# Let's rank the composer rankings!



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although I am curious about the outcome.

There have been a few threads lately about "greatest composer" rankings, and the discussion has followed the usual pattern: someone creates a list, someone else says the list is rubbish because composer X is too high or too low, someone else points out how stupid the methodology is, the words "subjective" and "objective" get kicked about, there are knife fights, dogs and cats living together etc etc...

So I'm going to post 10 "greatest composer" rankings _without any information about how they were produced_, and we can talk about whether some seem better or worse than others, and why that might be. Despite the thread title, there's no need for anyone to actually rank the lists - just give your impressions about each one.

Eventually I'll reveal the sources of the lists, but don't worry, this isn't going to be some sort of "gotcha" moment in which the best list turns out to have been one chosen by Paul the Octopus. Some were produced on TC, others come from published sources, and there are a few that aren't rankings of _greatest_ composer per se. What I'm wondering is whether there's a consistency in how we view the various rankings, and whether the methodology will prove to be a factor in that.

Ten more posts to follow, one for each list...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List A:

1. Bach, JS
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Verdi
8. Schumann
9. Handel
10. Debussy
11. Mendelssohn
12. Chopin
13. Liszt
14. Haydn
15. Wagner
16. Dvorak
17. Ravel
18. Vivaldi
19. Rachmaninoff
20. Puccini
21. Strauss, R
22. Rossini
23. Prokofiev
24. Saint-Saens
25. Shostakovich
26. Donizetti
27. Bizet
28. Mahler
29. Faure
30. Grieg


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List B:

1. Mozart
2. Beethoven
3. Bach, JS
4. Haydn
5. Handel
6. Wagner
7. Schubert
8. Schutz
9. Verdi
10. Schumann
11. Berlioz
12. Tchaikovsky
13. Stravinsky
14. Bartok
15. Weber
16. Brahms
17. Mahler
18. Mendelssohn
19. Liszt
20. Schoenberg
21. Monteverdi
22. Rossini
23. Josquin
24. Debussy
25. Dvorak
26. Wolf
27. Gluck
28. Strauss, R
29. Bruckner
30. Bizet


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List C:

1. Beethoven
2. Bach, JS
3. Mahler
4. Mozart
5. Dvorak
6. Sibelius
7. Schubert
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Debussy
10. Ravel
11. Prokofiev
12. Stravinsky
13. Saint-Saens
14. Rachmaninoff
15. Strauss, R
16. Brahms
17. Haydn
18. Shostakovich
19. Bartok
20. Mendelssohn
21. Grieg
22. Chopin
23. Schumann
24. Berlioz
25. Vaughan Williams
26. Vivaldi
27. Mussorgsky
28. Handel
29. Bruckner
30. Wagner


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List D:

1. Bach, JS
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Wagner
7. Verdi
8. Handel
9. Haydn
10. Chopin
11. Tchaikovsky
12. Liszt
13. Schumann
14. Debussy
15. Puccini
16. Stravinsky
17. Mendelssohn
18. Strauss, R
19. Mahler
20. Ravel
21. Dvorak
22. Vivaldi
23. Rossini
24. Rachmaninoff
25. Bartok
26. Britten
27. Shostakovich
28. Prokofiev
29. Berlioz
30. Gershwin


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List E:

1. Bach, JS
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Schubert
8. Schumann
9. Handel
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Mendelssohn
12. Dvorak
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Stravinsky
16. Verdi
17. Mahler
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovich
20. Strauss, R
21. Berlioz
22. Debussy
23. Puccini
24. Bruckner
25. Palestrina
26. Telemann
27. Saint-Saens
28. Sibelius
29. Ravel
30. Rossini


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List F:

1. Bach, JS
2. Stravinsky
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Debussy
6. Ligeti
7. Mahler
8. Wagner
9. Ravel
10. Monteverdi
11. Britten
12. Sibelius
13. Messiaen
14. Bartok
15. Shostakovich
16. Haydn
17. Saariaho
18. Brahms
19. Reich
20. Chopin
21. Vaughan Williams
22. Schoenberg
23. Gesualdo
24. Janacek
25. Schubert
26. Gershwin
27. Glass
28. Ives
29. Prokofiev
30. Lutoslawski


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List G:

1. Bach, JS
2. Beethoven
3. Schubert
4. Mozart
5. Brahms
6. Mahler
7. Haydn
8. Sibelius
9. Wagner
10. Debussy
11. Shostakovich
12. Schumann
13. Tchaikovsky
14. Ravel
15. Chopin
16. Mendelssohn
17. Dvorak
18. Handel
19. Prokofiev
20. Stravinsky
21. Strauss, R
22. Bruckner
23. Liszt
24. Berlioz
25. Bartok
26. Rachmaninoff
27. Vivaldi
28. Vaughan Williams
29. Grieg
30. Elgar


