# Your list of the five greatest composers



## SanAntone

Inspired by the thread on the 50 greatest from 174 composers published by the BBC, here's out chance to join the fun. *You can only choose five composers.*

Not your five favorite, but the five you think are the greatest, however you wish to interpret that term. (*Please don't number your list* - I am copying and pasting them into a spread sheet and then will sort and subtotal the results. It's just easier without the numbers. Thanks.)

My list:

Bach
Beethoven
Wagner
Brahms
Schoenberg


----------



## fluteman

I liked the 174's choices:

Bach
Stravinsky
Beethoven
Mozart
Debussy


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

Not my five favourite, so I'm pretending that objectivity exists?

Beethoven
Bach
Wagner
Schoenberg
Josquin

My five favoruite, so I'm pretending objectivity doesn't exist? :lol:

Ligeti
Beethoven
Mahler
Debussy
Bartók

(Both sets were not given much thought)

EDIT: I could see myself changing Mozart for Wagner


----------



## SanAntone

I will keep up with the voting for a week, and then publish the results. Of course, people can continue to post lists but I won't keep track after the first week.


----------



## fbjim

in terms of capital G Greatness (and skipping early music due to lack of experience)

Haydn
Beethoven
Brahms 
Verdi
Stravinsky


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> Not your five favorite, but the five you think are the greatest, however you wish to interpret that term.


Not criticising, but I don't think that such has ever been satisfactorily unravelled.

IMO.


----------



## Art Rock

Greatness for me means personal favourites:

1. JS Bach
2. Mahler
3. Brahms
4. Schubert
5. Shostakovich


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I have no problem separating "greatest" from "favorites":

1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Wagner
4. Mozart
5. Brahms


----------



## SanAntone

janxharris said:


> Not criticising, but I don't think that such has ever been satisfactorily unravelled.
> 
> IMO.


Either make a list or not. I don't want this thread to get derailed with that debate.


----------



## SanAntone

*Please don't number your list* - I am copying and pasting them into a spread sheet and then will sort and subtotal the results. It's just easier without the numbers. Thanks.


----------



## vtpoet

JS BACH
W. Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Monteverdi


----------



## hammeredklavier

O no.. not again..


----------



## vtpoet

Just pick a Haydn, HK.


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> *Please don't number your list* - I am copying and pasting them into a spread sheet and then will sort and subtotal the results. It's just easier without the numbers. Thanks.


wld b worth updating ur op.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Wagner


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I have no problem separating "greatest" from "favorites":
> 
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Wagner
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Brahms


Same list, different order. Mine would be:

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Wagner
5. Brahms

In terms of personal preference I rank them:

1. Brahms
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Beethoven
5. Wagner

(Don't count these lists please SA. Use the one from post 15)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Mozart
Wagner
Bach
Beethoven
...sorry I cant decide who should go 5th


----------



## Mifek

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Chopin
Tchaikovsky


----------



## mmsbls

Mozart
Beethoven
Bach
Brahms
Wagner


----------



## Red Terror

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Wagner


----------



## DaveM

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Tchaikovsky 
Brahms


----------



## Tchaikov6

Debussy
Bach
Mozart
Ravel
Stravinsky


----------



## Forster

Haydn
Beethoven
Sibelius
Debussy
Prokofiev

Today.


----------



## KevinJS

JS Bach
Mozart
Beethoven 
FJ Haydn
Sibelius


----------



## Bulldog

Bach
Mahler
Mozart
Shostakovich
Wagner


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Not my five favourite, so I'm pretending that objectivity exists?
> 
> Beethoven
> Bach
> Wagner
> Schoenberg
> Josquin
> 
> My five favoruite, so I'm pretending objectivity doesn't exist? :lol:
> 
> Ligeti
> Beethoven
> Mahler
> Debussy
> Bartók
> 
> (Both sets were not given much thought)
> 
> EDIT: I could see myself changing Mozart for Wagner


linking to my list so SanAntone will see the change


----------



## RobertJTh

Amazing to see how much consensus there is about the *objective *top 5, and I can only endorse those choices.
My order:

Beethoven
Bach
Mozart
Wagner
.... and I'm gonna be rebellious and say Schubert instead of Brahms for #5. Though they're equally great in my view.


----------



## Nereffid

Pretending to be objective:

Josquin
Monteverdi
Bach
Beethoven
Stravinsky


----------



## SanAntone

A reminder - no need to rank them in your individual lists since I will sort and subtotal them and create a list based on the total number of votes a composer received (voting will last one week). 

Also - please do not format your lists, just plan and simple, five names stacked - no numbers.

Thanks.


----------



## SanAntone

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> linking to my list so SanAntone will see the change


Got it.  ..........


----------



## JTS

Five is of course an awkward number - too large to be specific and too small to include a lot of very great composers who might otherwise be left out. My top five would be
Monteverdi
Bach
Handel
Mozart
Beethoven

But there’s an awful lot who I love who did not make the running in this top five.


----------



## Eriks

Schönberg
Beethoven
Bach
Monteverdi
Josquin


----------



## Bulldog

JTS said:


> Five is of course an awkward number - too large to be specific and too small to include a lot of very great composers who might otherwise be left out.


I don't find anything awkward about no. 5. It's not any better or worse than any other number.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Beethoven
Bruckner
Wagner
Mahler
Vivaldi


----------



## Ethereality

Mozart
Wagner
Tchaikovsky
Brahms
Ravel


----------



## JTS

Bulldog said:


> I don't find anything awkward about no. 5. It's not any better or worse than any other number.


As I explained it's too many to be specific and too few to be inclusive


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Bulldog said:


> I don't find anything awkward about no. 5. It's not any better or worse than any other number.


It's my favorite number!


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

JTS said:


> As I explained it's too many to be specific and too few to be inclusive


I think the spirit of Bulldog's response is that if you like a lot of music, then any number would seem awkward. Why is 5 too many to be specific though?


----------



## JTS

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I think the spirit of Bulldog's response is that if you like a lot of music, then any number would seem awkward. Why is 5 too many to be specific though?


If you say 3 you include the absolute greatest which most music lovers would probably agree on but you have to go to 10 to probably get a reasonable consensus a# to who comes next.


----------



## Bulldog

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I think the spirit of Bulldog's response is that if you like a lot of music, then any number would seem awkward.


No, I consider any number to be viable.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

JTS said:


> If you say 3 you include the absolute greatest which most music lovers would probably agree on but you have to go to 10 to probably get a reasonable consensus a# to who comes next.


I'm already seeing a lot of consensus with 5, probably wouldn't be too different with only 3... And if you recall, the design of this experiment is directly taken from the BBC poll. Though if you're concerned as to what would come next after the top, then specificity shouldn't be one of your worries.



> No, I consider any number to be viable.


that's just the other side of the coin


----------



## CnC Bartok

Haydn J
Beethoven
Schumann
Mahler
Bartok


----------



## adinfinitum

In terms of how influential they were and how much they mastered their craft (which is obviously impossible to determine completely objectively), my five is:

Bach
Beethoven
Wagner
Debussy
Stravinsky

There could easily be one or more pre-baroque composers that I could have included, but I'm unfortunately very unfamiliar with that era.


----------



## fbjim

Not to start a debate but I find it interesting that Wagner is listed far more often than Verdi, his most often "Rival". I actually struggled quite a bit between the two but I went with Verdi's sheer productivity over Wagner's historical import and originality. Greg Maddux versus Sandy Koufax, I guess.


----------



## StDior

JS Bach
Beethoven
Haydn
Mahler
Mozart

I understand why only the 5 greatest/favorite composers are asked now: To create the similar condition as at the ”50 greatest from 174 composers published by the BBC” ranking.
Otherwise I do not like the method of BBC to asking for 5 greatest/favorite composers and based on it create a 50 greatest list. It will already show a false result even on position No.6 and further on.
My opinion is that not the 5 but a ranked 50 greatest/favorite composers list must be asked if the goal is to create a top 50 ranking.


----------



## Andante Largo

Without specifying the criteria and the scale and methodology of the assessment, it's not possible to select the greatest composers, so I just present the top 5 of my favorite composers:

Sibelius
Respighi
Brahms
Castelnuovo-Tedesco
Karłowicz

EDIT: @SanAntone Now is ok? If it has to help you, they are the "greatest" composers for me.


----------



## JTS

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I'm already seeing a lot of consensus with 5, probably wouldn't be too different with only 3... And if you recall, the design of this experiment is directly taken from the BBC poll. Though if you're concerned as to what would come next after the top, then specificity shouldn't be one of your worries.
> 
> that's just the other side of the coin


Maybe we should have a poll about which number is the most viable? :lol:


----------



## Andante Largo

... [to remove]


----------



## 59540

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Haydn
Handel


----------



## pjang23

The number of votes, the weighting scheme, and the number of voting stages all determine how much of the final rankings are informative, and how much is interchangeable noise. The BBC poll rankings are basically noise after the top 10 due to the methodology (single stage, unranked, only top 5), and so will the results of this poll.


----------



## SanAntone

Andante Largo said:


> Without specifying the criteria and the scale and methodology of the assessment, it's not possible to select the greatest composers, so I just present the top 5 of my favorite composers:
> 
> 1. Sibelius, Jean (1865 - 1957) [Finland]
> 2. Respighi, Ottorino (1879 - 1936) [Italy]
> 3. Brahms, Johannes (1833 - 1897) [Germany]
> 4. Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Mario (1895 - 1968) [Italy]
> 5. Karłowicz, Mieczysław (1876 - 1909) [Poland]


I m not going to include this list since you did not adhere to the rules. Plus, it would take too much editing to incorporate your names.


----------



## SanAntone

pjang23 said:


> The number of votes, the weighting scheme, and the number of voting stages all determine how much of the final rankings are informative, and how much is interchangeable noise. The BBC poll rankings are basically noise after the top 10 due to the methodology (single stage, unranked, only top 5), and so will the results of this poll.


I had no expectation will be anything other than the TC version of the BBC poll.


----------



## eljr

Bach
Glass
Gershwin 
Bernstein
Vivaldi


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> Bach
> Glass
> Gershwin
> Bernstein
> Vivaldi


Very interesting list!


----------



## Chilham

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Monteverdi
5. Handel


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> Very interesting list!


I am aware of the controversial nature of my selections.


----------



## Ethereality

At this rate should be about 20 more pages until we get to 174.


----------



## tdc

I think the top two 'greatest' composers are J.S. Bach and Mozart, after that it is close between a lot of composers, to the point where the answers could be interchangeable and there are too many candidates to fit into a top five. So after the top two my choices are my favorites out of the other arguable top composers.

J.S. Bach
Mozart
Stravinsky
Debussy
Ravel


----------



## arpeggio

Bach
Beethoven
Wagner
Berlioz
Schoenberg


----------



## Ulfilas

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Wagner
Debussy


----------



## SanAntone

Bulldog said:


> Bach
> Mahler
> Mozart
> Shostakovich
> Wagner


Nice list. ................


----------



## ORigel

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Schubert


----------



## D Smith

Bach
Haydn
Brahms
Debussy
Shostakovich


----------



## Tempesta

J.S. Bach
Bruckner
Mahler
Mozart
Wagner


----------



## ORigel

I almost included Haydn as #5, but I decided Schubert is more sublime. I do not have the attention span to listen to Wagner much.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> Bach
> Beethoven
> Wagner
> Berlioz
> Schoenberg


That's why it's hard to narrow down to 5. Wagner, Stravinsky and Schoenberg do need to be in there somewhere, for their enormous influence if nothing else.


----------



## poconoron

Mozart
Beethoven
Bach
Haydn
Handel


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> I think the top two 'greatest' composers are J.S. Bach and Mozart, after that it is close between a lot of composers, to the point where the answers could be interchangeable and there are too many candidates to fit into a top five. So after the top two my choices are my favorites out of the other arguable top composers.
> 
> J.S. Bach
> Mozart
> Stravinsky
> Debussy
> Ravel





Tchaikov6 said:


> Debussy
> Bach
> Mozart
> Ravel
> Stravinsky


Now kiss.

Not terrible picks I'd say. Mozart and Ravel at least. I would just drop Stravinsky for one of mine  I can't find a list twin :'(


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Wagner


----------



## tdc

SanAntone said:


> Schoenberg


Interesting to see this name here over Stravinsky, as I know you enjoy the latter's music. Certainly not greater than Stravinsky in my view. Schoenberg was not the first composer to come up with 12 tone music (Hauer), and his music was never a smashing success with regular listeners and aficionados alike, like the music of Stravinsky or Debussy. He was influential but many consider it a negative influence. He is probably the most polarizing modern composer.


----------



## tdc

Further, Schoenberg's musical influence was also limited, Elliott Carter called his music just "more of that Brahms stuff" and Boulez felt similarly preferring Webern.


----------



## SanAntone

tdc said:


> Interesting to see this name here over Stravinsky, as I know you enjoy the latter's music. Certainly not greater than Stravinsky in my view. Schoenberg was not the first composer to come up with 12 tone music (Hauer), and his music was never a smashing success with regular listeners and aficionados alike, like the music of Stravinsky or Debussy. He was influential but many consider it a negative influence. He is probably the most polarizing modern composer.





tdc said:


> Further, Schoenberg's musical influence was also limited, Elliott Carter called his music just "more of that Brahms stuff" and Boulez felt similarly preferring Webern.


IMO Schoenberg is the most important composer of the 20th century (he single-handedly changed the course of music history), although personally I prefer listening to Stravinsky. But not by much.

I have always thought that Boulez's comments about Schoenberg were specious. Carter saying Schoenberg was just "more of that Brahms stuff" is damning Schoenberg with great praise, i.e. one could do far worse than emulating Brahms.

I stand by my choice.


----------



## arpeggio

tdc said:


> Interesting to see this name here over Stravinsky, as I know you enjoy the latter's music. Certainly not greater than Stravinsky in my view. Schoenberg was not the first composer to come up with 12 tone music (Hauer), and his music was never a smashing success with regular listeners and aficionados alike, like the music of Stravinsky or Debussy. He was influential but many consider it a negative influence. He is probably the most polarizing modern composer.


This is what happens when one only gets to pick five.


----------



## Forster

arpeggio said:


> This is what happens when one *only *gets to pick five.


"Only" five? That was stretching it for me. Four was easy.


----------



## Red Terror

tdc said:


> Further, Schoenberg's musical influence was also limited, Elliott Carter called his music just "more of that Brahms stuff" and Boulez felt similarly preferring Webern.


That's interesting since neither one was as great a composer as Schoenberg or Brahms.


----------



## Ethereality

Dunno ladies, Andante Largo clearly said Castelnuovo-Tedesco beats all of these suckers. But if you're not up-and-up on the true talents of this world, your opinion may mean little. Best to go study and come back when you've acquired musical knowledge.

Edit: Here's proof Andante said this. "Castelnuovo-Tedesco... They're the greatest composers for me."
What more proof do you need? It's coming from Andante himself. Do you think he's dumber than Boulez or Stravinsky whoever, 'popular' pop composers. He even has Respighi in his Top 5, he's obviously incredibly learned.

Unless his account was hacked or something, I think we're safe to bet on this being the case.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> IMO Schoenberg is the most important composer of the 20th century (he single-handedly changed the course of music history), although personally I prefer listening to Stravinsky. But not by much.
> 
> I have always thought that Boulez's comments about Schoenberg were specious. Carter saying Schoenberg was just "more of that Brahms stuff" is damning Schoenberg with great praise, i.e. one could do far worse than emulating Brahms.
> 
> I stand by my choice.


Schoenberg certainly changed the direction of music. Whether for the better is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Woodduck

I can't but echo the widespread feeling that these five (here in chronological order, not order of merit, which I couldn't presume to suggest) are at least as deserving of nomination as any:

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Wagner
Brahms

All five have in common being key figures in the Teutonic stream of European music, to which complexity of structure, including harmonic structure, was more central than it was to the music of other European traditions. People more attracted to melodic, rhythmic and coloristic elements in music would probably be less likely to give preeminence to these five, or at least to some of them.

Bach and Mozart, and to only a slightly lesser extent Beethoven and Brahms, seem to me "composer's composers," producing work after work, in nearly every common genre, in which a transcendent mastery of forms and techniques is a thing that makes us marvel, regardless of (but of course serving) the music's expressive intent. Wagner is an anomaly in this list, and I've often struggled with myself in deciding to put him in such august company. It finally seems to come down to that maddeningly fugitive quality of "genius," which sets itself previously unimagined goals and fulfills them with such mold-breaking originality and power as to leave everything changed in its wake. No great artist is without originality, and all these five had it in spades, but as innovation became more valued by the aesthetic movement we call "Romantic" the quest for the unprecedented became more essential. Beethoven set the paradigm with his constant exploration of new territory, and Wagner was his true disciple in a manner quite different from Brahms.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> All five have in common being key figures in the Teutonic stream of European music, to which complexity of structure, including harmonic structure, was more central


Do sounds initially more palatable pose a heftier challenge to great complexity?



Woodduck said:


> Bach
> Mozart
> Beethoven
> Wagner
> Brahms


What might you make of, in terms of 'favorite' composers not greatest, a large majority of people (esp outside this community) choosing only one or two of these? Not to take away from your concise summary, it ties back into the first question. Is complexity of structure a buzzword for many of their more unique elements, or is it a complement to their more popular, palatable sound?


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Do sounds initially more palatable pose a heftier challenge to great complexity?


I'm not exactly sure what your question is.



> What might you make of, in terms of 'favorite' composers not greatest, a large majority of people (esp outside this community) choosing only one or two of these?


I don't know who a majority of any subset of people favor, or why, and it doesn't matter to me. I've never cared much for polls and rankings, except as an opportunity to discuss things I value. My own choices are intended to accomplish neither more nor less than that. These five composers - Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and Brahms - excel and satisfy in numerous ways that make them probably the most impressive to me as representatives of the Western musical tradition. I would not want to comment on other people's musical values.


----------



## SuperTonic

Beethoven
Mahler
Shostakovich
Bartok
Stravinsky


----------



## Forster

Maybe 'density' is a better word than 'complexity'. It avoids the negative implications of complexity's antonym.

For me, maybe it relates to the question I just started a thread about. Whilst I can enjoy hearing what different voices are doing, and I actively try to follow them while listening, it's the overall textures, plus rhythm and leading voice that most appeals. So Beethoven is urgent, rugged, while Sibelius moves from apparent immobility to a shimmering restlessness, shifting constantly.

Complexity per se is not relevant to my choices. What matters is the overall effect on my aesthetic buttons.


----------



## HerbertNorman

As indicated before , greatness = personal favourites

Beethoven
Schubert
Shostakovich
Dvoràk
Brahms


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> *I would not want to comment on other people's musical values. *I don't know who a majority of any subset of people favor, or why, and it doesn't matter to me.


Sorry if unclear, but my questions were only relating and refering to exactly when you did: _"People more attracted to melodic, rhythmic and coloristic elements in music would probably be less likely to give preeminence to these five, or at least to some of them." _I wasn't referring you to a whole new, vague question. Thanks though.



Woodduck said:


> I'm not exactly sure what your question is.


"Do sounds initially more palatable pose a heftier challenge to... composing great complexity"

Meaning, are the Big 5 more _skilled_ in their feats as well, compared to those using noticeably different harmonic theories for complexity? ie. Is the potential for skill greater in the mainstream realm of, say, aesthetic, or is there really only the one universal aesthetic law, and these other realms are just corruptions of it.


----------



## Ethereality

Forster said:


> Maybe 'density' is a better word than 'complexity', hearing what different voices are doing, but it's the overall textures, plus rhythm and leading voice that most appeals.


There's also horizontal 'complexity.' I've mentioned before I'm an avid student of horizontal complexity, or what I refer to as _general_ form. Often cited the names Wagner, Ravel, Mozart, Rachmaninoff.

This is perhaps what this below thread I made was seeking to find. Brahms didn't do so terribly at all right here:

*What is the greatest ~5 minutes of music? - Page 8*

But a still more-favorite example of mine of horizontal complexity is






All sorta feels like it's building up to 9:24 -


----------



## Symphonic

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Liszt
Tchaikovsky

Wish I could add Rachmaninoff, Chopin and Mahler.


----------



## Prodromides

Takemitsu
Nordheim
Villa-Lobos
Frankel
Petrassi


----------



## SanAntone

Andante Largo said:


> Without specifying the criteria and the scale and methodology of the assessment, it's not possible to select the greatest composers, so I just present the top 5 of my favorite composers:
> 
> Sibelius
> Respighi
> Brahms
> Castelnuovo-Tedesco
> Karłowicz
> 
> EDIT: @SanAntone Now is ok? If it has to help you, they are the "greatest" composers for me.


Thanks.


----------



## Neo Romanza

An objective list:

Bach (J. S.)
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Wagner


----------



## larold

This is the order they scored in my survey

Mozart
Beethoven 
J.S. Bach
Brahms
Tie: Haydn, Tchaikovsky


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Sorry if unclear, but my questions were only relating and refering to exactly when you did: _"People more attracted to melodic, rhythmic and coloristic elements in music would probably be less likely to give preeminence to these five, or at least to some of them." _I wasn't referring you to a whole new, vague question. Thanks though.
> 
> "Do sounds initially more palatable pose a heftier challenge to... composing great complexity"
> 
> Meaning, are the Big 5 more _skilled_ in their feats as well, compared to those using noticeably different harmonic theories for complexity? ie. Is the potential for skill greater in the mainstream realm of, say, aesthetic, or is there really only the one universal aesthetic law, and these other realms are just corruptions of it.


It would require too much analysis of the words you're using to give a proper response to this. "Skilled"? "Harmonic theories"? "Mainstream realm of aesthetic"? "One universal law"? These terms are not self-explanatory.

Off the top of my head, I'd just say that artists are not all trying to do the same thing and simply doing it more or less well (is that what you're asking?). This makes comparisons and rankings somewhat odious. But we can have a good sense of the breadth and depth of an artist's ambitions and level of accomplishment in fulfilling those ambitions.


----------



## Xisten267

In chronological order:

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Wagner
Brahms


----------



## SanAntone

larold said:


> This is the order they scored in my survey
> 
> Mozart
> Beethoven
> J.S. Bach
> Brahms
> Tie: Haydn, Tchaikovsky


You must choose between Haydn and Tchaikovsky for the purposes of this ranking. Each member has five slots to fill, no ties allowed. Thanks.


----------



## Forster

Ethereality said:


> There's also horizontal 'complexity.'


I'm not sure I'm clear about that. Can you explain?


----------



## Subutai

1) JS Bach
2) Beethoven 
3) Tchaikovsky
3) Sibelius
4) Mahler


----------



## starthrower

Bach 
Beethoven
Wagner 
Debussy
Bartok

I feel uneasy about a list limited to five for the history of western art music so Mahler, Ravel, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Ligeti we're reluctantly omitted.


----------



## SanAntone

starthrower said:


> Bach
> Beethoven
> Wagner
> Debussy
> Bartok
> 
> I feel uneasy about a list limited to five for the history of western art music so Mahler, Ravel, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Ligeti we're reluctantly omitted.


