhar26 said:


> I never said that he was 'the best' (whatever that means) at anything, only that he's definitely AMONG the best and one of the most influential. And I don't agree that Haydn was outclassed by others by a mile (except maybe in opera). If others were better in some 'genres' they were marginally so. Besides, it's difficult to, say, pioneer and develop the symphony and almost 'invent' the string quartet and at the same time also create their crowning achievements. Beethoven wouldn't have composed the eroica, 9th symphony or those late string quartets if he had been an exact contemporary of Haydn, because first the building blocks that made such compositions possible had to be put in place. Haydn is just an earlier link in the chain of the development of music. He had to start from Stamitz, CPE Bach and those guys. Beethoven and Schubert could pick it up where Haydn and Mozart had left of - makes a big difference.


I would guess we are not that far apart.

To be clear what I'm saying is that unlike Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, and Wagner, he didn't leave any works that are arguably unsurpassed in quality by later composers. This is why I don't rate him at the top end of the scale. If a "lifetime achievement" award was being considered he would probably deserve to come in the top 10 somewhere. That's where I have most often seen him rated in various polls, whether as the "greatest" or "favourite" composers.

To make way for a higher place for Haydn I would probably delegate Chopin, Liszt, Mahler, Rachmaninov, and Verdi. I definitely can't see the justification for Chopin being so placed so high (No 6). His numerous very short all pieces lack any sort of cohesion to me. I would agree that his few longer works are pretty good but I don't think they're quite up at the top level of quality achieved by others. He was also very specialised which I think is a negative issue if we are talking about the "greatest".

Liszt at No 8 is also over-rated but at least his piano music is long enough to consider its musical structure, which can be quite interesting when he hasn't simply copied material from other composers who were far better than him.

Mahler at No 11 is over-rated in my opinion. He is far too concentrated on symphonies. As I have commented elsewhere, I find many of these symphonies overlong and too slushy. Rachmaninov is very lucky to be included in anybody's top 15 if you ask me. Verdi I'm not so sure about since I'm not all that keen on opera but it strikes me he is way over-rated at No 10.

This list of 15 should include Mendelssohn, Stravinsky and Debussy as replacements, and possibly Ravel too.


----------



## Guest

Genoveva said:


> I am very grateful to you for giving me this advice.


I never intended my comments to be taken as advice! You just made an assertion which my experience was an exception to.


Genoveva said:


> However, I don't know how you can expect others to follow your accidental, hit/miss experience in becoming more familiar with classical music


I expect nothing. And "accidental, hit/miss" wouldn't be how I would describe my experience.


Genoveva said:


> which seems to have taken you a very long time - when there are some very good guides to advise the inquisitive listener on a more efficient path.


Well, I'm 58, and I've been listening to "classical" for 50 of those. And I continue to listen. As for guides, I found very early on that neither the descriptions I was reading of things nor the evaluations matched my experiences. As for efficient, listening to music is a great pleasure for me; it's not like town planning or packing for a long trip, where efficiency might be virtuous.


Genoveva said:


> There is far too much to listen of the type to which you refer, or even a fraction of it, without a filtering device of some description.


Number of hours in a day.


Genoveva said:


> So far I have been very pleased


Oh, me too! 


Genoveva said:


> I am aware of your modernist tastes as I have seen many of your contributions on this and other Boards, but I'm afraid to say that I do not share them and doubt that I ever will.


I have modernist tastes? I like to listen to music, I know that. 


Genoveva said:


> I don't feel any need to force myself to venture into late 20 th C developments in classical music....


Neither do I. (I don't feel any need to smell flowers or enjoy sunsets, either. I just do them.)


----------



## Genoveva

Ravellian said:


> There seems to be an *appalling lack of knowledge here* regarding Haydn's accomplishments, particularly in regards to the symphony. I'm guessing most people here have only given them a casual listen.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you simply compare the number of mature works, all of *Haydn's 104 symphonies* were written while he was more or less completely developed as a composer.. compared to Mozart, whose last 10-12 symphonies are the only ones from that came from the pen of a fully-developed composer.