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List H:

1. Mozart
2. Bach, JS
3. Haydn
4. Beethoven
5. Schubert
6. Wagner
7. Brahms
8. Handel
9. Schumann
10. Mendelssohn
11. Dvorak
12. Ravel
13. Mahler
14. Strauss, R
15. Monteverdi
16. Chopin
17. Bartok
18. Debussy
19. Stravinsky
20. Sibelius
21. Verdi
22. Liszt
23. Tchaikovsky
24. Shostakovich
25. Bruckner
26. Berlioz
27. Prokofiev
28. Elgar
29. Bach, JC
30. Nielsen


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

List I:

1. Beethoven
2. Bach, JS
3. Brahms
4. Mozart
5. Haydn
6. Schubert
7. Debussy
8. Prokofiev
9. Mahler
10. Wagner
11. Chopin
12. Tchaikovsky
13. Ravel
14. Sibelius
15. Dvorak
16. Mendelssohn
17. Schumann
18. Stravinsky
19. Shostakovich
20. Vaughan Williams
21. Scriabin
22. Faure
23. Bartok
24. Berlioz
25. Strauss, R
26. Vivaldi
27. Grieg
28. Lassus
29. Josquin
30. Handel


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

And finally,
List J:

1. Bach, JS
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Haydn
7. Wagner
8. Mahler
9. Debussy
10. Tchaikovsky
11. Stravinsky
12. Schumann
13. Chopin
14. Handel
15. Mendelssohn
16. Ravel
17. Dvorak
18. Prokofiev
19. Strauss, R
20. Bartok
21. Shostakovich
22. Sibelius
23. Liszt
24. Verdi
25. Berlioz
26. Vivaldi
27. Monteverdi
28. Vaughan Williams
29. Bruckner
30. Rachmaninoff


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

List K will be generated in January, based on around 50 (or more) submissions of TC members' favourites.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Here is my criteria for ranking the lists: any list with Schubert over Stravinsky is automatically disqualified. So List F is the one I agree with, which looks awfully familiar.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Lists A, B, E lack one or more of six of the movers/shakers of the early 20th century: Bartók, Debussy, Prokofiev, Ravel, Shostakovich, Stravinsky. There were other movers/shakers, to be sure, but none (or few) would meet a popularity threshold set by the six aforementioned.

List F was clearly compiled while riding a hobby horse: extreme eccentricity of taste indeed.

List J places R. Strauss above Bartók, Shostakovich, and Sibelius; again, strange eccentricity of taste.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> List F was clearly compiled while riding a hobby horse: extreme eccentricity of taste indeed.


I don't consider List F eccentric at all; it's more wide-ranging than the others.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> List F was clearly compiled while riding a hobby horse: extreme eccentricity of taste indeed.


List F is a few centuries ahead of its time.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

List G is perhaps the least wrong of the ten lists--In My Opinion .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

List E gets right my top four nominees for greatest composer. I don't care much what comes after that.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> List E gets right my top four nominees for greatest composer. I don't care much what comes after that.


For me, List E's fatal error is the absence of Béla Bartók. If this could be rectified, then rehabilitation is possible.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

IMO, all of the lists are bad and the whole ranking enterprise is doomed by its very nature. The central and insurmountable problem is that the category of classical composer is too broad and diffuse to allow meaningful results; It's really multiple discrete categories forced together, with criteria of excellence that shift as one descends from the highest rankings. Only the versatile take the top positions, after which mastery of all/multiple genres seems to be progressively discounted – else Chopin, Bruckner, Verdi, Mahler, Wagner, Puccini, Scarlatti, Vivaldi, and other narrow specialists would never make the list. Moreover, the specialties themselves seem to be weighted arbitrarily in favor of brute size, the presence of Bruckner being otherwise incomprehensible. ()A chamber music or keyboard specialist doesn’t have a chance. And Verdi might be a great musical theater specialist, but does this make him a great composer? I would say no, because the overlap between that kind of work and classical music composition in general is too small.

So, if one has to engage in this weird ranking fetish, I’d suggest multiple categories: best vocal composer, best instrumental composer, best symphonist, best opera composer, best chamber music composer, best piano composer, etc. But I don't really see the point in any of it.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

In my opinion, lists *A* and *C* rank Wagner too low. The same happens for Brahms in lists *B*, *C* and *F* and Tchaikovsky in list *H*. List *F* does not have Berlioz. These are important flaws for me, so these would be the "worst" lists for me (the ones more distant from my own beliefs). This makes me want to give a closer look at lists D, E, G, I and J.

From these, I agree the most with list *D*. So, this is the "best" list for me.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> List C:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Bach, JS
> ...