Yes, I know. Five is a small number - but it serves to focus our choices to only those composers we feel are truly great.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Art Rock said:


> Greatness for me means personal favourites:


DITTO----

1) Brahms
2) Mozart
3) Sibelius
4) Debussy
5) Haydn


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

starthrower said:


> Bach
> Beethoven
> Wagner
> Debussy
> Bartok
> 
> I feel uneasy about a list limited to five for the history of western art music so Mahler, Ravel, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Ligeti we're reluctantly omitted.


I very much like your list, ST! It gave me the idea to maybe after a few days/weeks after this thread is done to launch another one, but allowing one (or maybe two) composers per certain periods of time -in broad strokes, medieval, renaissance, early baroque, late baroque/gallant, classical, romantic, late romantic, first part 20th century, 2nd part 20th century, 21st century


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Wagner
Tchaikovsky


----------



## hammeredklavier

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I very much like your list, ST! It gave me the idea to maybe after a few days/weeks after this thread is done to launch another one, but allowing one (or maybe two) composers per certain periods of time -in broad strokes, medieval, renaissance, early baroque, late baroque/gallant, classical, romantic, late romantic, first part 20th century, 2nd part 20th century, 21st century


Your Favorite Composers by Period?


----------



## MusicSybarite

Beethoven
Bach
Haydn
Brahms
Wagner


----------



## science

I don't think I'm in a position to evaluate the greatness of composers.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> I don't think I'm in a position to evaluate the greatness of composers.


That's just great, science!


----------



## Ethereality

I'm pretty sure that's the sitting on the toilet eating a salad position.


----------



## alvaro

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Haydn
Monteverdi

in the other hand, I'd add my personal favourites... but Vaughan Williams or Hovhaness are NOT Bach by any means, lol. so there.


----------



## rw181383

Bach
Beethoven
Bruckner
Mozart
Wagner

Go Cubs in 2124!


----------



## Forster

alvaro said:


> Vaughan Williams or Hovhaness are NOT Bach by any means, lol. so there.


Thank goodness for that, otherwise I wouldn't be listening to VW!


----------



## alvaro

Forster said:


> Thank goodness for that, otherwise I wouldn't be listening to VW!


you're totally right!


----------



## Doublestring

Chaminade
Farrenc
Gubaidulina
Saariaaho
Tailleferre


----------



## science

Placing myself in judgment of the gods, I decree: 

1. Machaut 
2. Debussy 
3. Rzewski 
4. Byrd
5. Zelenka


----------



## hammeredklavier

science said:


> Zelenka


Sorry, but I think his style consists of a bit too much grindy sounds and lacks range, both within a piece, and between pieces. I've thought of starting a thread (but probably won't do it soon): "the greatest composer of Catholic music of the common practice", but I think I have my reasons why don't think Zelenka is. (and I classify Bach as Protestant.)


----------



## premont

J S Bach
Beethoven

A traditional choice, but that's because these two composers are miles above any other composer in history.

So the choice of no. 3, 4 and 5 will inevitably become abritrary and to a large extent depend upon one's taste.

My 3, 4 and 5 are

Machaut
Buxtehude 
Bartok

But it might as well be DuFay, Josquin, Mozart, Brahms, Hindemith or others.


----------



## Ethereality

"Bach said Buxtehude is the best." You're maybe the most consistent person I've ever seen on this forum, congrats... But still it's your own opinion.

Just like I think we solved the whole Top 50 composers according to all the popular composers we know in history. Most of them say Mozart is the best, but it's just their opinion. Next we should ask Miles Davis or The Beatles, it wouldn't be too far off.


----------



## Woodduck

Doublestring said:


> Chaminade
> Farrenc
> Gubaidulina
> Saariaaho
> Tailleferre


I never expected to see affirmative action on a music forum.  If only it were likely to do the one thing affirmative action is needed for: getting these composers more performances.


----------



## WildThing

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Wagner
Stravinsky


----------



## JTS

science said:


> I don't think I'm in a position to evaluate the greatness of composers.


None of us here are of course, and neither were the guys who did it for the BBC. Hopefully we don't take ourselves (or our opinions) that seriously.


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> None of us here are of course, and neither were *the guys who did it for the BBC*. Hopefully we don't take ourselves (or our opinions) that seriously.


Not even the great John Williams?


----------



## janxharris

JTS said:


> None of us here are of course, and neither were the guys who did it for the BBC. Hopefully we don't take ourselves (or our opinions) that seriously.


In what did they take themselves seriously that you and others here perhaps aren't?


----------



## JTS

janxharris said:


> In what did they take themselves seriously that you and others here perhaps aren't?


Where did I say they took themselves seriously? I certainly hope they didn't!

Justin if we seriously think that this methodology is likely to be an accurate measure then we are kidding ourselves. It's just a bit of fun


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> Not even the great John Williams?


I would hardly think that John Williams himself would seriously think that he is in a position to judge between the likes of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## Forster

Well he did, though, didn't he...for fun I'm sure...setting them alongside Brahms and Haydn.


----------



## janxharris

JTS said:


> I would hardly think that John Williams himself would seriously think that he is in a position to judge between the likes of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.


I am glad you don't take it seriously that it's between those three.


----------



## janxharris

JTS said:


> Where did I say they took themselves seriously? I certainly hope they didn't!


It's possible to interpret your post that way...but I did make an assumption. Apologies.


----------



## Forster

So, you've never taken seriously any ranking or rating or evaluation of composers, one over another?

I must say you seemed pretty serious about what you regarded as the neglect of Handel.


----------



## Ethereality

Speaking of John Williams, he sets Haydn above Mozart, and Mozart above the others. In fact I wouldn't know if he truly believes these five form the pinnacle of music--he seems highly influenced by much other music. But that's his established composer preference at least. I wouldn't know what else we're talking about.

A John Williams _fan_ forum on the other hand would rank the composers differently. In terms of popularity, something of a popular sample like:

1. Williams
2. Beethoven
3. Mahler
4. Prokofiev
5. Mozart
6. Wagner
7. Stravinsky
8. Debussy
9. Holst
10. Shostakovich
11. Dvorak
12. Bach
13. R Strauss
14. Bernstein
15. Grieg
16. Bruckner
17. Tchaikovsky
18. Vaughan Williams
19. Elgar
20. Rachmaninoff

This is not a ranking in the technical term, but a survey where rankings are added up, someone's 1 given a bit more points than 2 etc. A _ranking_ is an individual consideration that doesn't consider who's popularly listed by others.

Unfortunately we have some bias induced in us to include popular composers in our own personal definitions of greatness. Thus even some of our personal rankings aren't true rankings. Most of the results of this thread are identical, the 3 Bs and Wagner and Mozart. Not great information. This survey is probably infinitely more useful (but please don't post its total results there. I'm keeping it open for individual thought and reconsideration for a few years.)


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

JTS said:


> I would hardly think that John Williams himself would seriously think that he is in a position to judge between the likes of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.


To be fair, I don't think even Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart would have been warranted to judge between themselves in any fluffy Platonic way.


----------



## SanAntone

I had hoped this thread would not get derailed with the discussion concerning "greatness" and if or how it can be judged. So, I will offer my own criteria:

*Only those composers whose music, in at least one work, has had an impact across periods from their own lifetimes to the present.

Composers whose music has remained in the standard repertory, season after season, as well as received a large number of recordings. The music has been the focus of serious attention by conductors and performing artists, often becoming a speciality.

Composers who have enjoyed wide and consistent critical opinion of their importance and influence.*

This is the standard I used when I compiled my list of five, and my list did not mirror a list of my favorites.

I did not find it difficult.


----------



## Aries

Does the order matter?

alphabetical order:

Bach
Beethoven
Bruckner
Tchaikovsky
Wagner


----------



## Ethereality

And to neutralize the situation, this is my universal definition of greatness.


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> So, you've never taken seriously any ranking or rating or evaluation of composers, one over another?
> 
> I must say you seemed pretty serious about what you regarded as the neglect of Handel.


I didn't take seriously the neglect of Handel because I didn't take the BBCpoll seriously. I said it was dumb not to include Handel. The argument came when people, to my utter astonishment, took issue with my statement. I don't take polls like this too seriously because it is exceedingly difficult to weigh one against the other in the matter of art. For example you might say that Beethoven compose the greatest piano sonatas and string quartets, Mozart the greatest operas, Bach the greatest choral music, etc, but just how do we make an objective judgment? Obviously personal preference comes into it and one might certainly change one's mind several times during ones lifetime.


----------



## Xisten267

Ethereality said:


> A John Williams _fan_ forum on the other hand would rank the composers differently. In terms of popularity, something of a popular sample like:
> 
> 1. Williams
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Mahler
> 4. Prokofiev
> 5. Mozart
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Stravinsky
> 8. Debussy
> 9. Holst
> 10. Shostakovich
> 11. Dvorak
> 12. Bach
> 13. R Strauss
> 14. Bernstein
> 15. Grieg
> 16. Bruckner
> 17. Tchaikovsky
> 18. Vaughan Williams
> 19. Elgar
> 20. Rachmaninoff


Is there a source poll to this list or it just came from the top of your head?



Ethereality said:


> Unfortunately we have some bias induced in us to include popular composers in our own personal definitions of greatness. Thus even some of our personal rankings aren't true rankings. Most of the results of this thread are identical, the 3 Bs and Wagner and Mozart. Not great information.


Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and Brahms are popular amongst music connoisseurs and enthusiasts alike _because_ they are great, not perceived as great only due to their popularity. They aren't just the last pop band or videogame soundtrack composer to make success with casual listeners due to commercial reasons - their music has been already subjected to the test of time and was approved with praise.


----------



## gregorx

Bach
Beethoven
Debussy
Stravinsky
Shostakovich


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Will the results be compiled like those in the original poll were?


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Does the order matter?


No.



VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Will the results be compiled like those in the original poll were?


I will sort all the posted lists and then subtotal the results after the week of voting has ended.


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> I will sort all the posted lists and then subtotal the results after the week of voting has ended.


I believe that it will be interesting to compare this list with that of the 174 contemporary composers. I didn't count the votes so far, but I think that one of the main differences here is that Stravinsky will be ranked much lower, perhaps below Schoenberg.


----------



## SanAntone

I am re-posting the OP for clarification on the guidelines for this ranking poll:



SanAntone said:


> Inspired by the thread on the 50 greatest from 174 composers published by the BBC, here's out chance to join the fun. *You can only choose five composers.*
> 
> Not your five favorite, but the five you think are the greatest, however you wish to interpret that term.
> 
> *Please don't number your list* - I am copying and pasting them into a spread sheet and then will sort and subtotal the results. It's just easier without the numbers. Thanks.


I will stop including lists October 21, 10:00 AM (Central Time, USA).


----------



## Haydn70

In chronological order:

Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Wagner


----------



## SanAntone

Xisten267 said:


> I believe that it will be interesting to compare this list with that of the 174 contemporary composers. I didn't count the votes so far, but I think that one of the main differences here is that Stravinsky will be ranked much lower, perhaps below Schoenberg.


One of my regrets was that all of my composers were Germanic. I would have preferred having at least one, maybe two, French composers - but for the life of me it is hard to leave off a composer just because of diversity.


----------



## fbjim

Xisten267 said:


> I believe that it will be interesting to compare this list with that of the 174 contemporary composers. I didn't count the votes so far, but I think that one of the main differences here is that Stravinsky will be ranked much lower, perhaps below Schoenberg.


This would surprise me a lot because I always figured Stravinsky and Bartok had much more popular appeal than Schoenberg.

i tried to split mine between great innovators like Haydn and Stravinsky with the absolute craftsmanship gods like Brahms and Verdi but man, that was a hard list.

also once again i'm a bit surprised at the lack of love Verdi is getting.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> This would surprise me a lot because I always figured Stravinsky and Bartok had much more popular appeal than Schoenberg.
> 
> i tried to split mine between great innovators like Haydn and Stravinsky with the absolute craftsmanship gods like Brahms and Verdi but man, that was a hard list.
> 
> also once again i'm a bit surprised at the lack of love Verdi is getting.


I think if it is a choice between Verdi and Wagner, Wagner wins that contest most of the time. Which is why I am torn with having all Germanic composers on my list.


----------



## Red Terror

Verdi is an all time great. He’s really a top five composer.


----------



## fbjim

Wagner was more important but Verdi just has a vast catalog of great works. I think it just depends on what you value more.


----------



## SanAntone

Red Terror said:


> Verdi is an all time great. He's really a top five composer.





fbjim said:


> Wagner was more important but Verdi just has a vast catalog of great works. I think it just depends on what you value more.


For all but one year out of the last 50 I've spent listening to and thinking about Classical music, composers, and music, I have been an ardent Verdi admirer, and a virulent Wagner enemy. But this year I began again listening to the Wagner Ring cycle, mostly watching various productions on Met Opera on Demand, but also some DVDs and other productions. And finally it clicked, what is was that so many of my friends and colleagues had been saying all along. I now feel that I am hearing the music and appreciating his enormous achievement with those four works with new ears. And that doesn't even account for all of his other operas.

IMO, _The Ring_ is one of the greatest artistic achievements in human history.

Yes, Verdi has written some absolute operatic masterpieces - but Wagner is in a class of his own. I loathe making comparisons since both Verdi and Wagner occupy specific real estate in the operatic landscape, so all will say is, in an ideal world both Verdi and Wagner would be on my list of five great composers.

But then what to do with Brahms?


----------



## JTS

fbjim said:


> Wagner was more important but Verdi just has a vast catalog of great works. I think it just depends on what you value more.


I wouldn't trade Falstaff for the whole of Wagner's output. Absolute life affirming!


----------



## SanAntone

I've spent my life as a music lover trying to remove the names of composers from a list of "the music I do not enjoy." 

This year I removed two: Mahler and Wagner, and made significant headway with Richard Strauss. I am a firm believer in never letting myself believe that there is any composer, any music, which given enough of a chance would remain outside of my positive appreciation. At least that is my fervent hope.


----------



## JTS

Red Terror said:


> Verdi is an all time great. He's really a top five composer.


Interesting that Verdi rated Beethoven as the tops,


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Brahms
5. Schubert


----------



## Ethereality

Xisten267 said:


> Is there a source poll to this list or it just came from the top of your head?
> 
> Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and Brahms are popular amongst music connoisseurs and enthusiasts alike _because_ they are great, not perceived as great only due to their popularity. They aren't just the last pop band or videogame soundtrack composer to make success with casual listeners due to commercial reasons - their music has been already subjected to the test of time and was approved with praise.


You're still talking about popularity here Xisten, just within a more rigidly defined group, ie. those who already center around the same traditions.


----------



## Xisten267

Ethereality said:


> You're still talking about popularity here Xisten, just within a more rigidly defined group.


Of course, the group matters. I believe that some people are nearer to truth, if there is one, than others. I would rather believe in the Einsteins and Darwins when the matter is science than in the common person. Similarly, I think that when it comes to evaluating greatness in the arts, music included, I think that there's more truth to the prevailing view of experts and enthusiasts over decades, sometimes centuries, than to the casual listeners of the present. Just as we need a certain physical distance to be able to see something properly, I think that we as a society also need some distance in time to be able to discern what is important or not in the arts.



JTS said:


> I wouldn't trade Falstaff for the whole of Wagner's output. Absolute life affirming!


I wouldn't trade Tristan for the whole of Verdi's output. To each their own.


----------



## JTS

Ethereality said:


> You're still talking about popularity here Xisten, just within a more rigidly defined group, ie. those who already center around the same traditions.


Yes I think we can also point to other composers who are popular and whose work has stood the test of time like Tchaikovsky, Verdi et al. Handel's Messiah has been filling houses for quite a few years as well. And now he's less known works are beginning to do the same


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> For all but one year out of the last 50 I've spent listening to and thinking about Classical music, composers, and music, I have been an ardent Verdi admirer, and a virulent Wagner enemy. But this year I began again listening to the Wagner Ring cycle, mostly watching various productions on Met Opera on Demand, but also some DVDs and other productions. And finally it clicked, what is was that so many of my friends and colleagues had been saying all along. I now feel that I am hearing the music and appreciating his enormous achievement with those four works with new ears. And that doesn't even account for all of his other operas.
> 
> IMO, _The Ring_ is one of the greatest artistic achievements in human history.
> 
> Yes, Verdi has written some absolute operatic masterpieces - but Wagner is in a class of his own. I loathe making comparisons since both Verdi and Wagner occupy specific real estate in the operatic landscape, so all will say is, in an ideal world both Verdi and Wagner would be on my list of five great composers.
> 
> But then what to do with Brahms?


A story that warms my heart. The _Ring_ is indeed miraculous. But watch out for _Tristan_. It's been known to kill people.


----------



## Forster

Ethereality said:


> Unfortunately we have some bias induced in us to include popular composers in our own personal definitions of greatness.


Do we? How do you know?

And if true, well it's hardly surprising. A poll that invites us to cite "the five you think are the greatest, *however you wish to interpret that term*." has an in-built bias.


----------



## jegreenwood

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Bach
> 4. Brahms
> 5. Schubert


My five favorites, but for greatest, I would reluctantly substitute Wagner for Schubert.

(Wagner does not appear in my top 10 favorite composers.)


----------



## Ethereality

Forster said:


> Do we? How do you know?
> 
> And if true, well it's hardly surprising. A poll that invites us to cite "the five you think are the greatest, *however you wish to interpret that term*." has an in-built bias.


We as humans tend more not to familiarize ourselves with what's different. The bias of popularity is induced the minute we're born, to going to the store to purchase a CD. It's not so much induced once, or even thrice, it's self-perpetually induced in cultural trends every minute from the dawn of Classicism, the influence and bias is unstoppable and self-perpetuating: inescapable. The big keep getting bigger, this post has some deeper explanations: Why actual composers (creatives) are _less_ affected by popularity and this "religion" of Classicism is false, as well as How this popularity isn't real but appears that way: Think of the poll "Favorite era?" You'll be surprised to know for a majority of people here, it's the Contemporary. The _others_, may just not be on board yet, or ever will.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> A story that warms my heart. The _Ring_ is indeed miraculous. But watch out for _Tristan_. It's been known to kill people.


Preivously, _Tristan und Isolde_ had been the only Wagner opera that I could say that I enjoyed. I haven't spent enough time with Parsifal to have an opinion, but from what I've heard of the music it had also been "tolerable" for me. I still have Götterdämmerung to watch (I usually watch several different productions of each opera) before moving on. But Tristan and Parsifal will be next. Then I plan on delving back to _Lohengrin_ and _Tannhäuser_. Eventually I will watch the others, I've got plenty of recordings of them all - so it is just a matter of time.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> We as humans tend more not to familiarize ourselves with what's different. The bias of popularity is induced the minute we're born, to going to the store to purchase a CD. It's not so much induced once, or even thrice, it's self-perpetually induced in cultural trends every minute from the dawn of Classicism, the influence and bias is utterly inescapable. The big keep getting bigger. This post has some explanations.


None of that makes any sense to me. We like what we like. We don't like what we don't like. And what does 'different' mean? What's considered 'different' to one listener may be a favorite of another. I see no obligation to seek out something I might consider 'different' just for the sake of it. On the other hand, I might do so as time passes to widen my experience. My guess is that this is what many or most classical music listeners do.

There's no bias of popularity from the minute we're born. Where did you get that? We don't like things because they're popular. Things are popular because a lot of us like them. I do not understand why the subject of popularity is so often distorted on this forum.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Do we? How do you know?
> 
> And if true, well it's hardly surprising. A poll that invites us to cite "the five you think are the greatest, however you wish to interpret that term" has an in-built bias.


What I meant by "however you wish to interpret that term" was not to simply make it your favorites, but to come up with criteria that _for you_ constitutes greatness. Thinking of it merely as your favorites is a bit solipsistic for a meaningful discussion, IMO.


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM, If it doesn't make sense, you're not reading it close enough.



DaveM said:


> There's no bias of popularity from the minute we're born. We don't like things because they're popular. Things are popular because a lot of us like them. I do not understand why the subject of popularity is so often distorted on this forum.


Sorry that is entirely false, false, false. You seem to be speaking for only yourself and a few people. Maybe you have settled on this reality being the ultimate music, but for many many people the journey hasn't ended here.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JTS said:


> Interesting that Verdi rated Beethoven as the tops,


why? because he was an opera composer?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Red Terror said:


> Verdi is an all time great. He's really a top five composer.


Top 5 opera composer yes.

Much as I love Verdi - I cannot put any 1 genre composer in my top 20.


----------



## PlaySalieri

SanAntone said:


> I had hoped this thread would not get derailed with the discussion concerning "greatness" and if or how it can be judged. So, I will offer my own criteria:
> 
> *Only those composers whose music, in at least one work, has had an impact across periods from their own lifetimes to the present.
> 
> Composers whose music has remained in the standard repertory, season after season, as well as received a large number of recordings. The music has been the focus of serious attention by conductors and performing artists, often becoming a speciality.
> 
> Composers who have enjoyed wide and consistent critical opinion of their importance and influence.*
> 
> This is the standard I used when I compiled my list of five, and my list did not mirror a list of my favorites.
> 
> I did not find it difficult.


That is sensible - but it would rule out many choices thus far listed on here.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> DaveM, If it doesn't make sense, you're not reading it close enough.


Or it really doesn't make sense.



> Sorry that is entirely false, false, false. You seem to be speaking for only yourself and a few people.


Well, I understand it is in your interest to believe that. You could be wrong. 



> Maybe you have settled on this reality being the ultimate music, but for many many people the journey hasn't ended here.


Not picking up what you're putting down there.


----------



## Red Terror

PlaySalieri said:


> Top 5 opera composer yes.
> 
> Much as I love Verdi - I cannot put any 1 genre composer in my top 20.


I steer away from such distinctions. Music is opera's driving force-without it, it is nothing. I don't need to see Aida or Tristan und Isolde to fully appreciate and enjoy them as works of art.


----------



## SanAntone

PlaySalieri said:


> That is sensible - but it would rule out many choices thus far listed on here.


In this exercise, the perfect won't be the enemy of the good.


----------



## SanAntone

PlaySalieri said:


> Top 5 opera composer yes.
> 
> Much as I love Verdi - I cannot put any 1 genre composer in my top 20.


Opera encompasses orchestral music, vocal music, as well as large form structure, and this does not even consider the theatrical aspects. It is the most packed genre of any.


----------



## PlaySalieri

SanAntone said:


> Opera encompasses orchestral music, vocal music, as well as large form structure, and this does not even consider the theatrical aspects. It is the most packed genre of any.


Yes I know - but this does not prove that Verdi, for example, would have been a great symphonist had he tried - or been a great composer of concertos or any other number of genres. I understand he composed a good quartet and obviously a very operatic requiem - but this demonstrates very little and besides - this poll is about what composers did - not what they might have done or were capable of doing.

Apart from Mozart and maybe Handel - no other major opera composer who has to his credit more than 1 great opera also was consistently great in other genres - even one genre. Which is why I always vote for Mozart - as you say - an opera is a formidable work of art encompassing a range of skills - well Mozart did that and he left behind a quantity of masterworks in every other significant genre.

So I would add to that set of criteria that the composer must have been substantially fruitful in more than 1 genre.

which will exclude Wagner Verdi Puccini Rossini.