I thought Haydn is credited with *106* symphonies, not including the sinfonia concertante.

In addition to the 104 you refer to, there is Symphony A (Hob 1/107)and Symphony B (Hob 1/108), both of which were written after the start of his symphony writing days so they presumably qualify on your definition.

And yes, I have the whole lot and have heard them all. There aren't that many that I often replay however, outside of the London symphonies.


----------



## jhar26

Genoveva said:


> I thought Haydn is credited with *106* symphonies, not including the sinfonia concertante.
> 
> In addition to the 104 you refer to, there is Symphony A (Hob 1/107)and Symphony B (Hob 1/108), both of which were written after the start of his symphony writing days so they presumably qualify on your definition.
> 
> And yes, I have the whole lot and have heard them all. There aren't that many that I often replay however, outside of the London symphonies.


Have you ever heard Harnoncourt's recordings of the Paris symphonies (Nos.82-87)? If not and you get the chance, please do. For me these recordings were a revelation - almost like hearing these works for the first time. Especially Nos.82 and 83 sound as great here as the best of the London symphonies.


----------



## Aramis

I can hardly belive that no matter how many times before we went through this stuff it always happens again - someone post worthless ranking without any good reason and people discuss it like it would have ANY sense, value and meaning.


----------



## Genoveva

jhar26 said:


> Have you ever heard Harnoncourt's recordings of the Paris symphonies (Nos.82-87)?


Yes. My folks have 6 sets of the Paris Symphonies plus several one-offs. The 6 sets are: Karajan/BPO, Harnoncourt/CM, Bernstein/NYP, Bruggen/Orch 18th C, Goodman/Hanover Band, Marriner/Academy SMITF.

They're OK but I prefer the London symphonies, and even among them I'm choosy. I like 94, 100, 102, 104 best of all. Those are the best 4 of Haydn in my view, but overall I would say they don't match up to the quality of the best 4 of Mozart (Nos 38-41).


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Aramis said:


> I can hardly believe that no matter how many times before we went through this stuff it always happens again - someone posts a worthless ranking without any good reason and people discuss it as if it had ANY sense, value and meaning.


Oh, I guess I understand this perspective. Believe me, I have (with some effort) resisted the temptation to edit the thread title to "The 15 Greatest Composers Ranked by Some Random Dude."

We have our fun with it from time-to-time, but the original post is, of its kind, not the _worst_ that I've seen-(*c.f.*).


----------



## LindenLea

It is interesting, but as others have said it's ultimately meaningless, as music is so subjective, and they might as well rank the 15 greatest Chinese dinner recipes, or the world's 15 greatest motorbikes!! I could say that in my view any list without Vaughan Williams, Elgar, or Benjamin Britten is worthless, and there is no argument anybody can ever make to prove to me that the awful bloated Wagner was a greater composer than Elgar, anymore than I could ever be convinced by anyone that say asparagus (which I detest) is a greater food than cheese (which I live on!)


----------



## Aramis

> I could say that in my view any list without Vaughan Williams, Elgar, or Benjamin Britten is worthless


You're confusing Greatest Composers Liszt with Greatest English Composers Liszt :tiphat:

for me, any Greatest Composers Liszt without Liszt is nonsense


----------



## jhar26

Genoveva said:


> Yes. My folks have 6 sets of the Paris Symphonies plus several one-offs. The 6 sets are: Karajan/BPO, Harnoncourt/CM, Bernstein/NYP, Bruggen/Orch 18th C, Goodman/Hanover Band, Marriner/Academy SMITF.


Wow, sounds as though your folks are big Haydn fans!


----------



## jhar26

LindenLea said:


> It is interesting, but as others have said it's ultimately meaningless, as music is so subjective


Well, that's true of course. But every opinion about music is subjective - not only these sort of lists. The fact that you think Elgar is a great composer and Wagner a poor one is also subjective.