List C would be my preference. It has the right number 1, Sibelius and Tchaikovsky are high enough for my tastes, and there are no egregious omissions. Brahms, Mendelssohn and Bruckner could be higher for me, and Mahler lower.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I thought that rather than consider particular placements of individual composers, I would try to consider each list as a whole. I selected 2 comparison lists - my list of top 50 favorite composers and a list compiled by trying to determine a collective assessment by a range of experts. I compared both of my comparison lists against each of the 10 lists in the OP. One of the OP lists is the collective assessment list (not compiled by me). 

I basically determined a numerical value of how close the OP lists are to my comparison lists*. The closest OP list to the collective assessment is J (other than the assessment list itself, of course). The closest list to my preferences is G, and the second closest is J. 

So overall if I had to rank the lists, I'd conclude that J would be my top selection with G holding a special place in my heart. List F compared least favorably to both my preferences and to the collective assessment with list B next worst. Still, I view list F and the collective assessment list as the two most interesting lists in the OP because of the methodology used. I'm interested to know the rough methodology for each list to understand them better. 


*I placed an uncertainty on each composer rank in my comparison lists (e.g. Mahler in my favorite list is rank 10 and the uncertainty is 8-12, Faure is rank 24 with an uncertainty of 19-29). I calculated the square root of the sum of the squares of the rank order differences between the OP list and the outside range of the uncertainty in comparison lists for each of the 30 composers. There are some minor details I'll leave out.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

For those interested:

Names that appeared on all 10 lists:

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Debussy
Haydn
Mahler
Mozart
Schubert
Wagner

Names with 9 appearances:

Chopin
Dvorak
Handel
Mendelssohn
Prokofiev
Ravel
Schumann
Shostakovich
Strauss
Stravinsky
Tchaikovsky


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

List E looks the best to me, though I'm getting awfully tired of these sorts of threads.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> List E looks the best to me, though I'm getting awfully tired of these sorts of threads.


We understand that threads on TC vary widely and not everyone will enjoy each thread. Some don't care for opera, or polls, or music theory, or contentious arguments. Not all threads have clear titles that let people know what's inside, but threads such as this one do. Perhaps you could simply ignore these type of threads.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Why are Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart in the top four of every list? There are many who only hold one or two of these three at the top, so it makes it hard to find a list to agree with.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> IMO, all of the lists are bad and the whole ranking enterprise is doomed by its very nature. The central and insurmountable problem is that the category of classical composer is too broad and diffuse to allow meaningful results; It's really multiple discrete categories forced together, with criteria of excellence that shift as one descends from the highest rankings. Only the versatile take the top positions, after which mastery of all/multiple genres seems to be progressively discounted - else Chopin, Bruckner, Verdi, Mahler, Wagner, Puccini, Scarlatti, Vivaldi, and other narrow specialists would never make the list. Moreover, the specialties themselves seem to be weighted arbitrarily in favor of brute size, the presence of Bruckner being otherwise incomprehensible. ()A chamber music or keyboard specialist doesn't have a chance. And Verdi might be a great musical theater specialist, but does this make him a great composer? I would say no, because the overlap between that kind of work and classical music composition in general is too small.
> 
> So, if one has to engage in this weird ranking fetish, I'd suggest multiple categories: best vocal composer, best instrumental composer, best symphonist, best opera composer, best chamber music composer, best piano composer, etc. But I don't really see the point in any of it.


Impeccably sensible, EB, but a trifle dour, if I do say so.  Aspiring to sensibleness myself, I generally abhor ranking things, especially music, but find that I'm not so equilibrated that I can't occasionally be blown away by a blast of genius and go out on a limb and jump up and down in ecstasy without concern that I might fall off.

Sensibly or not, I find myself compelled to accede to the widespread consensus that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven constitute a sort of holy trinity among musical creators, even while understanding that saying so makes no difference whatever except to those needing affirmation of their own biases. Beyond that trio I hesitate to go, except in the special case of Wagner who, while obviously not exhibiting the versatility in a range of genres which you reasonably suggest as an important criterion for comparative purposes, seems to me a creative mind of such intimidating magnitude as to entitle him to special notice. The difficulty of placing him in a list of "greatest composers" is obvious, but I, at least, can't ignore the challenge his peculiar genius presents.

I'm not here arguing for any ranking, of Wagner or anyone. But, beyond wanting to express my sense that sheer genius is a force which can be felt and which matters, I want to use the example of Wagner to question your exclusion of "opera specialists" (such as Verdi, whom you use as an example) from "great composer" status. After all, opera may be a particular genre, but it offers a composer capable of doing so the opportunity to deploy a wide range of musical skills, most of them applicable to other genres whether or not he puts them to use in symphonies or string quartets. I'll be a little provocative and suggest that there is a wider range of musical invention and expression in the ten canonical Wagner operas than in the entire opus of any number of more versatile composers commonly regarded as great. Trying to imagine how, for example, a single mind could create the unique and potent sound world of _Tristan und Isolde, _following it immediately with the amazingly different one of _Die Meistersinger,_ all while taking a vacation from the multifaceted cosmos of _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, simply blows the circuits of my brain. Even considering the many purely orchestral passages from Wagner's works, we find an astonishing range of both technique and expression. But fertility of imagination, a constant search for new expressive qualities and corresponding formal ones, characterizes the operas as wholes over the entire long musical journey from _The Flying Dutchman_ to _Parsifal._