----------



## SanAntone

PlaySalieri said:


> Yes I know - but this does not prove that Verdi, for example, would have been a great symphonist had he tried - or been a great composer of concertos or any other number of genres. I understand he composed a good quartet and obviously a very operatic requiem - but this demonstrates very little and besides - this poll is about what composers did - not what they might have done or were capable of doing.
> 
> Apart from Mozart and maybe Handel - no other major opera composer who has to his credit more than 1 great opera also was consistently great in other genres - even one genre. Which is why I always vote for Mozart - as you say - an opera is a formidable work of art encompassing a range of skills - well Mozart did that and he left behind a quantity of masterworks in every other significant genre.
> 
> So I would add to that set of criteria that the composer must have been substantially fruitful in more than 1 genre.
> 
> which will exclude Wagner Verdi Puccini Rossini.


If you wish to make that your criteria, that is a valid method. However, one cannot exaggerate the importance of works such as Der Ring, Otello, Rigoletto, Tristan, La Traviata.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

PlaySalieri said:


> Yes I know - but this does not prove that Verdi, for example, would have been a great symphonist had he tried - or been a great composer of concertos or any other number of genres. I understand he composed a good quartet and obviously a very operatic requiem - but this demonstrates very little and besides - this poll is about what composers did - not what they might have done or were capable of doing.
> 
> *Apart from Mozart and maybe Handel - no other major opera composer who has to his credit more than 1 great opera also was consistently great in other genres - even one genre. *Which is why I always vote for Mozart - as you say - an opera is a formidable work of art encompassing a range of skills - well Mozart did that and he left behind a quantity of masterworks in every other significant genre.
> 
> So I would add to that set of criteria that the composer must have been substantially fruitful in more than 1 genre.
> 
> which will exclude Wagner Verdi Puccini Rossini.


Strauss .........


----------



## SanAntone

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Strauss .........


Also Berg (Wozzeck, of 2), Shostakovich (Lady Macbeth, of 10), Weber (Der Freischütz, of 10), Dvorak (Rusalka, of 10), Tchaikovsky (Eugen Oneigen, of 11) - I could go on .... Britten.

But I put Wagner on my list because I consider his operas, specifically _Der Ring_,a greater achievement than anything these composers wrote.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

SanAntone said:


> Also Berg (Wozzeck, of 2), Shostakovich (Lady Macbeth, of 10), Weber (Der Freischütz, of 10), Dvorak (Rusalka, of 10), Tchaikovsky (Eugen Oneigen, of 11) - I could go on ....


Rameau, Monteverdi, Stockhausen (!), Berlioz, etc.

Strauss was just the obvious oversight IMO. Maybe that's just because I was listening to _Salome_ earlier today.


----------



## Josquin13

I find making a list of my top 5 more difficult than coming up with a list of my top 10. Plus, I don't think you'll find many people that will agree with me, but here it is,

J.S. Bach
Josquin Desprez
Guillaume Dufay
G.F. Handel
W.A. Mozart

& my next 5,

L.V. Beethoven
Claude Debussy
F.J. Haydn
Johannes Ockeghem
Maurice Ravel

Composers that I would have liked to put in my top 10, but there wasn't the space: Jean Sibelius, William Byrd, Thomas Tallis, Richard Wagner, Gustav Mahler, Guillaume de Machaut, Philippe DeVitry, Johannes Ciconia, Orlando di Lasso, or Lassus, Claudio Monteverdi, & Antonio Vivaldi.

For me, composing seminal works that had a huge influence on the history of music is an important consideration.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Opera encompasses orchestral music, vocal music, as well as large form structure, and this does not even consider the theatrical aspects. It is the most packed genre of any.


True. The kinds of music represented in an opera can be quite varied. I think it's arguable that Wagner in particular explored more distinct and original musical worlds in the course of his thirteen operas than Brahms or Schumann did in all the genres they pursued. Listening to the overtures alone - of _The Flying Dutchman, Tannhauser, Lohengrin, Tristan, Meistersinger _and _Parsifal _ - is like a star trek to one new, interesting planet after another, and the variety of form and expression in both vocal and instrumental portions of the operas is enormous. It can seem incredible that all the music can be by the same person, something I don't feel when listening to many other composers.


----------



## tdc

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Strauss .........





SanAntone said:


> Also Berg (Wozzeck, of 2), Shostakovich (Lady Macbeth, of 10), Weber (Der Freischütz, of 10), Dvorak (Rusalka, of 10), Tchaikovsky (Eugen Oneigen, of 11) - I could go on .... Britten.
> 
> But I put Wagner on my list because I consider his operas, specifically _Der Ring_,a greater achievement than anything these composers wrote.


Play Salieri qualified their statement with _consistently great_ in other genres. So in that sense, perhaps a bit subjective. That said maybe just a blind spot for me but R Strauss doesn't seem consistently great in any genres to my ears. He does have certain pieces and parts of works that sound great to me.

I see Wagner similarly. He has masterful sections in these sprawling works, and long sections that make me question his sense of form. The issue is obfuscated by the fact he didn't compose much outside of his music dramas.


----------



## hammeredklavier

PlaySalieri said:


> Apart from Mozart and maybe Handel - no other major opera composer who has to his credit more than 1 great opera also was consistently great in other genres - even one genre.


Certain techniques in one "genre" were transferable to another. (-this maybe similar to what SanAntone is trying to say in #166). The highly operatic character of 18th century religious music, for instance, is a result of this:



hammeredklavier said:


> I think this bit (9:51) from Mozart's K.257 is like a "prototypical" expression of this bit (10:57) from Don Giovanni, and this bit from K.220 is of this bit from La Clemenza di Tito.


Generally, the most highly-regarded composers of the 18th century were required to write in many genres as part of their "professional duty". But it wasn't like each of the genres required a _totally different_ technique to write (in terms of 18th century part-writing and form). Is K.334 closer to being a symphony or a string quartet?:



hammeredklavier said:


> K.551/ii string quintet in G (1773) [ 4:27 ] symphony No.22 in D (1779) [ 6:06 ]
> string quartet K.465 [ 7:38 ]


And generally, (with some exceptions) the most highly-regarded composers of the Romantic period wrote in few genres: Berlioz, Wagner, Chopin, Bruckner, Mahler. But in certain cases, they did so due to their "philosophical ideas" in "bringing out their own individuality". I don't think it's insightful to judge them by the same standard as you would the 18th century composers. (eg. An 18th century composer who only wrote symphonies is NOT "equivalent" to Mahler.) The 18th century way to think of certain genres is not comparable with that of the later era.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> Play Salieri qualified their statement with _consistently great_ in other genres. So in that sense, perhaps a bit subjective. That said maybe just a blind spot for me but R Strauss doesn't seem consistently great in any genres to my ears. He does have certain pieces and parts of works that sound great to me.
> 
> I see Wagner similarly. He has masterful sections in these sprawling works, and long sections that make me question his sense of form. The issue is obfuscated by the fact he didn't compose much outside of his music dramas.


I find Strauss quite uneven in his operas particularly, not technically - he oozed technique - but in quality of inspiration. We have brilliant passages like the final scene of _Salome_ and much of _Elektra,_ and long stretches of musical chitchat - as in _Arabella_ - where there's an incredible quantity of words and notes but hardly a thematic idea your mind can hold onto. Wagner isn't perfectly consistent, but he's never vacuous in the way Strauss can be.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> And generally, (with some exceptions) the most highly-regarded composers of the Romantic period wrote in few genres: Berlioz, Wagner, Chopin, Bruckner, Mahler. But in certain cases, they did so due to their "philosophical ideas" in "bringing out their own individuality". I don't think it's insightful to judge them by the same standard as you would the 18th century composers. (eg. An 18th century composer who only wrote symphonies is NOT "equivalent" to Mahler.) The 18th century way to think of certain genres is not comparable with that of the later era.


You left out Brahms, Schumann, Liszt and Mendelssohn all who composed in a variety of genres in the romantic era. All of the composers that are widely considered the greatest in the modern era also composed in multiple genres. Bruckner is not widely considered among the greatest composers of the Romantic era is he? Mahler is a composer between two eras, not a full on Romantic. Berlioz is credited for his innovations, the controversial aspects of his music are related more to harmony and counterpoint rather than to sticking to certain genres (similarly with Bruckner - criticisms are more music related). That just leaves Chopin and Wagner two undeniably great composers, but I think pointing out that their contributions were less varied is valid. I think it is fair to say that aspects of Wagner's form have been controversial, and he did not excel in other areas outside of opera. There is no denying Chopin is not considered a great orchestrator. There is also no denying that they still left a major impact on music. It depends what one values in their music listening and considers important in terms of 'greatness'. Aspects of compiling these lists are always subjective.


----------



## SanAntone

And when you consider that Wagner wrote all his own libretti, it adds another level to his achievement. Granted, some might hold that against him.


----------



## tdc

tdc said:


> Mahler is a composer between two eras, not a full on Romantic.


My reservations for Mahler's music are similar to those I have with Wagner, I also think Mahler was less influential than Wagner. So to me Mahler was certainly a great composer, but wouldn't make my personal top ten greats list.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Woodduck said:


> I find Strauss quite uneven in his operas particularly, not technically - he oozed technique - but in quality of inspiration. We have brilliant passages like the final scene of _Salome_ and much of Elektra, and long stretches of musical chitchat - as in _Arabella_ - where there's an incredible quantity of words and notes but hardly a thematic idea your mind can hold onto. Wagner isn't perfectly consistent, but he's never vacuous in the way Strauss can be.


You bring up a legitimate criticism, but in my opinion perhaps an unfair one. Wagner is philosophical and introspective, and there are (quasi-extramusical) unifying elements of his works which serve to provide inspiration. Strauss OTOH is purely visceral, extraverted, dramatic, in-your-face. Sure, there are structural and even symbolic musical elements (e.g. leitmotifs) like in Wagner. But (IMO! This is not a rigorously backed statement) unlike Wagner, who uses musical ideas to service thematic and philosophical abstractions, Strauss uses them primarily to service dramatic effect. It is nihilism in music: not in a dark sense, but a light one. It is not so serious as Wagner. So it's a lot more difficult to find inspiration consistently when you downplay the importance of themes. But this I find to be a difference of style or domain more than a compositional weakness. For instance, Strauss is far better suited than Wagner to set to music, say, a play by Oscar Wilde.

Still, it's hard to disagree that Wagner is not the greater artist and composer, and that this "stylistic difference" may have more than a little to do with that judgement. It is said that Wilde came to regret his total lack of seriousness and artistic integrity, ultimately finding it limiting rather than liberating. I have conflicting feelings about this sentiment, so I find it hard to discuss. But I do feel it is somewhat analogous to the differences between Wagner and Strauss, if that makes any sense. Perhaps Netflix-style drama can only go so far, but at the same time I wouldn't want to be stuck listening to music as heavy as Wagner the rest of my life.


----------



## JTS

PlaySalieri said:


> why? because he was an opera composer?


He just rated Luigi as tops. Obviously not Beethoven as an opera composer


----------



## Woodduck

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> You bring up a legitimate criticism, but in my opinion perhaps an unfair one. *Wagner is philosophical and introspective*, and there are (quasi-extramusical) unifying elements of his works which serve to provide inspiration. *Strauss OTOH is purely visceral, extraverted, dramatic, in-your-face.* Sure, there are structural and even symbolic musical elements (e.g. leitmotifs) like in Wagner. But (IMO! This is not a rigorously backed statement) unlike Wagner, who uses musical ideas to service thematic and philosophical abstractions, Strauss uses them primarily to service dramatic effect. *It is nihilism in music: not in a dark sense, but a light one.* It is not so serious as Wagner. So it's a lot more difficult to find inspiration consistently when you downplay the importance of themes. But this I find to be a difference of style or domain more than a compositional weakness. For instance, Strauss is far better suited than Wagner to set to music, say, a play by Oscar Wilde.
> 
> Still, it's hard to disagree that Wagner is not the greater artist and composer, and that this "stylistic difference" may have more than a little to do with that judgement. It is said that Wilde came to regret his total lack of seriousness and artistic integrity, ultimately finding it limiting rather than liberating. I have conflicting feelings about this sentiment, so I find it hard to discuss. But I do feel it is somewhat analogous to the differences between Wagner and Strauss, if that makes any sense. Perhaps Netflix-style drama can only go so far, but at the same time I wouldn't want to be stuck listening to music as heavy as Wagner the rest of my life.


I wouldn't say that my criticism of Strauss's music as being often both busy and insubstantial is unfair - and it isn't original by any means - but you're certainly right in pointing out that this relates to the fact that he is typically and fundamentally more concerned with dramatic, even sensational, effect than with profound substance (not an original observation either). I don't think Strauss himself would have disagreed with this assessment; I'm thinking of his amusing, self-deprecating remark that he may not have been a first-rate composer, but he was a very good second-rate one. He knew very well that Wagner was operating on a higher plane of meaning. Mahler was as well, and I think Mahler sits quite a bit higher in the musical pantheon than Strauss, not for any superior skills but simply for having a lot more to say about life.

I like your phrase "nihilism in music: not in a dark sense, but a light one." Elektra's story may be based on Greek drama, but at its core it isn't true tragedy but rather a little house of horrors. Salome is the perfect Strauss heroine; she's the anti-Isolde, dying not for love but for sex, and the most titillatingly lurid sex at that. The most profound emotion Strauss could muster in opera was the tenderness of young love and the sadness of an aristocratic woman who had grown too old - at thirty-something, no doubt - to keep a teenager in her bed. That Strauss managed to climax _Rosenkavalier _with a trio for women's voices that's one of the most gorgeous moments in all of opera - all of music, maybe - is to his very great credit as a "first-rate second-rate composer." And perhaps, with his four last songs, he became a first-rate composer at last.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Yes certainly none of my observations were original. My point was more that to view this characterization of Strauss _critically_ seems to me a matter of personal taste. I don't think it's fair to view music as being inherently less "great" just because it is less "serious" or "profound".


----------



## Forster

Ethereality said:


> We as humans tend more not to familiarize ourselves with what's different. The bias of popularity is induced the minute we're born, to going to the store to purchase a CD. It's not so much induced once, or even thrice, it's self-perpetually induced in cultural trends every minute from the dawn of Classicism, the influence and bias is unstoppable and self-perpetuating: inescapable. The big keep getting bigger, this post has some deeper explanations: Why actual composers (creatives) are _less_ affected by popularity and this "religion" of Classicism is false, as well as How this popularity isn't real but appears that way: Think of the poll "Favorite era?" You'll be surprised to know for a majority of people here, it's the Contemporary. The _others_, may just not be on board yet, or ever will.


I accept that the herd instinct in man is strong (though neither universal nor overwhelming) and this might be manifest in a tendency to make choices based on their being already popular.

That doesn't mean that Beethoven isn't the greatest.



SanAntone said:


> What I meant by "however you wish to interpret that term" was not to simply make it your favorites, but to come up with criteria that _for you_ constitutes greatness. Thinking of it merely as your favorites is a bit solipsistic for a meaningful discussion, IMO.


I took my lead from these posts - one by Art Rock and one from your good self:



> Greatness for me means personal favourites


Your list of the five greatest composers



> Either make a list or not. I don't want this thread to get derailed with that debate [what is greatest]


Your list of the five greatest composers



JTS said:


> Interesting that Verdi rated Beethoven as the tops,


Who did Handel say was tops? We'd still struggle to come up with only five if we simply copied what one great composer said about another. Besides, 120-odd years has elapsed since Verdi died: curiously, he had no idea who the greats were that came after him


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> I accept that the herd instinct in man is strong (though neither universal nor overwhelming) and this might be manifest in a tendency to make choices based on their being already popular.
> 
> That doesn't mean that Beethoven isn't the greatest.
> 
> I took my lead from these posts - one by Art Rock and one from your good self:
> 
> Your list of the five greatest composers
> 
> Your list of the five greatest composers
> 
> Who did Handel say was tops? We'd still struggle to come up with only five if we simply copied what one great composer said about another. Besides, 120-odd years has elapsed since Verdi died: curiously, he had no idea who the greats were that came after him


I cannot think for the life of me why you think Verdi's comment about Beethoven has anything to do with Handel's opinions. I just made the comment out of interest in what one great musician thought of another.


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> I cannot think for the life of me why you think Verdi's comment about Beethoven has anything to do with Handel's opinions.


Never mind. It might make sense to someone else.


----------



## Ethereality

Forster said:


> I accept that the herd instinct in man is strong (though neither universal nor overwhelming) and this might be manifest in a tendency to make choices based on their being already popular.
> 
> That doesn't mean that Beethoven isn't the greatest.


Well _that_ was anti-climactic. I don't blame you for not reading my quoted rationale. Although solidly realized, I wouldn't prefer the text form either. I've been oft thankful many of these conversations are digital and not happening within my walls.


----------



## Barbebleu

Mahler
Strauss (Richard)
Wagner
Schubert
Shostakovich


----------



## PlaySalieri

JTS said:


> He just rated Luigi as tops. Obviously not Beethoven as an opera composer


I meant is it interesting because Verdi is an opera composer

or maybe you will explain why you find it interesting that Verdi thought Beethoven the greatest composer

you think he has some special insight that other composers lack?

How do you explain that he referred to Mozart as a quartet composer at a time when Don Giovanni was already packing opera houses across europe?


----------



## PlaySalieri

JTS said:


> He just rated Luigi as tops. Obviously not Beethoven as an opera composer


Who is Luigi?

your hairdresser?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Having read through some posts since yesterday yes I accept that there are other composers who excelled in opera and other genres. Im not sure why R Strauss did not spring to mind. Shostakovich not so sure about but that is probably me being subjective - to what extent are his operas in the repertoire of the world's great opera companies outside of Russia? Britten - well - no - Peter Grimes is one - the other operas - not sure. And in which other genres did he consistently excel?


----------



## JTS

PlaySalieri said:


> Who is Luigi?
> 
> your hairdresser?


No. Could never manage his own hair


----------



## hammeredklavier

PlaySalieri said:


> How do you explain that he referred to Mozart as a quartet composer at a time when Don Giovanni was already packing opera houses across europe?


VERDI: A PORTRAIT
By Leon Escudier
When "Don Carlos" was performed at the Opera, M. Perrin thinking to please him, sent Verdi a box for "Don Giovanni." We were then stopping with the master at his house in the Champs Elysées, where he then resided. After dinner, he said to us:-"M. Perrin has been kind enough to send me a box, perhaps he imagines that I do know the masterpiece of Mozart, "Don Giovanni!" he continued, laughing, "why, I could write out the score without omitting a single note-orchestra, choruses, and solos! There's always "Don Giovanni!" before my eyes. When I was studying composition in Milan, under my excellent master, M. Lavigne, I had to learn or study all the greatest works. "Don Giovanni," in particular, was impressed on my mind-he persued me everywhere. Lavigne, who had a legitimate and profound admiration for Mozart, kept me of an evening, after the studies of the day, and made me play on the piano the works of his favourite master, and most frequently "Don Giovanni." ............
............. "The next day, I received a visit from him. Well! he was Mozart's son, and was then employed in the Austrian custom-house. From that day forth, I thought only of Mozart, his works, and his son. I went to and fro from Lavigne, who continued making me play Mozart, to Mozart's son, who never tired of hearing his father's masterpiece! You may judge therefore, whether I know "Don Giovanni!" and whether I have any wish to go and hear it! I always admire it; but I have listened to and performed it quite often enough."
The Musical Standard, A Newspaper for Musicians, Professional and Amateur, 1880 | P. 327


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> VERDI: A PORTRAIT
> By Leon Escudier
> When "Don Carlos" was performed at the Opera, M. Perrin thinking to please him, sent Verdi a box for "Don Giovanni." We were then stopping with the master at his house in the Champs Elysées, where he then resided. After dinner, he said to us:-"M. Perrin has been kind enough to send me a box, perhaps he imagines that I do know the masterpiece of Mozart, "Don Giovanni!" he continued, laughing, "why, I could write out the score without omitting a single note-orchestra, choruses, and solos! There's always "Don Giovanni!" before my eyes. When I was studying composition in Milan, under my excellent master, M. Lavigne, I had to learn or study all the greatest works. "Don Giovanni," in particular, was impressed on my mind-he persued me everywhere. Lavigne, who had a legitimate and profound admiration for Mozart, kept me of an evening, after the studies of the day, and made me play on the piano the works of his favourite master, and most frequently "Don Giovanni." ............
> ............. "The next day, I received a visit from him. Well! he was Mozart's son, and was then employed in the Austrian custom-house. From that day forth, I thought only of Mozart, his works, and his son. I went to and fro from Lavigne, who continued making me play Mozart, to Mozart's son, who never tired of hearing his father's masterpiece! You may judge therefore, whether I know "Don Giovanni!" and whether I have any wish to go and hear it! I always admire it; but I have listened to and performed it quite often enough."
> The Musical Standard, A Newspaper for Musicians, Professional and Amateur, 1880 | P. 327


Interesting anecdote. Maybe he had had his fill of Don Giovanni, by the sounds of it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

jegreenwood said:


> My five favorites, but for greatest, I would reluctantly substitute Wagner for Schubert.
> 
> (Wagner does not appear in my top 10 favorite composers.)


I still rank Schubert higher because of his greater diversity of repertoire. My top 10:

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Brahms
5. Schubert
6. Wagner
7. Verdi
8. Tchaikovsky 
9. Mahler
10. Debussy


----------



## SanAntone

I would never have thought that _variety_ would be a consideration of greatness instead of _impact/influence_.

What difference does it make whether a composer wrote works in each of the categories of form if none of them had much impact?

Whereas, Wagner wrote almost nothing but operas (although after _Parsifal_ he said he would devote the rest of his life to writing symphonies, unfortunately he died shortly thereafter), but the impact of his work has been immeasurable.


----------



## Forster

^ I was beginning to wonder if I'd slipped into a parallel thread about opera


----------



## Forster

Ethereality said:


> Well _that_ was anti-climactic. I don't blame you for not reading my quoted rationale. Although solidly realized, I wouldn't prefer the text form either. I've been oft thankful many of these conversations are digital and not happening within my walls.


Anti-climactic? I'm sorry to disappoint; I had no idea you were expecting so much from me 

Look, I read what you wrote and tried to make some sense of it. I didn't need to follow the link you'd inserted to an old thread which had been, according to a number of posters, not just me, difficult to follow.

(If some of these conversations were happening within your walls, they might be a darn sight easier to follow - personal contact, body language, ebb and flow, question and answer which usually helps comprehension.)

How about what I actually said? Did I completely misunderstand you?


----------



## Madiel

SanAntone said:


> *You can only choose five composers.*
> 
> Not your five favorite, but the five you think are the greatest, however you wish to interpret that term.


Josquin
Rameau
Rossini
Debussy
Prokofiev


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

SanAntone said:


> I would never have thought that _variety_ would be a consideration of greatness instead of _impact/influence_.
> 
> What difference does it make whether a composer wrote works in each of the categories of form if none of them had much impact?


I don't know which underlying assumption is worse - that people follow great things (right makes might) or that that which people follow, is great (might makes right)...


----------



## SanAntone

Madiel said:


> Josquin
> Rameau
> Rossini
> Debussy
> Prokofiev


Thank you for this: just like I asked for them.  Wonderful choices, btw.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> ^ I was beginning to wonder if I'd slipped into a parallel thread about opera


There are only two kinds of people in the world: those who _love_ opera, and all the other boring sods. :lol:

Or - there are only two kinds of people in the world, those who start a sentence with, "there are only two kinds of people in the world," and then everyone else.