----------



## Ravellian

I think this list from digitaldreamdoor.com is much more appropriate (http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html):

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
8. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893
9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
10. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971
11. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
12. Frederic Chopin - 1810-1849
13. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847
14. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918
15. Franz Liszt - 1811-1886

This improves on the original list in many ways...
- Haydn is much higher, as he should be
- Rachmaninov and Verdi are off
- Beethoven is number 1 as he should be
- Chopin and Liszt are lower on the list
- Stravinsky and Debussy, the two most influential composers of the 20th century, are included

My only slight quibble with this list is that Mahler is missing.. I would exchange Mendelssohn for Mahler, personally.


----------



## Falstaft

Aramis said:


> You're confusing Greatest Composers Liszt [sic] with Greatest English Composers Liszt [sic] :tiphat:


Why, to some people these are one and the same!


----------



## Aramis

I dodont write any [sic] what is those you seting me up


----------



## LindenLea

jhar26 said:


> Well, that's true of course. But every opinion about music is subjective - not only these sort of lists. The fact that you think Elgar is a great composer and Wagner a poor one is also subjective.


Absolutely agree! I obviously said it more as a statement of personal preference, rather than as a categoric statement of fact, in fact I maybe wrong!...perhaps one day somebody will produce definitive laboratory tested proof that Wagner was a greater composer!


----------



## Falstaft

Aramis said:


> [sic]I dodont [sic] write any [sic[sic]] what [sic] is [sic] those [sic] you seting [sic] me up [/sic]


lol +10char


----------



## Genoveva

Ravellian said:


> I think this list from digitaldreamdoor.com is much more appropriate (http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html):
> 
> 1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
> 2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
> 3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750
> 4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883
> 5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
> 6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
> 7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
> 8. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893
> 9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759
> 10. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971
> 11. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
> 12. Frederic Chopin - 1810-1849
> 13. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847
> 14. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918
> 15. Franz Liszt - 1811-1886
> 
> This improves on the original list in many ways...
> - Haydn is much higher, as he should be
> - Rachmaninov and Verdi are off
> - Beethoven is number 1 as he should be
> - Chopin and Liszt are lower on the list
> - Stravinsky and Debussy, the two most influential composers of the 20th century, are included
> 
> My only slight quibble with this list is that Mahler is missing.. I would exchange Mendelssohn for Mahler, personally.


I agree that this list is far more satisfactory than the one by the "random dude". Mind you, this list where I think the "random dude" possibly got his inspiration from.

From some digging around I have done among various colleagues it would seem that the list given above by "digital dream door" was itself largely the work of one man, the Moderator, who, while apparently allowing lots of token discussion amongst members, ultimately had control over the whole venture and knew exactly where was going based on his own devices regardless of what was actually said by other members. That's at least how it was recounted to me.

I have to say that I wouldn't like to see Mendelssohn demoted from the list of top 15. He contributed significantly in most genres, producing some very high quality works and was a major figure in the early Romantic area. To name but a few of his outstanding works, his VC is of the highest quality, three of his symphonies are wonderful, and his contributions in solo piano and chamber music are top notch. In my view, Mahler falls down relatively on limited breadth of coverage, whatever one may think about the quality of his symphonies (and I don't think much of some of them).


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I can't avoid it, I have to say this.....*

B.S!!!!!!!!!

Bach sucks!

Martin Pitchon

:tiphat:


----------



## johogofo

1.Beethoven
2.Brahms
3.Bruckner
4.Wagner
5.Tchaikowsky
6.Liszt
7.Schubert
8.Rachmaninov
9.Chopin
10.Mozart
11.Dvorjak
12.Mahler
13.Mendelson
14.Verdi
15.Bach


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

1. Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Handel
8. Schumann
9. Bruckner
10. Dvorak
11. Schubert
12. Mendelssohn
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Berlioz
16. Mahler
17. Tchaikovsky
18. Robert Fuchs
19. Weber
20. Verdi


----------



## johogofo

i consider bach one of the greatest composers ever. but he does 'nt move me


----------



## Aramis

> but he does 'nt move me


You mean it never happened to you that one minute you're sitting in your room, turn one of Branderburg Concertos and then suddenly find yourself in bathroom? Or in the middle of Mongolia?


----------



## johogofo

that was a good one Aramis


----------