Although I don't think any other composer of opera equals Wagner in this respect, we might also look profitably at the operas of Mozart and Verdi (at least) with an ear to the versatility of technique their works exhibit. In Verdi's case, I wouldn't hesitate to include him in a list of great composers based on the brilliance and power of his best works, of which _Otello_ and _Falstaff_ are the obvious, shining examples. After all, the list of composers who could write perfectly fine sonatas and fugues but couldn't write an opera anyone wants to sit through - or who were smart enough not to try - is long.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> IMO, all of the lists are bad and the whole ranking enterprise is doomed by its very nature. The central and insurmountable problem is that the category of classical composer is too broad and diffuse to allow meaningful results; It's really multiple discrete categories forced together, with criteria of excellence that shift as one descends from the highest rankings. Only the versatile take the top positions, after which mastery of all/multiple genres seems to be progressively discounted - else Chopin, Bruckner, Verdi, Mahler, Wagner, Puccini, Scarlatti, Vivaldi, and other narrow specialists would never make the list. Moreover, the specialties themselves seem to be weighted arbitrarily in favor of brute size, the presence of Bruckner being otherwise incomprehensible. ()A chamber music or keyboard specialist doesn't have a chance. And Verdi might be a great musical theater specialist, but does this make him a great composer? I would say no, because the overlap between that kind of work and classical music composition in general is too small.
> 
> So, if one has to engage in this weird ranking fetish, I'd suggest multiple categories: best vocal composer, best instrumental composer, best symphonist, best opera composer, best chamber music composer, best piano composer, etc. But I don't really see the point in any of it.


While I can't argue with any of that, Ethereality made an interesting point in his "greatest" thread. Think of the ranking not necessarily as the "greatest", a word that causes more trouble and confusion than it's worth, but rather a list of recommendations you would make to someone making a serious and substantial effort to learn more about some serious and substantial music. The specific order is much less important than who is on the list and who isn't.

And though my own list, not one of those under discussion in this thread, was merely based on number of recordings in print, it was surprisingly good in a way you mention as important (not without reason): Covering various discrete categories, in particular opera, which is somewhat of a category apart in the classical world. In my list, the opera specialists were well represented. In fact, all but one of the "specialists" you mention were on my list. Only Bruckner was not included, a result you also seem to agree with.

However, if I consider the composers I would recommend to my hypothetical listener, I would put some of the lists under discussion here ahead of my own, including list F.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I could see a thread with lists of:

Greatest composers of theatrical works (opera, ballet, film)
Greatest composers of orchestral works (symphonies, suites, tone poems, overtures, etc.)
Greatest composers of chamber music (concertos, anything for solo or duo instruments other than combinations of pure keyboard instruments; music for ensembles of less than a dozen players)
Greatest composers of vocal works (masses, motets, lieder | a dozen lieder ~ a mass)
Greatest composers of keyboard works (sonatas, concertos, preludes, fugues, fantasias, etc.)
Greatest composers of electronic music

With every composer being elligible for as many lists as the genres they worked in. No weighting of categories. The only results would be the (rank) numbers various composers received in given categories. I've seen something like this in the Prokofiev vs Shostakovich thread.

Then the specialists would get their credit without devaluating the generalists or specialists of different genres.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2019)

It seems that whilst there are dissimilarities between the top 20 in each list, the overwhelming majority are not unreasonablly included, even if their position in the top 20 provokes argument.

Once you get into the bottom 10 in each list, the odd rogue appears - that is, not appearing in any other list and likely a specialist choice. For example, Gesualdo, Nielsen, Wolf, Donizetti, Lassus, Schutz (actually in a top 10!), Mussorgsky, Palestrina, Lutoslawski


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

If you don't say Beethoven is the best I will talk about your Mom.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I couldn't vote for any of them. The one closest, List B, has Schutz in 8th place. I assume this is either a mistake or a joke.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

My own view on rankings of "great composers" is that it's impossible to produce a satisfactory list, given the complexity and subjectivity of evaluating the concept of greatness. So why am I nevertheless interested in rankings? Because I think there are many possible satisfactory lists, as long as you accept that you're not answering the question "who are the greatest composers, in order?", but instead answering a rather more cumbersome question, something along the lines of "given that listeners have their own subjective preferences, and also given that some composers clearly have greater appeal than others (for various reasons), what might a list of the most preferred composers among a given group of listeners look like?".