----------



## Subutai

From the specific BBC top 50 list:

1. JS Bach
2. Beethoven 
3. Mahler
4. Sibelius 
5. Tchaikovsky


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> There are only two kinds of people in the world: those who _love_ opera, and all the other boring sods. :lol:
> 
> Or - there are only two kinds of people in the world, those who start a sentence with, "there are only two kinds of people in the world," and then everyone else.


I'm with the boring sods.


----------



## mmsbls

I don't know what the final outcome of this poll will be, but it's already demonstrated a phenomenon similar to that of the poll with 174 contemporary composers. A composer who is very highly rated in general is not present in the top 50 composers of this poll. Since people only give their top 5 composers, it's possible for a composer to be rated highly (top 15 or so) but not be listed in anyone's top 5. 

Neither this poll or the 174 composer poll is dumb, but they must be properly interpreted. Rankings below 10 or so likely are not representative of the true rankings of the participants, but both polls can be interesting when properly interpreted.


----------



## tdc

SanAntone said:


> I would never have thought that _variety_ would be a consideration of greatness instead of _impact/influence_.
> 
> What difference does it make whether a composer wrote works in each of the categories of form if none of them had much impact?
> 
> Whereas, Wagner wrote almost nothing but operas (although after _Parsifal_ he said he would devote the rest of his life to writing symphonies, unfortunately he died shortly thereafter), but the impact of his work has been immeasurable.


I take both things into consideration, but attributes of the compositions themselves are in my view more important than non musical attributes, such as influence, the latter being closely related popularity. Influence is a factor, but I also think that it is possible for things to be influential in a negative way. There is a reason that 'appeal to popularity' is a logical fallacy, it doesn't actually prove anything. If we were making this list at end of the classical era, by your logic Bach would be lower on the list than now, and then would start to rise gradually after that. Of course not a note of the music he composed changed over that time.

Variety in composition is something objective about the music itself. Influence is a phenomena that is outside of the music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

SanAntone said:


> I would never have thought that _variety_ would be a consideration of greatness instead of _impact/influence_.
> 
> What difference does it make whether a composer wrote works in each of the categories of form if none of them had much impact?
> 
> Whereas, Wagner wrote almost nothing but operas (although after _Parsifal_ he said he would devote the rest of his life to writing symphonies, unfortunately he died shortly thereafter), but the impact of his work has been immeasurable.


I don't consider influence at all in my rankings. That would be a separate ranking altogether - most influential.

My ranking is of the greatest composers, which simply means those who wrote the greatest music. Period.

If you research hip hop, you'll find that an obscure guy name Kool Herc was credited with essentially inventing it in the 1970s. Does that make him the most influential rapper of all time? Arguably. But does it also make him the greatest? Absolutely not. The greatest rappers are those who left the greatest legacies of output - Tupac, Biggie, Nas - regardless of the fact they may not have existed at all had it not been for Kool Herc's pioneering influence.

Same with classical composers. "Greatest" refers to the quality of their output, not their impact or influence. Brahms, for example, wasn't really trying to influence anyone. Should he be penalized for that?

.


----------



## DaveM

Going back to a discussion of Strauss yesterday, this is a duet you don't seem to hear that often, but it's one of the most beautiful operatic duets on my list.


----------



## SanAntone

tdc said:


> I take both things into consideration, but attributes of the compositions themselves are in my view more important than non musical attributes, such as influence, the latter being closely related popularity. Influence is a factor, but I also think that it is possible for things to be influential in a negative way. There is a reason that 'appeal to popularity' is a logical fallacy, it doesn't actually prove anything. If we were making this list at end of the classical era, by your logic Bach would be lower on the list than now, and then would start to rise gradually after that. Of course not a note of the music he composed changed over that time.
> 
> Variety in composition is something objective about the music itself. Influence is a phenomena that is outside of the music.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't consider influence at all in my rankings. That would be a separate ranking altogether - most influential.
> 
> My ranking is of the greatest composers, which simply means those who wrote the greatest music. Period.
> 
> If you research hip hop, you'll find that an obscure guy name Kool Herc was credited with essentially inventing it in the 1970s. Does that make him the most influential rapper of all time? Arguably. But does it also make him the greatest? Absolutely not. The greatest rappers are those who left the greatest legacies of output - Tupac, Biggie, Nas - regardless of the fact they may not have existed at all had it not been for Kool Herc's pioneering influence.
> 
> Same with classical composers. "Greatest" refers to the quality of their output, not their impact or influence. Brahms, for example, wasn't really trying to influence anyone. Should he be penalized for that?
> 
> .


Both of these posts make the argument that a subjective judgment of greatness ("attributes of the compositions themselves"; "those who wrote the greatest music") is the standard. I prefer something that is a consequence of the response over time a composer's music has generated.

Who decides if the "attributes of a composition" are great? Who decides "who wrote the greatest music?" IMO it is decided over time by countless audiences and this creates impact and influence.


----------



## tdc

SanAntone said:


> Both of these posts make the argument that a subjective judgment of greatness ("attributes of the compositions themselves"; "those who wrote the greatest music") is the standard. I prefer something that is a consequence of the response over time a composer's music has generated.
> 
> Who decides if the "attributes of a composition" are great? Who decides "who wrote the greatest music?" IMO it is decided over time by countless audiences and this creates impact and influence.


No, my point was I think it is a combination of the composers compositional abilities and also impact and influence. Whether or not a composer wrote works in multiple genres is not a subjective judgement, it is objective. We can also look at aspects of composition like structure, use of harmony and counterpoint, and how good they were at orchestration. These things are not completely subjective. Do you think my opinion would be valid if I stated that Gluck was greater at counterpoint than Bach? Of course not. How a listener responds to music is subjective, but there are many aspects of a composition that can be gauged and described without relying solely on subjectivity.


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> I don't know what the final outcome of this poll will be, but it's already demonstrated a phenomenon similar to that of the poll with 174 contemporary composers. A composer who is very highly rated in general is not present in the top 50 composers of this poll. Since people only give their top 5 composers, it's possible for a composer to be rated highly (top 15 or so) but not be listed in anyone's top 5.
> 
> Neither this poll or the 174 composer poll is dumb, but they must be properly interpreted. Rankings below 10 or so likely are not representative of the true rankings of the participants, but both polls can be interesting when properly interpreted.


Interpreted how? You have already showed the weakness of this type of poll. How can that weakness be allowed for?


----------



## Forster

tdc said:


> No, my point was I think it is a combination of the composers compositional abilities and also impact and influence. *Whether or not a composer wrote works in multiple genres is not a subjective judgement, it is objective. *We can also look at aspects of composition like structure, use of harmony and counterpoint, and how good they were at orchestration. These things are not completely subjective. Do you think my opinion would be valid if I stated that Gluck was greater at counterpoint than Bach? Of course not. How a listener responds to music is subjective, but there are many aspects of a composition that can be gauged and described without relying solely on subjectivity.


But whether this is of significance in an evaluation of greatness is subjective.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> Since people only give their top 5 composers, it's possible for a composer to be rated highly (top 15 or so) but not be listed in anyone's top 5.


If the composer is not in anyone's top 5, how did s/he get into the poll at all??


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> Interpreted how? You have already showed the weakness of this type of poll. How can that weakness be allowed for?


When I first read your post, I thought you meant, "How can we allow such a disgraceful poll to exist?" For all the BBC magazine people and all the 174 composers involved - torture for life with a crack medical staff to ensure they live a long time!

But I believe you mean, "How can people interpret the results in a useful manner?" That seems fairly easy actually. We understand the criteria for the poll and the number of nominations so we don't take results below the top 10 or so as being representative of the true rankings of contemporary composers. Still, that includes Stravinsky at #2. That's an interesting result. Contemporary composers elevate Stravinsky above other classical music listeners. Why?

For our poll, one can ask, "What is it about Mendelssohn where he would be included in the top 15 or so in most polls, but the vast majority leave him off their top 5?" Is he really an outlier in that regard?

These polls are not so useful in listing the top 50 or so composers, but they do give some insights in other ways.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> These polls are not so useful in listing *the top 50 or so composers*, but they do give some insights in other ways.


You speak of the top 50 as if this is a fixed thing, already determined by...someone. Isn't that somewhat circular?


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> If the composer is not in anyone's top 5, how did s/he get into the poll at all??


I meant how could a composer be ranked in the top 15 or so in _other_ polls that have a different methodology such as asking for people's top 50 composers?


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> You speak of the top 50 as if this is a fixed thing, already determined by...someone. Isn't that somewhat circular?


No, it's an empirical result. On TC we've had many such polls, and the results are fairly similar. One can simply average the results of many such polls.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> I meant how could a composer be ranked in the top 15 or so in _other_ polls that have a different methodology such as asking for people's top 50 composers?


Right. I did wonder.

I would argue that the more you are allowed to rank, the less reliable your (one's) ranking. It seems that once you get past the top 3/4 that tend to come up, you're salami slicing anyway.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> No, it's an empirical result. On TC we've had many such polls, and the results are fairly similar. One can simply average the results of many such polls.


Well, yes, I get that it's an empirical result - you know I accept the BBC magazine poll as an empirical result. But it's still the result of the intersubjective opinion of an...what did Edward Bast call it? An acculturated audience or something? And maths. That might lead to "fairly similar" but not definitive. It still needs to be interpreted.


----------



## Alinde

In chronological order:

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Brahms


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> When I first read your post, I thought you meant, "How can we allow such a disgraceful poll to exist?" For all the BBC magazine people and all the 174 composers involved - torture for life with a crack medical staff to ensure they live a long time!
> 
> But I believe you mean, "How can people interpret the results in a useful manner?" That seems fairly easy actually. We understand the criteria for the poll and the number of nominations so we don't take results below the top 10 or so as being representative of the true rankings of contemporary composers. Still, that includes Stravinsky at #2. That's an interesting result. Contemporary composers elevate Stravinsky above other classical music listeners. Why?
> 
> For our poll, one can ask, "What is it about Mendelssohn where he would be included in the top 15 or so in most polls, but the vast majority leave him off their top 5?" Is he really an outlier in that regard?
> 
> These polls are not so useful in listing the top 50 or so composers, but they do give some insights in other ways.


The problem with the poll is obvious in that the results are extended far beyond what their statistical significance allows. If you are going to have a result of 1 to 50 you need to have a poll of 50 at least. If we put down our top 5 it may give an indication (no more as these things are subjective) of the top three but nothing beyond that.


----------



## Sumantra

Beethoven
Mozart
Bach
Hayden
Tchaikovsky


----------



## tdc

Forster said:


> But whether this is of significance in an evaluation of greatness is subjective.


By that logic you could say that anything as an evaluation of greatness is subjective. I don't agree. Of course subjectivity plays a role but some aspects of a composer's body of work can be used to make stronger cases for 'greatness' than others. In my view composing in multiple genres is an achievement of significance. If you look at the composers for where there seems to be the most consensus of 'greatness', this is something they have in common.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> We can also look at aspects of composition like structure, use of harmony and counterpoint, and how good they were at orchestration. These things are not completely subjective. Do you think my opinion would be valid if I stated that Gluck was greater at counterpoint than Bach? Of course not. How a listener responds to music is subjective, but there are many aspects of a composition that can be gauged and described without relying solely on subjectivity.


Gauged and described perhaps - but measuring their worth in terms of 'greatness' without the benefit of audience perception?


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I take both things into consideration, but attributes of the compositions themselves are in my view more important than *non musical attributes, such as influence, the latter being closely related popularity.* Influence is a factor, but I also think that it is possible for things to be influential in a negative way. There is a reason that 'appeal to popularity' is a logical fallacy, it doesn't actually prove anything. If we were making this list at end of the classical era, by your logic Bach would be lower on the list than now, and then would start to rise gradually after that. Of course not a note of the music he composed changed over that time.
> 
> Variety in composition is something objective about the music itself. Influence is a phenomena that is outside of the music.


You talk as if influence were accidental. It may be "outside of the music," but it depends very greatly on what's inside the music, and as such it can be far more indicative of quality than diversity of genre, which tells us absolutely nothing about musical value. Popularity bears no necessary relation to influence, except to note that music is often popular for the same reasons that it's influential - i.e., it's exceptionally good - and music that's well-known (though not necessarily popular) might stand a better chance of influencing someone.

Diversity of genre isn't always as impressive as it looks. In the 18th century, and to a considerable degree beyond, a symphony, a concerto, a sonata and a string quartet tended to be, structurally and stylistically, very much the same sort of piece, which is why composers of that era could crank out so many such works, and why most of them are competently written, pleasant, and forgotten.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> By that logic you could say that anything as an evaluation of greatness is subjective. I don't agree. Of course subjectivity plays a role but some aspects of a composer's body of work can be used to make stronger cases for 'greatness' than others. In my view composing in multiple genres is an achievement of significance. If you look at the composers for where there seems to be the most consensus of 'greatness', this is something they have in common.


It's an arbitrary view, surely? The only thing that really matters is how impressive the works are to any individual.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> You talk as if influence were accidental. It may be "outside of the music," but it depends very greatly on what's inside the music, and as such it can be far more indicative of quality than diversity of genre, which tells us absolutely nothing about musical value. Popularity bears no necessary relation to influence, except to note that music is often popular for the same reasons that it's influential - i.e., it's exceptionally good - and music that's well-known (though not necessarily popular) might stand a better chance of influencing someone.
> 
> Diversity of genre isn't always as impressive as it looks. In the 18th century, and to a considerable degree beyond, a symphony, a concerto, a sonata and a string quartet tended to be, structurally and stylistically, very much the same sort of piece, which is why composers of that era could crank out so many such works, and why most of them are competently written, pleasant, and forgotten.


Influence is related to the music, certainly, and I don't dismiss it, at all. What I'm saying is that by itself it is not that informative, it only gives us part of the picture. It becomes more revealing through balancing it by looking at other aspects of a composer's work. Some composers that were influential are not considered as great as other composers who were influential.

Diversity of genre as you rightly point out, is also like this. It only gives us a part of the picture, and more is revealed by looking closer at the individual works.


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> Gauged and described perhaps - but measuring their worth in terms of 'greatness' without the benefit of audience perception?





janxharris said:


> It's an arbitrary view, surely? The only thing that really matters is how impressive the works are to any individual.


It is not arbitrary. Your view is lazy thinking, I think, and unscientific. What you think boils down to 'everything is subjective in music so nothing can be known about the significance of a composer's musical contribution other than what I personally experience.' In my opinion the result of thinking that way is that your brain stops growing in relation to this subject.

I have always suggested a middle ground between objectivity and subjectivity, if you can't accept that concept as valid, this discussion will be pointless.


----------



## Forster

tdc said:


> By that logic you could say that anything as an evaluation of greatness is subjective.


I'm simply pointing out that such criteria is not objective.Just because something is recognised as subjective, doesn't mean it has no value.



tdc said:


> What you think boils down to 'everything is subjective in music so nothing can be known about the significance of a composer's musical contribution other than what I personally experience.' In my opinion the result of thinking that way is that your brain stops growing in relation to this subject.


I don't know what janxharris thinks, but I suspect that s/he thinks as I do, that there is still value to be gained from a discussion about the relative merits of subjective criteria. Accusing others of lazy thinking is, shall we say, presumptive thinking.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> It is not arbitrary. Your view is lazy thinking, I think, and unscientific. What you think boils down to 'everything is subjective in music so nothing can be known about the significance of a composer's musical contribution other than what I personally experience.' In my opinion the result of thinking that way is that your brain stops growing in relation to this subject.
> 
> I have always suggested a middle ground between objectivity and subjectivity, if you can't accept that concept as valid, this discussion will be pointless.


I accept the significance of composers that have achieved popularity in more than just their lifetime, but that does not necessarily tell us that their works are 'above' those whose success isn't quite of the same order.

I didn't see any argument from you that might underpin your assertion - an assertion which perhaps limits the number of composers who might be considered.


----------



## janxharris

John Cage's aesthetic stance was at odds with the traditional - and though I don't agree with him (thus far anyway) he has every right to hold it:

_'Beethoven had misled generations of composers by structuring music [1.] in goal-oriented harmonic narratives [End of 1.] instead of [2.] letting it unfold moment by moment. [End of 2.]'_


----------



## JTS

janxharris said:


> John Cage's aesthetic stance was at odds with the traditional - and though I don't agree with him (thus far anyway) he has every right to hold it:
> 
> _'Beethoven had misled generations of composers by structuring music [1.] in goal-oriented harmonic narratives [End of 1.] instead of [2.] letting it unfold moment by moment. [End of 2.]'_


Cage had every right to express an opinion. Just like other people have every right to say he was speaking complete nonsense


----------



## janxharris

JTS said:


> Cage had every right to express an opinion. Just like other people have every right to say he was speaking complete nonsense


Which implies that you don't respect his position.


----------



## JTS

janxharris said:


> Which implies that you don't respect his position.


I respect his right to free speech


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> The problem with the poll is obvious in that the results are extended far beyond what their statistical significance allows. If you are going to have a result of 1 to 50 you need to have a poll of 50 at least. If we put down our top 5 it may give an indication (no more as these things are subjective) of the top three but nothing beyond that.


I could not come up with a list of 50 ranked composers. After the first 5-10 it all blurs together.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> If we were making this list at end of the classical era, by your logic Bach would be lower on the list than now, and then would start to rise gradually after that. Of course not a note of the music he composed changed over that time.











(published in 1799)

How was Bach's influence on Mozart any less significant than, say, his influence on Berlioz, who was indifferent to Bach.

"Aumann's music was a large part of the repertoire at St. Florian in the 19th century, and Anton Bruckner availed himself of this resource for his studies of counterpoint. Bruckner focused a lot of his attention on Aumann's Christmas responsories and an Ave Maria in D major. Bruckner, who liked Aumann's coloured harmony, added in 1879 an accompaniment by three trombones to his settings of Ecce quomodo moritur justus and Tenebrae factae sunt."

"Judging from a signed, dated autograph score that he copied in 1757 of Fux's Missa Canonica, Michael studied some of the Viennese composer's work during his formative years. The Biographische Skizze mentions that he also studied works of Bach, Handel, Graun and Hasse."

Aumann, like Albrechtsberger, Haydn (who sang in the same Viennese choir as Aumann before their voices broke, and traded manuscripts later in life), Knecht (who did a completion of the AOTF), Pasterwitz (who wrote music on the theme B.A.C.H., like Albrechtsberger), presumably studied Bach. Haydn taught Weber harmony and counterpoint.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> I could not come up with a list of 50 ranked composers. After the first 5-10 it all blurs together.


No me and that is why this methodology is not exactly sound. By ranking the top 5 you can probably get an opinion of the top 2-3. But then of course it is only an opinion of the people on TC


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> No me and that is why this methodology is not exactly sound. By ranking the top 5 you can probably get an opinion of the top 2-3. But then of course it is only an opinion of the people on TC


I think individual rankings defeat the purpose of a poll like this. I specifically stipulated not to rank the composers (but even if someone did it is moot since I will simply count the number of mentions).

The number of times a composer's name appears on a list determines their relative ranking.

In any event, I simply used the same methodology as the BBC poll. In two days it will over and you can devise your own poll/thread.


----------



## SanAntone

Let me say that I agree with the methodology of the BBC poll. For two reasons:

1. If I were to rank whom I thought were the five greatest composers it would be subjective and next week would be different. But I could choose five composers I thought were great and the names would remain pretty consistent week to week.

2. Limiting the choice to just five names focuses our thinking and making the hard choices, creating a more representative list, IMO.

Others may disagree and think they have a better system and they are welcome to create their own thread. But for these last two days, I would prefer that we not continue debating the polling or what "greatness" means.


----------



## Ethereality

It is your thread though one mistaken may or may not call me arrogant

*(a)* A favorites tabulation would be more verifiable to its participants, or meaningful data than the 'assumed greatest' tabulation, which is often an unnecessary added-step assumption of others

*(b)* A larger or ranked list would change at the same rate relative to the usefulness, ie. the snapshot would be just as accurate if not more due to, ranking nuance, and one's own _verifiable_ opinion of favorites

*(c)* This method is preliminarily useful because it's new information, which we can look at and objectively reason how useful it really is or isn't, ie. the purpose of lists is not usually presumptive in the end but still usually used to briefly rehash one's listening


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

The results should be viewed as "X candidates for the top 5, suggested by the TC community", which would simply mean that some composers, if not mentioned, are uncontroversially lower, even if just a bit lower (say Liszt or Prokofiev - has anyone mentioned them so far?).


----------



## fbjim

Influence can be a bit of a strange bag. I usually measure "objective" greatness by influence because originality, innovation and progression are all tied to it to some extent- but it's pretty clear that influence is always going to be at least somewhat tied to extra-musical factors- not all innovations in music are tied to a single "eureka" moment, and sometimes someone is in the right place with the right amount of visibility in the world of composition to synthesize and bring out the potential of a bunch of ideas which were being developed by a larger group of artists. 

Also there's the question of what to do about artists with massive influence but not a lot of people like. Like the aforementioned John Cage. I think most modern/post-modern composers I like either worked with Cage or considered him a massive influence on their work!


----------



## Ethereality

Summation or averaging is not necessarily even the way to accurately present this information, it's why introductory statistics explains several meriting alternatives from its rationale, one which we already have a clear thread total: the 'mode' contributor:

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Wagner

However explained here why this thread may be suspect, I've _researched_ the real mode of 'favorites lists' on this forum and the result is different from this. I believe it was 4 individuals I found to have identical favorite orders to the 5th placement, it was something like *1. Mozart, 2. Haydn, 3. Bach. 4. Beethoven*, the others of less order *Handel, Brahms, Schubert, Debussy* were the average 8, Wagner not so much Try to find the same rate of consensus in non-Classical  one would assume their select favorite pieces are different than mainstream. But in any case, favorites overall seem more personally verifiable and accurate than people assuming greatest, and any of these lists are just for fun and recommendations.


----------



## SanAntone

There seems to be some confusion as to the purpose of this thread. 

I never had any intention or expectation that the methodology of this thread would actually produce an objective list of the greatest composers. 

Just as all the games and polls this is just something fun, possibly, and enlightening about the TC community.

So far, 68 people have submitted lists ...


----------



## vtpoet

SanAntone said:


> this is just something fun...


Well see, okay, that was your first mistake...


----------



## fbjim

I'm the one Verdi holdout, I guess! 


Here's a question, and it isn't meant to be an Anti-Wagner thing, but - 

If Wagner was influential, who sounds like Wagner? His work seems almost sui generis in the opera repertoire. That suggests astonishing originality, and the music writing at the time reflected how much of an impact it made on his surroundings, but I'm also not sure how many composers we know of actually sound like Wagner.


----------



## vtpoet

He influenced composers like Dvorak, especially in his early symphonies and, in the opinion of most I think, to the detriment of the music. Wagner's influence didn't necessarily manifest itself in the operatic production of other composers...


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

fbjim said:


> I'm the one Verdi holdout, I guess!
> 
> Here's a question, and it isn't meant to be an Anti-Wagner thing, but -
> 
> If Wagner was influential, who sounds like Wagner? His work seems almost sui generis in the opera repertoire. That suggests astonishing originality, and the music writing at the time reflected how much of an impact it made on his surroundings, but I'm also not sure how many composers we know of actually sound like Wagner.