To me, it's somewhat akin to attempts by archaeologists to recreate the appearance of some long-dead person based on the shape of their skull. In the absence of an accurate picture of the living person, it's impossible to produce a completely accurate reconstruction - and even if you did, you'd never know! - but it is possible to create something that might be reasonably similar.

What's the value of such lists, anyway? fluteman makes the point that they can function as recommendations to listeners, which I agree with. "If many other people think composer X is of value, then maybe I'll value them too". But besides that, I imagine those here who are scientists by profession or inclination might agree with me that data can sometimes be inherently interesting. And actually a list that seems mostly right but then has a few quirks could be the most interesting of all.

List B is a good case in point. The fact that Schutz appears in 8th place doesn't make me think the list is wrong - instead, it makes me ask (non-rhetorically) why he merits such a high position. And the Verdi situation is another good example - he's top 10 in some lists, not present on others, so surely that tells us something not just about the lists but also about the place of Verdi in our consciousness.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Why are Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart in the top four of every list? There are many who only hold one or two of these three at the top, so it makes it hard to find a list to agree with.


I think you've answered your own question: there are many who hold one or two of these three at the top!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Whether they be rankings, polls, or games, I think of them as snapshots of the preferences of a particular grouping of individuals at a specific point of time. I partake of most of them because they are interesting, entertaining, and somewhat educational/informative.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Impeccably sensible, EB, but a trifle dour, if I do say so.  Aspiring to sensibleness myself, I generally abhor ranking things, especially music, but find that I'm not so equilibrated that I can't occasionally be blown away by a blast of genius and go out on a limb and jump up and down in ecstasy without concern that I might fall off.
> 
> Sensibly or not, I find myself compelled to accede to the widespread consensus that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven constitute a sort of holy trinity among musical creators, even while understanding that saying so makes no difference whatever except to those needing affirmation of their own biases. Beyond that trio I hesitate to go, except in the special case of Wagner who, while obviously not exhibiting the versatility in a range of genres which you reasonably suggest as an important criterion for comparative purposes, seems to me a creative mind of such intimidating magnitude as to entitle him to special notice. The difficulty of placing him in a list of "greatest composers" is obvious, but I, at least, can't ignore the challenge his peculiar genius presents.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of the above. But not being particularly interested in comparative rankings, I am content to say that the Holy Trinity were great composers, Wagner was a great composer of operas, and Scarlatti was a great composer of miniature keyboard sonatas. I see nothing deprecating in such factual and concise qualifications. I have nothing against adding that one or more of the above were geniuses.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> I think you've answered your own question: there are many who hold one or two of these three at the top!


Thanks. I was just being a pain in the neck. :lol:

Truth is, to rank all the composers we need a multi-dimensional ranking system.

Ranking is constraining, but human nature is such that there is this burning desire to rank things--kind of like the kid who couldn't help putting his tongue to a metal pole in sub-zero weather.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> My own view on rankings of "great composers" is that it's impossible to produce a satisfactory list, given the complexity and subjectivity of evaluating the concept of greatness. So why am I nevertheless interested in rankings? Because I think there are many possible satisfactory lists, as long as you accept that you're not answering the question "who are the greatest composers, in order?", but instead answering a rather more cumbersome question, something along the lines of "given that listeners have their own subjective preferences, and also given that some composers clearly have greater appeal than others (for various reasons), what might a list of the most preferred composers among a given group of listeners look like?".
> 
> To me, it's somewhat akin to attempts by archaeologists to recreate the appearance of some long-dead person based on the shape of their skull. In the absence of an accurate picture of the living person, it's impossible to produce a completely accurate reconstruction - and even if you did, you'd never know! - but it is possible to create something that might be reasonably similar.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you say with a slight caveat. I do feel that rankings can act as recommendations especially rankings of works but to a lesser extent composers. You mention quirks such as Schutz. Yes, such a "recommendation" can act to spur someone to take a new look, a harder look, or perhaps a first look at such a composer. In my case I noticed that I rank Liszt much lower than the lists do. I like Liszt, but seeing the disparity makes we want to listen again to his works. Maybe I just didn't hear what most others have, and listening again could kindle a greater interest.

The one caveat is the source of the lists. All lists have data that can be interesting, but some lists will carry more weight in terms of suggestions for me. I know the sources for lists E and F, and both are interesting for different reasons. I'll be interested to see the sources and then look at the variation in the lists.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> The one caveat is the source of the lists. All lists have data that can be interesting, but some lists will carry more weight in terms of suggestions for me.


Well yes, a good example for me would be the sort of list produced by Classic FM - interesting as a pointer to what the casual listener thinks about classical music, but not necessarily of value for the adventurous.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Originally Posted by mmsbls
The one caveat is the source of the lists. All lists have data that can be interesting, but some lists will carry more weight in terms of suggestions for me.



Nereffid said:


> Well yes, a good example for me would be the sort of list produced by Classic FM - interesting as a pointer to what the casual listener thinks about classical music, but not necessarily of value for the adventurous.


If the intention of these ranking lists is to be informational, then the top 30 (top whatever) approach in isolation is going to be among the least helpful approaches. Wouldn't it make more sense to also break things down by multiple criteria and include more depth in all the sublists? Compile one list for each historical period, one for generalists who excelled in all genres, one for opera specialists, one for symphonists, one for song composers, and so on. Such a series of lists from the general to the specific would answer a broader range of needs and interests.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Originally Posted by mmsbls
> The one caveat is the source of the lists. All lists have data that can be interesting, but some lists will carry more weight in terms of suggestions for me.
> 
> If the intention of these ranking lists is to be informational, then the top 30 (top whatever) approach in isolation is going to be among the least helpful approaches. Wouldn't it make more sense to also break things down by multiple criteria and include more depth in all the sublists? Compile one list for each historical period, one for generalists who excelled in all genres, one for opera specialists, one for symphonists, one for song composers, and so on. Such a series of lists from the general to the specific would answer a broader range of needs and interests.


Yes, and if one really wanted to be helpful, the list would include not only categories but specific pieces of music. Of course, lists like this have been published many times over the years in various books and magazines. The old Penguin Guide's recommended recordings no doubt helped many find their way. But once you've seen a few such lists, they tend to start looking the same.

That may be why I find (at least some of) the "rogue" composers who found their way on a list to the shock and amazement of some here to be among the most informative and interesting. And as you say, some choices aren't so roguish if one creates separate categories. Wouldn't Wolf rank high on many lists in a song category? Donizetti in an opera category? Palestrina in a sacred music category? Maybe there isn't enough overall interest in vocal music here at TC. But it's nice to see them mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

I still don’t see the point.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

1. List B 
2. List I
3. List E
4. List F
5. List H
6. List J, and then it's hard to tell.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

They should all be honored equally. Just like the non competitive kids sports where they all get a trophy and no winner or loser.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> They should all be honored equally. Just like the non competitive kids sports where they all get a trophy and no winner or loser.


Wagner: < chromatic bass string runs intensify >


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

My personal favorite list is *C*, while I think *H* is closest to how TC has distinguished itself throughout the years, ie. with its strongest opinions.

If I could make 3 changes to list C, I would bring Debussy higher, Schubert lower, and add Borodin--those are my personal preferences. Debussy's and Borodin's orchestral arrangements are hard to surpass. Ravel on the other hand is a bit too cloying in his approach. One of my favorites of Debussy's, arranged by Caplet:


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> They should all be honored equally. Just like the non competitive kids sports where they all get a trophy and no winner or loser.


I don't want any composer to feel bad.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> I don't want any composer to feel bad.


Well, I do.

.................


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> They should all be honored equally. Just like the non competitive kids sports where they all get a trophy and no winner or loser.


Or let's turn the lists upside down, then rank them.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

science said:


> well, i do.
> 
> .................


composerist!
…....


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

List F is my favorite:

1. Bach is no 1.
2. Mahler is in top ten.
3. There are a few modernist composers.
4. Tchaikovsky is absent.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> List F is my favorite:
> 
> 1. Bach is no 1.
> 2. Mahler is in top ten.
> ...


Right? Complete madness.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Regarding list *C*, I would bring Stravinsky up too. Now that's a better Top 10 for me. Still not my Top 10, but a good start.

Regarding list *H*, I believe Haydn and Strauss are so high due to the advanced structural creativity of their music, which tends to be missed by more novice listeners who care more about things like melody. They're much higher praised by experienced listeners, as well as Ravel with his expansive tonal experimentalism.

From an advanced perspective, it's kind of hard to place Haydn or Beethoven lower than one another, depending on the individual taste for era.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> Regarding list *H*, I believe Haydn and Strauss are so high due to the advanced structural creativity of their music, which tends to be missed by more novice listeners who care more about things like melody. They're much higher praised by experienced listeners, as well as Ravel with his expansive tonal experimentalism.


What's your evidence that none of the other lists has been produced by experienced listeners?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> What's your evidence that none of the other lists has been produced by experienced listeners?


I'm referring to list H because it has a clear deemphasis on common, inexperienced tastes. Perhaps you can PM me which lists are produced by a large sample of experienced listeners.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> Regarding list *H*, I believe Haydn and Strauss are so high due to the advanced structural creativity of their music, which tends to be missed by more novice listeners who care more about things like melody. They're much higher praised by experienced listeners, as well as Ravel with his expansive tonal experimentalism.


A bold assertion Ethereality - how would you back this up? I believe I am an experienced listener but I find Haydn very difficult to listen to.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If you're an experienced listener, you're not required to like any composer silly









Even on this forum Haydn is polled in the Top 10.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> If you're an experienced listener, you're not required to like any composer silly


Of course.