Wagner influenced countless composers, off the top of my head, 4 really GREAT composers: Debussy, Mahler, Richard Strauss and Schönberg


----------



## fbjim

I think i mentioned this before, but one thing I find interesting is that the writing and musical discourse of the time nearly split into "Wagnerism versus anti-Wagnerism" which I don't think is how current musicology actually views that era. But of course back then his work was so impactful that music almost couldn't help but split on it.

Perhaps I just need to understand Wagner more but of all the greats, he seems the most unique, with fewer obvious precedents or antecedents


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

fbjim said:


> I'm the one Verdi holdout, I guess!
> 
> Here's a question, and it isn't meant to be an Anti-Wagner thing, but -
> 
> If Wagner was influential, who sounds like Wagner? His work seems almost sui generis in the opera repertoire. That suggests astonishing originality, and the music writing at the time reflected how much of an impact it made on his surroundings, but I'm also not sure how many composers we know of actually sound like Wagner.


Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Schoenberg, Korngold, Messiaen, Herrmann?


----------



## Itullian

Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner


----------



## JTS

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Wagner influenced countless composers, off the top of my head, 4 really GREAT composers: Debussy, Mahler, Richard Strauss and Schönberg


Debussy spent an awful lot of energy getting away from Wagner


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> Debussy spent an awful lot of energy getting away from Wagner


Yes, but overt rejection is also an influence. His major work, _Pelléas et Mélisande_ displays a huge debt to Wagner.

IMO, the two most influential composers of the 19th century on the next generation of composers were *Wagner* and *Liszt*. I don't think Liszt has been mentioned by anyone.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

JTS said:


> Debussy spent an awful lot of energy getting away from Wagner


You cannot write something like Prélude à l'aprés-midi d'un faune without being influenced by Wagner, and like SanAntone said, Pelléas et Melisande is another example of that influence.

EDIT: I think that you have to get to post WWII music to get away from Wagner's overarching influence, although there are certain composers like Messiaen who surely were influenced by him too


----------



## JTS

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> You cannot write something like Prélude à l'aprés-midi d'un faune without being influenced by Wagner, and like SanAntone said, Pelléas et Melisande is another example of that influence.
> 
> EDIT: I think that you have to get to post WWII music to get away from Wagner's overarching influence, although there are certain composers like Messiaen who surely were influenced by him too


I didn't say it wasn't influenced by Wagner but I said he would spend an awful lot of time trying to get away from him


----------



## Open Lane

I misinterpreted the topic, therefore removing my post.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

JTS said:


> I didn't say it wasn't influenced by Wagner but I said he would spend an awful lot of time trying to get away from him


Oh, ok. Yes, perhaps so. But I wonder how much of that effort materialized into his actual work, on certain levels yes, of course Debussy is Debussy and Wagner is Wagner, but it's clear that unconsciously Wagner had a tremendous impact on his music, he constantly slipped through the cracks, especially in his middle period works. (I'm saying this as someone who absolutely loves Debussy, more than I love Wagner).


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I'm the one Verdi holdout, I guess!
> 
> Here's a question, and it isn't meant to be an Anti-Wagner thing, but -
> 
> If Wagner was influential, who sounds like Wagner? His work seems almost sui generis in the opera repertoire. That suggests astonishing originality, and the music writing at the time reflected how much of an impact it made on his surroundings, but I'm also not sure how many composers we know of actually sound like Wagner.


Composers can be strongly influenced without their influencers dictating the sound of their music. I've seen the same question raised about Beethoven's influence, which was huge even while major composers who acknowledged their debt to him - Brahms and Wagner, notably - don't sound much like him.

Wagner's influence was far-reaching and complex because his works are complex. Others here have already listed some of the major composers of both opera and non-operatic music whose work would not have been the same had they not heard and studied Wagner's scores. I'll add that after about 1875 it was unusual for anyone to compose a serious opera structured fundamentally in the old way, with clearly defined arias, ensembles, choral numbers and dance sequences separated by recitatives or spoken dialogue. Wagner's continuous, orchestrally defined depiction of action and emotion, his enormous enrichment of harmony and orchestral color, and to a degree his use of the leitmotiv as a unifying musical and dramatic device, affected the efforts of nearly all later opera composers, not excluding Verdi and, even more markedly Puccini, who kept Wagner's scores handy for study and inspiration. Once his works were published and performed, few composers interested in musical drama felt they could afford not to study them to see what they could use in their own work. I hear a debt to Wagner, or at least a response to him, in almost every opera from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and in many since then. Escape from his influence became a matter of conscious choice, dependent on the development of new musical aesthetics such as Stravinsky's neoclassicism and Glass's minimalism.


----------



## SanAntone

Open Lane said:


> I misinterpreted the topic, therefore removing my post.


Misinterpreted how? I've already added your list, and since it contains Liszt and Wuorinen (two composers I do think are arguably great) I am loathe to remove it.


----------



## arpeggio

We have had many polls like this in this forum.

The final result will be no different that any other poll. My guess is one and two will be Bach and Beethoven.


----------



## Ethereality

Here is another way to present the results fairly so any unique opinion may surface:

10 names were entirely randomly chosen using a generator, from the submitted lists so far. Bach and Debussy showed up twice so I listen them first.

Bach
Debussy
Stravinsky
Wagner
Schönberg
Shostakovich
Beethoven
Mozart
Haydn
Brahms


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think the broad consensus on this topic is the triumvirate of Bach-Mozart-Beethoven, and then Brahms is the name which will most commonly be named next.

The great debate is over the 5th spot, where each of the following are candidates:

Haydn
Schubert
Wagner
Verdi 
Tchaikovsky 
Debussy
Mahler
Stravinsky
Shostakovich


----------



## Ethereality

Well I wasn't trying to spoil the actual result in any way. I gave two results which adopt an entirely different method and outcome.

The true conensus method on the last page is most interesting. And I like the random method because anyone can say "Hmm I want to listen to... surprise me" and just randomize a name from a list of duplicates.


----------



## janxharris

...albeit, an ill-defined triumvirate...


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> Not criticising, but I don't think that such has ever been satisfactorily unravelled.
> 
> IMO.


We're getting a good response, but I agree with you. We can satisfactorily rank works, by the scores, and according to our current outlook, but the famous composers each give us special views of what can be done with the elements of music.

I have a slant from piano playing;

Beethoven
Bach
Mozart
Schoenberg
Chopin


----------



## SanAntone

Final tally:

Top Ten
*Bach 56
Beethoven 55
Mozart 42
Wagner 29
Brahms 24
Haydn 15
Debussy 12
Mahler 10
Tchaikovsky	10
Stravinsky 9*

11-25
Schubert 7
Shostakovich	7
Monteverdi	6
Schoenberg	6
Sibelius 6
Handel 5
Josquin 5
Bartok 4
Bruckner 4
Chopin 3
Ravel 3
Liszt 2
Machaut 2
Prokofiev 2
Vivaldi 2

Receiving one vote:
Berlioz 
Bernstein 
Buxtehude 
Byrd 
Castelnuovo-Tedesco	
Chaminade	
Dufay	
Dvoràk	
Farrenc	
Frankel	
Gershwin	
Glass	
Gubaidulina	
Karłowicz	
Nordheim	
Petrassi	
Rameau	
Respighi	
Rossini	
Rzewski	
Saariaaho	
Schumann	
Strauss, R.	
Tailleferre	
Takemitsu	
Verdi	
Villa-Lobos	
Wuorinen	
Zelenka


----------



## mmsbls

Thank you, SanAntone. Almost always there are some interesting aspects of these polls, and this one is no exception.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

That's great SanAntone, but could it be that you made a mistake with Josquin and Desprez? I'm not aware of any composer by the name Desprez, except Josquin des Prez, or Josquin Desprez


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> Final tally:
> 
> Top Ten
> *Bach 56
> Beethoven 55
> Mozart 42
> 
> Receiving one vote:
> 
> Bernstein
> 
> Gershwin
> Glass
> *


*

Who could have guessed? *


----------



## SanAntone

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> That's great SanAntone, but could it be that you made a mistake with Josquin and Desprez? I'm not aware of any composer by the name Desprez, except Josquin des Prez, or Josquin Desprez


No mistake, I chose to list Josquin Des Prez as Desprez. I could have used Josquin.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> No mistake, I chose to list Josquin Des Prez as Desprez. I could have used Josquin.


I think allaroundmusicenthusiast might be referring to your results which list Josquin with 4 votes and Desprez with 1 vote. Did Josquin actually get 5 votes?


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

SanAntone said:


> No mistake, I chose to list Josquin Des Prez as Desprez. I could have used Josquin.


You have Josquin with 4 votes and Desprez with one, so Desprez should have 5 points and be on par with Händel


----------



## JTS

Thanks for doing this. An interesting exercise. I think such a poll with just 5 nominations certainly gets the first three out in front. There seems to be general agreement among most music lovers that these three would topmost lists.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> I think allaroundmusicenthusiast might be referring to your results which list Josquin with 4 votes and Desprez with 1 vote. Did Josquin actually get 5 votes?


Oh, I missed that - thanks to you both.


----------



## SanAntone

Corrected results:

Top Ten
*Bach 56
Beethoven 55
Mozart 42
Wagner 29
Brahms 24
Haydn 15
Debussy 12
Mahler 10
Tchaikovsky	10
Stravinsky 9*

11-25
Schubert 7
Shostakovich	7
Monteverdi	6
Schoenberg	6
Sibelius 6
Handel 5
Josquin 5
Bartok 4
Bruckner 4
Chopin 3
Ravel 3
Liszt 2
Machaut 2
Prokofiev 2
Vivaldi 2

Receiving one vote:
Berlioz 
Bernstein 
Buxtehude 
Byrd 
Castelnuovo-Tedesco	
Chaminade	
Dufay	
Dvoràk	
Farrenc	
Frankel	
Gershwin	
Glass	
Gubaidulina	
Karłowicz	
Nordheim	
Petrassi	
Rameau	
Respighi	
Rossini	
Rzewski	
Saariaaho	
Schumann	
Strauss, R.	
Tailleferre	
Takemitsu	
Verdi	
Villa-Lobos	
Wuorinen	
Zelenka


----------



## Ethereality

I think the lowest listed in the 174 composers survey had 3 votes, or was it 3? Idk a bunch were tied there though. Schumann, Rachmaninoff, John Williams  etc.

Anyway, I voted for Beebach o Ama. Best composer ever.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> Corrected results:
> 
> Top Ten
> *Bach 56
> Beethoven 55
> Mozart 42
> Wagner 29
> Brahms 24
> Haydn 15
> Debussy 12
> Mahler 10
> Tchaikovsky	10
> Stravinsky 9*
> 
> 11-25
> Schubert 7
> Shostakovich	7
> Monteverdi	6
> Schoenberg	6
> Sibelius 6
> Handel 5
> Josquin 5
> Bartok 4
> Bruckner 4
> Chopin 3
> Ravel 3
> Liszt 2
> Machaut 2
> Prokofiev 2
> Vivaldi 2
> 
> Receiving one vote:
> Berlioz
> Bernstein
> Buxtehude
> Byrd
> Castelnuovo-Tedesco
> Chaminade
> Dufay
> Dvoràk
> Farrenc
> Frankel
> Gershwin
> Glass
> Gubaidulina
> Karłowicz
> Nordheim
> Petrassi
> Rameau
> Respighi
> Rossini
> Rzewski
> Saariaaho
> Schumann
> Strauss, R.
> Tailleferre
> Takemitsu
> Verdi
> Villa-Lobos
> Wuorinen
> Zelenka


How many voters participated?


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> How many voters participated?


There were some quirky voters in there.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> How many voters participated?


69 or 70. At last count there were 68 but one or two more came in and then I failed to make a final count.


----------



## Ethereality

Luchesi said:


> There were some quirky voters in there.


Doesn't matter. Those people are happy, ie. I'm glad I saved Ravel from being bunched with Liszt or Vivaldi LOL


----------



## Forster

Which Bach was it came top? :devil:


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> Corrected results:
> 
> Top Ten
> *Bach 56
> Beethoven 55
> Mozart 42
> Wagner 29
> Brahms 24
> Haydn 15
> Debussy 12
> Mahler 10
> Tchaikovsky	10
> Stravinsky 9*


Interesting to see Debussy so high up, someone I don't seem to hear a lot about on TC.


----------



## Art Rock

For comparison, the top 10 as based on 56 TC members' top30 (personal favourites) submissions in 2019/2020:

001 Ludwig van Beethoven (1599 points, 54 mentions)
002 Johann Sebastian Bach (1436 points, 49 mentions)
003 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1348 points, 46 mentions)
004 Gustav Mahler (1265 points, 48 mentions)
005 Johannes Brahms (1198 points, 44 mentions)
006 Franz Schubert (1195 points, 47 mentions)
007 Dmitri Shostakovich (986 points, 43 mentions)
008 Jean Sibelius (931 points - tie with #9, 40 mentions)
009 Robert Schumann (931 points - tie with #8, 40 mentions)
010 Claude Debussy (905 points, 42 mentions)

Wagner came in at #11, Haydn at #14, Tchaikovsky at #12, and Stravinsky at #17.


----------



## Mifek

Art Rock said:


> For comparison, the top 10 as based on 56 TC members' top30 (personal favourites) submissions in 2019/2020:
> 
> 001 Ludwig van Beethoven (1599 points, 54 mentions)
> 002 Johann Sebastian Bach (1436 points, 49 mentions)
> 003 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1348 points, 46 mentions)
> 004 Gustav Mahler (1265 points, 48 mentions)
> 005 Johannes Brahms (1198 points, 44 mentions)
> 006 Franz Schubert (1195 points, 47 mentions)
> 007 Dmitri Shostakovich (986 points, 43 mentions)
> 008 Jean Sibelius (931 points - tie with #9, 40 mentions)
> 009 Robert Schumann (931 points - tie with #8, 40 mentions)
> 010 Claude Debussy (905 points, 42 mentions)
> 
> Wagner came in at #11, Haydn at #14, Tchaikovsky at #12, and Stravinsky at #17.


Would you be able to count the Top 5 composers only, just to evaluate whether the final outcome is more strongly affected by the mothodology (ie. Top 5 or Top 30) or rather by differences between the groups of partcipating forum members?

Edit: I forgot that there is also a difference between the "geratest composers" and "personal favorites".


----------



## Art Rock

I don't know whether I saved the spreadsheets. I'll dig around.


----------



## Forster

Methodology is important, so comparison between this survey and others should be given cautious consideration.

Two thoughts occur. The first is that since this is an open thread and one can see how others are voting, this may have an impact on people's choices.

Second, those who voted are a subset of TC members, biased, I would assert, towards those who like to rank, and those who like to vote in such polls.

For all we know, neither of these might make much difference to who finishes in the top 3, but it's not possible to rule this out.


----------



## Art Rock

There are differences as pointed out in posts 284 and 296, but here is the top 10 from the 2019/2020 personal favourites submissions (40 ranked submissions, the previously posted top 10 includes the unranked submissions) based on the top 5 only.


Beethoven (28)
Mozart (25)
Bach (22)
Mahler (14)
Brahms (12
Schubert (11)
Wagner (10)
Sibelius (8)
Schumann (7)
Haydn, Shostakovich, Stravinsky (5)


----------



## mmsbls

As I mentioned earlier, one big difference between this 5 selection poll and other polls on TC is that this one does not list Mendelssohn in the top 50; whereas, he generally is ranked in the range 10-15 in other polls. So of the roughly 70 participants no one placed him in their top 5, but since every other TC poll places him fairly high, it's reasonable to assume this group would also place him in that range. Also both Schumann and Dvorak only received 1 vote, but in other polls Schumann tends to be around 10th and Dvorak 15th. 

On the "other side", Schoenberg came in tied for 13th in this poll, but in 2 other TC polls averaged 41st. Josquin came in tied for 16th here while in the other TC polls he averaged 54th.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> As I mentioned earlier, one big difference between this 5 selection poll and other polls on TC is that this one does not list Mendelssohn in the top 50; whereas, he generally is ranked in the range 10-15 in other polls. So of the roughly 70 participants no one placed him in their top 5, but since every other TC poll places him fairly high, it's reasonable to assume this group would also place him in that range. Also both Schumann and Dvorak only received 1 vote, but in other polls Schumann tends to be around 10th and Dvorak 15th.
> 
> On the "other side", Schoenberg came in tied for 13th in this poll, but in 2 other TC polls averaged 41st. Josquin came in tied for 16th here while in the other TC polls he averaged 54th.


I would think that the reason Mendelssohn did not appear in this poll is because when only allowed five slots, there were other composers whom most people chose. It is hard to get around the Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms hegemony - leaving, really, only one "open slot." But there are others that scored relatively high: Wagner, Haydn, Debussy, Mahler, and Tchaikovsky.

Granted, some people chose some long shot names; and a few simply chose their favorite composers. All of which is perfectly alright. This was never meant to be anything other than a little bit of fun. I am no statistician and did not fool myself into thinking this methodology was scientific or significant.

I think the results speak for themselves, with the top 25 including a decent list of great composers. Rankings are always subjective, IMO.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> I would think that the reason Mendelssohn did not appear in this poll is because when only allowed five slots, there were other composers whom most people chose. It is hard to get around the Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms hegemony - leaving, really, only one "open slot." But there are others that scored relatively high: Wagner, Haydn, Debussy, Mahler, and Tchaikovsky.
> 
> Granted, some people chose some long shot names; and a few simply chose their favorite composers. All of which is perfectly alright. This was never meant to be anything other than a little bit of fun. I am no statistician and did not fool myself into thinking this methodology was scientific or significant.
> 
> I think the results speak for themselves, with the top 25 including a decent list of great composers. Rankings are always subjective, IMO.


I think there was nothing wrong with the methodology, and I understand the poll was for fun (as all our polls are). I pointed out some differences between this methodology and the other ones because I think it's a bit interesting. Clearly, as you point out, most people chose a few top composers then chose an additional one or perhaps two. Those additional choices make all the difference in a poll like this one.

I'm not sure if there's something special or unusual with Mendelssohn, Dvorak, or Schumann that would lead to only 1 or no votes in this poll but significant votes in other polls. I'm not so surprised that Mendelssohn and Schumann had so few votes, but I'm slightly surprised about Dvorak. Still I can't give good reasons for that view other than Mendelssohn and Schumann seem to me to get less "press" on TC than other highly ranked composers. Of course, I could be mistaken about that.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> It is hard to get around the Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms hegemony - leaving, really, only one "open slot."


Interesting. I thought a poll like this left 2 slots open.

I would be curious to know if others consider Brahms as so unquestionably top 4.

I really think it become wide open after 3, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart.


----------



## Red Terror

SanAntone said:


> Corrected results:
> 
> Top Ten
> *Bach 56
> Beethoven 55
> Mozart 42
> Wagner 29
> Brahms 24
> Haydn 15
> Debussy 12
> Mahler 10
> Tchaikovsky	10
> Stravinsky 9*


The top 10 list should really be closer to this:


Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Wagner
Bartok
Stravinsky
Schoenberg
Debussy
Verdi


----------



## Kreisler jr

eljr said:


> Interesting. I thought a poll like this left 2 slots open.
> 
> I would be curious to know if others consider Brahms as so unquestionably top 4.


I don't. I'd very probably name Beethoven, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Brahms would have one of the two best shots for #5, the other would be Schubert and I'd really be conflicted about this. So I don't vote...
But I would not at all be surprised that many would rather name Wagner or Mahler or Verdi or others before Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Haydn.
If I catalogued my listening and went for "most listened" I'd probably even scratch Bach or Mozart in favor of Brahms and Schubert.

For me this is one more reason why such polls are silly and not terribly informative, because of the restrictions they don't even give the real preferences (how transient they might be).


----------



## Red Terror

SanAntone said:


> Corrected results:
> 
> Top Ten
> *Bach 56
> Beethoven 55
> Mozart 42
> Wagner 29
> Brahms 24
> Haydn 15
> Debussy 12
> Mahler 10
> Tchaikovsky	10
> Stravinsky 9*


The top 10 list should really be closer to this:


Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Wagner
Bartok
Stravinsky
Schoenberg
Debussy
Verdi

Alternative:


Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Haydn
Wagner
Bartok
Stravinsky
Debussy
Mahler


----------



## Bulldog

SanAntone's list represents a fine and reasonable line-up; good job!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Red Terror said:


> The top 10 list should really be closer to this:
> 
> 
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Brahms
> Mozart
> Wagner
> Bartok
> Stravinsky
> Schoenberg
> Debussy
> Verdi
> 
> Alternative:
> 
> 
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Brahms
> Mozart
> Haydn
> Wagner
> Bartok
> Stravinsky
> Debussy
> Mahler


How much closer can you really ask for? LOL


----------



## fbjim

If I had to do a back-of-the-napkin theory, I think the limited slots may bias toward composers with great historical influence, meaning Schubert, Dvorak, Mendy, etc get slightly short shrift, while Stravinsky and Debussy benefit - but this is incredibly unscientific.


----------



## fbjim

And for comparison the top ten of that now infamous BBC poll.

1. Bach
2. Stravinsky
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Debussy
6. Ligeti
7. Mahler
8. Wagner
9. Ravel
10. Monteverdi


Ligeti is the big name that stands out there, of course. Ravel, who I think a bit easy to overlook, up there too but fundamentally - more agreement than disagreement, given the amount of discourse that poll made!


Conclusion: we should have a Ligeti and Ravel exploration


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

fbjim said:


> Conclusion: we should have a Ligeti (...) exploration


Yes indeed y'all should


----------



## Red Terror

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> How much closer can you really ask for? LOL


It's a great list but really, what's Tchaikovsky doing there? He doesn't belong on this list.


----------



## HenryPenfold

HenryPenfold said:


> Beethoven
> Bruckner
> Wagner
> Mahler
> Vivaldi


To bring my list up to ten, I'll add:

Sibelius
DSCH
Bartok
Debussy
Ravel

On the bench:

Britten
Messiaen
Stockhausen
Tchaikovsky 
Scriabin
Schumann
Haydn
Mozart


----------



## SanAntone

Red Terror said:


> It's a great list but really, what's Tchaikovsky doing there? He doesn't belong on this list.


A poll is only as good as its sample size. TC is a small group to begin with, 70 opinions is a tiny sample size. Apparently there were enough members with fairly conservative taste who voted Tchaikovsky into the top ten. 174 is better, but still a small size especially considering it was mainly British living composers.

I don't agree with the results of the BBC poll.

Ligeti doesn't belong there more than Tchaikovsky, in fact, I'd say Tchaikovsky has earned a spot on a list of great composers before Ligeti, whose longevity has not been demonstrated. Monteverdi, IMO is a specialist cerebral choice. I don't think many people listen to his music as much as Tchaikovsky, or Beethoven, or Wagner, or Verdi, if we're thinking of his opera.


----------



## fbjim

Would Monteverdi be on the list a few decades ago? I think he's likely a definite benefit of the baroque opera revival which is relatively recent.


----------



## JTS

fbjim said:


> Would Monteverdi be on the list a few decades ago? I think he's likely a definite benefit of the baroque opera revival which is relatively recent.