> Even on this forum Haydn is polled in the Top 10.


I'm not disputing the popularity of Haydn. I asked how would back your assertion up.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I never said anything about the popularity of Haydn. It is due to his _unpopularity_ that when more experienced listeners get to know this composer, his ranking shoots up significantly. This doesn't mean this should apply to you, but it so clearly has applied to most people that I'm wondering why you're asking for clarification.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> I never said anything about the popularity of Haydn. It is due to his _unpopularity_ that when more experienced listeners get to know this composer, his ranking goes up significantly. This doesn't mean this should apply to you, but it so clearly applies to most people that I'm wondering why you're asking for clarification.


Haydn is unpopular but is on every one of the lists presented here? I am rather confused.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Can't say for sure what mainstream popularity has to do with this forum, but let's investigate just the forum part: Lists are compiled using member polling, often either adding to the list or supplying one's own Top 10. This gives an average which attempts to represent everyone, like Haydn being in the Top 10, but in reality, it fails to do this when there are two general groups who disagree. What I was hinting at is, try observing the difference between the members who gun intensely for Haydn and those who never mention him, then you'll see a big difference in groups of experience from the things these members talk about: read Haydn-based threads, read about members' overall experience with Classical and see what they're drawn to at their level. Don't assume anything. The opposite perspective can be shown for Tchaikovsky, most people quickly grow out of him to quite a degree. This possibly cannot apply to everyone however, there are so many different tastes.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> Can't say for sure what mainstream popularity has to do with this forum,


I didn't mention the word 'mainstream' - that Haydn features in every one of these lists means he is popular with those polled.



> but let's investigate just the forum part: Lists are compiled using member polling, often either adding to the list or supplying one's own Top 10. This gives an average which attempts to represent everyone, like Haydn being in the Top 10, but in reality, it fails to do that when there are two general groups who disagree. What I was hinting at is, try observing the difference between the members who gun intensely for Haydn and those who never mention him, then you'll see a big difference in groups of experience from the things these members talk about. The opposite perspective can be shown for Tchaikovsky, most people quickly grow out of him to quite a degree. This possibly cannot apply to everyone however, there are so many different tastes.


I would be interested in a more explicit statement from you regarding this.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Looking at the preferences expressed so far (some of them begrudgingly!), Lists B, C, E, and F have each been deemed the best by 2 people, while D, G and J have also gotten votes.

I thought perhaps opinion might coalesce around 2 or 3 lists, but instead this look like a real absence of consensus.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Herding cats (butterflies?)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Probably if you award points to each composer on each list depending on their rankings on those lists (e.g. as I'm doing with the new list generated next month), the resulting combined list would look pretty "normal".


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

In _theory_, there is a certain possibility.

To take Beethoven's ouvre, establish that the 9th Symphony is worth a 1000 points, and then proceed to vote for an agreable number for every other work of his, which would be understood as a fraction of the greatness of the 9th. For example Eroica could gather ca. 900-1000 points, while Wellington's Victory---well below 100. They could be grouped by similarity---so for example the quartets together, sonatas together, etc. to make the discussion easier.

Then we would have a final number of points that Beethoven has gathered.

Next step would be to take the great Mass in B minor of Bach, and establish how much in Beethoven points is it worth. Always the composer's most elaborate work, so that other works can be judged against the most complex mastery ever displayed in a single work.

We could then play the same game with Bach's works.

And then do it with hundreds of other composers, each having on average dozens to hundreds of works to his or her name. And then estimate the value of all their lost works and either do or do not take it into consideration.

Problem solved :tiphat:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> Probably if you award points to each composer on each list depending on their rankings on those lists (e.g. as I'm doing with the new list generated next month), the resulting combined list would look pretty "normal".


Well, I went ahead and did it. Here is the result of these 10 lists combined, from 1 to 30:

Bach, JS
Beethoven
Mozart
Schubert
Brahms

Haydn
Wagner
Mahler
Debussy
Tchaikovsky

Schumann
Stravinsky
Handel
Chopin
Mendelssohn

Dvorak
Ravel
Shostakovich
Prokofiev
Strauss, R

Sibelius
Verdi
Bartok
Liszt
Berlioz

Monteverdi
Vivaldi
Rachmaninoff
Bruckner
Vaughan Williams


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I also did it. I assigned a score of 31 per list to any composer who wasn't on one of the 10 lists, and added the rest of the scores. Here is a list in order with the composer aggregate score before the name:

1. 16 Bach, JS 
2. 24 Beethoven
3. 27 Mozart 
4. 73 Schubert 
5. 85 Brahms 
6. 86 Haydn 
7. 101 Wagner 
8. 127 Mahler 
9. 128 Debussy 
10. 136 Tchaikovsky
11. 143 Schumann 
12. 146 Handel 
13. 157 Stravinsky 
14. 164 Chopin
15. 165 Mendelssohn 
16. 170 Dvorak 
17. 171 Ravel 
18. 203 Sibelius 
19. 208 Verdi 
20. 210 Shostakovich
21. 212 Strauss, R 
22. 212 Prokofiev 
23. 218 Liszt 
24. 219 Bartok 
25. 246 Berlioz 
26. 259 Monteverdi
27. 261 Rossini
28. 269 Vivaldi
29. 268 Rachmaninoff
30. 275 Puccini 
31. 277 Vaughan Williams 
32. 281 Saint-Saens 
33. 282 Bruckner 


As you can see there is broad agreement on the top 3, they are separated by very little. The next big jump is between 6 Haydn and 7 Wagner, then another between 17 Ravel and 18 Sibelius.


285 Ligeti 31x9
285 Britten 31x8
287 Schutz 31x9
289 Schoenberg 31x8
292 Messiaen 31x9
293 Grieg 31x6
294 Weber 31x9
296 Saariaho 31x9
298 Reich 31x9
299 Faure 31x8
300 Scriabin 31x9
300 Josquin 31x8
302 Gesualdo 31x9
303 Janacek 31x9
304 Gershwin 31x8
304 Palestrina 31x9
305 Donizetti 31x9


Down here are what I consider garbage data - most of them came from List F, and/or were only mentioned on one list, which made their rankings arbitrary.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Guys, let me stop you there and reveal that List J is already a combination of Lists A to I!

In fact, the versions of A through I that I've looked at have 50 rather than 30 composers, but I thought 50 would be too many for the purposes of this thread. Anyway, J is a combination of those 50-composer lists, created in the opposite way to how MatthewWeflen did his (50 points for 1st place, down to 1 point for 50th). (There are a few tied scores, which for ranking purposes were distinguished totally arbitrarily).


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> Guys, let me stop you there and reveal that List J is already a combination of Lists A to I!
> 
> In fact, the versions of A through I that I've looked at have 50 rather than 30 composers, but I thought 50 would be too many for the purposes of this thread. Anyway, J is a combination of those 50-composer lists, created in the opposite way to how MatthewWeflen did his (50 points for 1st place, down to 1 point for 50th). (There are a few tied scores, which for ranking purposes were distinguished totally arbitrarily).


Yes, now that you say it, it's easy to see how list J aggregates lists A-I


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

And here are the sources of the other lists:

List A isn't a "great composers" list - it's one I put together several years ago based on how many recordings each composer has listed on the site ArkivMusic. So it's more like a popularity list. I'm not surprised it didn't impress anyone.

List B also isn't a "great composers" list. This time, it's a list I also compiled a while ago based on the length of composers' articles in my 1980 edition of the New Grove Dictionary (just the text, no illustrations, bibliography or list of works). This explains the relatively high performance of Schutz and Weber, for example, and the weaker performance of 20th-century composers.

List C comes from my own composer polls of 2016/17 (see list here). Not a "greatest composer" list per se, either - the rankings come from the percentage of voters in each poll who said they liked a given composer. As I remarked at the time, it shows a bias towards late-Romantic composers of orchestral music, and against opera composers.

List D is from someone called Charles Smith, whose website Classical Music Navigator is a handy resource for beginners/explorers. On the "Statistics" page he includes a list of 500 composers, whose ranking was determined by a combination of factors centered around number of recordings and sheet music as well as Grove entry.

List E is the list of composers from Phil G. Goulding's 1995 book "The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1,000 Greatest Works", which is billed as "comprehensive, discriminating and delightfully irreverent". (Although it turns out I accidentally switched Bruckner and Palestrina around when transcribing!)

List F is probably familiar from a recent thread - it's a BBC Music Magazine list, produced by asking a bunch of composers who their top 5 were.

List G comes from a thread  started by Bulldog in 2014, in which participants were asked to list their own top 100 composers. 1st place = 100 points, down to 100th place = 1 point.

List H is probably also familiar, as it's Ethereality's recent spin on some other TC composer list, "with the bias removed".

List I also comes courtesy of Bulldog, this time in a game from 2019. In this one, participants took turns to add new composers to the list, or move existing composers up or down.

And, as said above, List J is a combination of the other 9 lists.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Most people on the thread seemed to select their preferred list based on one or a few criteria (i.e. where particular composers were placed). This process allowed people to fairly quickly determine preferred lists. Given that J is the "average" or combination of the other lists, in some sense it acts to weed out unusual components of each list. I suspect that is why my selection process picked J given that I compared each composer on list J with each composer on my list of preferences. 

List J has Wagner a bit too low, Bartok too high, doesn't list Schoenberg, and has other composers listed differently than I would, but overall it's closer to my assessment than the others.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I'm sure pretty soon there will be threads "lets rank the rankings of composer rankings"


----------