You cannot listen to a work like the Marian Vespers without coming to the conclusion that Monteverdi was a great composer.


----------



## JTS

The TC poll tended to reflect general taste among music lovers rather than the BBC which wa# very skewed IMO. Sorry the thumbnail attached in the wrong place!


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> You cannot listen to a work like the Marian Vespers without coming to the conclusion that Monteverdi was a great composer.


I do not deny Monteverdi was a great composer, just not one I'd include in a list of the five greatest.


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> The TC poll tended to reflect general taste among music lovers rather than the BBC which wa# very skewed IMO. Sorry the thumbnail attached in the wrong place!


Of course it was skewed. That's what made it interesting.


----------



## Red Terror

SanAntone said:


> I do not deny Monteverdi was a great composer, just not one I'd include in a list of the five greatest.


There would have to be a separate list for Renaissance composers.


----------



## fbjim

The lists are extremely similar other than Ligeti and Ravel, lol. I'm not sure what "skew" it's meant to show!

I mean the conclusion is that Maurice Ravel, of all people, isnt to the taste of general music lovers which is a very strange statement!


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> Of course it was skewed. That's what made it interesting.


I suppose it gives us the names of composers not many have heard of vying for the position of 'greatest' while at least one generally celebrated genius is omitted.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

SanAntone said:


> Ligeti doesn't belong there more than Tchaikovsky, in fact, I'd say Tchaikovsky has earned a spot on a list of great composers before Ligeti, whose longevity has not been demonstrated. Monteverdi, IMO is a specialist cerebral choice. I don't think many people listen to his music as much as Tchaikovsky, or Beethoven, or Wagner, or Verdi, if we're thinking of his opera.


In terms of originality, innovation and inspiration (something I know we both value of Schönberg) Ligeti surely belongs there more than Tchaikovsky. We'll see about Ligeti's longevity, but I'm not too worried about it. That 174 living composers (no matter where they're from or who they are) rank Ligeti as no. 6 bodes well for his chances of staying in the (niche) collective consciousness of music listeners.

As to Monteverdi vs Tchaikovsky, I don't think people listen all that much to the latter's operas, and Monteverdi has other amazing pieces apart from them. And again, originality, innovation and inspiration, all 3 categories in which Tchaikovsky doesn't hold a candle to Monteverdi.

Is it too obvious that I don't like Tchaikovsky? :devil:


----------



## fbjim

I do think the conclusion that contemporary composers consider Ravel to be more important of a composer than the average TC user interesting, though Ravel has obvious popular appeal.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Frankly forgetting the order the most common top 5 is

Beethoven Schubert Mozart Brahms JS Bach

which I think is correct.


----------



## DaveM

The poll provided a chance for not-so-great composers to be great.


----------



## tdc

DaveM said:


> The poll provided a chance for not-so-great composers to be great.


You did not like the results of the poll created by professional composers either though, right? Maybe your conception of who the 'great composers' are has become outmoded.


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> I suppose it gives us the names of composers not many have heard of vying for the position of 'greatest' while at least one generally celebrated genius is omitted.


Fine, but that's not why it's interesting.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> You did not like the results of the poll created by professional composers either though, right? Maybe your conception of who the 'great composers' are has become outmoded.


I believe that was professional 'contemporary' composers. I prefer polls where there is an expectation of some objectivity as did others in the discussion of that poll. Of course, the poll in this thread was not meant to be objective so I was having a little joke hence the smiley. Still, I know, hard to believe, there were quite a few who had a similar top 5 to mine.


----------



## fbjim

I don't think any list of that nature will be objective, especially when one of the criteria was personal enjoyment.

I don't know if I should touch this but what other kind of composers should they have polled? The dead?


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> I believe that was professional 'contemporary' composers. I prefer polls where there is an expectation of some objectivity as did others in the discussion of that poll. Of course, the poll in this thread was not meant to be objective so I was having a little joke hence the smiley. Still, I know, hard to believe, there were quite a few who had a similar top 5 to mine.


Actually I requested that people not make a list of their favorites, hoping that they would come up with some criteria that aimed for objectivity. I think I even offered my own criteria. So, I tried to suggest objectivty being a priority.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Actually I requested that people not make a list of their favorites, hoping that they would come up with some criteria that aimed for objectivity. I think I even offered my own criteria. So, I tried to suggest objectivty being a priority.


Point taken. I guess it appeared to me that some, by their comments, didn't get the message.


----------



## Ethereality

This is too similar to every subjective list to be something true, as asking for 'objective criteria' for something inherently subjective at root, falls apart. This is clearly a list of "favorites" and "influentials to composers we _like_" and "ourselves." For all we know the objectively greatest composer is not on this list, as alike to every other list we've seen, there's nothing objective about it.

However, I think people moreso confuse the word objective with agreeable, and thus ask the wrong question in polls. That's why I did make this poll, because it asks better questions on subjectivity:

A New Version of Top 10 Composers. A better question, is probably _better_, than a non-question.


----------



## mmsbls

I do think it's somewhat interesting that polls are so frequently criticized rather than people simply accepting how each poll was done and then drawing conclusions based on that methodology. Just because polls don't involve results from every sentient being in the multiverse who studied the subject matter for decades and carefully excluded any potential biases doesn't mean they are stupid, useless, or misleading. This poll included roughly 70 TC members in 2021 giving the 5 composers they believe are the greatest. Maybe some gave favorites, maybe some don't have a good way to "properly" evaluate musical greatness, maybe some mixed great and favorite. The BBC poll included 174 noted contemporary composers giving the top 5 composers based on 4 clear criteria. Other polls on TC used different methodologies.

In each case one can consider the methodology and determine what, if anything, they find interesting about the results. No one thinks any result is perfectly correct with no uncertainty, but some results can be thought provoking. In this poll no one picked Mendelssohn. In the BBC poll Stravinsky came in second. Those results seem unexpected, and it can be fun trying to determine why.


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> I do think it's somewhat interesting that polls are so frequently criticized rather than people simply accepting how each poll was done and then drawing conclusions based on that methodology. Just because polls don't involve results from every sentient being in the multiverse who studied the subject matter for decades and carefully excluded any potential biases doesn't mean they are stupid, useless, or misleading. This poll included roughly 70 TC members in 2021 giving the 5 composers they believe are the greatest. Maybe some gave favorites, maybe some don't have a good way to "properly" evaluate musical greatness, maybe some mixed great and favorite. The BBC poll included 174 noted contemporary composers giving the top 5 composers based on 4 clear criteria. Other polls on TC used different methodologies.
> 
> In each case one can consider the methodology and determine what, if anything, they find interesting about the results. No one thinks any result is perfectly correct with no uncertainty, but some results can be thought provoking. In this poll no one picked Mendelssohn. In the BBC poll Stravinsky came in second. Those results seem unexpected, and it can be fun trying to determine why.


Then please explain why.


----------



## Nereffid

FWIW, I compared SanAntone's results with my polls of "Which of these composers do you like?"

Composers that didn't make SanAntone's list but were liked by at least 70% of voters in my polls:
Grieg
Mendelssohn
Mussorgsky
Rachmaninoff
Saint-Saens
Vaughan Williams


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

A similar poll on top 5 living composers could be interesting, but the group of voters would likely get smaller and the result less informative / more ambiguous.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I do think it's somewhat interesting that polls are so frequently criticized rather than people simply accepting how each poll was done and then drawing conclusions based on that methodology. Just because polls don't involve results from every sentient being in the multiverse who studied the subject matter for decades and carefully excluded any potential biases doesn't mean they are stupid, useless, or misleading.


Well, I'll venture in cautiously because I sense a little frustration. Up front, I admit that whether it be music or political polls, I will never be happy until every sentient being in the multiverse with the appropriate education takes part. 



> This poll included roughly 70 TC members in 2021 giving the 5 composers they believe are the greatest. Maybe some gave favorites, maybe some don't have a good way to "properly" evaluate musical greatness, maybe some mixed great and favorite. The BBC poll included 174 noted contemporary composers giving the top 5 composers based on 4 clear criteria. Other polls on TC used different methodologies..... In the BBC poll Stravinsky came in second. Those results seem unexpected, and it can be fun trying to determine why.


Since I made a comment on both polls in separate posts above: For my part, I didn't find SanAntone's stupid or useless. On the contrary, it was of interest and a rather fun thread. I'm just always amazed that no matter how hard the OP requests objective results, people can't help putting in their 'faves'.

As to the BBC poll, I have less patience. I can't help but suspect that whatever criteria had been used, these fine men and women would have come up with head-scratching results biased by the their own musical persuasions. I could be wrong.


----------



## SanAntone

I am beginning to think that it might be instructive if we could devise a poll of the qualities or facts that would constitute the criteria for applying the term "great" to a composer.

E.G.

1. Works that have remained in the repertory for a long period of time (at least 75 years) and continue to resonate with audiences across several generations and regions.

2. Critical and scholarly consensus of importance, impact, or influence has remained consistent for a long period of time even if initially the opinions were divided.

3. Several works which have received serious attention via many performances and recordings, by a wide variety of conductors, ensembles, and musicians, covering successive generations.

4. Books about the composer's life and work continue to be published, studied, and read.

5. A catalog of the complete list of works has been created and a critical edition of all of the works has been published

Maybe a new thread can be created to discuss these kinds of criteria with suggestions and debate leading to the choices for a poll.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Well, I'll venture in cautiously because I sense a little frustration. Up front, I admit that whether it be music or political polls, I will never be happy until every sentient being in the multiverse with the appropriate education takes part.






DaveM said:


> Since I made a comment on both polls in separate posts above: For my part, I didn't find SanAntone's stupid or useless. On the contrary, it was of interest and a rather fun thread. I'm just always amazed that no matter how hard the OP requests objective results, people can't help putting in their 'faves'.


I actually think it's hard to be very objective, and many here don't have the expertise to analyze the music without their personal tastes playing a role.



DaveM said:


> As to the BBC poll, I have less patience. I can't help but suspect that whatever criteria had been used, these fine men and women would have come up with head-scratching results biased by the their own musical persuasions. I could be wrong.


I'm certain that the BBC poll was biased by the composers musical persuasions. First, the composers were asked to do that (25% was to be based on their enjoyment of the composers they were rating). Second, even if they tried to be unbiased, they would have to choose metrics for ranking, and those metrics (or their weighting) would be biased. It's hard for me to imagine that people in artistic fields living a century or so apart would have similar views about their field.

That's why the poll was interesting. If the poll had simply ordered composers similarly to polls on TC, there would be little new information. One might conclude that every sample of classical music listeners feels the same way about all composers. I guess that would be a piece of knowledge. But instead, we see Stravinsky at 2, Ligeti at 6, Messiaen at 13, Saariaho at 17, Debussy very high, etc.. So you start to think about why they voted that way. Partly they only chose 5 composers so the rankings have significant error margins, but likely those results can't be explained purely by statistics.

I was not so surprised by Stravinsky, and I know that many who love modern music hold Ligeti in very high regard. What surprised me the most was Saariaho. I like her works, but I would not have thought she would be in the top 50. Because of her ranking, I will investigate her works more now than if I had not seen the poll results. If one cares about a particular issue, I believe it's always valuable to see the thoughts of others whom you respect and whom you feel have insight into that issue.


----------



## fbjim

I've often considered a small handful of artists to be, for lack of a better term, "before and after" artists-basically ones whose work was so impactful that you can conceivably divide artistic history before and after their influence. There are some fairly obvious examples in classical music, like Wagner, Schoenberg, Beethoven, Debussy, and even figures like Steve Reich.

I don't know if there's a way to objectively measure this. You could maybe put it that those figures had a big impact on musical discourse around that time, but many composers were prominent figures in their day and not much discussed anymore, like Meyerbeer or even Mendelssohn.

I tend to go for that kind of impact when making these lists because that's as close as I can get to a workable objective definition of greatness. I did go with Verdi over Wagner- I thought his enormous contribution to the opera repertoire couldn't be overstated and frankly I wanted to give the Italians something.


----------



## Red Terror

fbjim said:


> I've often considered a small handful of artists to be, for lack of a better term, "before and after" artists-basically ones whose work was so impactful that you can conceivably divide artistic history before and after their influence. There are some fairly obvious examples in classical music, like Wagner, Schoenberg, Beethoven, Debussy, and even figures like Steve Reich.
> 
> I don't know if there's a way to objectively measure this. You could maybe put it that those figures had a big impact on musical discourse around that time, but many composers were prominent figures in their day and not much discussed anymore, like Meyerbeer or even Mendelssohn.
> 
> I tend to go for that kind of impact when making these lists because that's as close as I can get to a workable objective definition of greatness. I did go with Verdi over Wagner- I thought his enormous contribution to the opera repertoire couldn't be overstated and frankly I wanted to give the Italians something.


No one will give Schoenberg (or Max Reger for that matter) his due. He was a genius and his oeuvre proves it, but people insist on believing he is difficult and unlistenable. It's certainly their loss. At the very least, Schoenberg is a top ten composer.


----------



## JTS

Red Terror said:


> No one will give Schoenberg (or Max Reger for that matter) his due. He was a genius and his oeuvre proves it, but people insist on believing he is difficult and unlistenable. It's certainly their loss. At the very least, Schoenberg is a top ten composer.


Maybe we insist on believing his music is difficult and unlistenable because it is. Frankly I have very little pleasure in listening to it and don't bother because I could be listening to something I enjoy far better


----------



## 59540

tdc said:


> You did not like the results of the poll created by professional composers either though, right? Maybe your conception of who the 'great composers' are has become outmoded.


You mean in the way that Bach's music was considered "outmoded" for a pretty good while? I took a look at that poll and some of it seemed fairly obvious and some choices seemed to be "I'd better name some contemporary composers for the sake of equal time". IIRC Steve Reich ranked pretty highly but Handel and Liszt were nowhere to be seen. Satie but no Scarlatti, and Knussen and Birtwistle but no Pärt or Penderecki. I personally think that's less "outmoded" than "mistaken". (Saariaho at #17 ahead of Brahms? Come on.) But it's a poll, no biggie.


----------



## fbjim

There have been multiple instances of people claiming that the inclusions of 20th century composers on the list were due to "agendas" and I think I would absolutely love some evidence of thus.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> There have been multiple instances of people claiming that the inclusions of 20th century composers on the list were due to "agendas" and I think I would absolutely love some evidence of thus.


Evidence? What do you mean, recorded conversations and documents or something? I'll give you that evidence when you provide evidence of the socio-political motivations behind "the canon". I don't think it's an agenda so much as a mindset.


----------



## fbjim

If the music of Ligeti, Reich et al is so objectively bad that their inclusion on a list is de facto evidence of bad faith, and not an actual statement of preference or taste, I think that's an extraordinary statement that needs proof.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> If the music of Ligeti, Reich et al is so objectively bad that their inclusion on a list is de facto evidence of bad faith, and not an actual statement of preference or taste, I think that's an extraordinary statement that needs proof.


Their music would certainly seem to meet the criteria I laid out in a previous post, i.e. importance/impact, consistent performances, serious critical attention and consensus. I think some members can't let go of the idea that Classical music peaked with CPT.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> If the music of Ligeti, Reich et al is so objectively bad that their inclusion on a list is de facto evidence of bad faith, and not an actual statement of preference or taste, I think that's an extraordinary statement that needs proof.


Who said it was objectively bad? I don't know much Reich (not very many do, probably) but there's a lot of Ligeti's work that I like. That's like saying "if someone thinks Space Jam is so objectively bad that it can't be ranked alongside Citizen Kane, then I want to see empirical proof for that notion".


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Their music would certainly seem to meet the criteria I laid out in a previous post, i.e. importance/impact, consistent performances, serious critical attention and consensus. I think some members can't let go of the idea that Classical music peaked with CPT.


I mean, the BBC list is mostly CPT. That titan of the atonal avant-garde, RVW, was just outside the top twenty. I know lists are published so people can get upset at them, but the results show far more in common than not with the CT list, which admittedly had explicitly different criteria.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Their music would certainly seem to meet the criteria I laid out in a previous post, i.e. importance/impact, consistent performances, serious critical attention and consensus. I think some members can't let go of the idea that Classical music peaked with CPT.


One example of an "agenda" might be preaching that "classical music" didn't "peak with CPT" and is instead going from strength to strength, or least existing in an uninterrupted continuum from Hildegard to the present. There's no proof for that view, either.


----------



## fbjim

That's not an agenda, that's an opinion. Agenda implies bad faith and possibly conspiracy.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I mean, the BBC list is mostly CPT. That titan of the atonal avant-garde, RVW, was just outside the top twenty. I know lists are published so people can get upset at them, but the results show far more in common than not with the CT list, which admittedly had explicitly different criteria.


I don't get "upset" at such polls. The "upset" comes when someone says X really doesn't belong on it.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> That's not an agenda, that's an opinion. Agenda implies bad faith and possibly conspiracy.


Only in your view. Agenda and opinion are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## JTS

dissident said:


> Evidence? What do you mean, recorded conversations and documents or something? I'll give you that evidence when you provide evidence of the socio-political motivations behind "the canon". I don't think it's an agenda so much as a mindset.


Modern composers obviously have a different idea of what music is than the listeners.


----------



## 59540

JTS said:


> Modern composers obviously have a different idea of what music is than the listeners.


And tbh I don't much faith in the aesthetic standards of most contemporary composers, so there's that. Like I said, no biggie.


----------



## fbjim

JTS said:


> Modern composers obviously have a different idea of what music is than the listeners.


The lists are remarkably similar, especially in the top end. In fact, I think it'd be easier to conclude that their tastes are similar, with a handful of notable exceptions.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> The lists are remarkably similar, especially in the top end. In fact, I think it'd be easier to conclude that their tastes are similar, with a handful of notable exceptions.


Well obviously they succumbed to sociopolitical pressure in picking Bach, but came to their right, objective minds when choosing Stockhausen and Feldman.


----------



## Bulldog

JTS said:


> Modern composers obviously have a different idea of what music is than the listeners.


There you go again, taking your personal preferences and presenting them as universal truths. Listeners are not some homogeneous group but represent a wide array of preferences and standards.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> One example of an "agenda" might be preaching that "classical music" didn't "peak with CPT" and is instead going from strength to strength, or least existing in an uninterrupted continuum from Hildegard to the present. There's no proof for that view, either.


I don't agree that it is evidence of an agenda (which is a term, as has been pointed out, that carries a lot of negative baggage) to not accept the idea that Classical music peaked with CPT. I find it a depressing concept, since it leaves out so much music.

I simply, and honestly, have experienced what I consider great Classical music written throughout all periods of documented human musical activity.


----------



## fbjim

This is the top ten of the composers poll.
1. Bach
2. Stravinsky
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Debussy
6. Ligeti
7. Mahler
8. Wagner
9. Ravel
10. Monteverdi

And this is the top ten of the TC poll.
Bach 56
Beethoven 55
Mozart 42
Wagner 29
Brahms 24
Haydn 15
Debussy 12
Mahler 10
Tchaikovsky 10
Stravinsky 9

How different-seriously-are these lists? We can probably make some vague statements about Ligeti likely remaining a significant influence on contemporary composers, and - interestingly - Ravel, but this frankly seems like a top ten list anyone here could have made and submitted without anyone blinking an eye.

If anything it probably shows that the tastes of contemporary composers are far more in line with the average TC member than perhaps anticipated.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I don't agree that it is evidence of an agenda (which is a term, as has been pointed out, that carries a lot of negative baggage) to not accept the idea that Classical music peaked with CPT. I find it a depressing concept, since it leaves out so much music.
> 
> I simply, and honestly, have experienced what I consider great Classical music written throughout all periods of documented human musical activity.


SanAntone, I didn't say anything about an agenda. I was responding to the straw man fbjim set up. There's a lot of modern music which I love. Not as much as Bach and Beethoven, but still.

Personal opinion here: I don't think we have the perspective yet to know where Stockhausen (for example) rates compared to Bach and Beethoven. It's like comparing Kerouac and Bukowski to Shakespeare and Milton. We can't really say by taking a long view. Someone may be on a Kerouac binge and rate him as absolutely equal to Shakespeare in artistry, influence and impact -- and then next year come to his senses. Time is the test. If I were making such a poll, I'd have to subdivide it somehow or exclude anyone before about 1970 or so.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> SanAntone, I didn't say anything about an agenda. I was responding to the straw man fbjim set up. There's a lot of modern music which I love. Not as much as Bach and Beethoven, but still.
> 
> Personal opinion here: I don't think we have the perspective yet to know where Stockhausen (for example) rates compared to Bach and Beethoven. It's like comparing Kerouac and Bukowski to Shakespeare and Milton. We can't really say by taking a long view. Someone may be on a Kerouac binge and rate him as absolutely equal to Shakespeare in artistry, influence and impact -- and then next year come to his senses. Time is the test. If I were making such a poll, I'd have to subdivide it somehow or exclude anyone before about 1970 or so.


Your point about the long view is important. So, that has to be taken into account when considering what value there might be in a poll of currently working composers. It's also hardly surprising if those living composers vote for more recent past (and current) composers who have had some, or are still having some influence on their musical thinking.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> SanAntone, I didn't say anything about an agenda. I was responding to the straw man fbjim set up. There's a lot of modern music which I love. Not as much as Bach and Beethoven, but still.
> 
> Personal opinion here: I don't think we have the perspective yet to know where Stockhausen (for example) rates compared to Bach and Beethoven. It's like comparing Kerouac and Bukowski to Shakespeare and Milton. We can't really say by taking a long view. Someone may be on a Kerouac binge and rate him as absolutely equal to Shakespeare in artistry, influence and impact -- and then next year come to his senses. Time is the test. If I were making such a poll, I'd have to subdivide it somehow or exclude anyone before about 1970 or so.


I agree with your second graph. In fact, I included at least a 75-year period for works demonstrating their consistent performance and importance in my provisional criteria.


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't. I'd very probably name Beethoven, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Brahms would have one of the two best shots for #5, the other would be Schubert and I'd really be conflicted about this. So I don't vote...
> But I would not at all be surprised that many would rather name Wagner or Mahler or Verdi or others before Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Haydn.
> If I catalogued my listening and went for "most listened" I'd probably even scratch Bach or Mozart in favor of Brahms and Schubert.
> 
> For me this is one more reason why such polls are silly and not terribly informative, because of the restrictions they don't even give the real preferences (how transient they might be).


To me it was a greatness list.

as in influential, as in the other arts (and sciences)

influencing development (down through history)

influencing change in what's acceptable by audiences (harmony, dissonances, form, rhythm)

enduring value to humanity, originality, cleverness, effectiveness for artistic goals

Preferences have nothing to do with it, whose preferences? a 10 year old music student and/or an 80 year old conductor?


----------



## Taplow

I wouldn't normally play games like this. But I've had two martinis, so here goes … If I were asked to choose off the top of my head:

Händel
Mendelssohn
Strauss (Richard)
Heinichen
Bach (CPE)


----------



## hammeredklavier

JTS said:


> Modern composers obviously have a different idea of what music is than the listeners.


What do you think about this?:



hammeredklavier said:


> But the fact is that most people in the world encounter (or have demand for) this sort of musical aesthetics
> 
> 
> 
> through contents like
> 
> 
> 
> (18:30)
> I think no other kind of music creates the feeling "something dreadful is happening / going to happen" better, in the context of a modern horror/grotesque show. No matter how you want to categorize this sort of music (ie. ugly or beautiful), it's something indispensable for modern culture.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think about this?:


That the Apollo moon landing was fake? Not much. What does that have to do with new music?

The Stockhausen piece is one example out of thousands of examples of music written in the last 75 years. You chose one you think of that creates the feeling "something dreadful is happening / going to happen". I don't think of that when listening to it, but so what?

We had been talking of people with an agenda?


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> This is the top ten of the composers poll.
> 1. Bach
> 2. Stravinsky
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Debussy
> 6. Ligeti
> 7. Mahler
> 8. Wagner
> 9. Ravel
> 10. Monteverdi
> 
> And this is the top ten of the TC poll.
> Bach 56
> Beethoven 55
> Mozart 42
> Wagner 29
> Brahms 24
> Haydn 15
> Debussy 12
> Mahler 10
> Tchaikovsky 10
> Stravinsky 9
> 
> How different-seriously-are these lists? We can probably make some vague statements about Ligeti likely remaining a significant influence on contemporary composers, and - interestingly - Ravel, but this frankly seems like a top ten list anyone here could have made and submitted without anyone blinking an eye.
> 
> If anything it probably shows that the tastes of contemporary composers are far more in line with the average TC member than perhaps anticipated.


Well, let's cut to the chase. First, let's just dismiss Ligeti and Monteverdi as an aberration of top 10 composers. But Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel? How did composers whose output were in niche categories, with some exceptions, of smaller works often restricted to the piano.

For, concert-goers and average listeners, take away Rite of Spring and perhaps Firebird and Petrushka and few would know Stravinsky. Take away The Afternoon of Prelude of a Fawn and Claire de Lune and few would know Debussy. Take away Bolero and perhaps Concerto for the Left Hand and few would know Ravel. Of course, they were influential composers, but top 10? How do they possibly rate above Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin etc. Geez, Rachmaninoff rocked the classical music world more than these 3. Before the last 20-30 years, Stravinsky, Debussy and Ravel would never have made top 10 lists. This is nothing more than revisionist, misled thinking of the last few years.


----------



## JTS

DaveM said:


> Well, let's cut to the chase. First, let's just dismiss Ligeti and Monteverdi as an aberration of top 10 composers. But Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel? How did composers whose output were in niche categories, with some exceptions, of smaller works often restricted to the piano.
> 
> For, concert-goers, take away Rite of Spring and perhaps Firebird and Petrushka and few would know Stravinsky. Take away The Afternoon of Prelude of a Fawn and Claire de Lune and few would know Debussy. Take away Bolero and perhaps Concerto for the Left Hand and few would know Ravel. Of course, they were influential composers, but top 10? How do they possibly rate above Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin etc. Geez, Rachmaninoff rocked the classical music world more than these 3. Before the last 20-30 years, Stravinsky, Debussy and Ravel would never have made top 10 lists. This is nothing more than revisionist, misled thinking of the last few years.


Monteverdi an aberration? How do you work that one out? Bach would have been an aberration at one time.


----------



## fbjim

dude I've seen recordings from the 50s and 60s of pop orchestras doing Ravel. this is seriously the first time I've ever heard the idea that the admiration of Stravinsky, Ravel and Debussy is a recent phenomenon. all three have been in the standard repitoire more or less since the dawn of recorded music. 

of course some tastes have changed over time. a poll taken in 1950 probably would have included Cesar Franck, for instance. but seriously, Ravel and Debussy? You'd make a better argument for Mahler or Bruckner being relatively recent additions, and this is hardly misled revisionism.


----------



## DaveM

JTS said:


> Monteverdi an aberration? How do you work that one out? Bach would have been an aberration at one time.


An aberration as a top ten _now[/I. What does when Bach might have been an aberration have anything to do with anything regarding present top 10 lists?_


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> dude I've seen recordings from the 50s and 60s of pop orchestras doing Ravel. this is seriously the first time I've ever heard the idea that the admiration of Stravinsky, Ravel and Debussy is a recent phenomenon. all three have been in the standard repitoire more or less since the dawn of recorded music.
> 
> of course some tastes have changed over time. a poll taken in 1950 probably would have included Cesar Franck, for instance. but seriously, Ravel and Debussy? You'd make a better argument for Mahler or Bruckner being relatively recent additions, and this is hardly misled revisionism.


Dude, I never said they were obscure or didn't have some admiration. How we do read into things that aren't there. They are not top 10. Btw, just for giggles, what were some of those pop orchestra recordings?


----------



## fbjim

Fiedler/Bostop Pops doing Ravel and Gershwin shows up a lot in LP bins.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Well, let's cut to the chase. First, let's just dismiss Ligeti and Monteverdi as an aberration of top 10 composers. But Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel? How did composers whose output were in niche categories, with some exceptions, of smaller works often restricted to the piano.





> For, concert-goers and average listeners, take away Rite of Spring and perhaps Firebird and Petrushka and few would know Stravinsky. Take away The Afternoon of Prelude of a Fawn and Claire de Lune and few would know Debussy. Take away Bolero and perhaps Concerto for the Left Hand and few would know Ravel. Of course, they were influential composers, but top 10? How do they possibly rate above Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin etc. Geez, Rachmaninoff rocked the classical music world more than these 3. Before the last 20-30 years, Stravinsky, Debussy and Ravel would never have made top 10 lists. This is nothing more than revisionist, misled thinking of the last few years.


Both Debussy and Ravel wrote a number of orchestral works which are regularly recorded and programmed. Both wrote operas; _Pelleas et Melisande_ is regularly staged and recorded. Ravel's ballet _Daphnis et Chloe_ is very popular. Their chamber music is also not unusual to find on recordings and concerts (often paired, e.g. the string quartets) - Debussy's late sonatas have been recorded many times. Stravinsky's music has been regularly recorded, completely, and has never gone out of print.

Just because you may not be aware of the depth of their catalogs and how much of it is in regular rotation is no reflection on their status.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Both Debussy and Ravel wrote a number of orchestral works which are regularly recorded and programmed. Both wrote operas; _Pelleas et Melisande_ is regularly staged and recorded. Ravel's ballet _Daphnis et Chloe_ is very popular. Their chamber music is also not unusual to find on recordings and concerts (often paired, e.g. the string quartets) - Debussy's late sonatas have been recorded many times. Stravinsky's music has been regularly recorded, completely, and has never gone out of print.
> 
> Just because you may not be aware of the depth of their catalogs and how much of it is in regular rotation is no reflection on their status.


The 'with some exceptions' was put in my post for a reason. I know more than you may think. I've been around classical music a long time. I am not unaware of these 3 composers. In fact, before she unfortunately passed, I was a close friend of Nancy Bricard who wrote the much regarded Alfred Masterwork editions of Ravel's piano music.

I will repeat. The point of my post is that they are not top 10. And rather than people responding aghast at my post (which I expected), how about some credible objective evidence that they are top 10.


----------



## JTS

DaveM said:


> An aberration as a top ten _now[/I. What does when Bach might have been an aberration have anything to do with anything regarding present top 10 lists?_


_

And can I remind you that Monteverdi is no longer an aberration any more than Bach is_


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> The 'with some exceptions' was put in my post for a reason. I know more than you may think. I've been around classical music a long time. I am not unaware of these 3 composers. In fact, before she unfortunately passed, I was a close friend of Nancy Bricard who wrote the much regarded Alfred Masterwork editions of Ravel's piano music.
> 
> I will repeat. The point of my post is that they are not top 10. And rather than people responding aghast at my post (which I expected), how about some credible objective evidence that they are top 10.


The objective evidence that they are top ten is that a poll of musical experts, in the form of composers, and a forum of enthusiasts voted both Stravinsky and Debussy as top ten composers. This is not definitive evidence, of course, but reputation and expert consensus are some of the few criteria we have for an actual objective composer list.

I think the claim that their presence in both lists reflects very recent (as you said-in the last 20 years) misled revisionism is the one that actually needs evidence.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The objective evidence that they are top ten is that a poll of musical experts, in the form of composers, and a forum of enthusiasts voted both Stravinsky and Debussy as top ten composers.
> 
> I think the claim that their presence in both lists reflects very recent (as you said-in the last 20 years) misled revisionism is the one that actually needs evidence.


In my world, if one is going to put these 3 in what is supposed to be an objective list, there better be some convincing support for it.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

DaveM said:


> Dude, I never said they were obscure or didn't have some admiration. How we do read into things that aren't there. They are not top 10. Btw, just for giggles, what were some of those pop orchestra recordings?


Dave, you know who's not top 10? You


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The objective evidence that they are top ten is that a poll of musical experts, in the form of composers, and a forum of enthusiasts voted both Stravinsky and Debussy as top ten composers. This is not definitive evidence, of course, but reputation and expert consensus are some of the few criteria we have for an actual objective composer list.


There is no evidence that those composers voted objectively. And there is evidence to the contrary.


----------



## DaveM

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Dave, you know who's not top 10? You


A cheery response from Argentina. That all you've got? And I'm not top anything except to my little family and my dog.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

DaveM said:


> A cheery response from Argentina. That all you've got? And I'm not top anything except to my little family and my dog.


That's alright, and yet you're so adamant about who is and who's not "top 10" that I think you need to cool down a bit and keep in mind that you're in no position to do so and claim objectivity.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> In my world, if one is going to put these 3 in what is supposed to be an objective list, there better be some convincing support for it.


There is objective evidence, and I posted some which you chose to ignore. But, here's a paraphrase: Ravel, Debussy, and Stravinsky are three of the 20th century's most performed composers, with major works that are often cited as being masterpieces. Debussy and Stravinsky have been credited with being innovative and influential; Ravel for writing works with the clarity, economy, and precision of a Swiss watch. All wrote major works in a variety of genres.

They have remained in the standard repertory for over 75 years (over 100 for Stravinsky and Debussy) which is enough of a test of time for me.


----------



## Ethereality

Taplow said:


> I wouldn't normally play games like this. But I've had two martinis, so here goes … If I were asked to choose off the top of my head:


This is a good experiment, take drugs and alcohol to determine objective greatness :angel:


----------



## DaveM

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> That's alright, and yet you're so adamant about who is and who's not "top 10" that I think you need to cool down a bit and keep in mind that you're in no position to do so and claim objectivity.


This a forum. I have an opinion. Claiming that Stravinsky, Ravel and Debussy are not top ten composers is not an extreme opinion. And since you want to make this personal, take a hike!


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> There is objective evidence, and I posted some which you chose to ignore. But, here's a paraphrase: Ravel, Debussy, and Stravinsky are three of the 20th century's most performed composers, with major works that are often cited as being masterpieces. Debussy and Stravinsky have been credited with being innovative and influential; Ravel for writing works with the clarity, economy, and precision of a Swiss watch. All wrote major works in a variety of genres.
> 
> They have remained in the standard repertory for over 75 years (over 100 for Stravinsky and Debussy) which is enough of a test of time for me.


I'm not going to disagree with that except if you're claiming that there is objective evidence to put them in the top 10 starting with the Baroque period to the present.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Fiedler/Bostop Pops doing Ravel and Gershwin shows up a lot in LP bins.


Yeah and 3 of them are listed on Amazon. Wanna know what the Ravel work is on all 3? Bolero. Go back to my original post.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

DaveM said:


> This a forum. I have an opinion. Claiming that Stravinsky, Ravel and Debussy are not top ten composers is not an extreme opinion. And since you want to make this personal, take a hike!


No, I think you're the ego in the room, demanding others to present factual evidence that will satisfy *you* about certain composers being top 10 or not.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> I'm not going to disagree with that except if you're claiming that there is objective evidence to put them in the top 10 starting with the Baroque period to the present.


Ranking is always going to involve subjectivity since there is no objective data to rank great works and by extension, composers. The kind of criteria I listed covers all great composers. But I think it is reasonable to include one or all three in a list of ten, if contemporary music were a priority for the chooser.

I tend to think of "greatness" (like genius) as a quality that can be supported by some data and not try to rank relative greatness.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Ranking is always going to involve subjectivity since there is no objective data to rank great works and by extension, composers. The kind of criteria I listed covers all great composers. But I think it is reasonable to include one or all three in a list of ten, if contemporary music were a priority for the chooser.


Absolutely, if the time period for the poll were to start with, say, the late 19th century on, I would have no argument against those 3 in the top 10.


----------



## DaveM

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> No, I think you're the ego in the room, demanding others to present factual evidence that will satisfy *you* about certain composers being top 10 or not.


Three personal attacks in a row. Ever read the TOS on the subject?


----------



## Ethereality

What great qualities are people listening for when they vote? In Ravel I hear the most perfect long form, and great voice leading. Maybe some don't even pay attention to long form!? It is similar to why I may vote for Wagner, Mozart, Beethoven.


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from personal comments. If you disagree with someone, please ignore their post or be polite when responding.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

DaveM said:


> Three personal attacks in a row. Ever read the TOS on the subject?


Ok, I'm sorry. I do want to know what me being from Argentina has to do with anything.

EDIT: And what your top 10 would be.


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> Maybe we insist on believing his music is difficult and unlistenable because it is. Frankly I have very little pleasure in listening to it and don't bother because I could be listening to something I enjoy far better


Probably you should say _many_ believe his music is difficult and unlistenable. I would guess that most have or had trouble with his music. I certainly did, but after a period of listening to much modern music, I came to hear Schoenberg as Romantic sounding (not Romantic music), and many of his works sounded wonderful to me. I think it's a stretch to say they're unlistenable, but rather they are take some time getting used to them. I know not everyone wants to put in that time.

Still based on the influence he had on much modern music, my understanding of his technique, and the modern sensibility, I would have thought he would be ranked somewhat higher than 22. Of course, the 5 vote limit adds a lot of uncertainty to the poll.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> ...I took a look at that poll and some of it seemed fairly obvious and some choices seemed to be "I'd better name some contemporary composers for the sake of equal time". ...


I guess I would say that some choices seemed to be "this composer was very influential to modern composers and I enjoy his/her music enormously." I have trouble believing many composers in the poll didn't take it seriously.


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> Modern composers obviously have a different idea of what music is than the listeners.


I assume you mean a different idea of what music is excellent at least for the purposes of the poll. Modern composers probably do have a slightly different idea of what music is than collective listeners. I agree that composers likely view the quality of music differently than we average types do. My daughter had extensive music theory in school and certainly views music differently than I do. She quickly came to adore Wagner, and it took me a much longer time to assess him very highly. She also has a significantly higher estimation of Stravinsky than I do, and I think it has a lot to do with her understanding of his music. That is one of the reasons I think the contemporary composer poll is interesting to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> You did not like the results of the poll created by professional composers either though, right?


Come on, let's stop taking it so seriously. Feldman was in the list, but Mendelssohn wasn't. Last time I checked, you have a low opinion of styles like Ferneyhough; most of the "professional composers" who created the poll write like that. By your logic, we should also seriously consider what Yuhki Kuramoto (who studied Rachmaninoff and writes like 



) thinks cause he's professional, right? (But there will always be people dismissing him as "cheesy".)


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I guess I would say that some choices seemed to be "this composer was very influential to modern composers and I enjoy his/her music enormously." I have trouble believing many composers in the poll didn't take it seriously.


I didn't say they didn't take it seriously, just as university-level English literature anthologists feel very seriously about including popular music lyrics and the like.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> I didn't say they didn't take it seriously, just as university-level English literature anthologists feel very seriously about including popular music lyrics and the like.


Anthologies should include a range of styles and timeframes. This list was supposed to be the greatest (as decided by the methodology) so why would anyone simply think they ought to include composers for equal time? Anyway, I guess we don't know why the 174 composers decided as they did.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> This a forum. I have an opinion. Claiming that Stravinsky, Ravel and Debussy are not top ten composers is not an extreme opinion. And since you want to make this personal, take a hike!


That doesn't puzzle me as much as Kaija Saariaho over Brahms or Stephen Sondheim over Schumann (Sondheim?). I'm not feelin' it. Oh well.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> Anthologies should include a range of styles and timeframes. This list was supposed to be the greatest (as decided by the methodology) so why would anyone simply think they ought to include composers for equal time? Anyway, I guess we don't know why the 174 composers decided as they did.


If you can't easily tell why they made their decisions, what makes you so sure that it wasn't a desire for "equal time"? And why is that suggestion so offensive? "I think this composer deserves more recognition, so I choose ________." That sort of "revaluation" is characteristic of our times. Also it doesn't say very much for the more offbeat choices if you can't quite figure out why they were chosen. If the rationale for choosing Sondheim was as clear as that for putting Bach at number 1, well it would explain itself. Is there any objective reason why Sondheim or Ligeti couldn't have been ranked no. 1?

Anyway that was an old poll referenced in an old thread. Not that important. The dogs bark but the caravan rolls on.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> This a forum. I have an opinion. Claiming that Stravinsky, Ravel and Debussy are not top ten composers is not an extreme opinion. ...


I believe that's true - it's not an extreme opinion.



DaveM said:


> In my world, if one is going to put these 3 in what is supposed to be an objective list, there better be some convincing support for it.


But this isn't an objective list, and the methodology makes that perfectly clear. Certainly my understanding is that Stravinsky and Debussy are considered two of the most influential composers of all time. They wrote extraordinarily well for orchestra and significantly pushed the boundaries of music composition. And presumably many of the 174 composers greatly enjoy their music.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> ...
> But this isn't an objective list...


Which is really what we're saying. That being the case, you can't really tell what factors came into play in that subjective evaluation.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Come on, let's stop taking it so seriously. Feldman was in the list, but Mendelssohn wasn't. Last time I checked, you have a low opinion of styles like Ferneyhough; ...


Curiously enough, it seems that Ferneyhough didnt make the cut in that poll.


----------



## fbjim

I feel like pointing out that Mendelssohn wasn't in the TC poll either.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> If you can't easily tell why they made their decisions, what makes you so sure that it wasn't a desire for "equal time"?


As I said, I'm not.



dissident said:


> And why is that suggestion so offensive?


I don't think it's offensive. Do you?



dissident said:


> "I think this composer deserves more recognition, so I choose ________." That sort of "revaluation" is characteristic of our times. Also it doesn't say very much for the more offbeat choices if you can't quite figure out why they were chosen. If the rationale for choosing Sondheim was as clear as that for putting Bach at number 1, well it would explain itself. Is there any objective reason why Sondheim or Ligeti couldn't have been ranked no. 1?


I guess I'm not following what you're saying here. I simply think the poll is interesting because of the sample group.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Which is really what we're saying. That being the case, you can't really tell what factors came into play in that subjective evaluation.


Isn't that what everyone believes about the poll?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> If you can't easily tell why they made their decisions, what makes you so sure that it wasn't a desire for "equal time"? And why is that suggestion so offensive? "I think this composer deserves more recognition, so I choose ________." That sort of "revaluation" is characteristic of our times.


Because we could just as easily assume good faith.

The offensive bit to me isn't that people disagree, because God knows they'll disagree. It's that when seeing the differences in opinions between that list and the general TC list, rather than consider it interesting, or a difference of opinion, or wonder about the musicological reasons that Ravel or Ligeti are so highly regarded and what influence they have, the first instinct seems instead to speculate on which ideological biases and faults the people polled are suffering from.

God knows that there's no way the respondents simply prefer Feldman to Mendelssohn, no, it must be the ideological postmodern conspiracy at work.

And all this when the results of the poll are extremely similar to ours.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> God knows that there's no way the respondents simply prefer Feldman to Mendelssohn, no, it must be the ideological postmodern conspiracy at work.


I wasn't saying Feldman was a bad composer by any means. I just think having Feldman in the list is like saying jazz is no different from classical music.


----------



## Rogerx

I still can't decide, so many to choose from.


----------



## Red Terror

hammeredklavier said:


> I wasn't saying Feldman was a bad composer by any means. I just think having Feldman in the list is like saying jazz is no different from classical music.


Feldman is one of the most truly unique and greatest modern composers. No one else sounds like him.


----------



## JTS

mmsbls said:


> I assume you mean a different idea of what music is excellent at least for the purposes of the poll. *Modern composers probably do have a slightly different idea of what music is than collective listeners* Modern composers probably do have a slightly different idea of what music is than collective listeners. I agree that composers likely view the quality of music differently than we average types do. My daughter had extensive music theory in school and certainly views music differently than I do. She quickly came to adore Wagner, and it took me a much longer time to assess him very highly. She also has a significantly higher estimation of Stravinsky than I do, and I think it has a lot to do with her understanding of his music. That is one of the reasons I think the contemporary composer poll is interesting to me.


I remember conductor saying in a question and answer chat before a concert that never has the gap been wider between composer and audience, between what the composer thinks the audience should want to hear and what they actually enjoy hearing. I think because many composers these days get sponsorship and universities and whatever, and don't have to have the sponsorship of their audiences, they lose touch with what the audiences want. Music is about communication and if audiences haven't the faintest idea about what is going on it's very difficult to enjoy, which is the chief purpose of music


----------



## mmsbls

JTS said:


> I remember conduct a saying in that question and answer a chat before a concert that never has the gap been wider between composer and audience, between what the composer thinks the audience should want to hear and what they actually enjoy hearing. I think because many composers these days get sponsorship and universities and whatever, and don't have to have the sponsorship of their audiences, they lose touch with what the audiences want. Music is about communication and if audiences haven't the faintest idea about what is going on it's very difficult to enjoy, which is the chief purpose of music


I'd say that's all generally true so you have 3 choices - learn to enjoy modern/contemporary music, ignore modern/contemporary music and listen to hundreds of years of earlier wonderful music, or disparage modern/contemporary composers and complain about the situation. I chose the first because I didn't want to miss out on over a century of music from the tradition of music that I came to love. I'm thrilled with my choice. Are you enjoying your choice?


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> I remember conduct a saying in that question and answer a chat before a concert that never has the gap been wider between composer and audience, between what the composer thinks the audience should want to hear and what they actually enjoy hearing. I think because many composers these days get sponsorship and universities and whatever, and don't have to have the sponsorship of their audiences, they lose touch with what the audiences want. Music is about communication and if audiences haven't the faintest idea about what is going on it's very difficult to enjoy, which is the chief purpose of music


This quote, and the rest of your post, seeks to paint a monolithic picture of the kind of music being written by living composers. There is a wide variety of styles, and many composers do not fit your description. And the fact is there are audiences for all kinds of music.


----------



## mikeh375

I'm not buying the cloistered, subsidised composer argument niether. The whole history of music could be viewed as a gradual exploration and acceptance of dissonance by composers. The gulf has widened in the perception of what is and isn't dissonant for a composer and listener, just as one might expect and that's not solely because of university ramparts insulating composers from what an average listener wants. Composers develop their own sense of aesthetics and that will include the allure of atonality or more avantgarde approaches if they are so inclined. Like it or not, an emancipated dissonance is here to stay and being beholden to a conservative audience isn't going to do the art any good at all imv.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Because we could just as easily assume good faith.
> 
> ...


It's easy to assume good faith with people you agree with. Otherwise it's very possible they're reactionaries being led around by the nose by sociopolitical conditioning.


> It's that when seeing the differences in opinions between that list and the general TC list, rather than consider it interesting, or a difference of opinion, or wonder about the musicological reasons that Ravel or Ligeti are so highly regarded and what influence they have, the first instinct seems instead to speculate on which ideological biases and faults the people polled are suffering from.


But yet ultimately you (or maybe some "postmoderns") would say that my feeling that Bach is no. 1 is ideologically driven. Heck, I've seen the idea expressed here that saying "Bach is the greatest composer ever" is evidence of white supremacy. You accuse others of using "ideology" as a weapon when it's your approach that I've seen in this forum that introduces the ideological element. I didn't say anything about ideology or "conspiracy", but I've seen quite a few statements to the effect that "the canon" is there because it was formed through ideological pressure. On the other hand we have to assume total good faith and no other factors but aesthetic enjoyment if someone feels that Feldman is "greater" than Handel. That's inconsistent.

The thing is, we're told that such ranking is really anathema because one composer isn't any "greater" than another...but yet there's some kind of passive approval when a Feldman nudges out a Handel or Mendelssohn.


mmsbls said:


> I don't think it's offensive. Do you?
> .


You objected to my bringing up the possibility.


mikeh375 said:


> The whole history of music could be viewed as a gradual exploration and acceptance of dissonance by composers.


It could be viewed that way, but that turns dissonance into some kind of Holy Grail and implies that something close to perfection was achieved when dissonance became common rather than an occasional spice. I think the history of (CP) music is that some felt all the changes had been rung on the tonal bells and they had to do something different if they weren't going to be endlessly emulating. It isn't so much "emancipation" as recognizing a dead end, and now even serialism (for example) is also a dead end. This is something that Pärt and Gorecki recognized. And who's listened to more these days, Pärt or Boulez?


> The gulf has widened in the perception of what is and isn't dissonant for a composer and listener, just as one might expect and that's not solely because of university ramparts insulating composers from what an average listener wants. Composers develop their own sense of aesthetics and that will include the allure of atonality or more avantgarde approaches if they are so inclined. Like it or not, an emancipated dissonance is here to stay and being beholden to a conservative audience isn't going to do the art any good at all imv.


In other words, to hell with listeners, but don't you dare say that classical music is dying. What you describe there is the death of the medium. And you begin by saying you don't buy into the "cloistered composer" image...and go on to describe favorably the cloistered composer. I think Bach never, ever, ever felt "the audience be damned". He sought to lift up, not alienate. The result being, he's no. 1.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> ................................
> It could be viewed that way, but that turns dissonance into some kind of Holy Grail and implies that something close to perfection was achieved when dissonance became common rather than an occasional spice. I think the history of (CP) music is that some felt all the changes had been rung on the tonal bells and they had to do something different if they weren't going to be endlessly emulating. It isn't so much "emancipation" as recognizing a dead end, and now even serialism (for example) is also a dead end. This is something that Pärt and Gorecki recognized. And who's listened to more these days, Pärt or Boulez?


I don't see it that way, nor was it meant as such. The "exploration" was and still is in part, motivated by originality for sure (but there is also personality and aesthetics at play) and a Holy Grail as you put it, is surely always being hunted for by a creative person. None of that implies that dissonance and its emancipation was intended as the perfect endgame. It was simply the only way things could've turned out, i.e. the result of continual vertical and rhythmic extensions being discovered made composers ever more aware of the nascent expressive reach still untapped that lay beyond traditional harmony and regular rhythm.

For every Part and Gorecki you name, one could easily name composers venturing forth with atonal expression and whilst it may not be as popular with the average listener, to a composer atonality offers so much and is a tempting draw. (I'm using the term atonality in a broad sense here, one that encompasses much more in the way of approaches to composing than serialism).


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> I don't see it that way, nor was it meant as such. The "exploration" was and still is in part, motivated by originality for sure (but there is also personality and aesthetics at play) and a Holy Grail as you put it, is surely always being hunted for by a creative person. None of that implies that dissonance and its emancipation was intended as the perfect endgame. It was simply the only way things could've turned out, i.e. the result of continual vertical and rhythmic extensions being discovered made composers ever more aware of the nascent expressive reach still untapped.


But calling such a situation "emancipation" and "expansion" just seems like trying to make a virtue of necessity. And "expression" for what purpose, if audiences are alienated? Who's going to care?



> For every Part and Gorecki you name, one could easily name composers venturing forth with atonal expression and whilst it may not be as popular with the average listener, to a composer atonality offers so much and is a tempting draw. (I'm using the term atonality in a broad sense here, one that encompasses much more than serialism).


For every Pärt and Gorecki I could name loads of composers that nobody knows. Now they could be hailed as stunning geniuses in the distant future, but I have my doubts.


----------



## mikeh375

However you wish to describe the freedoms we hear today in music that are not reliant on tonal gravitational pull and voice leading matters not imv. For a composer, having such wide and diverse approaches to composing is an amazing legacy from the 20thC.

It has been pointed out many times that audiences exist that have an appetite for modernity, avant garde and atonality generally. They are willing to listen to the composer's expression and exploration of sound and music. Although they may be a lot fewer than Andre Rieu's audiences, they can still be moved by dissonance in all of it's light and shade.


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> ...
> It has been pointed out many times that audiences exist that have an appetite for modernity, avant garde and atonality generally. They are willing to listen to the composer's expression and exploration of sound and music. Although they may be a lot fewer than Andre Rieu's audiences, they can still be moved by dissonance in all of it's light and shade.


So the audience *does* matter. I truly don't mean to be a smarta** but there's always going to be *some* audience for anything, including splatter films and line dancing. And instead of André Rieu you could just as easily use Bach or Mozart, or Pärt or Glass or Ligeti for that matter. I think the counter-idea is "growth" or "health", maybe.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> So the audience *does* matter. I truly don't mean to be a smarta** but there's always going to be *some* audience for anything, including splatter films and line dancing. And instead of André Rieu you could just as easily use Bach or Mozart, or Pärt or Glass or Ligeti for that matter. I think the counter-idea is "growth" or "health", maybe.


yes I agree, growth and health... just what relaxing the rules on dissonance has given music. Ask any composer and they will tell you there is always an imaginary audience whilst they write. That could be anything from a chocker block Carnegie Hall right down to a single performer, a friend, anything that motivates is good.
BTW I never said the audience doesn't matter, but there is however such a thing as a perceptive and willing audience for a particular way of writing. And to pick up on your edited points earlier that I missed, many great and influential works have been written that do not pander to expectations.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> It's easy to assume good faith with people you agree with.


You seem excessively hung up on the idea that I think art reflects the culture which produced it. I think this is frankly a trivial statement but it absolutely does not mean that I believe in determinism. Bach is great specifically *because* his music has been so widely acclaimed as being the musical ideal for German and Western music for so long. The greatness of his music largely depends on this cultural context. It is not due to a conspiracy to get you to like Bach any more than saying that Canadians tend to like hockey means I believe in a conspiracy of hockey elitists, or that Canadians are mindless sheep.

"Good faith" simply means assuming that the writer genuinely holds the view they are expressing, not that their views are somehow hyper-objective and removed from all context. This is entirely different from speculating that a writer, poster or voter doesn't genuinely hold the views they claim to express and that they are in fact pushing an ideological agenda. This is poison to any discussion.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> You seem excessively hung up on the idea that I think art reflects the culture which produced it. I think this is frankly a trivial statement but it absolutely does not mean that I believe in determinism. Bach is great specifically *because* his music has been so widely acclaimed as being the musical ideal for German and Western music for so long.


Bach is "great" because people have said he's "great". That doesn't make sense. Or rather it's circular. A tautology. It avoids the issue of WHY Bach is/was considered "great" in the first place. And of course one reason we're given is that's most likely because I think Bach is great because German nationalists elevated him at some point in the past for functional reasons and he became "canonical". In other words, the "canon" is a result of ulterior motives, manipulation and the sort of "bad faith" that can't possibly apply (for some reason) to elevating composers like Feldman and Sondheim in this instance. It must be assumed that *that* sort of judgement is always made out of pure sincerity and good faith.



> "Good faith" simply means assuming that the writer genuinely holds the view they are expressing, not that their views are somehow hyper-objective and removed from all context.


Well then I don't see how the idea that some of these more modern composers were included in this particular poll out of a desire for "equal time" equals an accusation of "bad faith" or "insincerity".


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Well then I don't see how the idea that some of these more modern composers were included in this particular poll out of a desire for "equal time" equals an accusation of "bad faith" or "insincerity".


A composer was included in the list because one of the participants thought that the composer was great. It is obvious to me that their reasons were based on the music and impact the composer had, in their estimation.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> A composer was included in the list because one of the participants thought that the composer was great. It is obvious to me that their reasons were based on the music and impact the composer had, in their estimation.


Does the same standard and criteria apply if I say Bach was the greatest composer ever? Or if I rank the classical genre as "greater" than jazz or hip hop?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Does the same standard apply if I say Bach was the greatest composer ever?


Sure, why not? You can say anything you want, however, I personally believe that greatness cannot be ranked other than subjectively. But if you have a precise method of measuring greatness with enough granularity to create a list of 50 great composers, why don't you post it and make your case?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Sure, why not? You can say anything you want, however, I personally believe that greatness cannot be ranked other than subjectively. But if you have a precise method of measuring greatness with enough granularity to create a list of 50 great composers, why don't you post it and make your case?


Of course it's subjective, but those two statements seem to get some people objectively riled up for some reason. One of the complaints or "surprises" I read about this forum is how many people here think that classical music is a "superior" or "better" genre. Positively shocking.
Now I really couldn't care less about the poll. But isn't it at least possible that some of the reasoning involved went something like "more modern composers should be included in a poll like this" and that some of the selections came down to which ones among the "canonical" were to be excluded to make way for the newer? And even if not, then I can question the judgement of someone who would include Satie but exclude Handel, Mendelssohn and Liszt.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Of course it's subjective, but those two statements seem to get some people objectively riled up for some reason. One of the complaints or "surprises" I read about this forum is how many people here think that classical music is a "superior" or "better" genre. Positively shocking.
> 
> Now I really couldn't care less about the poll. *But isn't it at least possible that some of the reasoning involved went something like "more modern composers should be included in a poll like this"* and that some of the selections came down to which ones among the "canonical" were to be excluded to make way for the newer? And even if not, then I can question the judgement of someone who would include Satie but exclude Handel, Mendelssohn and Liszt.


Anything is possible, but unless you have actual evidence of that kind of bias, then I'd say you are tilting at windmills.

I take people at their word that they honestly thought that Satie belonged on _their_ list of great composers instead of Handel, Mendelssohn and Liszt.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Anything is possible, but unless you have actual evidence of that kind of bias, then I'd say you are tilting at windmills.
> 
> I take people at their word that they honestly thought that Satie belonged on _their_ list of great composers instead of Handel, Mendelssohn and Liszt.


There's no windmill to tilt at other than a BBC poll of contemporary composers.


----------



## Bulldog

dissident said:


> There's no windmill to tilt at other than a BBC poll of contemporary composers.


I don't think you're doing any tilting, but you seem to have a low opinion of humans.


----------



## 59540

Bulldog said:


> I don't think you're doing any tilting, but you seem to have a low opinion of humans.


I don't insult random strangers on the Internet, though, so there's that.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> There's no windmill to tilt at other than a BBC poll of contemporary composers.


SanAntone was kind enough to start this poll which clearly shows that the methodology of selecting 5 composers per participant can lead to interesting, quirky, and unusual results just as the BBC poll did. Several have pointed out that Mendelssohn is absent on this poll as well as the BBC poll. The following are all "ahead" of Mendelssohn on this poll:

Bernstein
Buxtehude
Byrd
Castelnuovo-Tedesco
Chaminade
Dufay
Farrenc
Frankel
Gershwin
Glass
Gubaidulina
Karłowicz
Nordheim
Petrassi
Rameau
Respighi
Rossini
Rzewski
Saariaaho
Tailleferre
Takemitsu
Villa-Lobos
Wuorinen
Zelenka

Would you question the judgment of participants in this poil? Would you automatically assume some bias that places those other composerds above Mendelssohn? And remember, the BBC poll explcitly told participants to include at least a 25% subjective factor.

I suppose we could imagine a early music bias because Monteverdi, Josquin, Machaut, Buxtehude, Byrd, and Dufay were all placed ahead of Mendelssohn. If someone suggested that some of the participants in this poll wanted to include early composers for "equal time", that could be correct, but why suggest that?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you think there may be an equal time bias in the BBC poll simply because you think those composers couldn't possibly believe their choices based on the criteria. In other words their choices are incorrect. There must be something else involved. Do you think it's reasonable to believe the same with this poll?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> SanAntone was kind enough to start this poll which clearly shows that the methodology of selecting 5 composers per participant can lead to interesting, quirky, and unusual results just as the BBC poll did. Several have pointed out that Mendelssohn is absent on this poll as well as the BBC poll. The following are all "ahead" of Mendelssohn on this poll:
> 
> Bernstein
> Buxtehude
> Byrd
> Castelnuovo-Tedesco
> Chaminade
> Dufay
> Farrenc
> Frankel
> Gershwin
> Glass
> Gubaidulina
> Karłowicz
> Nordheim
> Petrassi
> Rameau
> Respighi
> Rossini
> Rzewski
> Saariaaho
> Tailleferre
> Takemitsu
> Villa-Lobos
> Wuorinen
> Zelenka
> 
> Would you question the judgment of participants in this poil? Would you automatically assume some bias that places those other composerds above Mendelssohn? And remember, the BBC poll explcitly told participants to include at least a 25% subjective factor.
> 
> I suppose we could imagine a early music bias because Monteverdi, Josquin, Machaut, Buxtehude, Byrd, and Dufay were all placed ahead of Mendelssohn. If someone suggested that some of the participants in this poll wanted to include early composers for "equal time", that could be correct, but why suggest that?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you think there may be an equal time bias in the BBC poll simply because you think those composers couldn't possibly believe their choices based on the criteria. In other words their choices are incorrect. There must be something else involved. Do you think it's reasonable to believe the same with this poll?


Maybe. Castelnuovo-Tedesco leaves me scratching my head. Btw what's a "25% subjective factor"? 


> I suppose we could imagine a early music bias because Monteverdi, Josquin, Machaut, Buxtehude, Byrd, and Dufay were all placed ahead of Mendelssohn.


That may very well be. Mendelssohn is unlikely to make very many top 5s. The others even less likely, really. Could it be that some people like being quirky, unusual and interesting? And original. "Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, blahblahblah...let's change things up a little. And after all I think Machaut is every bit as historically significant as Bach".


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Doesn't matter. Those people are happy, ie. I'm glad I saved Ravel from being bunched with Liszt or Vivaldi LOL


I think it matters to young people. They say -- they want to find something meaningful that they can experience and study for the rest of their lives. Of course they don't say it in those exact words. But if they feel disillusioned by what they suspect life might offer... All the superficial things they begin to see through.. They can get serious about this subject.


----------



## mmsbls

We've discussed several polls in this thread. I believe everyone accepts that all polls are subjective. Yes, there is _some_ element of objectivity, but it's impossible to completely exclude subjective inputs. The two polls (BBC and this thread's one) had an interesting methodology that many have described as problematic if one wishes to understand the collective participants' top 50 or so composers. So...

Both the BBC poll and this one show results different from other TC polls and lists of top composers elsewhere.

Some differences are striking, more so to some than others.

There clearly is a reason why the results of the 5 selection polls differ. One reason is the methodology. But presumably there are other reasons. It is curious that both polls excluded Mendelssohn, who is generally viewed as a top 15 or so composer in polls. Was the reason for exclusion from both polls essentially the same (e.g. maybe Mendelssohn is considered great by "everyone" but for various reasons he doesn't rise to the top 5 level for anyone)?

There are more contemporary composers in the BBC poll than other polls. There are more early music (pre-Baroque) composers in this poll. Does that mean anything more than that the BBC poll participants enjoy great contemporary music somewhat more than most other listeners and that the this poll's participants enjoy great early music somewhat more than most other listeners?

While it's interesting to think about the differences, is there really any reason to call into question that participants are simply trying to list their top 5 composers (however that is determined)?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> While it's interesting to think about the differences, is there really any reason to call into question that participants are simply trying to list their top 5 composers (however that is determined)?


It depends on whether you're asking for *favorite* composers or "greatest". I'm not particularly a fan of Liszt's solo piano music. I enjoy Satie's more. But I can't honestly say that Satie is "greater". He isn't. I would really rather listen to Souza marches than anything by Ralph Vaughan Williams, but I'd never rank Souza above RVW as a composer. When you let your personal taste dictate "greatness" which also includes overall achievement and influence/impact -- which can be somewhat objective in a way -- that's when you get the "quirkiness", like Souza at #11 just above Haydn and Chopin or something.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> It depends on whether you're asking for *favorite* composers or "greatest". I'm not particularly a fan of Liszt's solo piano music. I enjoy Satie's more. But I can't honestly say that Satie is "greater". He isn't.


Others, obviously, disagree.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Btw what's a "25% subjective factor"?


Sorry. That's just the 25% of the rating based on how much the participants like the composers. So it's clearly entirely subjective.



dissident said:


> That may very well be. Mendelssohn is unlikely to make very many top 5s. The others even less likely, really. Could it be that some people like being quirky, unusual and interesting? And original. "Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, blahblahblah...let's change things up a little. And after all I think Machaut is every bit as historically significant as Bach".


Based on years of reading TC posts, I would be shocked if that weren't true.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> It depends on whether you're asking for *favorite* composers or "greatest". I'm not particularly a fan of Liszt's solo piano music. I enjoy Satie's more. But I can't honestly say that Satie is "greater". He isn't. I would really rather listen to Souza marches than anything by Ralph Vaughan Williams, but I'd never rank Souza above RVW as a composer. When you let your personal taste dictate "greatness" which also includes overall achievement and influence/impact, which can be somewhat objective in a way, that's when you get the "quirkiness".


In the BBC poll clearly favorite was a major consideration, and although SanAntone asked people not to list favorites but the greatest, I think it's very hard not to have some subjective aspect of favoritism leak into one's list. So, yes, I think favoritism played a roll. But it's still unclear if people voted based on any desire for inclusion of some group.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> In the BBC poll clearly favorite was a major consideration, and although SanAntone asked people not to list favorites but the greatest, I think it's very hard not to have some subjective aspect of favoritism leak into one's list. So, yes, I think favoritism played a roll. But it's still unclear if people voted based on any desire for inclusion of some group.


If it's unclear then the possibility can't be ruled out, can it?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Others, obviously, disagree.


How many others is the question. Enough to form a consensus?


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> ...Would you question the judgment of participants in this poil? Would you automatically assume some bias that places those other composerds above Mendelssohn? And remember, the BBC poll explcitly told participants to include at least a 25% subjective factor.


That makes me question the value of the poll even further. How can anybody quantify in their mind 25% subjectivity? I've never heard such a parameter being part of a poll presumably designed to get results that mean something of value. In this case, IMO, the 25% subjectivity ran wild.

Edit: I just noticed the clarification of rather than 'include 25% subjectivity', it was '25% of the rating based on how much the participants like the composers.' which are essentially the same so my post remains the same.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> That makes me question the value of the poll even further. How can anybody quantify in their mind 25% subjectivity? I've never heard such a parameter being part of a poll presumably designed to get results that mean something of value. In this case, IMO, the 25% subjectivity ran wild.


"75% of my mind says Handel, and 25% says Feldman. Feldman it is " :lol:

The question in my mind is why wasn't Cage, Webern or Schoenberg in the very top spot? Why Bach? That's "outmoded" stuff, 300 years old! Why not follow your subjective heart and create a new Big Three?


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> We've discussed several polls in this thread. I believe everyone accepts that all polls are subjective. Yes, there is _some_ element of objectivity, but it's impossible to completely exclude subjective inputs. The two polls (BBC and this thread's one) had an interesting methodology that many have described as problematic if one wishes to understand the collective participants' top 50 or so composers. So...
> 
> Both the BBC poll and this one show results different from other TC polls and lists of top composers elsewhere.
> 
> Some differences are striking, more so to some than others.
> 
> There clearly is a reason why the results of the 5 selection polls differ. One reason is the methodology. But presumably there are other reasons. It is curious that both polls excluded Mendelssohn, who is generally viewed as a top 15 or so composer in polls. Was the reason for exclusion from both polls essentially the same (e.g. maybe Mendelssohn is considered great by "everyone" but for various reasons he doesn't rise to the top 5 level for anyone)?
> 
> There are more contemporary composers in the BBC poll than other polls. There are more early music (pre-Baroque) composers in this poll. Does that mean anything more than that the BBC poll participants enjoy great contemporary music somewhat more than most other listeners and that the this poll's participants enjoy great early music somewhat more than most other listeners?
> 
> While it's interesting to think about the differences, is there really any reason to call into question that participants are simply trying to list their top 5 composers (however that is determined)?


The extent to which the motives of other TC members and contemporary composers is questioned makes this thread increasingly unpleasant to participate in. It's one thing to draw tentative conclusions about what this or that person's choices might tell us, but it's quite another to suggest that any, many or most have voted in bad faith, or are just plain wrong.

I should add that I'm not referring to any negative comment about my choices.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> The extent to which the motives of other TC members and contemporary composers is questioned makes this thread increasingly unpleasant to participate in. It's one thing to draw tentative conclusions about what this or that person's choices might tell us, but it's quite another to suggest that any, many or most have voted in bad faith, or are just plain wrong.
> 
> I should add that I'm not referring to any negative comment about my choices.


It's strange how I never see these kinds of objections and indignation and talk of "good/bad faith" when it's asserted that the "canonical" composers are such because of manipulation by The Powers That Be.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> It's strange how I never see these kinds of objections and indignation and talk of "good/bad faith" when it's asserted that the "canonical" composers are such because of manipulation by The Powers That Be.


Eh? What's that got to do with my observation? Can you not accept at face value, my statement that what started as a fun thread has turned unpleasant?


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Eh? What's that got to do with my observation? Can you not accept at face value, my statement that what started as a fun thread has turned unpleasant?


Well for Monteverdi fans it might have turned unpleasant way back here:


SanAntone said:


> I do not deny Monteverdi was a great composer, just not one I'd include in a list of the five greatest.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> How many others is the question. Enough to form a consensus?


I don't know and don't care. You seem to be after some kind of objective determination. I think that is an unrealistic goal, and with you continuing to beat that drum you are derailing the thread.

I am going to ask the moderators to lock the thread since the polling is over and the comments don't seem to be producing anything worthwhile, IMO.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Well for Monteverdi fans it might have turned unpleasant way back here:


I'm not interested in a partisan debate about whose fans have greatest justification for complaint.


----------



## 59540

It could've turned unpleasant here, even:


Forster said:


> Methodology is important, so comparison between this survey and others should be given cautious consideration.
> 
> Two thoughts occur. The first is that since this is an open thread and one can see how others are voting, this may have an impact on people's choices.
> 
> Second, those who voted are a subset of TC members, biased, I would assert, towards those who like to rank, and those who like to vote in such polls.
> 
> For all we know, neither of these might make much difference to who finishes in the top 3, but it's not possible to rule this out.


Were you questioning the motivations and good faith of those who voted?


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> It could've turned unpleasant here, even:
> 
> Were you questioning the motivations and good faith of those who voted?


No .


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> No .


Well then nobody else was either.


----------



## Art Rock

Locked at the OP's request.


----------

